創新政策（科技計畫）目的在於激發產業創新，以使新產品或製程能由概念階段成功地推出到市場，政策重點方向應為：(1)創造有助於創新的氣候；(2)協助培養廠商的創新文化；(3)建立有效的創新服務體系使廠商能獲取足應創新之需的資源。創新政策的重要對象之一是中小企業，且中小企業在我國的經濟發展活動中相當重要，故對中小企業創新政策各層面進行完整評核，以瞭解此類科技計畫的效益，同時檢驗公私部門間互動的理論模型，具有重要的策略意涵。此類議題雖重要卻鮮少被探討，或是以可能造成偏誤的方法評估之。本論文旨在探討政府資助中小企業創新活動的影響評估與效率評估，從計畫評估的理論觀點出發，以經濟部技術處「小型企業創新研發計畫」（簡稱SBIR 計畫）為評估案例。
本論文採用郵寄問卷調查，針對1999~2004 年參與SBIR 計畫並結案的廠商，共發出問卷942 份，回收有效樣本374 份；申請SBIR 計畫被拒絕的廠商，共發出問卷222份，扣除資料不完整的部分後，共計回收有效樣本36份；由經濟部協助提供一般製造業中小企業的資料，代表未申請SBIR 計畫的廠商。本論文利用準實驗設計、統計分析方法進行計畫的影響評估，並以計量經濟方法進行計畫的效率評估。所得主要結論與發現如下：
（一）科技計畫對中小企業的影響評估
1. 創新活動（研發支出）：相對於其他中小企業（未申請SBIR 計畫、申請SBIR計畫被拒絕），SBIR 廠商（五年後）的研發支出顯著增加。
2. 生產力（總員工數、營業額）：相對於其他中小企業（未申請SBIR 計畫、申請SBIR 計畫被拒絕），SBIR廠商（五年後）的總員工數顯著增加。相對於未申請的中小企業，SBIR 廠商（五年後）的營業額顯著增加；相對於申請被拒絕的中小企業，SBIR廠商（五年後）的營業額沒有顯著增加。
（二）科技計畫對中小企業的效率評估
1. 創新活動（研發支出）：平均而言，SBIR 補助款每增加1%，廠商研發支出會增加0.28%。
2. 生產力（總員工數、營業額）：平均而言，SBIR 補助款每增加1%，廠商總員工數會增加0.08%，營業額則會增加0.25%。在先進國家裡，科技型中小企業被視為促進經濟發展的能量來源，未來政府與中小企業的互動議題將更趨熱絡，尤其是刺激科技型中小企業的政策機制及效果。政府資助中小企業研發創新雖是一項立意良好的政策，但仍應檢視並修正制度上可能的偏誤。

Innovation policy (science & technology policy/program) aims to stimulate industrial innovation and address the gap between ideas and the market for new products/process. Hence, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are an important target group for innovation policy. While SMEs play important economic role in Taiwan, it is more meaningful to evaluate related innovation policies, to understand the impact of polices as well as test theoretical models of interactions between the public and private sectors. This topic is significant but little studied or investigated with the chance of bias. From the perspective of program evaluation, the thesis evaluated the effect of government subsidies on SMEs’ innovation including impact assessment and efficiency assessment and took the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program as an example.
The target population for evaluation covered three groups: SBIR awardees, firms with rejected applications, general SME manufacturers. Questionnaires were delivered to 942 firms with SBIR Phase I or Phase II awards and 222 firms with rejected applications between 1999 and 2004; 374 and 36 valid questionnaires were returned separately. The Department of Statistics of the Ministry of Economic Affairs provided the data of general SMEs. This thesis evaluated the impact of SBIR by a quasi-experimental design and examines the efficiency by an econometric model. Main findings are as follows:
A. The impact of government R&D subsidies on SMEs:
1. Innovative activity (R&D spending): Compared to other SMEs (firms with rejected applications or general SME manufacturers), the growth of SBIR awardees’ R&D spending is significant.
2. Productivity (employment or sales): Compared to other SMEs (firms with rejected applications or general SME manufacturers), the growth of SBIR awardees’ employment is significant. Compared to general SME manufacturers, the growth of SBIR awardees’ sales is significant; but compared to firms with rejected applications, the growth of SBIR awardees’ sales is not significant.
B. The efficiency of government R&D subsidies on SMEs:
1. Innovative activity (R&D spending): On average, 0.28 percentage change in SBIR awardees’ R&D spending is correlated with 1 percent change in subsidies (elasticity relationship).
2. Productivity (employment or sales): On average, 0.08 percentage change in SBIR awardees’ employment and 0.25 percentage change in SBIR awardees sales is separately correlated with 1 percent change in subsidies (elasticity relationship).

第一章 緒論..1
第一節 研究背景..1
第二節 研究動機..5
第三節 研究目的..7
第四節 研究流程..9
第五節 研究限制..9
第二章 文獻探討..11
第一節 計畫評估與科技計畫..11
一、計畫評估11
二、政府干預科技創新的原理13
三、科技計畫分類.17
第二節 科技計畫評估方法25
一、計量迴歸28
二、準實驗.33
三、多準則決策分析35
四、評估政策效果.38
第三章 政府資助中小企業創新47
第一節 各國資助中小企業創新政策..47
第二節 美國SBIR.50
第三節 我國資助中小企業創新之政策.58
一、我國協助民間研發的科技計畫.58
二、小型企業創新研發計畫.62
第四章 研究設計..71
第一節 研究假說71
一、影響評估71
二、效率評估74
第二節 實證方法74
一、影響評估74
二、效率評估78
第三節 資料蒐集82
一、研究對象82
二、問卷設計與調查83
三、獲補助廠商調查母體之基本資料.84
第四節 調查資料結構.86
第五章 資料分析..91
第一節 敘述統計91
第二節 影響評估97
一、比較SBIR廠商與其他中小企業的創新活動97
二、比較SBIR廠商與其他中小企業的生產力.99
三、比較申請SBIR計畫被拒絕廠商與未申請中小企業..104
第三節 效率評估.107
一、迴歸診斷.107
二、研發補助與研發支出的關係109
三、研發補助與總員工數、營業額的關係116
第四節 相關研究比較..126
第六章 結論與建議..131
第一節 研究發現.131
一、科技計畫對中小企業的影響評估..132
二、科技計畫對中小企業的效率評估..134
第二節 研究貢獻與政策意涵136
一、研究貢獻.136
二、政策與管理意涵.138
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議.140
參考文獻142
附錄 調查問卷..156

白俊男 (1983)，台灣之中小企業與台灣之經濟發展。臺灣銀行季刊，34(3)。1-10。
江雪嬌 (2001)，我國鼓勵中小企業技術創新策略之研究。經濟情勢暨評論季刊，7(2)，169-184。
行政院國家科學委員會 (2004)，中華民國科學技術年鑑（九十三年版）。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
吳惠林 (1996)，中小企業認定標準之研究。中華經濟研究院簡訊，51，3-4。
呂淑媛 (1998)，經濟部所屬事業協助中小企業推動研究發展計畫。工業簡訊，28(7)，57-65。
李泰宏 (2006)，中小企業與技術創新。數據分析，1(4)，119-130。
李國光、廖文志 (1996)，台灣中小企業實施企業改造之探討，收錄於經濟部第二屆中小企業發展學術研討會論文集。
李雅玲 (2003)，研究發展支出與企業生產力之實證分析：以經濟部所屬事業協助中小企業推動研究發展計畫為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
林建憲 (2007)，政府研發補助對於研發績效之影響：以工業局輔導案為例。臺灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
祁明輝，(1999)，專利於產品研發所扮演之角色。智慧財產權，5，39-45。
柯惠友 (2002)，政府研發補助經費對公司研發活動之影響效果 ─ 以經濟部所屬事業協助中小企業推動研究發展計畫為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
夏文龍 (1998)，專利對產業界的價值。智慧財產權管理，16，20-21。
莊弘旻 (2002)，公共部門與民間部門研究發展經費之關聯性分析。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
陳正福 (2001)，研發活動之資源基礎分析─以主導性新產品開發計畫廠商為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
陳玉玫 (2004)，廠商參與政府推動「業界開發產業技術計畫」之研發績效評估研究。中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
陳悅宜 (2008)，政府研發補助與企業創新活動之關係：以業界開發產業技術計畫為例。國立台北大學企業管理學系博士論文。
陳嘉萍 (2002)，政府研發獎助與中小企業研發創新關係之研究─以新竹科學園區廠商為例。國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
黃文谷 (1997)，美國中小企業創新育成中心考察報告。行政院所屬各機關因公出國人員出國報告書，台北市：行政院研考會。
經濟部中小企業處 (2000)，民國八十九年中小企業白皮書，台北市：經濟部中小企業處。
經濟部中小企業處 (2002)，民國九十一年中小企業白皮書，台北市：經濟部中小企業處。
經濟部技術處 (2002)，鼓勵中小企業開發新技術推動計畫成果摘要彙編，台北市：經濟部SBIR計畫專案辦公室。
經濟部技術處SBIR計畫 (2008)，SBIR經濟部小型企業創新研發計畫，來自 http://www.sbir.org.tw/
劉大年、蘇顯揚 (2000)，美、日政府協助業界（含中小企業）開發產業技術之相關制度研究。台北市：經濟部。
謝戎峰 (2004)，政府研發補助措施對公司研發投入影響之研究：以主導性新產品開發計畫及電子資訊業之研發補助措施為例。國立台灣科技大學企業管理系博士論文。
顏吉利 (1994)，促進中小企業產業升級之研究。台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
羅壬均 (2006)，政府研發補助對企業營運績效之評估：以「鼓勵中小企業開發新技術推動計畫」為例。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文
羅國峰 2008，智慧資本、網絡互動對創新績效的影響：以資源投入為干擾效果。國防管理學院後勤管理研究所碩士論文。
蘇顯揚 (2000)，日本中小企業技術革新制度(SBIR)概述。經濟前瞻，72，60-65。

二、英文資料
Andersson, T. (1998). Managing a Systems Approach to Technology and Innovation Policy. STI Review, 22(1), 9-29.
Antonelli, C. (1989). A failure-inducement model of research and development expenditure. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 159-180.
Archibald, R., & Finifter, D. (2003). Evaluating the NASA Small Business Innovation Research Program: Preliminary Evidence of a Tradeoff Between Commercialization and Basic Research. Research Policy, 32(5), 605–619.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In Nelson, R. R. (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (pp. 609-625). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Arrow, K.J. (1970). Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in: K.J. Arrow (Ed.), Essays in the Theory of Risk-bearing (pp. 144-163). Amsterdam, North-Holland.
Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private Technology Partherships: Evaluating SBIR-Supported Research. Research Policy, 31(1), 145-158.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
Bell, M., &. Pavitt, K. (1995). The Development of Technological Capabilities. In I. U. Haque (Ed.), Trade, Technology and International Competitiveness (pp. 69-101). Washington: The World Bank.
Berry, M. M. J., & Taggart, J. H. (1998). Combining Technology and Corporate Strategy in Small High Tech Firms. Research Policy, 26(7/8), 883-895.
Branstetter, L., & Sakakibara, M., (1998). Japanese research consortia: a microeconometric analysis of industrial policy. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 207-233.
Brown, M. A., Curlee, T. R., & Elliott, S. R. (1995) Evaluating technology innovation programs: the use of comparison groups to identify impacts. Research Policy, 24(5), 669-684.
Browning, D. C., Beyer, J. M. & Shetletr, J. C. (1995). Building cooperation in competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 131-151.
Busom, I. (1999). An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies. Working Paper No. B99-05, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Busom, I., (2000). An Empirical Evaluation of the Effects of R&D Subsidies. Economic Innovation and New Technology, 9(2), 111-148.
Capaldo, G., Iandoli, L., Raffa M., et al. (2003). The evaluation of innovation capabilities in small software firms: A methodological approach. Small Business Economics, 21(4) 343-354.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holm’en, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.
Carmichael, J. (1981). The effects of mission-oriented public R&D spending on private industry. Journal of Finance, 36, 617-627.
Carpon, H., & van Pottelsberghe dela Potterie, B. (1997). Public Support to R&D Programmes: An Integrated Assessment Scheme. In Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices (pp. 35-47). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
Comanor, W. S. (1967). Market structure, product differentiation, and industrial research. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(4), 639–657.
Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation. (2004). An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program: Project Methodology. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
David, P. A., Toole, A. A., & Hall, B. H. (2000). Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 497-529.
Department of Defense Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. (n.d.). About SBIR/STTR Retrieved from http://www.dodsbir.net/about/about.htm
Edler, J. & Georghiou, L. (2007) Public procurement and innovation - Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36(7), 949-963.
Ergas, H. (1987). “Does Technology Policy Matter?” I Guile, B., Brooks, H. (Eds.) , Technology and Global Industry. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Eshima, Y. (2003). Impact of policy on innovation SMEs in Japan. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), 85-93.
European Investment Fund. (2010). European Investment Fund Retrieved from http://www.eif.org/
Galbraith, J. K. (1952). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Georghiou, L. (1999). Socio-economic effects of collaborative R&D - European experiences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 69.
Georghiou, L. (2002). Impact and additionality in innovation policy. In: Boekholt, P. (Ed.), Innovation Policy and Sustainable Development: Can Public Innovation Incentives Make a Difference? IWT-Vlaanderen, Brussels, p. 40.
Goolsbee, A. (1998). Does Government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers? American Economic Review, 88(2), 298-302.Griliches, Z., & Regev, H. (1998). An econometric evaluation of high-tech policy in Israel. Paper presented at ATP-conference in Washington, DC, June 1998.
Guellec D. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2003). The Impact of Public R&D Expenditure on Business R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12(3), 225-243.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall College.
Hamberg, D. (1966). Essays on the Economics of Research and Development. New York: Random House.
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica, 47(1) 153-161.
Heckman, J., Ichimura H., Smith, J. & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data. Econometrica, 66(5), 1017-1098.
Higgins, R. S., & Link, A. N. (1981). Federal support of technological growth in industry: some evidence of crowding out. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-28, 86-88.
HM Revenue & Customs. (n.d.). Grant for Research and Development Retrieved from http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1074469930&type=RESOURCES
Holemans, B., & Sleuwaegen, L. (1988). Innovation expenditures and the role of government in Belgium. Research Policy, 17(6), 375-379.
Howe, J. D., & McFetridge, D. G. (1976). The determinants of R&D expenditures. Canadian Journal of Economics, 9, 57-71.
Irwin, D., & Klenow, P. (1996). High-tech R&D subsidies - estimating the effects of SEMATECH. Journal of International Economics, 40(3/4), 323-344.
Jaffe, A. B. (1998). Economic Analysis of Research Spillovers: Implications for the Advanced Technology Program. Washington, DC: Advanced Technology Program/National Institute of Standards and Technology/U.S. Department of Commerce.
Jaffe, A.B. (2002). Building programme evaluation into the design of public research-support programmes. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 22-34.
Kauko, K. (1996). Effectiveness of R&D Subsidies: A Sceptical Note on the Empirical Evidence. Research Policy, 25(3), 321-323.
Kealy, T. (1996). The Economic Law of Scientific Research. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Kimberly, J. R., (1976). Organizational Size and the Structuralist Perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 571-597.
Kleinknecht, A., van Montfort, K., & Brouwer, E. (2002). The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11(2), 109-121.
Klette, T. & Moen, J. (1998). From Growth Theory to Technology Policy - Coordination Problems in Theory and Practice. Journal of Political Economy, 25, 3-74.
Klette, T. & Moen, J. (1999). R&D Investment Responses to R&D Subsidies: A Theoretical Analysis and a Microeconometric Study. paper presented at the NBER Summer Institute.
Kline S. J. & Rosenberg N. (1986). An Overview of Innovation, in: R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth (pp. 275-305). Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
Kotabe, M. & Swan, S. (1995). The Role of Strategic Alliances in High-Technology New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 16(8), 621-636.
Lerner, J. & Kegler, C. (2000). Evaluating the Small Business Innovation Research Program: A Literature Review. In Wessner, C. W. (Ed.), The Small Business Innovation Research Program: An Assessment of the Department of Defense Fast Track Initiative (pp. 307-324). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285-318.
Levy, D. M., & Terleckyj, N. E. (1983). Effects of government R&D on private R&D investment and productivity: a macroeconomic analysis. Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 551-561.
Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (1991). Why are government and private R&D complements? Applied Economics, 23(10), 1673-1681.
Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Bozeman, B. (1989). The effects of governmental financing on firms’ R&D activities, a theoretical and empirical investigation. Technovation, 9(7), 561-575.
Lichtenberg, F. R. (1984). The relationship between federal contract R&D and company R&D. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 74(2), 73-78.
Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The effect of government funding on private industrial research and development: a re-assessment. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36, 97-104.
Lichtenberg, F. R. (1988). The private R&D investment response to federal design and technical competitions. American Economic Review, 78, 550-559.
Link, A. N. (1982). An analysis of the composition of R&D spending. Southern Journal of Economics, 49, 342-349.
Lundvall, B.-A, Johnson, B., Andersen, E., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.
Manski, C. F. (1994). The selection problem. In C. Sims (ed.), Advances in Econometrics, Sixth World Congress I, (pp.143–170). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Martin, B.R. (1996). Technology Foresight: A Review of Recent Government Exercises. STI Review, 17, 15-50.
Martin, S. & Scott J. T. (2000). The Nature of Innovation Market Failure and the Design of Public Support for Private Innovation. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 437-447.
Metcalfe J. S. & Georghiou L. (1998). Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy. STI Review 22, 75-100.
Murphy, S. A., & Kumar, V. (1996) The role of predevelopment activities and firm attributes in new product success. Technovation, 16(8), 431-441.
Naseem, A. Spielman D. J., & Omamo S.W. (2010). Private-Sector Investment in R&D: A Review of Policy Options to Promote its Growth in Developing-Country Agriculture. Agribusiness, 26(1), 143-173.
National Research Council Canada. (2010). NRC Industrial Research Assistance Program Retrieved from http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/ibp/irap.html
Nau, R. F. (2003). Decision 411: FORECASTING: Testing the assumptions of linear regression. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from Duke University, Fuqua School of Business Web site: http://www.duke.edu/~rnau/testing.htm
Nauwelaers, C., & Wintjes, R. (2002). Innovating SMEs and Regions: The Need for Policy Intelligence and Interactive Policies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 201-215.
Nelson, R. R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297-306.
Nelson, R. R. (1996). The Sources of Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. (2010). Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirsttr_programs.htm
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1993). The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities 1993: Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development – Frascati Manual. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1996). Government Programmes for Venture Capital. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pancer, S. M. & Westhues A. (1989). A Developmental Stage Approach to Program Planning and Evaluation. Evaluation Review, 13(1), 56-57.
Peneder, M. (2008). The problem of private under-investment in innovation: A policy mind map. Technovation, 28(8), 518-530.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Pihkala, T., Ylinenpaa, H., & Vesalainen, J. (2002). Innovation barriers amongst clusters of European SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2(6), 520-536.
Piric, A. & Reeve, N. (1997). Evaluation of Public Investment in R & D – Towards a Contingency Analysis (Chapter 5). Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices (Presentations at an OECD Conference held 26-27/06/1997).
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. NY: Free Press.
Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55
Rosenbaum, P. R. & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387), 516-524.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984a). The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 147, 656-666.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984b). From association to causation in observational studies: the role of tests of strongly ignorable treatment assignment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(385), 41-48.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (1995). Observational Studies. New York: Springer-Verlag
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D.B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39(1) :33-38
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rothwell R. & Zegveld, W. (1981). Industrial Innovation and Public Policy: Preparing for the 1980s and 1990s. London: Frances Pinter.
Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (la methode ELECTRE). la Revue d'Informatique et de Recherche Operationelle (RIRO), 2(8), 57–75.
Ruegg, R. (1999). Assessment of the ATP. In C. W. Wessner (Eds.), Advanced Technology Program: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 71-80). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1992). Decision making for leaders. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Salmenkaita, J. P., & Salo, A. (2002). Rationales for Government Intervention in the Commercialization of New Technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 183-200.
Salo, A. A. (2001). Incentives in Technology Foresight. International Journal of Technology Management, 21(7-8), 694-710.
Saxenian, A. L. (1991). The Origins and Dynamics of Production Networks in Silicon Valley. Research Policy, 20(5), 423-437.
Scherer, F. M., & Harhoff, D. (2000). Technology policy for a world of skew-distribution outcomes. Research Policy, 29(4/5), 559–566
Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The Theory of Economic Development . Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1975). Capitalism, Socialism, Dernocracy. New York, Harper and Row.
Scott, J. T. (1984). Firm versus industry variability in R&D intensity. In Griliches, Z. (Ed.), R&D, Patents and Productivity. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Scriven, M, (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In M. E. Gredler (Ed.), Program Evaluation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shrieves, R. E. (1978). Market structure and innovation: a new perspective. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 26, 329-347.
Smith, H. L. (1997). Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 325–53.
Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: Rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 73–102.
Sorensen, A., Kongsted, H. C., & Marcusson, M. (2003). R&D, Public Innovation Policy, and Productivity: The Case of Danish Manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(2), 163-178.
Sounder, W. E., Buisson, D., & Garrett, T. (1997). Development: A Comparison of U.S. and New Zealand Small Entrepreneurial High Technology Firms. Journal Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 459-472.
Tassey, G. (1999). R&D Policy Models and Data Needs. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/dataneeds.pdf
The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. (2004). HEZNEK Program - The Government Seed Fund. Retrieved from http://www.moital.gov.il/NR/exeres/7F83758F-3C0E-42A6-80CA-63A4616E8097.htm
Tibbetts, R. (2001). The Importance of Small High-Technology Firms to Economic Growth ……and How to Nurture Them through SBIR. Industry & Higher Education, 15(1), 24-32.
Tovianen, O., & Niininen, P. (1998). Investment, R&D, subsidies and credit constraints. Working Paper, Department of Economics MIT and Helsinki School of Economics.
US Small Business Administration Office of Technology. (n.d.). SBIR-STTR Retrieved from http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/sbir/sbirstir/sbir_sbir_description.html
Wallsten, S. J. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: the case of the Small Business Innovation Research program. RAND Journal of Economics, 31(1), 82-100.
Weimer, D., Vining, A. R. (1999). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (3rd Ed.). Prentice Hall.
Winship, C., & Morgan, S. (1999). The Estimation of Causal Effects from Observational Data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659-707.
日本商工會議所，(2010)。中小企業技術革新制度（日本版SBIR） Retrieved from http://www.jcci.or.jp/sme/sbir/index.html