Are subsidies for Polish enterprises effective: empirical results based on panel data

Article	Time period of the sample	Country	Parameters	Number of regressions
Productivity
Harris and Trainor (2005)	1983–1998	North Ireland	(−1.735, 1.013)	7
Girma et al. (2007)	1992–1998	Ireland	(0.0199, 0.0668)	2
Gabriele, Zamarian and Zaninotto (2006)	1998–2003	Italy	(5.33, 17.51)	3
Criscuolo et al. (2012)	1986–2004	Great Britain	(−0.09, 0.026)	6
Koski and Pajarinen (2013)	2003–2010	Finland	(−0.064, 0.034)	18
Cerqua and Pellegrini (2014)	1995–2001	Italy	(−8.06, −2.14)	18
Sissoko (2013)	1998–2006	France	(0.151, 0.2)	6
Productivity growth
Bergström (2000)	1987–1993	Sweden	(−4.57, 1.93)	8
Duch et al. (2007)	2000–2002	Spain	(0.011, 0.1325)	8
Bernini and Pellegrini (2011)	1995–2003	Italy	(−0.29, 0.284)	56
Sissoko (2013)	1998–2006	France	(0.143, 0.215)	2
Company size
Adorno, Bernini and Pellegrini (2007)	1996–2000	Italy	(8.89, 39.89)	12
Gabriele et al. (2006)	1998–2003	Italy	(4.50, 5.32)	3
Ankarhem et al. (2009)	1990–1999	Sweden	(−53.46, 107.15)	78
Criscuolo et al. (2012)	1986–2004	Great Britain	(−0.07, 0.553)	12
Sissoko (2013)	1998–2006	France	0.168	1
Company size growth
Roper and Hewitt-Dundas (1999)	1991–1995	Ireland, North Ireland	(−0.015, 0.201)	4
Tzelepis and Skuras (2004)	1982–1996	Greece	0.083	1
Gabriele et al. (2006)	1998–2003	Italy	(6.13, 10.07)	3
Bernini and Pellegrini (2011)	1995–2003	Italy	(0.28, 0.538)	16
Cerqua and Pellegrini (2014)	1995–2001	Italy	(4.45, 8.35)	36

[i] Source: Own study based on literature review.

Funnel plot for productivity and productivity growth. Source: Own study based on literature review.

Funnel chart for the size and growth of the enterprise size. Source: Own study based on literature review

Tab. 2

Test results for the effect of publication selection effect

Model of variables associated with the impact of subsidies on:	Constant			1/Se_i
	Estimate	t	p-value	Estimate	t	p-value
Productivity	−0.53	−1.86	0.067	−0.00	−3.56	0.001
Productivity growth	0.15	0.27	0.791	0.02	1.06	0.294
Company size	0.86	7.91	0.000	0.13	26.03	0.000
Company size growth	3.02	10.72	0.000	0.07	2.89	0.005

[i] Source: Own study based on literature review.

Tab. 3

Patterns

2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	Number
Sample 4 – the stimulus is a subsidy received in 1 year
0	1	0	x	x	x	400
x	0	1	0	x	x	231
x	x	0	1	0	x	212
x	x	x	0	1	0	230
						Σ1,073
0	0	0	x	x	x	250
x	0	0	0	x	x	113
x	x	0	0	0	x	150
x	x	x	0	0	0	137
						Σ650
Sample 5 – the stimulus is a subsidy received in 1 year
0	1	0	x	x	x	400
x	0	1	0	x	x	231
x	x	0	1	0	x	212
						Σ843
0	0	0	x	x	x	250
x	0	0	0	x	x	113
x	x	0	0	0	x	150
						Σ513
Sample 6 – the stimulus is a subsidy received in 2 subsequent years
0	1	1	0	x	x	251
x	0	1	1	0	x	166
x	x	0	1	1	0	134
						Σ551
0	0	0	0	x	x	133
x	0	0	0	0	x	91
x	x	0	0	0	0	90
						Σ314

[i] Source: Own study.

[ii] Legend: 1 – means that the company received a subsidy in the given year; 0 – means that the company did not receive a subsidy in that year; x – means that it is not known whether the company received a subsidy or not in a given year.

Tab. 4

Basic descriptive statistics of variables from Sample 4

Variable	Mean	Standard deviation	First quartile	Median	Third quartile	Minimum	Maximum
Added value
2005	76,120.45	99,897.67	19,569.96	37,873.50	80,821.06	4,420.79	404,733.40
2006	83,613.87	109,236.30	21,594.84	42,021.25	89,475.37	4,834.65	441,146.70
2007	94,629.00	123,088.10	24,375.05	49,093.20	101,819.00	4,881.37	496,364.00
2008	11,7970.8	175,793.30	25,224.33	50,964.54	112,233.9	5,275.76	716,159.30
2009	83,833.34	106,042.80	20,632.80	39,637.02	90,697.10	5,306.50	415,198.40
2010	104,954.10	142,875.80	24,125.26	47,695.07	110,198.70	4,654.68	568,563.00
Productivity
2005	1.777	1.366	0.825	1.511	2.416	0.007	11.088
2006	1.673	1.247	0.803	1.471	2.195	0.001	7.840
2007	1.798	1.429	0.773	1.508	2.361	0.002	8.223
2008	1.785	1.549	0.806	1.454	2.280	0.001	12.628
2009	1.767	1.635	0.755	1.391	2.357	0.001	14.452
2010	1.705	1.523	0.737	1.417	2.168	0.005	13.670
Asset growth rate
2005/06	14.562	28.806	0	8.408	24.043	0	241.968
2006/07	15.534	37.192	0	8.647	21.646	0	335.140
2007/08	16.832	71.702	0	5.467	18.693	0	586.462
2008/09	48.259	164.670	0	2.165	41.989	0	496.961
2009/10	86.137	199.951	0	6.950	91.379	0	575.263
ROA (%)
2005	9.212	10.042	2.393	6.129	11.957	0.070	49.916
2006	9.391	9.822	2.752	6.227	12.755	0.069	48.891
2007	9.894	10.364	2.792	6.5807	13.163	0.052	49.187
2008	9.211	9.667	2.500	5.968	12.866	0.059	44.743
2009	9.570	10.889	2.159	6.250	12.824	0.043	48.471
2010	8.547	9.460	2.313	5.574	11.256	0.047	41.475
Size
2005	10.266	1.298	9.512	10.178	11.020	2.646	15.292
2006	10.389	1.388	9.555	10.249	11.167	5.032	15.2177
2007	10.513	1.360	9.757	10.407	11.379	5.157	15.488
2008	10.652	1.349	9.791	10.548	11.431	5.806	14.777
2009	10.525	1.316	9.705	10.376	11.250	5.315	15.471
2010	10.635	1.328	9.849	10.543	11.378	2.978	15.809
Liabilities
2005	0.074	0.145	0	0.005	0.081	0	0.794
2006	0.075	0.153	0	0.004	0.071	0	0.986
2007	0.071	0.135	0	0.010	0.087	0	0.847
2008	0.070	0.133	0	0.005	0.082	0	0.884
2009	0.080	0.160	0	0.007	0.083	0	0.746
2010	0.063	0.125	0	0.003	0.070	0	0.837
Cash flow
2005	0.113	0.117	0.051	0.094	0.165	0	0.686
2006	0.129	0.108	0.062	0.104	0.179	0	0.701
2007	0.112	0.112	0.050	0.096	0.160	0	0.683
2008	0.099	0.121	0.038	0.090	0.159	0	0.810
2009	0.106	0.137	0.040	0.093	0.161	0	0.767
2010	0.099	0.125	0.043	0.091	0.143	0	0.614
Ln(age+1)
2005	2.523	0.459	2.302	2.564	2.772	1.098	3.555
Age
2005	10.765	6.368	7	10	13	0	32

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B.

[ii] Legend: ROA – return on asset.

Tab. 5

Basic statistics of descriptive variables from Sample 4 broken down by subsidised and non-subsidised companies

Variable		Mean	Standard deviation	First quartile	Median	Third quartile	Minimum	Maximum
Added value
A year before the subsidy	0	79,803.68	112,976.00	16,537.94	36,342.87	82,381.98	3,284.50	455,219.70
A year before the subsidy	1	88,695.01	112,648.00	21,720.75	44,171.46	102,177.20	3,284.50	455,219.70
A year after the subsidy	0	81,319.56	117,916.10	16,537.94	36,342.87	82,381.98	3,818.98	484,195.40
A year after the subsidy	1	90,074.90	117,138.50	21,720.75	44,171.46	102,177.20	3,818.98	484,195.40
Productivity
A year before the subsidy	0	1.7470	1.448	0.721	1.437	2.336	0.001	11.088
A year before the subsidy	1	1.7690	1.366	0.885	1.511	2.303	0.001	12.628
A year after the subsidy	0	1.690	1.425	0.645	1.428	2.315	0.003	10.323
A year after the subsidy	1	1.779	1.757	0.823	1.412	2.250	0.001	35.423
ROA (%)
A year before the subsidy	0	8.604	9.760	2.032	5.232	11.987	0.003	64.416
A year before the subsidy	1	9.489	9.908	2.840	6.539	12.609	0.001	77.003
A year after the subsidy	0	5.479	8.943	0.279	3.677	10.653	0	26.504
A year after the subsidy	1	5.814	9.185	0.469	4.473	10.568	0	26.504
Size
A year before the subsidy	0	10.339	1.457	9.503	10.249	11.154	2.646	15.488
A year before the subsidy	1	10.485	1.273	9.687	10.362	11.254	6.791	15.446
A year after the subsidy	0	10.474	1.479	9.602	10.351	11.325	3.247	17.646
A year after the subsidy	1	10.608	1.282	9.807	10.506	11.355	3.336	15.446
Liabilities
A year before the subsidy	0	0.069	0.138	0	0.004	0.071	0	0.794
A year before the subsidy	1	0.075	0.145	0	0.006	0.082	0	0.794
A year after the subsidy	0	0.063	0.141	0	0.002	0.056	0	1.309
A year after the subsidy	1	0.083	0.155	0	0.009	0.098	0	1.142
Cash flow
A year before the subsidy	0	0.132	0.096	0.065	0.105	0.172	0.003	0.506
A year before the subsidy	1	0.140	0.096	0.072	0.117	0.185	0.002	0.507
A year after the subsidy	0	0.119	0.097	0.048	0.093	0.166	0.003	0.498
A year after the subsidy	1	0.129	0.094	0.054	0.102	0.161	0.012	0.457
Ln(age+1)
A year before the subsidy	0	2.476	0.533	2.197	2.564	2.772	0	3.526
A year before the subsidy	1	2.439	0.529	2.197	2.484	2.708	0	3.555

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B.

[ii] Legend: ROA – return on asset.

Tab. 6

Results of estimations of logit models – probability of receiving a subsidy

Variables	Sample 4 (one instalment of the subsidy)		Sample 5 (one instalment of the subsidy)		Sample 6 (two instalments of the subsidy)
Variables	Parameter	p-value	Parameter	p-value	Parameter	p-value
Added value_t−1	0.116	0.173	0.125	0.252	−0.072	0.154
(Added value_t−1)²	−0.013	0.278	−0.0188	0.270	0.021	0.061
Size_t−1	1.263	0.000	1.315	0.001	3.908	0.000
(Size_t−1)²	−0.053	0.001	−0.056	0.002	−0.183	0.000
Liabilities_t−1	0.775	0.067	0.966	0.039	1.087	0.055
Age_t−1	−0.125	0.227	−0.171	0.131	−0.178	0.176
Cash flow_t−1	0.0108	0.049	0.016	0.010	0.049	0.109
Sector (base level – industry)
Construction	0.699	0.001	0.785	0.002	0.889	0.014
Other	−0.141	0.186	−0.123	0.303	−0.046	0.768
Constant	−6.822	0.000	−6.937	0.001	−19.763	0.000
Number of observations	1720		1354		850
Pseudo R²	0.023		0.027		0.035
Balancing property	Fulfilled		Fulfilled		Fulfilled
	Test statistics	p-value	Test statistics	p-value	Test statistics	p-value
Linktest	−1.17	0.240	−1.09	0.274	−0.38	0.706
Hosmer–Lemeshow test	13.63	0.092	10.12	0.257	6.20	0.624

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B.

[ii] Legend: Mcfadden’s Pseudo R² – balancing property described in the methodology; Linktest – a test checking the correctness of the functional form; the Hosmer–Lemeshow test – a test for the correctness of the functional form of the model.

Tab. 7

Estimation of the mean causal effect treatment on treated units (ATT) for Sample 4

Variable	ATT	Standard error	Standard error (bootstrap)	Stimulated sample	Control sample	t-test	Better balance?	Are the results stable?
Nearest-neighbour method (1:1) without replacement
Productivity a year after the subsidy	0.069	0.077	0.071	647	647	0.91	No	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.333	0.052	0.055	647	647	−0.64		–
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−789,640	686,723	731,367	650	650	−1.15		–
ROA_t+1	4,017	2,846	2,721	554	554	1.41		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	1,225	2,807	2,525	554	554	0.44		–
Nearest-neighbour method(1:1) with replacement
Productivity a year after the subsidy	−0.293	0.100	0.102	1066	647	−0.29	Yes	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.040	0.664	0.660	1066	647	0.61		–
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−164.064	263.881	142.815	1067	650	−0.33		–
ROA_t+1	2.046	1.818	1.845	919	554	1.13		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	2.164	1.812	1.875	919	554	1.19		–
Nearest neighbour with calliper(0.25′SD) without replacement
Productivity a year after the subsidy	0.059	0.082	0.816	631	647	0.71	No	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.002	0.531	0.055	631	647	0.04		–
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−145.804	147.512	125.131	633	650	−0.99		–
ROA_t+1	3.823	2.914	1.999	541	554	1.31		No
DROA_t−1/t+1	2.945	2.864	2.124	541	554	1.03		–
Nearest neighbour with calliper(0.1) without replacement
Productivity a year after the subsidy	0.112	0.079	0.084	638	647	1.41	No	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.022	0.053	0.055	638	647	−0.42	No	–
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−164.339	143.685	164.803	640	650	−1.14	No	–
ROA_t+1	4.124	2.886	2.939	546	554	1.43	No	–
DROA_t−1/t+1	1.314	2.846	2.643	546	554	0.46	–
Kernel matching
Productivity a year after the subsidy	−0.006	0.075	0.065	1066	647	−0.08	Yes	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.024	0.050	0.048	1066	647	0.49		–
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−82.209	149.109	91.829	1067	650	−0.55		–
ROA_t+1	1.511	1.765	1.632	919	554	0.86		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	1.634	1.742	1.723	919	554	0.94		–
Stratification
Productivity a year after the subsidy	0.001	0.074	0.073	1070	642	0.009		Yes
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.021	0.050	0.049	1070	642	0.411
Asset rate growth_t/t+1	−97.280	102.287	97.256	1070	642	−0.951
ROA_t+1	1.609	1.638	1.873	1070	642	0.983
DROA_t−1/t+1	1.703	1.623	1.588	1070	642	1.050

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B.

[ii] Legend: ATT – average treatment of treated effect, stimulated sample – the number of units that received a subsidy; control sample – the number of units that did not receive a subsidy; better balance? – ‘yes’ means that after carrying out the t-test for the equality of the mean of individual variables explained in two samples and calculating the standardised bias of variables, it was noticed that the sample balance improved after using data matching, ‘no’ otherwise; are the results stable? – ‘yes’ means that based on the results of the Rosenbaum Bounds test, it was found that the obtained outcomes are free of latent bias, ‘no’ otherwise. ROA – return on asset; SD – standard deviation.

Tab. A1

ATT estimates for Sample 5

Variable	ATT	Standard error	Standard error (bootstrap)	Stimulated sample	Control sample	Student’s t-test	Better balance?	Are the results stable?
Nearest-neighbour method (1:1) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.069	0.086	0.097	512	512	0.81	No	–
Productivity_t+2	−0.096	0.096	0.099	510	510	−1.00		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.028	0.062	0.065	512	512	−0.46		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.183	0.074	0.071	510	510	−2.46		No
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−37.100	16.131	15.791	513	513	−2.30		No
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	9.971	34.773	35.496	513	513	0.29		–
ROA_t+1	0.888	0.998	1.125	513	513	0.89		–
ROA_t+2	1.156	0.711	0.810	412	412	1.64		No
DROA_t−1/t+1	−1.777	0.826	0.815	513	513	−2.15		No
DROA_t−1/t+2	−2.303	0.791	0.883	412	412	−2.91		No
Nearest-neighbour method (1:1) with replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.039	0.109	0.098	837	512	0.36	Yes	–
Productivity_t+2	−0.165	0.140	0.132	836	510	−1.18		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.080	0.075	0.078	837	512	1.06		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.112	0.111	0.105	836	510	−1.00		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−10.788	18.795	20.691	838	513	−0.57		–
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	46.294	40.202	29.200	838	513	1.15		–
ROA_t+1	0.866	1,242	1,051	838	513	0.70		–
ROA_t+2	−0.268	0.829	0.678	696	412	−0.32		–
DROA_t–1/t+1	0,817	1,009	1,053	838	513	0.81		–
DROA_t−1/t+2	−0,034	0.923	0.809	696	412	−0.04		–
Nearest neighbour with calliper (0.25′SD) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	−0.004	0.089	0.082	498	512	−0.04	Yes	–
Productivity_t+2	−0.157	0.102	0.102	496	510	−1.54		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.015	0.063	0.064	498	512	−0.23		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.161	0.080	0.084	496	510	−2.02		No
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−16.426	16.711	17.092	498	513	−0.98	Yes	–
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	4.967	33.532	35.613	498	513	0.15		–
ROA_t+1	0.094	1.026	1.054	498	513	0.09		–
ROA_t+2	−0.245	0.693	0.726	400	412	−0.35		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	−0.476	0.811	0.780	498	513	−0.59		–
DROA_t−1/t+2	−1.222	0.760	0.700	400	412	−1.61		No
Nearest neighbour with calliper (0.1) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.040	0.086	0.093	504	512	0.47	No	–
Productivity_t+2	−0.156	0.095	0.102	502	510	−1.64		No
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.043	0.062	0.056	504	512	−0.69		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.232	0.075	0.076	502	510	−3.07		No
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−27.875	15.225	15.800	504	513	−1.83		No
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	38.180	35.767	37.686	504	513	1.07		–
ROA_t+1	0.807	1.007	1.021	504	513	0.80		–
ROA_t+2	1.141	0.723	0.693	405	412	1.58		No
DROA_t−1/t+1	−2.055	0.829	0.957	504	513	−2.48		No
DROA_t−1/t+2	−2.630	0.791	0.787	405	412	−3.32		No
Kernel matching
Productivity_t+1	0.006	0.084	0.076	837	512	0.07	Yes	–
Productivity_t+2	−0.172	0.096	0.076	836	510	−1.79		Yes
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.017	0.059	0.061	837	512	0.28		–
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.152	0.074	0.070	836	510	−2.05		Yes
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−15.013	15.632	15.744	838	513	−0.96		–
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	35.051	31.372	27.829	838	513	1.12		–
ROA_t+1	−0.104	0.946	0.867	838	513	−0.11		–
ROA_t+2	−0.919	0.637	0.578	696	412	−1.44		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	−0.209	0.760	0.733	838	513	−0.27		–
DROA_t−1/t+2	−1.042	0.689	0.685	696	412	−1.51		–
Stratification
Productivity_t+1	−0.001	0.080	0.089	831	515	−0.014		Yes
Productivity_t+2	−0.185	0.090	0.098	831	515	−2.068
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.007	0.059	0.067	831	515	0.112
DProductivity_t−1/t+2	−0.172	0.069	0.066	831	515	−2.492
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−17.199	15.675	14.735	831	515	−1.097
Asset growth rate_t+1/t+2	22.340	30.035	33.496	831	515	0.744
ROA_t+1	2.230	2.069	1.967	831	515	1.078
ROA_t+2	−0.531	–	0.679	831	515	−0.782
DROA_t−1/t+1	1.608	2.040	2.033	831	515	0.788
DROA_t−1/t+2	−0.980	–	0.764	831	515	−1.284

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B.

[ii] Legend: ATT – average treatment of treated effect; stimulated sample – the number of units that received a subsidy; control sample – the number of units that did not receive a subsidy; better balance? – ‘yes’ means that after carrying out the t-test for the equality of the mean of individual variables explained in two samples and calculating the standardised bias of variables, it was noticed that the sample balance improved after using data matching, ‘no’ otherwise; are the results stable? – ‘yes’ means that based on the results of the Rosenbaum Bounds test, it was found that the obtained outcomes are free of latent bias, ‘no’ otherwise. ROA – return on asset.

Table A2

ATT estimates for Sample 6

Variable	ATT	Standard error	Standard error (bootstrap)	Stimulated sample	Control sample	Student’s t-test	Better balance?	Are the results stable?
Nearest-neighbour method (1:1) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.112	0.115	0.125	302	302	0.98	No	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.112	0.090	0.084	302	302	−1.24		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−87.850	55.623	49.382	307	307	−1.58		Yes
ROA_t+1	−14.994	18.085	20.287	307	307	−0.83		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	−17.203	17.715	17.676	307	307	−0.97		–
Nearest-neighbour method (1:1) with replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.099	0.140	0.132	537	302	0.71	Yes	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	0.054	0.104	0.094	537	302	0.52		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−23.802	100.150	45.168	537	307	−0.24		–
ROA_t+1	2.514	5.515	4.076	537	307	0.46		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	2.886	5.567	3.619	537	307	0.52		–
Nearest neighbour with calliper (0.25′SD) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.973	0.125	0.122	286	302	0.78	Yes	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.001	0.1026	0.114	286	302	−0.01		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−89.562	59.594	47.787	288	307	−1.50		Yes
ROA_t+1	1.117	3.403	3.273	288	307	0.33		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	0.775	3.474	3.030	288	307	0.22		–
Nearest neighbour with calliper (0.1) without replacement
Productivity_t+1	0.118	0.118	0.123	299	302	1.57	No	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.046	0.093	0.094	299	302	−0.49		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−63.818	−64.134	53.133	304	307	−1.00		–
ROA_t+1	2.096	3.238	3.386	304	307	0.65		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	−0.448	3.304	3.275	304	307	−0.14		–
Kernel matching
Productivity_t+1	0.044	0.109	0.102	537	302	0.40	Yes	–
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.196	0.084	0.092	537	302	−0.23		–
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−19.336	62.620	33.639	537	302	−0.31		–
ROA_t+1	2.411	3.374	4.133	537	307	0.71		–
DROA_t−1/t+1	2.533	3.430	3.428	537	307	0.74		–
Stratification
Productivity_t+1	0.093	0.113	0.113	542	302	0.819		Yes
DProductivity_t−1/t+1	−0.027	0.094	0.093	542	302	−0.288
Asset growth rate_t/t+1	−21.846	31.758	35.329	542	302	−0.688
ROA_t+1	1.945	3.393	3.231	542	302	0.573
DROA_t−1/t+1	2.196	3.446	3.437	542	302	0.637

[i] Source: Own study based on data from Monitor Polski B. Legend: ATT – average treatment of treated effect; stimulated sample - the number of units that received a subsidy; control sample – the number of units that did not receive a subsidy; better balance? – ‘yes’ means that after carrying out the t-test for the equality of the mean of individual variables explained in two samples and calculating the standardised bias of variables, it was noticed that the sample balance improved after using data matching, ‘no’ otherwise; are the results stable? – ‘yes’ means that based on the results of the Rosenbaum Bounds test, it was found that the obtained outcomes are free of latent bias, ‘no’ otherwise. ROA – return on asset.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ceej-2019-0008 | Journal eISSN: 2543-6821 | Journal ISSN: 2544-9001

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 108 - 131

Published on: Mar 25, 2020

Published by: Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

subsidies for companies/public,

evaluation study

JEL:

H25,

H32,

L25,

L53

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Political economics,

Economic theory, systems and structures,

Microeconomics,

Macroeconomics,

Economic policy

© 2020 Beata Gosk, Natalia Nehrebecka, published by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 6 (2019): Issue 53 (January 2019)

Are subsidies for Polish enterprises effective: empirical results based on panel data

Figures & Tables

Tab. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Tab. 2

Tab. 3

Tab. 4

Tab. 5

Tab. 6

Tab. 7

Tab. A1

Table A2

Paradigm

My account