Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

An Author Correction to this article was published on 25 September 2020

This article has been updated


Innovation to reduce the cost of clean technologies has large environmental and societal benefits. Governments can play an important role in helping cleantech startups innovate and overcome risks involved in technology development. Here we examine the impact of the US Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) on two outcomes for startup companies: innovation (measured by patenting activity) and business success (measured by venture capital funding raised, survival, and acquisition or initial public offering). We compare 25 startups funded by ARPA-E in 2010 to rejected ARPA-E applicants, startups funded by a related government programme and other comparable cleantech startups. We find that ARPA-E awardees have a strong innovation advantage over all the comparison groups. However, while we find that ARPA-E awardees performed better than rejected applicants in terms of post-award business success, we do not detect significant differences compared to other cleantech startups. These findings suggest that ARPA-E was not able to fully address the ‘valley of death’ for cleantech startups within 10–15 yr after founding.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Subsectors represented in our dataset of US cleantech startup firms in 2010.
Fig. 2: Annual outcomes for 2010 cleantech startups by company type.

Data availability

The data on cleantech firm identification used in this study were made available to us by Cleantech Group under a restricted license and are therefore not publicly available. Supplementary Data 1 contains an anonymized version of our company-level analytical sample with the names of the firms removed. Supplementary Data 2 contains the company-year panel dataset. The full dataset is available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Cleantech Group.

Code availability

Supplementary Code 1 contains the Stata code that enables the reproduction of our main analysis.

Change history

  • 25 September 2020

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. America COMPETES Act (110th US Congress, 2007).

  2. Anadón, L. D., Chan, G. A., Bin-nun, A. Y. & Narayanamurti, V. The pressing energy innovation challenge of the US National Laboratories. Nat. Energy (2016).

  3. Goldstein, A. P. & Narayanamurti, V. Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US department of energy. Res. Policy (2018).

  4. Anadón, L. D., Bunn, M. & Narayanamurti, V. Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  5. Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), 2010).

  6. A Business Plan for America’s Energy Future (American Energy Innovation Council, 2010).

  7. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G. & Stavins, R. N. A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 54, 164–174 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kattel, R. & Mazzucato, M. Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Ind. Corp. Chang. 27, 787–801 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mazzucato, M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (Anthem Press, 2013).

  10. Arrow, K. in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors 609–626 (Princeton University Press, 1962).

  11. Nelson, R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Polit. Econ. 67, 297–306 (1959).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kerr, W. R., Nanda, R. & Rhodes-Kropf, M. Entrepreneurship as experimentation. J. Econ. Perspect. 28, 25–48 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hall, R. E. & Woodward, S. E. The burden of the nondiversifiable risk of entrepreneurship. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 1163–1194 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nanda, R. & Rhodes-Kropf, M. Financing risk and innovation. Manag. Sci. 63, 901–918 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again (US Office of Management and Budget, 2017).

  16. Bronzini, R. & Piselli, P. The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Res. Policy 45, 442–457 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aerts, K. & Schmidt, T. S. Two for the price of one?: additionality effects of R&D subsidies: a comparison between Flanders and Germany. Res. Policy 37, 806–822 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. González, X. & Pazó, C. Do public subsidies stimulate private R&D spending? Res. Policy 37, 371–389 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hussinger, K. R&D and subsidies at the firm level: an application of parametric and semiparametric two-step selection models. J. Appl. Econom. 23, 729–747 (2008).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Deleidi, M., Mazzucato, M. & Semieniuk, G. Neither crowding in nor out: public direct investment mobilising private investment into renewable electricity projects. Energy Policy (2019).

  21. Doblinger, C., Surana, K. & Anadón, L. D. Governments as partners: the role of alliances in U.S. cleantech startup innovation. Res. Policy 48, 1458–1475 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Howell, S. T. Financing innovation: evidence from R&D grants. Am. Econ. Rev. 107, 1136–1164 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pless, J. Are“Complementary Policies” Substitutes? Evidence from R&D Subsidies in the UK (Jacquelyn Pless, 2018);

  24. Azoulay, P., Fuchs, E. R. H., Goldstein, A. P. & Kearney, M. Funding breakthrough research: promises and challenges of the ‘ARPA Model’. Innov. Policy Econ. 19, 69–96 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuchs, E. R. H. Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case for embedded network governance. Res. Policy 39, 1133–1147 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stokstad, E. UK cues up big funding increases for R&D. Science (2020).

  27. Bonvillian, W. B. DARPA and its ARPA-E and IARPA clones: a unique innovation organization model. Ind. Corp. Chang. 27, 897–914 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chan, G. A., Goldstein, A. P., Bin-Nun, A., Anadón, L. D. & Narayanamurti, V. Six principles for energy innovation. Nature 552, 25–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pless, J., Hepburn, C. & Farrell, N. Bringing rigour to energy innovation policy evaluation. Nat. Energy (2020).

  30. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C. & Lehmann, E. E. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

  31. Bettis, R. A. & Hitt, M. A. The new competitive landscape. Strateg. Manag. J. 16, 7–19 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hockerts, K. & Wüstenhagen, R. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 481–492 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dushnitsky, G. & Lenox, M. J. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures?: corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Res. Policy 34, 615–639 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Markard, J. & Truffer, B. Innovation processes in large technical systems: market liberalization as a driver for radical change? Res. Policy 35, 609–625 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Doblinger, C. & Soppe, B. Change-actors in the U.S. electric energy system: the role of environmental groups in utility adoption and diffusion of wind power. Energy Policy 61, 274–284 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Popp, D., Pless, J., Hascic, I. & Johnstone, N. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector NBER Working Paper No. 27145 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).

  37. Gaddy, B. E., Sivaram, V., Jones, T. B. & Wayman, L. Venture capital and cleantech: the wrong model for energy innovation. Energy Policy 102, 385–395 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. A Retrospective Assessment of Clean Energy Investments in the Recovery Act (Council of Economic Advisors, 2016).

  39. An Assessment of ARPA-E (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).

  40. Islam, M., Fremeth, A. & Marcus, A. Signaling by early stage startups: US government research grants and venture capital funding. J. Bus. Ventur. 33, 35–51 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Conti, A., Thursby, J. & Thursby, M. Patents as signals for startup financing. J. Ind. Econ. 61, 592–622 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Guzman, J. & Stern, S. Where is silicon valley? Science 347, 606–609 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Iacus, S. M., King, G. & Porro, G. Multivariate matching methods that are monotonic imbalance bounding. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 106, 345–361 (2011).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Feldman, M. P. & Kelley, M. R. The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior. Res. Policy 35, 1509–1521 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Conti, A. Entrepreneurial finance and the effects of restrictions on government R & D subsidies. Organ. Sci. 29, 134–153 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Goldstein, A. P. & Kearney, M. Know when to fold ’em: an empirical description of risk management in public research funding. Res. Policy 49, 103873 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. ARPA-E Impacts: A Sampling of Project Outcomes Vol. 3 (ARPA-E, 2018).

  48. Goldstein, A. P. & Kearney, M. Uncertainty and individual discretion in allocating research funds. SSRN (2017).

  49. Azoulay, P. Research efficiency: turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature 484, 31–32 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jaffe, A. B. Building programme evaluation into the design of public research-support programmes. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 18, 22–34 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Scott, E., Shu, P. & Lubynsky, R. Entrepreneurial uncertainty and expert evaluation: an empirical analysis. Manage. Sci. 66, 1005–1507 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy Could Benefit from Information on Applicants’ Prior Funding (Government Accountability Office, 2012).

  53. Bumpus, A. & Comello, S. Emerging clean energy technology investment trends. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 382–385 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nemet, G. F., Zipperer, V. & Kraus, M. The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects. Energy Policy 119, 154–167 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Our Coverage (Cleantech Group, 2017).

  56. Trajtenberg, M. Patents, Citations and Innovations: Tracing the Links (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1987).

  57. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J. & Mahajan, A. Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res. Policy 43, 1164–1176 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. Organizational Ecology (Harvard Univ. Press, 1989).

  59. Blackwell, M., Iacus, S., King, G. & Porro, G. CEM: coarsened exact matching in Stata. Stata J. 9, 524–546 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Cleantech Group for providing access to their i3 database. We also acknowledge excellent research assistance by A. Amini, B. Dirscherl, P. Gigglinger, A. Hammerstingl, S. Kurowski, C. Lex and N. Schlosser. We acknowledge funding from the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation H2020 under grant agreement no. 730403 (INNOPATHS) and from the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program. We also acknowledge a grant from John and Elizabeth Armstrong.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



A.G., C.D. and L.D.A. designed the study. A.G. and C.D. collected data. A.G. analysed data and ran statistical tests. A.G. and C.D. wrote the paper. L.D.A and E.B. guided the study and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Goldstein.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–11, Fig. 1, Note 1 and refs. 1–10.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Stata file with 1,287 de-identified cleantech startups.

Supplementary Data 2

Stata file with company-year observations of outcomes for cleantech startups 2011–2017.

Supplementary Code 1

Stata code to reproduce regression results in Table 1, Table 2 and Supplementary Table 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldstein, A., Doblinger, C., Baker, E. et al. Patenting and business outcomes for cleantech startups funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. Nat Energy 5, 803–810 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing