Do the Subsidies of the Rural Development Programme Increase Employment in Rural Firms? A Counterfactual Impact Evaluation from Mainland Finland

Lehtonen, Olli

doi:10.2478/euco-2023-0009

Abstract

This study examines the effect of the subsidies given to firms through the Rural Development Programme (RDP) for Mainland Finland in Finland during the 2007–2013 period. In order to understand the impacts that this programme had, the study uses counterfactual modelling to analyse what forms of subsidies impact job creation in supported firms. The results showed that subsidies from the RDP had a positive impact on the development of subsidized firms and thus, the RDP was a key instrument for the renewal of the countryside and the promotion of rural viability in Finland.

References

Adda, J. & Cooper, R. (2000). Balladurette and Juppette: A discrete analysis of scrapping subsidies. Journal of Political Economy 108(4), 778–806. DOI: 10.1086/316096.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Adorno, V., Bernini, C. & Pellegrini, G. (2007). The impact of capital subsidies: New estimations under continuous treatment. Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia 66(1), 67–92.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Andersson, A., Höjgård, S. & Rabinowicz, E. (2017). Evaluation of results and adaptation of EU Rural Development Programmes. Land Use Policy 67, 298–314. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.002.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Austin, P. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effect of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 46(3), 399–424. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bernini, C. & Pellegrini, G. (2011). How are growth and productivity in private firms affected by public subsidy? Evidence from a regional policy. Regional Science and Urban Economics 41(3), 253–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.01.005.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bronzini, R. & Blasio, G. (2006). Evaluating the impact of investment incentives: The case of Italy’s Law 488/1992. Journal of Urban Economics 60(2), 327–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2006.03.005.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cerqua, A. & Pellegrini, G. (2014). Do subsidies to private capital boost firms’ growth? A multiple regression discontinuity approach. Journal of Public Economics 109, 114–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.11.005.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dalziel, M. (2018). Why are there (almost) no randomized controlled trial-based evaluations of business support programmes. Palgrave Communications 4(12), 1–9. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0069-9.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gabe, T. & Kraybill, D. (2002). The effects of state economic development incentives on employment growth of establishments. Journal of Regional Science 42(4), 703–730. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9787.00278.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Greene, W. (2002). Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1), 153–161. DOI: 10.2307/1912352.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H. & Todd, P. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies 64(4), 605–654. DOI: 10.2307/2971733.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Helminen, V., Nurmio, K. & Vesanen, S. (2020). Kaupunki-maaseutu-alueluokitus 2018. Paikkatietopohjaisen alueluokituksen päivitys. Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Khandker, S., Koolwal, G. & Samad, H. (2010). Handbook on Impact Evaluation. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Klette, T., Møen, J. & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconomic evaluation studies. Research Policy 29, 471–495. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00086-4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, J. W. (1996). Government intervention and productivity growth. Journal of Economic Growth 1(3), 391–414. DOI: 10.1007/BF00141045.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lehtonen, O. (2015). Space-time dependence in regional development: the geospatial approach to understanding the development processes in small-scale areas of Finland. Joensuu: Juvenes Print.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lillemets, J., Fertö, I. & Viira, A-H. (2022). The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review. Land Use Policy 114, 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/2021.105968.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Michalek, J., Ciaian, P. & Kancs, D. (2016). Investment crowding out: Firm-level evidence from northern Germany. Regional Studies 50(9), 1579–1594. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2015.1044957.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Michalek. J., Ciaian, P. & Marcantonio, F. (2020). Regional impacts of the EU Rural Development Programme: Poland’s food processing sector. Regional Studies 54(10), 1389–1401. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1708306.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morgan, S. & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactual and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Petrick, M. & Zier, P. (2011). Regional employment impacts of Common Agricultural Policy measures in Eastern Germany: a difference-in-differences approach. Agricultural Economics 42(2), 183–193. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00509.x.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pietarinen, M. (2012). Yritystukiselvitys. Helsinki; Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Porro, G. & Salis, V. (2018). Do local subsidies to firms create jobs? Counterfactual evaluation of an Italian regional experience. Papers in Regional Science 97(4), 1039–1056. DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12317.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pyykkönen, P., Kytölä, L., Kuhmonen, I., Ponnikas, J., Keränen, R. & Arovuori, K. (2016). Manner-Suomen kehittämisohjelman 2007–2013 jälkiarviointi. Helsinki: MMM.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rosenbaum, P. & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1), 41–55. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sekhon, J. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: the Matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 42(7), 1–52. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v042.i07.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Toomet, O. & Henningsen, A. (2008). Sample Selection Models in R: Package sampleSelection. Journal of Statistical Software 27(7), 1–23. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v027.i07.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Asvapp (2012). Counterfactual impact evaluation of cohesion policy: impact and cost-effectiveness of investment subsidies in Italy. Final Report to the DG Regional Policy of the European Commission. Turin: Mimeo.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
European Commission (2013). Overview of CAP reform 2014–2020 (Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief No. 5*). Brussels: European Commission.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ministry of agriculture and forestry (2007). Rural development program for mainland Finland 2007–2013. Helsinki: MMM.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Statistics Finland (2020). Finland in figures. Available online: https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/index.html (accessed on 1 July 2020).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Statistics Finland (2018). Business Register. Available online: https://www.stat.fi/tup/yritysrekisteri/index.html (accessed on 1 July 2020).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
TEM (2017). Virkamiesselvitys yritystuista ja niiden vaikutuksista. Yritykset 22/2017. Helsinki; Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Do the Subsidies of the Rural Development Programme Increase Employment in Rural Firms? A Counterfactual Impact Evaluation from Mainland Finland

Abstract

Paradigm

My account