Similar to many other advanced economies, Austria’s productivity growth has been slowing. Between 2015 and 2019, Austria’s hourly labour productivity grew by only 0.6% per year. Multifactor productivity (MFP) growth, which reflects innovation and improvement in resource allocation, halved from 0.8% between 1996 and 2005 to 0.4% between 2015 and 2019. Overall productivity growth is damped by weak productivity growth in services sectors (OECD, 2019[1]). In these sectors, the misallocation is substantially higher compared to manufacturing, possibly due to higher regulation and less exposure to international competition (OeNB, 2023[2]).
OECD Economic Surveys: Austria 2024
Birth and death rate of enterprises, business economy, 2019
Source: Eurostat (2023), Business demography by size class and NACE Rev. 2 activity (2004-2020).
Exceptionally low rates of firm entry and exit suggest less efficient resource allocation (Figure 3.1). Low entry and exit may reflect weak competition, which would imply that businesses have reduced incentives to strive for efficiency and to innovate (OECD, 2024[3]). Evidence from Austria finds that average annual productivity growth among younger firms was 0.66 percentage points higher than among older firms (Peneder, 2021[4]). However, the share of young companies in Austria has been steadily decreasing and by 2020, it had dropped to 3.8%, falling significantly behind some European countries (Austrian Productivity Board, 2023[5]). The room to improve productivity through efficient resource allocation is substantial, particularly for services. Empirical evidence suggests that moving the Austrian economy up to US allocative efficiency would increase multifactor productivity by up to 50% (OeNB, 2023[2]).
Past Economic Surveys underlined several policies that can help businesses strengthen productivity, particularly through supporting digitalisation, easing regulation for businesses and strengthening the insolvency regime. Progress on these issues is reported below, followed by a special focus on what Austria can do to further stimulate innovation and promote more transparency in government actions.
Shortfalls in internet speed and access still hinder digitalisation
Access to fast broadband remains a weak point in Austria’s digital infrastructure. Less than 40% of Austrian households have a contracted internet speed of at least 100 Megabytes per second (Mbps) (OECD, 2023[6]). Moreover, the difference in download speeds over fixed networks between rural and urban areas is among the highest in the OECD (Caldas, Veneri and Marshalian, 2023[7]). A mountainous topography and low population density in some regions discourage installation by private-sector telecom companies. Indeed, in a recent survey of telecom companies the “low number of customers that could be reached” was flagged as the most common obstacle to provide network services (WIFO, 2022[8]).
Policy campaigns to strengthen broadband are under way and have contributed to the gradual adoption of more capable technologies and higher bandwidths. Austria’s 2030 broadband strategy, ‘Broadband Austria 2030’, plans for public investments in areas of low density and higher incentives for private investment. Funds totalling EUR 1.4 billion, available until 2026 directed for the expansion of the communications infrastructure in Austria as part of the so-called "Zweite Breitbandmilliarde", should help to connect rural areas. Connectivity is also addressed in the Austrian Recovery and Resilience Plan, which aims to allocate almost EUR 900 million to support the deployment of gigabit-capable access networks. The significant investments in this area should be underpinned by cost-benefit analysis. The Austrian authorities also established a state-owned infrastructure company in multiple Länder, which builds fibre networks in rural areas and then leases them to network operators.
Plans to expand broadband should include easing regulations relating to infrastructure deployment alongside innovative policy instruments. According to the STRI indicator (Services Trade Restrictiveness Index), the restrictions on infrastructure and connectivity in Austria are high compared to other OECD countries (OECD, 2023[9]). Decentralised procedures for granting permits have been slowing down network deployment, and some network providers reported that some municipalities remain reluctant to issue permits to deploy 5G base stations (EC, 2022[10]). Consideration should also be given to innovative policy instruments to expand broadband. For example, reverse auctions have been used in the United States to finance high-speed broadband networks in rural and remote areas (OECD, 2021[11]). In Germany, customer demand aggregation has been used to encourage infrastructure rollout to rural and remote areas (OECD, 2021[11]). Experience in some OECD countries shows that innovative hybrid approaches using satellite broadband technologies can also improve access in rural and remote areas (OECD, 2017[12]).
Scope remains to ease business regulation
Past Surveys have underscored scope for more pro-competitive reforms in business regulation. Indeed, product market regulation settings in Austria are slightly stricter compared to other OECD countries (OECD, 2018[13]), regulatory barriers to enter Austria's services sectors are relatively high (Figure 3.2). (Bambalaite, Nicoletti and Rueden, 2020[14]). A large number of professions are regulated and some professional chambers have overly strong steerage on licencing requirements and on what tasks are exclusively performed. Regulation of architectural and engineering services is much more restrictive than in other OECD countries. The manager as well as the majority of board members of an engineering company must be licensed professionals, foreign engineers have to take a local examination, and commercial presence in Austria is required to provide engineering services (OECD, 2022[15]). Easing entry requirements into certain professional services can help significantly boost the productivity growth of service sectors directly, and of other sectors relying on them indirectly (Bambalaite, Nicoletti and Rueden, 2020[14]).
Occupational entry regulations (OER) indicator, 2020
Note: In Panel A, 0 indicating the most competition-friendly regulatory regime and 6 the least competition-friendly. Regulations for Canada and US represent the unweighted average of province/state level regulations.
Source: Von Rueden, C. and I. Bambalaite (2020), "Measuring occupational entry regulations: A new OECD approach", OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1606.
Attention to the insolvency regime is still needed
Efficient insolvency frameworks support business dynamism and productivity gains by facilitating a timely exit of non-viable low productivity companies. The share of those companies that, instead of exiting the market or being restructured, manage to continue operating over an extended period (the so-called "zombie firms"), was falling prior to the pandemic in Austria and has typically been low in international comparison (OeNB, 2021[16]; IMF, 2023[17]). However, the OECD Insolvency Indicator, which summarises the most relevant features of insolvency frameworks for resource reallocation and productivity growth, suggests that there is still room to improve the insolvency regime (André, 2022[18]).
Austria can further simplify and speed up its insolvency framework. According to the OECD insolvency indicator, the degree of court involvement is relatively high compared to other countries (André, 2022[18]). Some OECD countries have simplified their insolvency framework to reduce complexity and costs, as well as incentivise creditors and debtors to reach voluntary agreements for small companies. For example, in the United States, 80% of restructuring plans were approved by all classes of creditors during the first seven months of a new restructuring procedure for SMEs being in place (White, 2021[19]; André, 2022[18]). In Colombia, SMEs can access simplified restructuring and liquidation procedures using mediation, with about 90% of the objections settled during the mediation meetings (André, 2022[18]).
Innovation, including the invention of new technologies, as well as novel business practices, such as the organisation of production and firm operation, are crucial drivers of productivity growth (OECD, 2024[3]; Baily, 2023[20]). Innovation requires successful collaboration between the various players of the innovation system, including firms and researchers, which can be facilitated and spurred by government support and coordination efforts.
In Austria, the government provides substantial tax and spending incentives for the private sector to innovate. This contributes to the country’s high ranking in terms of total gross domestic R&D expenditures relative to GDP (Figure 3.3, Panel A). Government support includes direct government funding such as funding via the General Programme of the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG), and tax incentives such as the research premium - a tax credit as reimbursement for 14% of firms’ entire research expenditures. Tax measures account for most of the support in financial terms (Figure 3.3, Panel B). Almost half of the innovative companies in Austria receive government funding (OECD, 2022[21]). In addition to tax and spending support, Austria uses public procurement to promote innovation activity.
Government expenditure on tertiary education providers is also internationally high with strong incentives to collaborate with businesses (Box 3.1). Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge and technology from research institutes to firms has received positive assessments, with high mobility between the two sectors and strong knowledge absorption by firms (OECD, 2019[22]). University-business and international collaboration in research, which is an important channel of technology transfer, rank above the OECD average (Global Innovation Index, 2022[23]; European innovation scoreboard, 2023[24]).
Note: In Panel A, unweighted average of available 30 countries for the OECD aggregate. In Panel B, data on subnational tax support are only available for Canada, Hungary and Japan. In Panel C, innovative firms refer to those reporting one or more innovations in the reference period. In Panel D, the innovation index is a composite indicator of 32 indicators in 12 innovation dimensions across four types of activities: framework conditions, investments, innovation activities and impacts. All performance scores are relative to that of the EU in 2016. The black lines show the threshold values between the performance groups, where the threshold values of 70%, 100%, and 125%, when using the latest 2023 data, have been adjusted upward by multiplying with 1.085 to reflect the performance increase of the EU between 2016 and 2023 as the graph shows performance scores relative to the EU in 2016.
Source: OECD (2023), OECD Research and Development Statistics (database); OECD (2021), OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Projections (database); OECD R&D Tax Incentives database, November 2023; OECD Business innovation statistics and indicators (https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno-stats.htm); and European Commission (2023), European Innovation Scoreboard 2023.
Collaboration in Austria between the research institutions, the public sector, and the business sector has been assessed favourably (Ecker, 2019[25]; EC, 2023[26]). There are specific provisions in the design of the R&D tax credit, which favours science-industry collaboration. Instruments to promote the mutual transfer of knowledge include:
Long-term science-industry co-operation schemes, including:
(i) The COMET Competence Centre Programme, which funds centres and networks for cooperation between science and industry. The available evidence shows that COMET Centres make a significant contribution to the expertise and innovative output of the companies involved (Dinges, 2015[27]).
(ii) The Christian Doppler Research Association, which funds industry-relevant fundamental research at universities.
(iii) The BRIDGE programme, which supports small consortia in application-oriented basic research. Evaluations show that the BRIDGE programme contributes to closing the funding gap between basic and applied research (Kaufmann P., 2018[28]).
The Innovation Voucher, which supports SMEs to enlist the services of research institutions (support up to EUR 10 000 is available). Evidence showed that nearly 70% of companies that use the Innovation Voucher are newcomers to research funding (Ecker, 2019[25]).
Performance-based funding, Funding of universities is based on performance agreements, which include universities engaging in research in cooperation with businesses. The share of higher education institutions’ funding subject to reaching performance targets is 95%, one of the highest in the OECD (OECD, 2019[22]).
A Task Force at the federal level and specific stakeholder advisory boards at an agency- or programme level were established to reduce overlaps between the respective funding programmes/initiatives.
The strong government support for innovation is not only seen in the overall spending on R&D, but also in innovation activity. More than 60% of Austrian firms with at least 10 employees engage in some kind of innovation activity (Figure 3.3, Panel C). Business innovation in Austria is characterised by high levels of R&D across all industries, including in the manufacturing sectors that have low R&D intensities globally (OECD, 2018[29]). In addition, other innovation outcomes including the share of technological equipment and intellectual property in GDP and the percentage of R&D employees are well above the OECD average (Austria R&T Report, 2022[30]). Among EU countries, Austria is considered a strong innovator according to the European Innovation Scoreboard ranking. However, its performance has slowed down in recent years and lags behind innovation leaders such as Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands (Figure 3.3, Panel D).
Despite an overall favourable situation, Austria’s innovation policy can be improved, in particular support for business financing. A key barrier hindering firms’ innovation performance is the shortage of risk capital, including angel funding and formal venture capital. The funding of companies in Austria is heavily concentrated towards bank loans, while equity financing is low in international comparison (Figure 3.4). Empirical research confirms that ensuring easier access to equity capital is essential for innovation, especially for young firms. Access to equity capital is also associated with higher MFP growth for firms below the productivity frontier (Andrews, Adalet McGowan and Millot, 2017[31]) (OECD, 2024[3]; Corrado et al., 2021[32]). OECD research confirms that the productivity of Austrian companies would benefit from increasing the availability of venture capital (Sorbe et al., 2019[33]).
Note: In Panel A, venture capital (VC) is private equity capital provided to young enterprises not quoted on a stock market. Data for Israel and Japan refer to 2021. Unweighted average of 32 countries for the OECD aggregate. In Panel B, the ratio is calculated by dividing consolidated stock on listed shares of non-financial corporations by nominal GDP. Data for Israel and Türkiye refer to 2021. Unweighted average of 27 countries for the OECD aggregate.
Source: OECD (2023), OECD Enterprise Statistics (database); and OECD Financial Balance Sheets - Consolidated - SNA2008 (database).
Austria could remove distortions in corporate taxation which disincentivise investment financed by equity. In particular, one way forward is harmonising the tax treatment of equity and debt. As in many countries, companies tend to favour debt financing, principally because debt interest payments can be deducted from the corporate income tax base. As part of the implementation of the EU anti-tax avoidance directive, Austria already applies an interest limitation rule since 2021 which limits the deductibility of borrowing costs at 30% of taxable income. In addition, Austria has some specific risk-capital measures to access equity more easily for startups. Still, some countries have implemented more structural reforms to address the debt bias. Several OECD countries, including Belgium, Italy and Latvia, have introduced a corporate income tax allowance for equity financing (ACE), with the aim of aligning the tax treatment of equity- and debt-financed investment, and increase equity financing. In theory, removing the debt bias through ACE would remove the distortion created by corporate taxation on the level of investment. Empirical research suggests that a notional interest deduction on equity can indeed have a positive effect of equity expansion (Breyer, 2021[34]). However, specifying the allowance rate in practice can add some complexity. A simpler way to remove the investment distortion and the debt bias would be to allow for the full expensing of all investments and end the tax deductibility of interest payments (IFS, 2023[35]). An important consideration is that accelerated depreciation (including full expensing) will be less affected by the Global Minimum Tax since the GloBE Rules are designed to avoid imposing additional top-up tax as a result of differences in the timing of taxes paid (OECD, 2022[36]). In addition, introducing tax incentives for investors to encourage investments in certain equity instruments such as angel investment can be considered. The UK offers exemptions from capital gains tax to equity investors in small private companies who maintain their holding for at least three years.
Increased use of state-backed “funds of funds” should be considered. These funds support financing, for instance in the form of loans or guarantees, taking equity stakes to leverage private sector investment, typically targeting start-ups and SMEs. The National Foundation for Research, Technology and Development in Austria provides budgets for R&D-initiatives. In 2023 EUR 140 million were distributed to six beneficiary federal research funding institutions. In June 2023 a new state-financed venture capital fund (aws Gründungsfonds II: “Startup Fund”) was established with a duration of min. 10 years. The Ministry of Labour and Economy provides up to EUR 72 million for investments in young, innovative companies in the start-up and growth phase based in Austria. The Fund is intended to leverage private investments of up to EUR 500 million. However, this funding remains relatively small in scale. For example, in Sweden, much larger fund-of-funds activity driven by pension funds has been responsible for equity market expansion, and drives significant investments in SMEs with strong growth potential (OECD, 2018[29]). Similarly, in France, the equity capital initiative offers quasi-equity in the form of participative loans. The fund is financed via insurance companies and institutional investors, and the French government guarantees losses of up to 30% of the fund’s assets (Breyer, 2021[34]). Other countries, such as Denmark and Canada, have co-investment via “funds-of-funds” (OECD, 2020[37]).
The support for innovation in Austria could also shift towards societal and mission-oriented targets. These mission-oriented targets are defined as a coordinated package of policy and regulatory measures tailored specifically to mobilise science, technology and innovation in order to address well-defined objectives related to a societal challenge, in a defined timeframe. The current challenges such as climate change or frontier technologies such as AI require better strategic orientation and holistic co-ordination of research and innovation interventions (OECD, 2021[38]). While Austria’s expenditure on R&D is one of the highest in the OECD, its share of mission-oriented research is relatively small and amounts to only 4% of overall research spending (WIFO, 2022[39]). Mission-oriented research requires a thematically dedicated funding flow, while the funding in Austria is dominated by mostly non-targeted institutional funding and tax support. For example, the share of government R&D spent on environmentally related research or frontier technologies such as AI are below the OECD average (Austria R&T Report, 2022[30]).
Austria lags behind best performing countries in terms of the perception of corruption and on some indicators of policies to control corruption (Figure 3.5). Corruption perception has been increasing and in 2022 the country fell out of the world top 20 countries with the lowest corruption perception for the first time since 2014. In 2023, Austria has gained two places in the Transparency International index and the country is now in 20th place in the international rankings. However, with 71 points, Austria remains at the same level as last year. The country has recently witnessed a surge in the number of high-profile political scandals involving former ministers. Almost 60% of the citizens now think that corruption is widespread in Austria (Eurobarometer, 2023[40]). Moreover, trust in the national government is one of the lowest in the OECD: only around 25% Austrians trust the national government compared to 41% in the average OECD country.
Note: Panel B shows sector-based subcomponents of the “Control of Corruption” indicator by the Varieties of Democracy Project.
Source: Panel A: Transparency International; and Panel B: Varieties of Democracy Project, V-Dem Dataset v12.
Austria should continue to promote openness and transparency, which are key ingredients that not only help mitigate corruption risks but also improve efficiency and ultimately contribute to public trust. In 2021, almost two thirds of Austrians demanded more transparency in government action (SORA, 2021[41]). In this regard it is welcome that Austria in January passed a freedom of information law, which guarantees the general right to access documents, in line with the standards of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents. The draft had experienced repeated delays and reluctance from public authorities, particularly at the regional and local level (GRECO, 2022[42]). The implementation of the new law in practice remains to be assessed.
The government should also encourage more transparency in the lobbying process, allowing for more public scrutiny. In Austria, transparency measures related to lobbying are applicable to all branches of government and lobbyists’ registration is mandatory. However, the lobbying register only makes public a list of entities and individuals. More details on meetings and consultations with lobbyists could be disclosed (GRECO, 2022[42]). Transparency on political finance could also be strengthened. Political parties in Austria report on their sources of financing. However, most OECD countries also require the publication of information about itemised expenditures and reporting on campaign finances (OECD, 2021[43]).
Austria has taken some steps to improve the enforcement of corruption offences. In 2023, the Austrian Parliament adopted the “Corruption Criminal Law Amendment Act 2023”, which, among other amendments, has increased sanctions, in particular for cases involving bribes of high value. The upcoming Phase 4 evaluation of Austria by the OECD Working Group on Bribery, scheduled for October 2024, will include an assessment of these recent reforms and make recommendations on Austria’s implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and related instruments.
In terms of institutional framework, there is potential to enhance the independence and autonomy of the prosecution services. The public prosecution offices are organised into a hierarchical structure, ultimately subordinated to the Federal Minister of Justice who has the power to give binding instructions in individual cases (Federal Ministry for Constitutional Affairs, 2018[44]). In line with the European Commission recommendation, establishing a Federal Prosecutor’s Office independent from the Ministry of Justice would help strengthen the independence and autonomy of the justice system (EC, 2023[45]). The authorities have already set up a working group in 2021 to propose a model for an independent prosecution service, which covers inter alia the questions of independence, reporting system, instructions, and tasks of an independent Prosecutor General. No measures have been approved so far to address this recommendation.
Efforts to effectively reduce the risks of conflicts of interest for members of Parliament can be strengthened. Members of Parliament are currently not obliged to publicly declare their assets, interests, debts, liabilities, or any other economic interests, including company investments. Introducing effective rules on assets and interests’ declaration for Members of Parliament, including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms in line with EC recommendations, will help to reduce the risks of conflict of interests (EC, 2023[45]; EC, 2022[46]).
In terms of money laundering, Austria was found to have achieved good results in the investigation and prosecution of persons financing terrorism, in the implementation of targeted financial sanction related to proliferation financing, and in international cooperation (IMF, 2020[47]). The Register of Beneficial Owners of Companies, Other Legal Entities and Trusts contributes to entity transparency and allows competent authorities to have timely access to information. Still, Austria’s large financial sector has important cross-border linkages, and the significant exposure to Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe requires constant attention in this area. The authorities should continue to focus on cross-border risks with effective implementation of customer due diligence obligations, in particular for higher risk activities and categories of clients, to ensure that financial integrity risks are mitigated (IMF, 2020[47]).
References
[18] André, C. (2022), Enhancing insolvency frameworks to support economic renewal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8ef45b50-en.
[31] Andrews, D., M. Adalet McGowan and V. Millot (2017), “Confronting the zombies : Policies for productivity revival”, OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f14fd801-en.
[30] Austria R&T Report (2022), Austrian Research and Technology Report 2022.
[5] Austrian Productivity Board (2023), “Productivity report 2023: Austria’s sustainable competitiveness” Vienna, June 2023, https://www.produktivitaetsrat.at/en.
[20] Baily, M. (2023), “Lessons from a Career in Productivity Research: Some Answers, A Glimpse of the Future, and Much Left to Learn”, International Productivity Monitor, Vol. 44, pp. 120-149, http://www.csls.ca/ipm/44/IPM_44_Baily.pdf.
[14] Bambalaite, I., G. Nicoletti and C. Rueden (2020), Occupational entry regulations and their effects on productivity in services: Firm-level evidence, https://doi.org/10.1787/c8b88d8b-en.
[34] Breyer, P. (2021), Corporate equity finance in Austria –impediments and possible improvements, https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oenb.at%2Fdam%2Fjcr%3Aa444815b-272f-4801-8f4a-1108533fc67c%2F05_mop_q3_21_Corporate-equity-finance-in-Austria.pdf;h=repec:onb:oenbmp:y:2021:i:q3/21:b:4.
[7] Caldas, P., P. Veneri and M. Marshalian (2023), Assessing spatial disparities in Internet quality using speed tests, https://doi.org/10.1787/77c42f5e-en.
[32] Corrado, C. et al. (2021), “New evidence on intangibles, diffusion and productivity”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2021/10, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de0378f3-en.
[27] Dinges, M. (2015), Wirkungsanalyse 2015 des österreichischen Kompetenzzentrenprogramms COMET.
[45] EC (2023), 2023 Rule of Law Report, European Commision, Brussels, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/8f5af879-8756-44af-9641-2c07310a2426_en?filename=46_1_52626_coun_chap_austria_en.pdf.
[26] EC (2023), European Innovation Scoreboard, European Commision, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/rtd/eis/2023/ec_rtd_eis-country-profile-at.pdf.
[46] EC (2022), 2022 Rule of Law Report, European Commision, Bruselss, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/4ec31ca9-6deb-4dff-a05f-ce1bebb81bb4_en?filename=46_1_194005_coun_chap_austria_en.pdf.
[10] EC (2022), Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/desi-austria.
[25] Ecker, B. (2019), Case study on the Policy mix for science-industry knowledge transfer in Austria: Contribution to the OECD TIP Knowledge Transfer and Policies project, https://stip.oecd.org/assets/TKKT/CaseStudies/1.pdf.
[40] Eurobarometer (2023), European Commision, https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2968.
[24] European innovation scoreboard (2023), European innovation scoreboard, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en.
[44] Federal Ministry for Constitutional Affairs (2018), The Austrian Judicial System, https://www.justiz.gv.at/file/8ab4ac8322985dd501229d51f74800f7.de.0/cover_und%20text_the%20austrian%20judicial%20system_neu.pdf?forcedownload=true.
[23] Global Innovation Index (2022), Global Innovation Index 2022, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home.
[42] GRECO (2022), Evaluation report - Austria, The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/greco-publication-of-5th-round-evaluation-report-on-austria.
[35] IFS (2023), “Full expensing and the corporation tax base”, IFS Green Budget - Chapter 10, https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-10/Full-expensing-and-the-corporation-tax-base.pdf.
[17] IMF (2023), The Rise of the Walking Dead: Zombie Firms Around the World, International Monetary Fund, https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400246890.001.
[47] IMF (2020), Austria, Anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terorism, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2020/03/03/Austria-Publication-of-Financial-Sector-Assessment-Program-Documentation-Technical-Note-on-49240.
[28] Kaufmann P., G. (2018), Evaluierung des BRIDGE Programms für den Zeitraum 2009 - 2016, Wien.
[3] OECD (2024), “Public Policies for Stronger Productivity Growth”, forthcoming.
[6] OECD (2023), Broadband Portal, https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/broadband-statistics/.
[9] OECD (2023), Services Trade restrictiveness, https://sim.oecd.org/.
[21] OECD (2022), Business innovation statistics and indicators, https://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno-stats.htm.
[15] OECD (2022), OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (STRI) - Austria, https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/services-trade/documents/oecd-stri-country-note-aut.pdf.
[36] OECD (2022), Tax Incentives and the Global Minimum Corporate Tax: Reconsidering Tax Incentives after the GloBE Rules, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/25d30b96-en.
[11] OECD (2021), Bridging connectivity divides, https://goingdigital.oecd.org/data/notes/No_16_ToolkitNote_ConnectivityDivides.pdf.
[43] OECD (2021), Lobbying in the 21st Century: Transparency, Integrity and Access, OECD Publishing, Paris,, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/c6d8eff8-en.pdf?expires=1696619316&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=AB1A7AE6043AF3BC6B1BD6CF9FF2CC47.
[38] OECD (2021), “The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges”, OECD Science, Technology, and Industry No. 100, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/3f6c76a4-en.pdf?expires=1697116816&id=id&accname=ocid84004878&checksum=34C1932722063C6277DB42BF5B887994.
[37] OECD (2020), Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[1] OECD (2019), Productivity insights, https://www.oecd.org/austria/oecd-productivity-insights-austria.pdf.
[22] OECD (2019), University-Industry Collaboration : New Evidence and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en.
[13] OECD (2018), Indicators of Product Market Regulation, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/austria_country_note_-_tot_final?fr=sYzE2MzkzNTk1MQ.
[29] OECD (2018), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Austria 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309470-en.
[12] OECD (2017), “The evolving role of satellite networks in rural and remote broadband access”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 264, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7610090d-en.
[2] OeNB (2023), “Resource Misallocation and TFP Gap Development in Austria”, WORKING PAPER 246, https://www.oenb.at/dam/jcr:b8670478-d500-4ac3-9c89-06d9fd13cf44/WP-246.pdf.
[16] OeNB (2021), The share of zombie firms among Austrian nonfinancial companies, Oesterreichische National Bank, https://www.oenb.at/en/Publications/Economics/Monetary-Policy-and-the-Economy.html.
[4] Peneder, M. (2021), “Entwicklung der Produktivität österreichischer Unternehmen von 2008 bis 2018. Auswertung von Mikrodaten für Österreich im Rahmen von Multiprod 2.0”, WIFO, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=68026&mime_type=application/pdf.
[41] SORA (2021), SORA, https://www.sora.at/fileadmin/downloads/projekte/2021_SORA_Praesentation-Demokratie-Monitor-2021.pdf.
[33] Sorbe, S. et al. (2019), “Digital Dividend: Policies to Harness the Productivity Potential of Digital Technologies”, OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/273176bc-en.
[19] White, C. (2021), Small Business Reorganization, https://www.justice.gov/ust/page/file/1350736/download.
[8] WIFO (2022), Digitalisation in Austria: Progress, Broadband, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=69730&mime_type=application/pdf.
[39] WIFO (2022), “Finanzierung von FTI-politischen Missionen in Österreich”, WIFO, RESEARCH BRIEFS,, Vol. 15/2022, https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.jart?publikationsid=69662&mime_type=application/pdf.