Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Entrepreneurship policy and targets: the case of a low absorptive capacity region

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the existence of a positive relationship between new firm creation and economic growth, a certain controversy still exists regarding the need for the public promotion of entrepreneurship. The recent surge of entrepreneurship policies encompasses a wide variety of instruments and goals that are mainly designed and implemented at a regional or local level, which allows for a more efficient use of public resources. Case studies are therefore a useful approach to assessing “good practices” in entrepreneurship policies. We adopt this approach to empirically analyse whether policies are targeting specific entrepreneurial projects or not in the region of Valencia. We identify the features (in relation to the entrepreneur, the sector and the characteristics of the project itself) that may influence greater access to public funding and are principally related to standard requirements for this means of financing. These variables do not address specific entrepreneurial profiles, sectors or applicant projects, thereby revealing a substantial degree of horizontal policy design. Other features, such as almost all entrepreneurial characteristics (previous experience, age, etc.), do not seem relevant in terms of receiving public funds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asheim, B., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Entrepreneurship Policy and the Strategic Management of Places. In D. M. Hart (Ed.), The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Government, Start-ups and Growth in the U.S. Knowledge Economy (pp. 20–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Thurik, R. (2001). “Linking Entrepreneurship and Growth” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2001/2, OECD Publishing, doi:10.1787/736170038056.

  • Azagra-Caro, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez, A., & Fernandez, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35(1), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive and Destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, R., & Dawley, S. (2004). The territorial development of innovation support assets through university-business interactions. In R. Wink (Ed.), Academia-Business Links. European policy strategies and lessons learnt (pp. 197–223). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzler, G., & Wink, R. (2005). Managing changes to integrative technologies. The case of biophotonics, International Journal of Learning and Change, 1(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarvesio, M., di Maria, E., & Micelli, S. (2004). From local networks of SMEs to virtual districts? Evidence from recent trends in Italy. Research Policy, 33(10), 1509–1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the chase of academic spin-offs companies in Italy. R & D Management, 30(4), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2004). Regional innovation system barriers and the rise of boundary crossing institutions. In R. Wink (Ed.), Academia-Business Links. European policy strategies and lessons learnt (pp. 224–245). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1981). A New Look at Business Entry: Experiences of 1805 Entrepreneurs. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: The Proceedings of the Babson Conference on Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 1–20). Wellesley: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, S. (2005). Exploring the role of proximity in SME knowledge-acquisition. Research Policy, 34(5), 683–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Barrio-Castro, T., & García-Quevedo, J. (2005). Effects of university research on the geography of innovation. Regional Studies, 39(9), 1217–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers, P., & Sautet, F. (2008). Entrepreneurial Policy: The Case of Regional Specialization vs. Spontaneous Industrial Diversity. Entrepreneurship. Theory and Practice, 32(5), 813–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., & Schilder, A. (2002). The Regulation of Entry. Quaterly Journal of Economics, 97(1), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doloreux, D. (2004). Regional Innovation systems in Canada: A comparative study. Regional Studies, 38(5), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doutriaux, J. (1991). University culture, spinoff strategy, and success of academic entrepreneurs at Canadian universities. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 406–421). Wellesley, MS: Babson College.

  • Duckett, J. (2001). Bureaucrats in business, Chinese-style: The lessons of market reform and state entrepreneurialism in the people´s Republic of China. World Development, 29(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, G., & Shapira, P. (2005). Rethinking Regional Innovation and Change: Path Dependency or Regional Breakthrough?. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Quevedo, J., & Mas-Verdú, F. (2008). Does only size matter in the use of knowledge intensive services? Small Business Economics, 31(2), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2008). Creación de empresas en la Comunidad Valenciana. Informe Ejecutivo 2007. Elche: Universidad Miguel Hernández.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gohmann, S., Hobbs, B., & McCrickard, M. (2008). Economic Freedom and Service Industry Growth in the United States. Entrepreneurship. Theory and Practice, 32(5), 855–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmaakorpi, V., & Melkas, H. (2005). Knowledge management in regional innovation systems: The case of Lahti. European Planning Studies, 13(5), 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. (2002). Building the Rural Economy with High-Growth Entrepreneurs. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 87(3), 45–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández, F., & Soler, V. (2003). Cuantificación del efecto distrito a través de medidas no radiales de eficiencia técnica. Investigaciones Regionales, 3, 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Public policy toward entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 15(4), 283–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. A., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2000). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. (1997). The internationalization of born globals: an evolutionary process? International Business Review, 6(6), 561–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, H., Neergaard, H., & Ulhoi, J. (2003). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship and human capital. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(4), 426–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Gomez, V., Baviera-Puig, A., & Mas-Verdú, F. (2010). Innovation policy, services and internationalisation: The role of technology centres. Service Industries Journal,. doi:10.1080/02642060802398101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (1999). Entrepreneurial Activity and Economic Growth. Global Business and Economics Review, 1(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (2008). The Role of Government Policy on Entrepreneurial Activity: Productive, Unproductive, or Destructive? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 779–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9), 1501–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1999). A framework for understanding accelerated international entrepreneurship. In A. M. Rugman & R. W. Wright (Eds.), Research in global strategic management: International entrepreneurship (pp. 23–40). Stamford: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pages, E. R., Freedman, P., & Von Bargen, P. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a State and local Development strategy. In D. M. Hart (Ed.), The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Government, Start-ups and Growth in the U.S. Knowledge Economy (pp. 249–259). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Hay, M., Bygrave, W., Camp, S. M., & Autio, E. (2000). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report. Kansas City: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson, K., Gurdon, M. (1990). Entreprenurial scientists: organizacional performance in scientist-started high technology firms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, (pp. 437–451). Wellesley, MS: Babson College.

  • Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2002). Is subsidizing Entry an Optimal Policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the Process of Firm’s Entry, Survival and Growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: the effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmie, J. (2005). Innovation and space: A critical review of the literature. Regional Studies, 39(6), 789–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, L., & Lundstrom, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tura, T., & Harmaakorpi, V. (2005). Social capital in building regional innovative capability. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1111–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, J., & Ball, J. (1981). Entrepreneurs and their companies. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, (pp. 65–83). Wellesley, MS: Babson College.

  • Verheul, I., Wennekers, S., Audretsch, D., Thurik, R. (2001). An eclectic theory of entrepreneurship: policies, institutions and culture. TI 2001-030/3, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/01030.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2009.

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Smalll Business Economics, 13(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharakis, A., Bygrave, W., & Shepherd, D. (2000). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: National Entrepreneurship Assessment: United States of America. Kansas City: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Francisco Mas-Verdú would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (project number ECO2008-04708/ECON) for its support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Francisco Mas-Verdú, Amparo Baviera-Puig & Victor Martinez-Gomez

  2. International Economics Group, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Francisco Mas-Verdú & Victor Martinez-Gomez

Authors
  1. Francisco Mas-Verdú
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amparo Baviera-Puig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor Martinez-Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Mas-Verdú.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mas-Verdú, F., Baviera-Puig, A. & Martinez-Gomez, V. Entrepreneurship policy and targets: the case of a low absorptive capacity region. Int Entrep Manag J 5, 243–258 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0112-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0112-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation