evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Dutch Innovation Vouchers (Kennisvouchers) — a 12-Year Natural Experiment in SME-Knowledge Institution Matchmaking

Netherlands · The Hague · See the Netherlands profile · See the The Hague profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 74% 57/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

A voucher lets a Dutch SME buy up to 70% of a research question answered by a university or public institute. Tracked over 12 years by Statistics Netherlands, treated firms showed 12% more R&D hours, 12% more jobs and 4% higher survival than untreated peers.

4 percentage points
Higher firm survival rate (voucher recipients vs control) (12 years, 2004–2016)
5 percentage points
Increase in R&D tax credit use (2004–2016)
12 %
Increase in R&D hours (2004–2016)
12 %
Increase in jobs offered (2004–2016)
~80 %
Vouchers funding projects that would not otherwise have proceeded

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs
Period
2004-2023 (evaluated cohort 2004-2016)
Keywords
SME innovation, R&D collaboration, knowledge institutions

Context

The Netherlands ran innovation vouchers ('kennisvouchers') as part of its MIT (SME Innovation Stimulus for Regions and Top Sectors) scheme, administered by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. A voucher lets a small or medium-sized firm put a concrete innovation question to a university, public research institute or other registered knowledge provider, with the voucher covering up to 70% of the provider's invoice.

Results

Because early cohorts of applicants were allocated vouchers partly through a lottery among eligible firms, the scheme created a natural experiment. Statistics Netherlands, RVO and the Ministry of Economic Affairs tracked treated and untreated firms from 2004 to 2016: twelve years on, voucher recipients showed a 4-percentage-point higher survival rate, 5 percentage points more use of the R&D tax credit, 12% more R&D hours and 12% more jobs offered than the control group, with roughly 8 in 10 vouchers funding a project that would not have gone ahead without the subsidy.

Conclusions

The productivity effect was positive but not statistically significant on its own — it only became significant for firms that went on to set up structural, ongoing R&D activity after their first voucher. Despite this evidence base, RVO confirms the instrument is 'no longer opening to new applications', even as near-identical instruments continue to run in Ireland, the UK, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO), Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Statistics Netherlands (evaluator)

Conditions for success

  • voucher matched to a concrete SME innovation question answered by a university or public knowledge institution
  • covers up to 70% of the knowledge provider's invoice

Common failure modes

  • productivity effect only became significant for firms that established structural, ongoing R&D activity after their first voucher
  • the scheme itself was discontinued in the Netherlands despite a strong evidence base

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful