Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- ENTREPRENEURSHIP, GROWTH, AND PUBLIC POLICY
- 1 Introduction: Why Entrepreneurship Matters
- PART I THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN INNOVATION
- PART II LINKING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GROWTH
- PART III POLICY
- 10 Entreprenomics
- 11 The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
- 12 Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe
- 13 Creating an Entrepreneurial Economy
- 14 “Entrepreneurial Capitalism” in Capitalist Development
- Index
- References
13 - Creating an Entrepreneurial Economy
The Role of Public Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
By
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- ENTREPRENEURSHIP, GROWTH, AND PUBLIC POLICY
- 1 Introduction: Why Entrepreneurship Matters
- PART I THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN INNOVATION
- PART II LINKING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TO GROWTH
- PART III POLICY
- 10 Entreprenomics
- 11 The Bayh-Dole Act and High-Technology Entrepreneurship in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s
- 12 Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe
- 13 Creating an Entrepreneurial Economy
- 14 “Entrepreneurial Capitalism” in Capitalist Development
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Policy-making for the promotion of regions (e.g., subnational spatial entities) and nations has dramatically changed. Over the last few decades all levels of government, from federal and regional to municipal, have become key players in the promotion of the entrepreneurial economy (Gilbert, Audretsch, and McDougall, 2004; Audretsch, Grimm, and Wessner, 2005). In this context, Audretsch and Thurik (2000) demonstrate that the re-emergence of entrepreneurship and the shift from a market economy to an entrepreneurial economy accelerated due to increased globalization and led to the development of new entrepreneurship policies, which were implemented at all levels of government. As outlined in Chapter 1, and explored in more detail in Chapter 10, the entrepreneurial economy is driven by change and innovation and is characterized by a high degree of turbulence and diversity. This stands in contrast to the managed economy. In this context, Haltiwanger provides fresh data showing that “creative destruction” – meaning a high turnover rate of new but also dying firms which is one characteristic of an entrepreneurial economy – is conducive to economic growth:
The high net growth and high volatility of young firms points towards creative destruction interpretations of U.S. growth dynamics.… [I]t is the process of creative destruction that is contributing to growth. With creative destruction, there is ongoing innovation and market experimentation with a high degree of churning contributing to growth. Of course, this implies that some firms are successful and grow while others are not successful and contract (and perhaps exit). Amongst young firms since both outcomes are likely it is hardly appropriate to target young firms as the sources of growth. […]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Public Policy , pp. 299 - 318Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, , and . 1992. “Real Effects of Academic Research: Comment.” American Economic Review, 82, 363–367.Google Scholar
. 1997. The Ten Causes of the Reagan Boom, 1982–1997. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
, and . 1995. “The Globalization of Technology: A New Taxonomy.” Journal of Economics, 19(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
. 1995. “The Innovation, Unemployment and Competitiveness Challenge in Germany.” Discussion Paper FS IV 95–6, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets: The U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.” Small Business Economics, 20(2), 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1996. “R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production.” American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.Google Scholar
, and . 2000. “Capitalism and Democracy in the 21st Century: From the Managed to the Entrepreneurial Economy.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2005a. “The Knowledge Filter and Economic Growth: The Role of Scientist Entrepreneurship.” Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group, Working Paper, 10 April, 66 pages.Google Scholar
, , and . 2005b. Local Heroes in the Global Village. Globalization and New Entrepreneurship Policies. New York: Springer Science + Media Inc.Google Scholar
, , and . 2006. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2002. “Zur Abschaffung des Hochschullehrerprivilegs (§42 ArBEG) – Auswirkungen auf den Abschluss von Forschungsaufträgen.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Patentanwälte, 165–170.Google Scholar
, and . 2002. “Erfindungen an Hochschulen – Zur Neufassung des §42 ArBEG.”Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrrecht, 743–758.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Die internationale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der deutschen Wirtschaft im weltweiten Strukturwandel: Konzeptionelle Analyse und empirische Beurteilung.” Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 5, Volks- und Betriebswirtschaft, 1502.Google Scholar
. 1992. “Zur Lage der US-Wirtschaft. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven am Ende der ersten Amtszeit von George Bush.” Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 42(44), 35–42.Google Scholar
. 2000. “EXIST – University-based Start-ups, Networks for Innovative Company Start-ups.” Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
. 2001. “2. Förderrichtlinie, des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung zur BMBF-Verwertungsoffensive – Initiative Innovation durch Patentierung und Verwertung (IPV).” Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
, and . 1993. Technology for America's Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength. DIANE Publishing Company, July.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Technologiepolitik und Technikdiffusion. Auswahl und Einsatz von Förderinstrumenten am Beispiel der Fertigungstechnik.” Karlsruher Beiträge zur wirtschaftspolitischen Forschung, Band 5, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
, and . 1998. “Entrepreneurial Science: the Second Academic Revolution.” In , , and (eds.), Capitalizing Knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 2004. “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy.” Small Business Economics, 22(3–4), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2002. “Bottom-up versus Top–down Policies towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property.” Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Assessing Entrepreneurship Policies Across Nations and Regions.” In , , and (eds.), Local Heroes in the Global Village: Globalization and New Entrepreneurship Policies. New York: Springer Science + Media, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “An Exploratory Transatlantic Study with Local-Global Perspectives.” International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1167–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “It's the Economy, Stupid.” In Dietmar Herz, USA Verstehen. Vienna: Südwind-Buchwelt, 60–64.Google Scholar
, , and . 1993. “Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2004. “Patent Licensing and the Research University.” September 2004, NBER Working Paper No. W10758. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=590773.
. 2000. “The Regionalisation of Innovation Policy in Germany – Theoretical Foundations and Recent Experience.” Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region, R1/ 2000. Karlsruhe: ISI.Google Scholar
, , , and . 2005. “The Creation of Spinoff Firms at Public Research Institutions: Managerial and Policy Implications.” Research Policy, 34, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University.” In , , and (eds.), Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
, and . 2002. “Academic Patent Quality and Quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States.” Research Policy, 31, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and . 2001. “The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.” Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2000a. “Benchmarking Industry–Science Relationships.” OECDParis.
. 2000b. “Highlights.” OECDParis.
, and . 1991. “Large Firms in the Production of the World's Technology: An Important Case of Non-Globalisation.” Journal of International Business Studies, First Quarter, 1–21.Google Scholar
, , and . 2006. “Initiatives to Promote Commercialization of University Knowledge.” Technovation, 26, 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Implications for Europe.” In , , and , eds., Local Heroes in the Global Village: Globalization and New Entrepreneurship Policies. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 174–175.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Der amerikanische ‘Wohlfahrtsstaat’ von Roosevelt bis Clinton.” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 4, 579–616.Google Scholar
, and . 2003. “The Increasing Importance of Geographical Proximity in Technological Innovation: An Analysis of U.S. Patent Citations, 1975–1997.” Paper presented at “What Do We Know about Innovation? Conference in Honour of Keith Pavitt,” Sussex University, UK, copy available from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/events/KP_Conf_03/.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Small Business Innovation Research Program SBIR, Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Entrepreneurship and the Innovation Ecosystem. Policy Lessons from the United States.” In , , and (eds.), Local Heroes in the Global Village: Globalization and New Entrepreneurship Policies. New York: Springer Science + Media, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
., and . 1996. “Star Scientists and Institutional Transformation: Patterns of Invention and Innovation in the Formation of the Biotechnology Industry.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93, 12709–12716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 5
- Cited by