@techreport{CaliendoKuennWeissenberger2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Caliendo, Marco and K{\"u}nn, Steffen and Weißenberger, Martin},
  title     = {Catching up or Lagging Behind?},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {12},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-43701},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-437012},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {From an active labor market policy perspective, start-up subsidies for unemployed individuals are very effective in improving long-term labor market outcomes for participants. From a business perspective, however, the assessment of these public programs is less clear since they might attract individuals with low entrepreneurial abilities and produce businesses with low survival rates and little contribution to job creation, economic growth, and innovation. In this paper, we use a rich data set to compare participants of a German start-up subsidy program for unemployed individuals to a group of regular founders who started from nonunemployment and did not receive the subsidy. The data allows us to analyze their business performance up until 40 months after business formation. We find that formerly subsidized founders lag behind not only in survival and job creation, but especially also in innovation activities. The gaps in these business outcomes are relatively constant or even widening over time. Hence, we do not see any indication of catching up in the longer run. While the gap in survival can be entirely explained by initial differences in observable start-up characteristics, the gap in business development remains and seems to be the result of restricted access to capital as well as differential business strategies and dynamics. Considering these conflicting results for the assessment of the subsidy program from an ALMP and business perspective, policy makers need to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of such a strategy to find the right policy mix.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{AudretschHafensteinKritikosetal.2019,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Audretsch, David B. and Hafenstein, Marian and Kritikos, Alexander and Schiersch, Alexander},
  title     = {Firm Size and Innovation in the Service Sector},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42767},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-427670},
  pages     = {46},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {A rich literature links knowledge inputs with innovative outputs. However, most of what is known is restricted to manufacturing. This paper analyzes whether the three aspects involving innovative activity - R\&D; innovative output; and productivity - hold for knowledge intensive services. Combining the models of Crepon et al. (1998) and of Ackerberg et al. (2015), allows for causal interpretation of the relationship between innovation output and labor productivity. We find that knowledge intensive services benefit from innovation activities in the sense that these activities causally increase their labor productivity. Moreover, the firm size advantage found for manufacturing in previous studies nearly disappears for knowledge intensive services.},
  language  = {en}
}