N. Bloom, T. Hassan, Aakash Kalyani, J. Lerner, Ahmed Tahoun
We identify novel technologies using textual analysis of patents, job postings, and earnings calls. Our approach enables us to identify and document the diffusion of 29 disruptive technologies across firms and labor markets in the U.S. Five stylized facts emerge from our data. First, the locations where technologies are developed that later disrupt businesses are geographically highly concentrated, even more so than overall patenting. Second, as the technologies mature and the number of new jobs related to them grows, they gradually spread across space. While initial hiring is concentrated in high-skilled jobs, over time the mean skill level in new positions associated with the technologies declines, broadening the types of jobs that adopt a given technology. At the same time, the geographic diffusion of low-skilled positions is significantly faster than higher-skilled ones, so that the locations where initial discoveries were made retain their leading positions among high-paying positions for decades. Finally, these technology hubs are more likely to arise in areas with universities and high skilled labor pools. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
{"title":"The Diffusion of Disruptive Technologies","authors":"N. Bloom, T. Hassan, Aakash Kalyani, J. Lerner, Ahmed Tahoun","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3875827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3875827","url":null,"abstract":"We identify novel technologies using textual analysis of patents, job postings, and earnings calls. Our approach enables us to identify and document the diffusion of 29 disruptive technologies across firms and labor markets in the U.S. Five stylized facts emerge from our data. First, the locations where technologies are developed that later disrupt businesses are geographically highly concentrated, even more so than overall patenting. Second, as the technologies mature and the number of new jobs related to them grows, they gradually spread across space. While initial hiring is concentrated in high-skilled jobs, over time the mean skill level in new positions associated with the technologies declines, broadening the types of jobs that adopt a given technology. At the same time, the geographic diffusion of low-skilled positions is significantly faster than higher-skilled ones, so that the locations where initial discoveries were made retain their leading positions among high-paying positions for decades. Finally, these technology hubs are more likely to arise in areas with universities and high skilled labor pools. \u0000 \u0000Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128046447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Entrepreneurs have the potential to create new jobs in their communities, bring new products and services to the market, and change the way we lead our lives. But it’s not enough to have a good idea. Some aspiring entrepreneurs encounter barriers that prevent them from ever starting a business. And those entrepreneurs who do start businesses may face challenges that limit the ability of their businesses to flourish. As a result, individuals and communities may collectively lose out on the new jobs, products, services, and innovations that were never created.
What are the biggest barriers facing entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs? Where are they getting stuck? What prevents businesses from getting off the ground? What inhibits the entrepreneurs from thriving? Understanding the barriers entrepreneurs encounter along their journeys can help entrepreneurship supporters – including nonprofits, funders, policymakers, investors, and researchers – better understand how to help entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs.
The report includes the results from our survey and key considerations for entrepreneurship supporters.
{"title":"Challenges Along the Entrepreneurial Journey: Considerations for Entrepreneurship Supporters","authors":"J. Looze, S. Desai","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3637048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3637048","url":null,"abstract":"Entrepreneurs have the potential to create new jobs in their communities, bring new products and services to the market, and change the way we lead our lives. But it’s not enough to have a good idea. Some aspiring entrepreneurs encounter barriers that prevent them from ever starting a business. And those entrepreneurs who do start businesses may face challenges that limit the ability of their businesses to flourish. As a result, individuals and communities may collectively lose out on the new jobs, products, services, and innovations that were never created.<br><br>What are the biggest barriers facing entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs? Where are they getting stuck? What prevents businesses from getting off the ground? What inhibits the entrepreneurs from thriving? Understanding the barriers entrepreneurs encounter along their journeys can help entrepreneurship supporters – including nonprofits, funders, policymakers, investors, and researchers – better understand how to help entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs.<br><br>The report includes the results from our survey and key considerations for entrepreneurship supporters.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132753973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since 1980 universities have been able to commercialize inventions that their faculty researchers create as per the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517). Research universities can now own and license these inventions to small and well established companies. Since 1980, research universities have used tech commercialization to support their regional economies with product development and sales, and academic entrepreneurship resulting in university spinoffs and start-up business formations. This results in job creation. The technology transfer offices (TTOs) which were established at many research universities to manage this process have been studied quite extensively. However, the foundational elements that fuel successful TTO performance has not been studied comprehensively. Instead, there are numerous fragmented studies that date back to the early 1980s. In addition, there is no agreed upon common theory for studying university technology and how these elemental inputs related to performance outputs.
Thus, herein it is advocated that the resource-based view (J. Barney, 1991) and theory on environmental munificence (Castrogiovanni, 1991, 2002) be used as a theoretical framework for researching university technology commercialization. Competitive resources in a more munificent environment can make it easier for an organization to survive and prosper.
{"title":"A Cochrane Method Systematic Review of University Tech Commercialization Research","authors":"C. Hamilton","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3298480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3298480","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1980 universities have been able to commercialize inventions that their faculty researchers create as per the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (P.L. 96-517). Research universities can now own and license these inventions to small and well established companies. Since 1980, research universities have used tech commercialization to support their regional economies with product development and sales, and academic entrepreneurship resulting in university spinoffs and start-up business formations. This results in job creation. The technology transfer offices (TTOs) which were established at many research universities to manage this process have been studied quite extensively. However, the foundational elements that fuel successful TTO performance has not been studied comprehensively. Instead, there are numerous fragmented studies that date back to the early 1980s. In addition, there is no agreed upon common theory for studying university technology and how these elemental inputs related to performance outputs.<br><br>Thus, herein it is advocated that the resource-based view (J. Barney, 1991) and theory on environmental munificence (Castrogiovanni, 1991, 2002) be used as a theoretical framework for researching university technology commercialization. Competitive resources in a more munificent environment can make it easier for an organization to survive and prosper.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131448366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is expanding globally. PPP contracts have become the main vehicle to incorporate private-sector skills, resources, and risk management into the delivery of critical infrastructure facilities. PPPs include two key elements: bundling together, in some combination, facility design, construction, operation, maintenance, and financing, along with the meaningful transfer of infrastructure-related risks to private partners. PPPs have been used to deliver network infrastructure such as roads, bridges, tunnels, and water systems, as well as social infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and courthouses. Properly designed, executed, and enforced PPPs can create substantial social value. Poorly designed PPPs, however, can generate social costs. Therefore, ensuring careful end-to-end management of the PPP process is crucial to their success.
Countries around the world are addressing those challenges by creating PPP units. PPP units are quasi-governmental entities that assist the public sector with pre-project screening, project prioritization, education, and expert advice. PPP units have been established in Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Egypt, the United Kingdom, and India, among many other countries. They strive to ensure that infrastructure projects attract private participation while promoting the public interest. Despite their global popularity, PPP units remain relatively understudied and underused in the United States.
PPP units have effectively supported private participation in infrastructure around the world. Because the US lags behind other developed countries in PPP use, the benefits of such units would likely be large if implemented here. In this report, we consider how the United States can effectively use PPP units. Fifty such units would emerge if undertaken at the state level. This would result in many relatively small units with minimal PPP deal flow that fail to capture economies in size and scope. Alternatively, a single large federal PPP unit could create problems of its own. We explore a middle ground: creating seven regional PPP units in conjunction with a federal unit. Modeled roughly on the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX), these regional PPP units mirror the seven emerging US economic megaregions. Their formation would occur in concert with evolving federal PPP unit efforts.
We then review the set of benefits generated by our proposed regional PPP units. Benefits include greater public-sector understanding of and expertise in PPP project delivery, discovering and implementing global best practices, improved project screening and prioritization, lower transaction costs associated with PPPs, and the allocation of capital to higher-valued projects. Greater reliance on PPP units would refocus US infrastructure investment on asset performance, rigorous project evaluation, and enhanced public-sector procurement capacity. PPP units would also a
{"title":"Private Participation in US Infrastructure: The Role of PPP Units","authors":"Carter B. Casady, R. Geddes","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3306259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306259","url":null,"abstract":"The use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is expanding globally. PPP contracts have become the main vehicle to incorporate private-sector skills, resources, and risk management into the delivery of critical infrastructure facilities. PPPs include two key elements: bundling together, in some combination, facility design, construction, operation, maintenance, and financing, along with the meaningful transfer of infrastructure-related risks to private partners. PPPs have been used to deliver network infrastructure such as roads, bridges, tunnels, and water systems, as well as social infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and courthouses. Properly designed, executed, and enforced PPPs can create substantial social value. Poorly designed PPPs, however, can generate social costs. Therefore, ensuring careful end-to-end management of the PPP process is crucial to their success.<br><br>Countries around the world are addressing those challenges by creating PPP units. PPP units are quasi-governmental entities that assist the public sector with pre-project screening, project prioritization, education, and expert advice. PPP units have been established in Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Egypt, the United Kingdom, and India, among many other countries. They strive to ensure that infrastructure projects attract private participation while promoting the public interest. Despite their global popularity, PPP units remain relatively understudied and underused in the United States.<br><br>PPP units have effectively supported private participation in infrastructure around the world. Because the US lags behind other developed countries in PPP use, the benefits of such units would likely be large if implemented here. In this report, we consider how the United States can effectively use PPP units. Fifty such units would emerge if undertaken at the state level. This would result in many relatively small units with minimal PPP deal flow that fail to capture economies in size and scope. Alternatively, a single large federal PPP unit could create problems of its own. We explore a middle ground: creating seven regional PPP units in conjunction with a federal unit. Modeled roughly on the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX), these regional PPP units mirror the seven emerging US economic megaregions. Their formation would occur in concert with evolving federal PPP unit efforts.<br><br>We then review the set of benefits generated by our proposed regional PPP units. Benefits include greater public-sector understanding of and expertise in PPP project delivery, discovering and implementing global best practices, improved project screening and prioritization, lower transaction costs associated with PPPs, and the allocation of capital to higher-valued projects. Greater reliance on PPP units would refocus US infrastructure investment on asset performance, rigorous project evaluation, and enhanced public-sector procurement capacity. PPP units would also a","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127709842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Innovation policy has developed along two broad fronts: market failure and systems failure. Both focus on investing in innovation (solving a market incentive problem) and building infrastructure for innovation (solving an institutional coordination problem). But an alternative approach to innovation policy, suggested by Juma (2016), is to focus on overcoming latent resistance through inclusive innovation (solving a socio-behavioural resistance problem). We distinguish between innovation policy that seeks to ‘help its friends’ versus innovation policy based about ‘engaging its enemies’. This paper explores what an inclusive innovation policy approach based on engaging with the enemies of innovation might look like and how it would be developed.
{"title":"Keep Your Friends Close, Your Enemies Closer: The Case for Inclusive Innovation Policy","authors":"J. Potts, Darcy W. E. Allen, T. MacDonald","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2836301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2836301","url":null,"abstract":"Innovation policy has developed along two broad fronts: market failure and systems failure. Both focus on investing in innovation (solving a market incentive problem) and building infrastructure for innovation (solving an institutional coordination problem). But an alternative approach to innovation policy, suggested by Juma (2016), is to focus on overcoming latent resistance through inclusive innovation (solving a socio-behavioural resistance problem). We distinguish between innovation policy that seeks to ‘help its friends’ versus innovation policy based about ‘engaging its enemies’. This paper explores what an inclusive innovation policy approach based on engaging with the enemies of innovation might look like and how it would be developed.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125742020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyses the impact of R&D on economic performance in Singapore from 1978 to 2012 through the use of time series analysis. The Cobb-Douglas based analysis establishes a long-run equilibrium relationship between Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and R&D investments. We found that short-run productivity of R&D in Singapore is comparable to the smaller advanced economics in the OECD. However, in terms of long-run R&D productivity, Singapore lags slightly behind the smaller OECD nations and far behind the G7 countries. This suggests leakage of value capture and low absorptive capacity in local firms. Possibility of productivity improvements induced by policy changes in the 1990s was considered but no evidence of significant structural breaks was found. Lastly, Granger-causality analysis reveals that public sector R&D augments private sector R&D capital, thus playing an important role in generating externalities and spillover effects. Policy implications and lessons for other middle-income countries are discussed.
{"title":"The Impact of R&D on the Singapore Economy: A Time Series Analysis","authors":"Y. Ho, P. Wong","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2719442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2719442","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the impact of R&D on economic performance in Singapore from 1978 to 2012 through the use of time series analysis. The Cobb-Douglas based analysis establishes a long-run equilibrium relationship between Total Factor Productivity (TFP) and R&D investments. We found that short-run productivity of R&D in Singapore is comparable to the smaller advanced economics in the OECD. However, in terms of long-run R&D productivity, Singapore lags slightly behind the smaller OECD nations and far behind the G7 countries. This suggests leakage of value capture and low absorptive capacity in local firms. Possibility of productivity improvements induced by policy changes in the 1990s was considered but no evidence of significant structural breaks was found. Lastly, Granger-causality analysis reveals that public sector R&D augments private sector R&D capital, thus playing an important role in generating externalities and spillover effects. Policy implications and lessons for other middle-income countries are discussed.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"67 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130953971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fabio Kon, D. Cukier, C. Melo, O. Hazzan, Harry Yuklea
Startups are an effective way of promoting innovation in the software industry. This article intends to improve the theoretical and practical understanding of the key elements and factors that promote the growth of a successful ecosystem by exploring the case of Israel, which hosts one of the most fruitful software startup ecosystems in the world. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. The data analysis led to answers to research questions related to sociocultural, institutional, technological, methodological, and educational aspects of entrepreneurship, startups, and their ecosystem. The article also introduces a conceptual framework of the Israeli startup ecosystem and presents lessons for entrepreneurs and policy makers. Finally, it proposes a generalized version of the framework that can be used as a basis for future research in the field.
{"title":"A Panorama of the Israeli Software Startup Ecosystem","authors":"Fabio Kon, D. Cukier, C. Melo, O. Hazzan, Harry Yuklea","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2441157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2441157","url":null,"abstract":"Startups are an effective way of promoting innovation in the software industry. This article intends to improve the theoretical and practical understanding of the key elements and factors that promote the growth of a successful ecosystem by exploring the case of Israel, which hosts one of the most fruitful software startup ecosystems in the world. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. The data analysis led to answers to research questions related to sociocultural, institutional, technological, methodological, and educational aspects of entrepreneurship, startups, and their ecosystem. The article also introduces a conceptual framework of the Israeli startup ecosystem and presents lessons for entrepreneurs and policy makers. Finally, it proposes a generalized version of the framework that can be used as a basis for future research in the field.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115450373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Papantoniou, M. Meimaris, M. Vafopoulos, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos, G. Alexiou, I. Xidias, G. Vafeiadis, V. Loumos
Web technologies have evolved to effectively support the creation and existence of Linked Open Data (LOD) within the web. However, the production and mass consumption of LOD have been a matter of debate over methodologies, best practices, and technologies that should be employed. Particularly in the case of government LOD, the production and publication lifecycle needs to follow a methodological approach. The paper presents publicspending.gr, a 5-star LOD project focusing on Greek Public spending as a case of LD application that is developed according to a methodological approach, following a specific Linked Data Production Life Cycle.
{"title":"A Methodological Approach on Linked Open Data Production: The Publicspending.Gr Project","authors":"A. Papantoniou, M. Meimaris, M. Vafopoulos, Ioannis Anagnostopoulos, G. Alexiou, I. Xidias, G. Vafeiadis, V. Loumos","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2193600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2193600","url":null,"abstract":"Web technologies have evolved to effectively support the creation and existence of Linked Open Data (LOD) within the web. However, the production and mass consumption of LOD have been a matter of debate over methodologies, best practices, and technologies that should be employed. Particularly in the case of government LOD, the production and publication lifecycle needs to follow a methodological approach. The paper presents publicspending.gr, a 5-star LOD project focusing on Greek Public spending as a case of LD application that is developed according to a methodological approach, following a specific Linked Data Production Life Cycle.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129804164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores the intersection of two issues that often are thought of separately: the need for sustained economic recovery in the United States, and the status of women’s entrepreneurship. Despite recent gains, women still lag behind men on key measures of startup activity, and their firms tend not to grow or prosper nearly as much. Typically, this is seen as a - women’s issue. It is framed as a problem to be dealt with for the benefit of women, in the interest of gender equality. In fact, it is an economic issue that affects everyone. Research has shown that startups, especially high-growth startups, are the keys to job creation and leadership in new industries. With nearly half of the workforce and more than half of our college students now being women, their lag in building high-growth firms has become a major economic deficit. The nation has fewer jobs - and less strength in emerging industries - than it could if women’s entrepreneurship were on par with men’s. Women capable of starting growth companies may well be our greatest under-utilized economic resource. And what would it take to develop the resource more fully? We at the Kauffman Foundation hope this paper will help to stimulate new thinking on the subject. The following themes run throughout: While every entrepreneur, big or small, helps the economy, the emphasis here is on those who start high-growth companies, which help the most. More women’s startups need to be aimed at growth targets far above the oft-cited benchmark of $1 million in revenues. There is a particular need for innovative, transformative new firms that can grow to serve global markets. Many (though not all) high-growth firms are built around new science and technology. With more women than ever entering these fields, the upside potential for women’s tech startups is huge. What it takes to succeed in business is not necessarily the same as what it takes to succeed in starting a business. While women have made great strides in breaking through the proverbial - glass ceiling - to advance to high rank within corporations, few have made similar strides in breaking out laterally - through what might be called the - glass walls - to start their own high-growth firms. What it will take‖ to have more high-impact women entrepreneurs includes all of the following: what women themselves might need to do, what men might do, and what might be done collectively in the way of public policies or private initiatives. Finally, to reiterate the main point: It is essential to see women’s entrepreneurship as an economic issue, not a gender-equity issue. When new companies and industries flourish, everyone benefits. And the returns will increase when more women contribute to the process by bringing their ideas to market and building high-growth firms around them.
{"title":"Overcoming the Gender Gap: Women Entrepreneurs as Economic Drivers","authors":"Lesa Mitchell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1934906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1934906","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the intersection of two issues that often are thought of separately: the need for sustained economic recovery in the United States, and the status of women’s entrepreneurship. Despite recent gains, women still lag behind men on key measures of startup activity, and their firms tend not to grow or prosper nearly as much. Typically, this is seen as a - women’s issue. It is framed as a problem to be dealt with for the benefit of women, in the interest of gender equality. In fact, it is an economic issue that affects everyone. Research has shown that startups, especially high-growth startups, are the keys to job creation and leadership in new industries. With nearly half of the workforce and more than half of our college students now being women, their lag in building high-growth firms has become a major economic deficit. The nation has fewer jobs - and less strength in emerging industries - than it could if women’s entrepreneurship were on par with men’s. Women capable of starting growth companies may well be our greatest under-utilized economic resource. And what would it take to develop the resource more fully? We at the Kauffman Foundation hope this paper will help to stimulate new thinking on the subject. The following themes run throughout: While every entrepreneur, big or small, helps the economy, the emphasis here is on those who start high-growth companies, which help the most. More women’s startups need to be aimed at growth targets far above the oft-cited benchmark of $1 million in revenues. There is a particular need for innovative, transformative new firms that can grow to serve global markets. Many (though not all) high-growth firms are built around new science and technology. With more women than ever entering these fields, the upside potential for women’s tech startups is huge. What it takes to succeed in business is not necessarily the same as what it takes to succeed in starting a business. While women have made great strides in breaking through the proverbial - glass ceiling - to advance to high rank within corporations, few have made similar strides in breaking out laterally - through what might be called the - glass walls - to start their own high-growth firms. What it will take‖ to have more high-impact women entrepreneurs includes all of the following: what women themselves might need to do, what men might do, and what might be done collectively in the way of public policies or private initiatives. Finally, to reiterate the main point: It is essential to see women’s entrepreneurship as an economic issue, not a gender-equity issue. When new companies and industries flourish, everyone benefits. And the returns will increase when more women contribute to the process by bringing their ideas to market and building high-growth firms around them.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116353029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effectiveness of R&D subsidies can vary substantially depending on their characteristics. Specifically, the amount and intensity of such subsidies are crucial issues in the design of public schemes supporting private R&D. Public agencies determine the intensities of R&D subsidies for firms in line with their eligibility criteria, although assessing the effects of R&D projects accurately is far from straightforward. The main aim of this paper is to examine whether there is an optimal intensity for R&D subsidies through an analysis of their impact on private R&D effort. We examine the decisions of a public agency to grant subsidies taking into account not only the characteristics of the firms but also, as few previous studies have done to date, those of the R&D projects. In determining the optimal subsidy we use both parametric and nonparametric techniques. The results show a non-linear relationship between the percentage of subsidy received and the firms’ R&D effort. These results have implications for technology policy, particularly for the design of R&D subsidies that ensure enhanced effectiveness.
{"title":"The Link between Public Support and Private R&D Effort: What is the Optimal Subsidy?","authors":"Néstor Duch-Brown, J. García‐Quevedo, D. Montolio","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1864192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1864192","url":null,"abstract":"The effectiveness of R&D subsidies can vary substantially depending on their characteristics. Specifically, the amount and intensity of such subsidies are crucial issues in the design of public schemes supporting private R&D. Public agencies determine the intensities of R&D subsidies for firms in line with their eligibility criteria, although assessing the effects of R&D projects accurately is far from straightforward. The main aim of this paper is to examine whether there is an optimal intensity for R&D subsidies through an analysis of their impact on private R&D effort. We examine the decisions of a public agency to grant subsidies taking into account not only the characteristics of the firms but also, as few previous studies have done to date, those of the R&D projects. In determining the optimal subsidy we use both parametric and nonparametric techniques. The results show a non-linear relationship between the percentage of subsidy received and the firms’ R&D effort. These results have implications for technology policy, particularly for the design of R&D subsidies that ensure enhanced effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":315001,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: National (Sub-Topic)","volume":"187 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132329848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：