企业作为社会经济活动最基本的单元，是创新落实的重要载体，也是技术创新和研发活动的主力。但由于技术创新具有高成本和高风险的特征、研发成果具有准公共物品属性和较强的正外部性，使得企业研发投资的私人收益往往低于社会收益，导致企业研发动力不足。中国技术创新激励政策是充分调动企业技术创新积极性、激发企业创新活力的政策工具。但是从现实角度来看，中国技术创新激励政策存在着政策激励预期和现实绩效相背离、创新数量和质量不同步、科技价值与成果转换率低等诸多凸显问题。基于此，本研究对技术创新政策在企业创新活动中的作用边界展开探索，研究结论对于充分发挥中国技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新的引导与激励作用、实现中国经济发展模式转型具有一定的理论意义与现实价值。

本研究在梳理创新理论、政策工具理论以及公共财政理论的基础上，从内外因素两个视角构建企业技术创新动力模型，结合中国技术创新激励政策目标，从自由裁量型、普适型和选择支持型三个层面搭建中国技术创新激励政策体系，并分别选取政府补贴、税收优惠与高新技术企业认定政策作为三类创新激励政策的代表，利用简化的垄断博弈模型探讨技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新行为及其创新策略的影响。研究的具体思路与内容如下：其一，针对中国技术创新激励政策，本研究系统分析了现阶段政府创新补贴、税收优惠以及高新技术企业认定政策的实施情况。其二，针对企业创新现状，本研究从创新活动总体情况、创新费用支出情况、科技活动基本情况以及企业创新战略制定情况出发进行探究。其三，基于理论分析与现状阐述，本研究利用上市公司企业匹配中国发明专利数据库构建微观研究样本，综合运用双固定模型、倾向匹配法、Heckman两步法等实证模型，验证政府补贴、税收激励与高新技术企业认定政策对企业技术创新的影响。其四，基于企业技术创新动力模型中内部因素的分析，本研究分别从企业规模、企业治理结构、企业生命周期和企业产权四个角度出发，分析在企业异质性下中国技术创新激励政策对企业创新活动的影响及其差异。其五，本研究在区域层面上利用工业企业科技活动数据，分析了中国技术创新激励政策下企业创新策略选择差异，为完善政策激励效果、促进企业自主创新提供实证依据。通过上述理论分析、现状分析与实证检验，本研究得出的主要研究结论如下：

（1）中国出台了多种政策推动企业自主研发，并逐步形成了一套以财政补贴与税收优惠为主的制度体系和实施框架。在财政补贴和税收优惠政策方面，中国政府财政科技支出整体规模在研究期间呈现上升趋势。在高新技术企业认定政策下，高新技术企业数量呈现出快速的增长趋势，且在创新投入水平上整体表现优于规模以上的工业企业平均水平。

（2）企业技术创新能力不断提升，并呈现良好的上升趋势。在研究期间，开展创新活动企业数量、企业创新费用支出规模以及制定创新战略目标的企业数量均呈现上升趋势。从企业创新战略目标的类型来看，企业创新战略目标主要为增加创新投入以提升企业竞争力，其次为赶超同行业国内领先企业、保持现有技术水平和生产经营情况。

（3）中国技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新具有显著的促进作用，该结论经过一系列稳健性检验后依然显著。政府补贴、税收优惠、高新技术企业认定政策对企业技术研发人员投入、技术资金投入、企业专利申请量和专利授予量均呈现出显著地促进作用。该结论经过Heckman两步法、倾向得分匹配法、替代变量法检验后依然具有稳健性。在多重技术创新激励政策下，各种技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新的激励效应存在差异，且对企业技术创新的不同阶段的影响有所不同。政府创新补贴和高新技术企业认定政策对企业创新活动影响贯穿整个阶段，而税收优惠对企业研发人员投入和企业研发资金投入的影响更为显著。在技术激励创新政策激励效应强弱方面，高新技术企业认定政策对企业技术创新活动的影响最强，其次是税收优惠激励政策，最后为政府创新补贴。

（4）中国技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新的影响伴随企业特征呈现异质性。其一，在企业规模异质性方面，政府创新补贴对小规模企业创新投入的激励效应大于大规模企业；税收优惠和高新技术企业认定政策对大规模企业的创新激励效应大于小规模企业。其二，在企业治理结构异质性方面，对于企业股权结构来讲，政府补贴与高新技术企业认定政策对低股权集中企业的创新激励效应大于高股权集中度的企业，税收优惠对低股权集中度企业创新投入的激励小于高股权集中度企业；对于高管学历特征来讲，政府创新补贴、税收优惠以及高新技术企业认定政策对高管学历高的企业的创新激励效应大于高管学历低的企业；对于股权激励制度来讲，无论是高管股权激励异质性还是核心业务人员股权激励异质性，政府创新补贴、税收优惠以及高新技术企业认定政策对高股权激励的企业的技术创新激励效应大于低股权激励的企业。其三，在企业生命周期异质性方面，政府补贴、税收优惠与高新技术企业认定对成长期和成熟期企业呈现显著的促进效应，其激励效应伴随企业生命周期所处阶段呈现差异。其四，在企业产权异质性方面，政府补贴与税收激励对非国有企业的技术创新激励效应大于国有企业，而高新技术企业认定政策对国有企业的技术创新激励效应强于非国有企业。

（5）不同技术创新激励政策对企业技术创新策略的影响存在显著差异。其一，在企业自主创新与技术引进策略方面，政府补贴、税收优惠以及高新技术企业认定政策对于企业技术引进的激励效应强于对企业自主创新的激励效应。其二，在企业突破式创新与渐进式创新策略方面，政府补贴、税收优惠以及高新技术企业认定政策对于突破式创新的激励效应强于对企业渐进式创新的激励效应。其三，在企业实质性创新与策略性创新方面，政府补贴对于企业策略性创新的激励效应强于对企业实质性创新的激励效应。税收优惠和高新技术认定政策对于企业实质性创新的激励效应强于对企业策略性创新的激励效应。

基于本研究的理论分析与实证研究，本研究得到以下政策启示：第一，坚持政府大力支持企业创新的积极政策取向不变。第二，完善中国技术创新政策制度，提升企业技术研发效率。第三，大力激发企业创新驱动发展潜力，提升企业技术创新能力。

As the most basic unit of social and economic activities, enterprises are an important carrier of innovation implementation, as well as the main force of technological innovation and research and development activities. However, due to the high cost and risk characteristics of technological innovation, the quasi public goods attribute of research and development results, and strong positive externalities, the private income of enterprise research and development investment is often lower than social income, leading to insufficient motivation for enterprise research and development. China's technological innovation incentive policy is a policy tool to fully mobilize the enthusiasm of enterprises for technological innovation and stimulate their innovation vitality. However, from a practical perspective, there are many prominent issues in China's technological innovation incentive policies, such as the deviation between policy incentive expectations and actual performance, the unsynchronized quantity and quality of innovation, and the low conversion rate between technological value and achievements. Based on this, this study explores the functional boundaries of technological innovation policies in enterprise innovation activities. The research conclusions have certain theoretical significance and practical value for giving full play to the guiding and stimulating effects of China's technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise technological innovation, and achieving the transformation of China's economic development model.

Based on sorting out innovation theory, policy tool theory, and public finance theory, this study constructs a dynamic model of enterprise technological innovation from the perspective of internal and external factors. Combining with the objectives of China's technological innovation incentive policy, it constructs China's technological innovation incentive policy system from three levels: discretionary, universal, and selective support, and selects government subsidies As representatives of three types of innovation incentive policies, tax incentives and high-tech enterprise recognition policies are used to explore the impact of technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise technological innovation behavior and innovation strategies using a simplified monopoly game model. The specific ideas and content of the study are as follows: First, in view of China's technological innovation incentive policies, this study systematically analyzes the implementation of government innovation subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise recognition policies at the current stage. Secondly, based on the current situation of enterprise innovation, this study explores the overall situation of innovation activities, innovation expenses, basic information of scientific and technological activities, and the formulation of enterprise innovation strategies. Thirdly, based on theoretical analysis and current situation elaboration, this study uses listed companies to match China's invention patent database to construct a microscopic research sample, and comprehensively uses empirical models such as the dual fixed model, the propensity matching method, and the Heckman two-step method to verify the impact of government subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise identification policies on enterprise technological innovation. Fourthly, based on the analysis of internal factors in the dynamic model of enterprise technological innovation, this study analyzes the impact and differences of China's technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise innovation activities under the heterogeneity of enterprises from four perspectives: enterprise size, corporate governance structure, enterprise life cycle, and enterprise property rights. Fifthly, this study uses data on technological activities of industrial enterprises at the regional level to analyze the differences in the selection of innovation strategies under China's technological innovation incentive policies, providing empirical evidence for improving the effectiveness of policy incentives and promoting enterprise independent innovation. Through the above theoretical analysis, current situation analysis, and empirical testing, the main research conclusions of this study are as follows:

(1) China has introduced various policies to promote independent research and development by enterprises, and has gradually formed a system and implementation framework focusing on financial subsidies and tax incentives. In terms of financial subsidies and preferential tax policies, the overall scale of Chinese government financial science and technology expenditure showed an upward trend during the research period. Under the high-tech enterprise recognition policy, the number of high-tech enterprises has shown a rapid growth trend, and their overall performance in innovation investment level is superior to the average level of industrial enterprises above designated size.

(2) The technological innovation ability of enterprises has been continuously improved and showing a good upward trend. During the research period, the number of enterprises carrying out innovation activities, the scale of enterprise innovation expenses, and the number of enterprises formulating innovation strategic goals all showed an upward trend. From the perspective of the types of enterprise innovation strategic objectives, the main objectives of enterprise innovation strategy are to increase innovation investment to enhance the competitiveness of the enterprise, followed by catching up with and surpassing domestic leading enterprises in the same industry, maintaining the existing technological level and production and operation conditions.

(3) China's technological innovation incentive policies have a significant promoting effect on enterprise technological innovation, and this conclusion remains significant after a series of robustness tests. Government subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise recognition policies have significantly promoted the investment of enterprise technology research and development personnel, technology capital investment, enterprise patent applications, and patent grants. This conclusion is still robust after being tested by Heckman's two-step method, propensity score matching method, and substitution variable method. Under multiple technological innovation incentive policies, there are differences in the incentive effects of various technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise technological innovation, and their impact on different stages of enterprise technological innovation is different. The impact of government innovation subsidies and high-tech enterprise recognition policies on enterprise innovation activities runs through the entire stage, while the impact of tax incentives on enterprise R&D personnel investment and enterprise R&D funds investment is more significant. In terms of the incentive effect of technology incentive and innovation policies, the identification policy for high-tech enterprises has the strongest impact on enterprise technology innovation activities, followed by tax incentives, and finally, government innovation subsidies.

(4) The impact of China's technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise technological innovation is accompanied by heterogeneity in enterprise characteristics. Firstly, in terms of the heterogeneity of enterprise scale, the incentive effect of government innovation subsidies on innovation investment in small-scale enterprises is greater than that of large-scale enterprises; Tax incentives and high-tech enterprise recognition policies have a greater incentive effect on innovation for large-scale enterprises than for small-scale enterprises. Secondly, in terms of the heterogeneity of corporate governance structure, for the equity structure of enterprises, the innovation incentive effect of government subsidies and high-tech enterprise identification policies on enterprises with low equity concentration is greater than that of enterprises with high equity concentration, and the incentive effect of tax incentives on innovation investment in enterprises with low equity concentration is less than that of enterprises with high equity concentration; Regarding the characteristics of executive education, the innovation incentive effect of government innovation subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise recognition policies on enterprises with high executive education is greater than that of enterprises with low executive education; Regarding equity incentive systems, whether it is the heterogeneity of equity incentives for executives or core business personnel, government innovation subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise recognition policies have a greater incentive effect on technological innovation for enterprises with high equity incentives than for enterprises with low equity incentives. Thirdly, in terms of the heterogeneity of the enterprise life cycle, government subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise recognition have a significant promotional effect on the growth and maturity of enterprises, and their incentive effect varies with the stage of the enterprise life cycle. Fourth, in terms of the heterogeneity of enterprise property rights, the incentive effect of government subsidies and tax incentives on technological innovation in non-state owned enterprises is greater than that of state-owned enterprises, while the incentive effect of high-tech enterprise identification policies on technological innovation in state-owned enterprises is stronger than that of non-state owned enterprises.

(5) There are significant differences in the impact of different technological innovation incentive policies on enterprise technological innovation strategies. Firstly, in terms of enterprise independent innovation and technology introduction strategies, government subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise identification policies have a stronger incentive effect on enterprise technology introduction than on enterprise independent innovation. Secondly, in terms of enterprise breakthrough innovation and incremental innovation strategies, government subsidies, tax incentives, and high-tech enterprise identification policies have stronger incentive effects on breakthrough innovation than on enterprise incremental innovation. Thirdly, in terms of substantive and strategic innovation, government subsidies have a stronger incentive effect on strategic innovation than on substantive innovation. The incentive effect of tax incentives and high-tech recognition policies on substantive innovation of enterprises is stronger than that on strategic innovation of enterprises.

Based on the theoretical analysis and empirical research of this study, the following policy implications are drawn from this study: First, the positive policy orientation of insisting on the government's strong support for enterprise innovation remains unchanged. Second, improve China's technological innovation policy system and enhance the efficiency of enterprise technology research and development. Third, vigorously stimulate the innovation driven development potential of enterprises and enhance their technological innovation capabilities.

[1]安娜.中国R&D投入对经济增长影响的回归分析[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(05):173-174+167.

[2]安同良,施浩,Ludovico Alcorta.中国制造业企业R&D行为模式的观测与实证——基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析[J].经济研究,2006(02):21-30+56.

[3]安同良,周绍东,皮建才.R&D补贴对中国企业自主创新的激励效应[J].经济研究,2009,44(10):87-98,120.

[4]安玉兴.非合作R&D、溢出效应与竞争性产品市场——基于AJ模型的博弈分析[J].经济研究导刊,2012(06):202-204.

[5]白俊红，江可申，李婧．应用随机前沿模型评测中国区域研发创新效率[J].管理世界，2009，(10):51－61．

[6]白俊红,李瑞茜.政府R&D资助企业技术创新研究述评[J].中国科技论坛,2013,(9):32-37.

[7]白俊红.中国的政府R&D资助有效吗?来自大中型工业企业的经验证据[J].经济学(季刊)，2011，10(4):1375－1400．

[8]曾萍,邬绮虹.政府支持与企业创新:研究述评与未来展望[J].研究与发展管理,2014,26(2):98-109.

[9]陈林,朱卫平.出口退税和创新补贴政策效应研究[J].经济研究，2008(11):74-87．

[10]陈强远,林思彤,张醒. 中国技术创新激励政策：激励了数量还是质量[J].中国工业经济, 2020, (4): 79-96.

[11]陈伟.创新是经济活力之源[J].经济工作通讯,1996(18):32.

[12]陈修德,梁彤缨.中国高新技术产业研发效率及其影响因素——基于面板数据SFPF模型的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2010,28(08):1198-1205.

[13]陈亚平,韩凤芹.高新技术企业认定对企业研发投入的影响——基于寻租行为的调节效应[J].科技管理研究,2020,40(15):49-57.

[14]陈振明,薛澜.中国公共管理理论研究的重点领域和主题[J].中国社会科学,2007(03):140-152+206.

[15]成力为,朱孟磊,李翘楚.政府补贴对企业R&D投资周期性的影响研究——基于融资约束视角[J].科学学研究,2017,35(8):1221-1231.

[16]程华,赵祥.政府科技资助对企业R&D产出的影响——基于我国大中型工业企业的实证研究[J].科学学研究，2008，26(3):519-525．

[17]程华.外部性、技术创新与政府作用[J].经济问题探索,2000,(8):67-69.

[18]程强,尹志锋,叶静怡.国有企业与区域创新效率——基于外部性的分析视角[J].产业经济研究,2015,77(4):10-20.

[19]程曦,蔡秀云.税收政策对企业技术创新的激励效应——基于异质性企业的实证分析[J].中南财经政法大学学报,2017,(6):94-102,159-160.

[20]邓子基,杨志宏.财税政策激励企业技术创新的理论与实证分析[J].财贸经济,2011,(5):5-10,136.

[21]杜伟. 企业技术创新激励制度论[D].四川大学,2002.

[22]方易. 弗兰克·费希尔:《公共政策评估》[J].公共管理评论, 2013(2):8.

[23]冯根福,刘志勇,王新霞.股权分置改革、产权属性、竞争环境与公司绩效——来自2005～2007年中国上市公司的证据[J].当代经济科学,2008(05):1-8+123.

[24]冯根福,温军. 中国上市公司治理与企业技术创新关系的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2008, (7): 91-101.

[25]冯俏彬.国家分配论、公共财政论与民主财政论——我国公共财政理论的回顾与发展[J].财政研究,2005(04):8-11.

[26]傅家骥,洪后其.企业家精神的培养与技术创新扩散[J].中外管理导报,1990(02):4-11.

[27]傅家骥,姜彦福,赵军,雷家骕.技术创新与我国经济发展道路的选择[J].改革,1990(06):64-69+89.

[28]傅家骥.技术创新学[M]．北京:清华大学出版社，1998：76-83．

[29]盖伊·彼得斯.公共政策工具[M].顾建光,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社，2007．

[30]高培勇.公共财政的基本特征[J].涉外税务,2000(08):1.

[31]高培勇.市场经济体制与公共财政框架[J].税务研究,2000(03):3-11.

[32]古利平,张宗益,康继军.专利与R&D资源:中国创新的投入产出分析[J].管理工程学报,2006,(1):147-151.

[33]顾群,翟淑萍.融资约束、代理成本与企业创新效率——来自上市高新技术企业的经验证据[J].经济与管理研究,2012(05):73-80.

[34]郭迎锋,顾炜宇,乌天玥,等.政府资助对企业R&D投入的影响——来自我国大中型工业企业的证据[J].中国软科学,2016,(3):162-174.

[35]郭玥. 政府创新政策对企业创新的影响研究[D].厦门大学, 2018.

[36]韩忠雪,崔建伟,王闪.技术高管提升了企业技术效率吗?[J].科学学研究,2014,32(04):559-568.

[37]洪名勇.科技创新能力与区域经济实力差异的实证研究[J].经济地理,2003(05):606-610.

[38]胡明勇,周寄中.政府资助对技术创新的作用:理论分析与政策工具选择[J].科研管理,2001,(1):30,31-36.

[39]黄红华.政策工具理论的兴起及其在中国的发展[J].社会科学,2010(04):13-19+187.

[40] 黄伟.试析政策工具研究的发展阶段及主题领域[J].国家教育行政学院学报,2008(09):24-30.

[41]黄永明，何伟．技术创新的税收激励理论与实践[J].财政研究，2006(10):47-49．

[42]贾康.中国财税改革30年:简要回顾与评述[J].财政研究,2008(10):2-20.

[43]江静.公共政策对企业创新支持的绩效——基于直接补贴与税收优惠的比较分析[J].科研管理,2011,32(4):1-8．

[44]蒋建军,齐建国.激励企业R&D支出的税收政策效应研究[J].中国软科学,2007,200(8):65-70,84.

[45]解维敏,方红星.金融发展、融资约束与企业研发投入[J].金融研究,2011(05):171-183.

[46]解维敏，唐清泉，陆姗姗．政府R&D资助，企业R&D支出与自主创新——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J].金融研究，2009，(6):86－99．

[47]凯恩斯.就业、利息和货币通论[M].上海:世界图书出版公司，2010．

[48]孔淑红．税收优惠对科技创新促进作用的实证分析——基于省际面板数据的经验分析[J].科技进步与对策，2010，27(24):32-36．

[49]孔伟杰,苏为华.中国制造业企业创新行为的实证研究——基于浙江省制造业1454家企业问卷调查的分析[J].统计研究,2009,26(11):44-50.

[50]黎文靖,郑曼妮.实质性创新还是策略性创新?——宏观产业政策对微观企业创新的影响[J].经济研究,2016,51(4):60-73.

[51]李春涛,宋敏.中国制造业企业的创新活动:所有制和CEO激励的作用[J].经济研究,2010,45(05):55-67.

[52]李凡.技术创新政策研究框架[J].中央财经大学学报,2013,(7):47-52,71.

[53]李平,王春晖.最优政府研发资助规模及资助企业选择——基于中国行业异质性的门槛回归分析[J].产业经济评论,2010,9(3):37－53．

[54]李香菊,贺娜.税收激励有利于企业技术创新吗?[J].经济科学,2019,(1):18-30.

[55]李彦龙.税收优惠政策与高技术产业创新效率[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2018,35(1):60-76.

[56]连燕华.技术创新政策概论[J].科学管理研究,1998,(5):3-5.

[57]梁莱歆,马如飞,田元飞.R&D资金筹集来源与企业技术创新——基于我国大中型工业企业的实证研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,30(7):89-93.

[58]梁正.从科技政策到科技与创新政策——创新驱动发展战略下的政策范式转型与思考[J].科学学研究,2017,35(2):170-176.

[59]廖信林,顾炜宇,王立勇.政府R&D资助效果、影响因素与资助对象选择——基于促进企业R&D投入的视角[J].中国工业经济,2013,(11):148-160.

[60]林承亮,许为民.技术外部性下创新补贴最优方式研究[J].科学学研究,2012,30(5):766-772,781.

[61]林洲钰,林汉川,邓兴华.所得税改革与中国企业技术创新[J].中国工业经济,2013(03):111-123.

[62]刘凤朝，孙玉涛．我国政府科技投入对其他科技投入的效应分析[J].研究与发展管理，2007，19(6):100-107．

[63]刘虹,肖美凤,唐清泉.R&D补贴对企业R&D支出的激励与挤出效应——基于中国上市公司数据的实证分析[J].经济管理,2012,34(4):19-28.

[64]刘溶沧,马珺.中国宏观经济调控目标的定位分析[J].财贸经济,2001(09):5-11.

[65]刘溶沧.谈谈公共财政问题[J].求是,2001(12):34-37.

[66]刘诗源,林志帆,冷志鹏.税收激励提高企业创新水平了吗?——基于企业生命周期理论的检验[J].经济研究,2020,55(06):105-121.

[67]刘小玄.中国工业企业的所有制结构对效率差异的影响——1995年全国工业企业普查数据的实证分析[J].经济研究,2000(02):17-25+78-79.

[68]柳剑平,郑绪涛,喻美辞.税收、补贴与R&D溢出效应分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2005,(12):81-90.

[69]柳卸林.技术创新经济学的发展[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1993(04):67-76.

[70]柳卸林.技术经济学的重建[J].数量经济技术经济研究,1993(09):30-33+7.

[71]柳卸林.市场和技术创新的自组织过程[J].经济研究,1993(02):34-37.

[72]卢方元,靳丹丹.我国R&D投入对经济增长的影响——基于面板数据的实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2011(03):149-157.

[73]陆国庆,王舟,张春宇.中国战略性新兴产业政府创新补贴的绩效研究[J].经济研究,2014,49(07):44-55.

[74]骆品亮,向盛斌.R&D的外部性及其内部化机制研究[J].科研管理,2001,(5):56-63.

[75]彭红星,毛新述.政府创新补贴、公司高管背景与研发投入——来自我国高科技行业的经验证据[J].财贸经济,2017,38(03):147-161.

[76]彭宜新.公共政策对国家创新系统影响研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(7):94-97.

[77]钱燕云.中德企业技术创新效率的评价和比较研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2003(12):47-50.

[78]汝鹏. 盖伊·彼得斯,弗兰斯·冯尼斯潘:《公共政策工具:对公共管理工具的评价》[J].公共管理评论, 2007(1):6.

[79]沈毅,张清正. 研发补贴、股权集中度与企业研发投入[J].预测, 2020, 39(3): 42-49.

[80]师萍,许治,张炳南.我国R&D投入绩效的实证研究[J].中国软科学,2007,198(6):125-130.

[81]史安娜，李兆明，黄永春．工业企业研发活动与政府研发补贴理念转变——基于演化博弈视角[J].中国科技论坛，2013(5):12-17．

[82]宋常,严宏深.科技创新企业的外部性与政府补贴研究[J].黑龙江社会科学,2008, 106(1):62-64.

[83]孙晓华,王昀.企业所有制与技术创新效率[J].管理学报,2013,10(07):1041-1047.

[84]孙早,郭林生,肖利平.企业规模与企业创新倒U型关系再检验——来自中国战略性新兴产业的经验证据[J].上海经济研究,2016(09):33-42.

[85]孙志建.政府治理的工具基础:西方政策工具理论的知识学诠释[J].公共行政评论,2011,4(03):67-103+180-181.

[86]孙自愿,梁晨,卫慧芳.什么样的税收优惠能够激励高新技术企业创新——来自优惠强度与具体优惠政策的经验证据[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2020,35(05):95-106.

[87]唐红祥,李银昌.税收优惠与企业绩效：营商环境和企业性质的调节效应[J].税务研究,2020(12):115-121.

[88]唐云锋,何运信.论实施公共财政的几个前提[J].宁夏社会科学,2007(02):53-55.

[89]王刚刚,谢富纪,贾友.R&D补贴政策激励机制的重新审视——基于外部融资激励机制的考察[J].中国工业经济,2017,(2):60-78.

[90]王海宁,陈媛媛.产业集聚效应与工业能源效率研究——基于中国25个工业行业的实证分析[J].财经研究,2010,36(09):69-79.

[91]王健.新凯恩斯主义市场协调失灵论评述[J].经济学动态,1996(07):64-68.

[92]王俊.R&D补贴对企业R&D投入及创新产出影响的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2010,28(09):1368-1374.

[93]王立勇,唐升.政府R&D补贴政策效果及决定因素研究——基于创新效率视角[J].宏观经济研究,2020,(6):75-88.

[94]王明友.技术创新──产业结构演变的根本原因[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版),1998(03):57-58.

[95]王任飞.企业R&D支出的内部影响因素研究——基于中国电子信息百强企业之实证[J].科学学研究,2005(02):225-231.

[96]韦彩玲,杨臣.政策工具理论的研究状况及其在我国的应用前景——以国内外文献为研究对象[J].江西社会科学,2012,32(08):230-235.

[97]魏江,寒午．企业技术创新能力的界定及其与核心能力的关联[J].科研管理,1998,19（6）：13～14．

[98]魏世杰.中国创新政策体系存在的问题和完善思路[J].中国科技论坛, 2017, (2): 5-10.

[99]温兴琦.创新政策还是产业政策:区域创新政策悖论及启示[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(23):103-106.

[100]吴秀波.税收激励对R&D投资的影响:实证分析与政策工具选拔[J].研究与发展管理,2003,(1):36-41.

[101]吴延兵.中国工业产业创新水平及影响因素——面板数据的实证分析[J].产业经济评论,2006,5(2):155-171.

[102]吴延兵.中国哪种所有制类型企业最具创新性?[J].世界经济,2012,35(06):3-25+28-29+26-27.

[103]伍蓓,陈劲,王姗姗.科学、技术、创新政策的涵义界定与比较研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007,(10):68-74.

[104]伍红,郑家兴.政府补助和减税降费对企业创新效率的影响——基于制造业上市企业的门槛效应分析[J].当代财经,2021(03):28-39.

[105]夏国藩.技术创新与技术转移[M].北京:航空工业出版社,1993

[106]肖丁丁,朱桂龙,王静.政府科技投入对企业R&D支出影响的再审视——基于分位数回归的实证研究[J].研究与发展管理,2013,25(3):25-32.

[107]肖文,林高榜.政府支持、研发管理与技术创新效率——基于中国工业行业的实证分析[J].管理世界,2014(04):71-80.

[108]熊彼特．资本主义、社会主义和民主主义[M].吴良健，译．北京:商务印书馆，1979．

[109]徐宝达,赵树宽.政府补贴对R&D投入的诱导效应和挤出效应[J].科技管理研究,2017,37(9):29-35.

[110]徐大可,陈劲.创新政策设计的理念和框架[J].国家行政学院学报,2004,(4):26-29.

[111]徐硼,罗帆. 政策工具视角下的中国科技创新政策[J].科学学研究, 2020, 38(5): 826-833.

[112]许庆瑞．研究与发展管理[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1986

[113]许治，吴辉凡．政府公共研发对企业研发行为的影响:国外研究评述[J].科研管理，2006，27(2):45-50．

[114]亚当·斯密．国富论[M].郭大力，王亚南，译．上海:上海三联书店，2009．

[115]杨德伟，汤湘希．政府研发资助强度对民营企业技术创新的影响——基于内生性视角的实证研究[J].当代财经，2011(12):64-73．

[116]杨林,柳洲.国内协同创新研究述评[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2015,36(04):50-54.

[117]姚洋,章奇.中国工业企业技术效率分析[J].经济研究,2001,(10):13-19,28-95.

[118]于斌斌．传统产业与战略性新兴产业的创新链接机理——基于产业链上下游企业进化博弈模型的分析[J].研究与发展管理，2012，24(3):100-109．

[119]余恕莲,王藤燕.高管专业技术背景与企业研发投入相关性研究[J].经济与管理研究,2014(05):14-22.

[120]余泳泽.创新要素集聚、政府支持与科技创新效率——基于省域数据的空间面板计量分析[J].经济评论,2011(02):93-101.

[121]约瑟夫·熊彼特. 经济发展理论[M].华夏出版社:西方经济学圣经译丛, 201501.242.

[122]张春辉,陈继祥.两种创新补贴对创新模式选择影响的比较分析[J].科研管理,2011,32(08):9-16.

[123]张俊瑞,陈怡欣,汪方军.所得税优惠政策对企业创新效率影响评价研究[J].科研管理,2016,37(3):93-100.

[124]张同斌，高铁梅．财税政策激励、高新技术产业发展与产业结构调整[J].经济研究，2012(5):58-70．

[125]张馨,袁东.公共财政:政府宏观经济政策的基本支撑点[J].改革,1999(05):43-51.

[126]张馨.我国“财政本质”观演变述评[J].经济学家,1999(04):91-97.

[127]张信东,贺亚楠,马小美.R&D税收优惠政策对企业创新产出的激励效果分析——基于国家级企业技术中心的研究[J].当代财经,2014,(11):35-45.

[128]张兴龙,沈坤荣,李萌.政府R&D补助方式如何影响企业R&D投入?——来自A股医药制造业上市公司的证据[J].产业经济研究,2014,(5):53-62.

[129]张延.我国货币政策最终目标的选择:理论基础和政策含义[J].上海金融,1998(05):4-6.

[130]张永安,李晨光.创新科技政策及其三阶段周期研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2012,33(4):19-26.

[131]张永安,马昱.基于熵权TOPSIS法的区域技术创新政策评价研究[J].科技管理研究,2017,37(6):92-97.

[132]张永安,闫瑾.技术创新政策对企业创新绩效影响研究——基于政策文本分析[J].科技进步与对策,2016,33(1):108-113.

[133]赵旭峰,温军.董事会治理与企业技术创新:理论与实证[J].当代经济科学,2011,33(03):110-116+128.

[134]郑贵华,李呵莉,潘博.财政补贴和税收优惠对新能源汽车产业R&D投入的影响[J].财经理论与实践,2019,40(4):101-106.

[135]郑威,陆远权.创新驱动对产业结构升级的溢出效应及其衰减边界[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2019,40(09):75-87.

[136]郑绪涛,柳剑平.促进R&D活动的税收和补贴政策工具的有效搭配[J].产业经济研究,2008,(1):26-36.

[137]周灿,曾刚.知识溢出与中国高技术产业创新[J].经济经纬,2016,33(3):78-83.

[138]周海涛,张振刚.政府研发资助方式对企业创新投入与创新绩效的影响研究[J].管理学报,2015,12(12):1797-1804.

[139]周黎安,罗凯.企业规模与创新:来自中国省级水平的经验证据[J].经济学(季刊),2005(02):623-638.

[140]周立群,邓路.企业所有权性质与研发效率——基于随机前沿函数的高技术产业实证研究[J].当代经济科学,2009,31(04):70-75+126.

[141]朱平芳,徐伟民.政府的科技激励政策对大中型工业企业R&D投入及其专利产出的影响——上海市的实证研究[J].经济研究,2003,(6):45-53,94.

[142]朱勇,吴易风.技术进步与经济的内生增长——新增长理论发展述评[J].中国社会科学,1999(01):21-39.

[143]朱勇,张宗益.技术创新对经济增长影响的地区差异研究[J].中国软科学,2005,(11):92-98.

[144] Aghion P , Howitt P . A model of growth through creative destruction[J]. Econometrica, 1992, 60(2):323-351.

[145] Almus M , Czarnitzki D . The Effects of Public R&D Subsidies on Firms' Innovation Activities: The Case of Eastern Germany[J]. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2004, 21(2): 226-236.

[146]Arrow K J.The economic implications of learning by doing[J].Review of Economic Studies, 1962, 62( 2) :323-351.

[147]Bernstein J. Costs of production, intra-and inter-industry R&D spillovers: Canadian evidence[J].Canadian Journal of Economics, 1988, 31( 21):324－377.

[148]Binelli C, Maffioli A. A micro-econometric analysis of public support to private R&D in Argentina[J].Inter-national Review of Applied Economics,2007,21( 3) : 339-359.

[149]Bloom N, Griffith N, Reenen J V. Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries 1979—1997[J]. Journal of Public Economics, 2002, 85( 1) : 1-31.

[150] Bravo-Ortega C, Marin A G. R&D and productivity: A two-way avenue?[J].World Development., 2011, 39(7):1090-1107.

[151] Bulent G, Baris T R. A panel causality analysis of the relationship among research and development, innovation, and economic Growth in high-income OECD Countries[J]. Eurasian Economic Review, 2012, 2(1):32-47.

[152] Busom, I. An Empirical Evaluation of R & D Subsidies. [J].Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2000, 9(9), 111-148.

[153] Claudio Bravo-Ortega, Álvaro García Marín. R&D and Productivity: A Two Way Avenue?[J]. World Development, 2011, 39(7): 1090-1107.

[154] Dasgupta P, Stiglitz J. Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity[J]. Economic Journal, 1980, 90(358):266-293.

[155] Elschner C., Ernst C., Spengel C. What the Design of an R&D Tax Incentive Tells about Its Effectiveness: A Simulation of R&D Tax incentives in the European Union[J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2011, 36(3):233-256.

[156]Griliches Z. The search for R&D spillovers[J]. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 1992, 94( S) : 29-47.

[157]Guellec D. The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D[J]. Institutional Repository, 2001, 12(3): 225-243.

[158]Hall B. The financing of research and development[J]. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2002, 18(1):35-51.

[159]Hud, Martin & Hussinger, Katrin, "The impact of R&D subsidies during the crisis," [J].Research Policy, Elsevier, 2015, 44(10):1844-1855.

[160]Lach S. Do R&D subsidies stimulate or displace private R&D ? Evidence from Israel [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics, 2002, 50( 4):369-390.

[161]Lichtenberg F R. The private R&D investment response to federal design and technical competitions [J]. American Economic Review, 1988, 78( 3) : 550-559.

[162]Link A N, Scott J T. Private investor participation and commercialization rates for government-sponsored research and development: Would a prediction market improve the performance of the SBIR Program? [J]. Economic, 2009, 76:264-281.

[163]Mansfield E. The R&D Tax Credit and Other Technology Policy Issues[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2001, 4(76): 190-194.

[164]Mario Coccia. Political economy of R&D to support the modern competitiveness of nations and determinants of economic optimization and inertia[J]. Technovation, 2012, 32(6): 370-379.

[165]Mayra R，Sandonís J. The effectiveness of R&D subsidies[J]. Economics of Innovation & New Technology, 2012, 21 ( 8):815-825.

[166]Nicolae B. The implications of state aid to R&D on economic development in the European Union[J].Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 2012, 21( 1) : 96 － 101.

[167]Oliviero A C. R&D subsidies and private R&D expenditures: evidence from Italian manufacturing data[J]. International Review of Applied Economics, 2011, 25( 4) : 419 － 439.

[168]Parisi M L, Sembellini A. Is private R&D spending sensitive to its price? Empirical evidence on panel for Italy[J]. Empirica, 2003, 30( 4) : 357-377.

[169]Romer P.M. Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth[J].Journal of Political Economy, 1986, 94:1002－1037.

[170]Samimi A J, Alerasoul S M. R&D and economic growth: new evidence from some developing countries Australian[J]. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2009, 3(4):3464－3469.

[171]Solow, Robert. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function[J].Review of Economics and Statistics, 1957, 39:312－320.

[172]Spence M. Cost reduction, competition and industry performance [J].Econometrica, 1984, 52(1):101-121.

[173]Tommy H C. Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level? [J]. Structural Change & Economic Dynamics, 2009, 20(4):239－253.

[174]Un C A, Montoro-Sanchez A. Public funding for product, process and organizational innovation in service industries [J].Service Industries Journal, 2010, 30(1):133-147.

[175] Wallsten S. The effect of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D : The case of the small business innovation research program [J].R and Journal of Economics, 2000, 31( 1) : 82-100.

[176]Yusuf O. A., Abolaji D. D. , Adekemi J O, Olalekan A J, Willie O S. Understanding the nexus of R&D, innovation and economic growth in Nigeria[J]. International Business Research, 2012, 5(11):187－196.