IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/entreg/v21y2009i3p285-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship

Author

Listed:
  • Steven C. Michael
  • John A. Pearce

Abstract

Governments around the world seek to support entrepreneurship, yet the justification for such intervention varies. Some governments support entrepreneurship as a means to create jobs. Others support entrepreneurship as a means to create competition in markets, with attendant lower prices. In this paper, we offer a different justification for government support for entrepreneurship: to support and encourage innovation. Innovation does raise competition, lower prices, and create jobs, but more importantly through innovation entrepreneurship creates wealth for individuals and nations. We offer a model of government support for entrepreneurship to yield innovation that is grounded in theory yet rich in practical implications. Innovation is stimulated when the innovator receives the resulting payoff (termed residual claims in economic theory). In many instances, because small firms concentrate residual claims more effectively than large firms, entrepreneurial firms out-innovate established corporations. To accelerate this process, government should advance policies that facilitate new business formation and the concentration of residual claims. Such a prescription suggests two direct approaches: raising the returns to entrepreneurship and reducing the risk. Each has specific policy implications that are discussed at length. Finally we analyse aiding entrepreneurship without a commitment to innovation, and our analysis suggests that this approach is unlikely to be as successful as the focus on innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven C. Michael & John A. Pearce, 2009. "The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 285-302, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:entreg:v:21:y:2009:i:3:p:285-302
    DOI: 10.1080/08985620802279999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/08985620802279999
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/08985620802279999?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Zoltan Acs & David Audretsch, 1990. "Innovation and Small Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011131, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael L. Katz & Howard A. Shelanski, 2005. "Merger Policy and Innovation: Must Enforcement Change to Account for Technological Change?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 5, pages 109-165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Andrew Copus & Dimitris Skuras & Kyriaki Tsegenidi, 2006. "Innovation and Peripherality: A Comparative Study in Six EU Member Countries," ERSA conference papers ersa06p295, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Becker Wolfgang & Peters Jürgen, 2005. "Innovation Effects of Science-Related Technological Opportunities / Innovationseffekte von technologischen Möglichkeiten aus dem Wissenschaftsbereich: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 225(2), pages 130-150, April.
    4. Fier, Andreas & Heneric, Oliver, 2005. "Public R&D Policy: The Right Turns of the Wrong Screw? The Case of the German Biotechnology Industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 05-60, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Mueller, Elisabeth & Zimmermann, Volker, 2006. "The Importance of Equity Finance for R&D Activity: Are There Differences Between Young and OldCompanies?," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-014, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Braunerhjelm, Pontus, 2010. "Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth - past experience, current knowledge and policy implications," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 224, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    7. Sophie Boutillier, 2019. "Small Entrepreneurship, Knowledge and Social Resources in a Heavy Industrial Territory. The Case of Eco-Innovations in Dunkirk, North of France," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(3), pages 997-1018, September.
    8. Douglas Cumming & Jeffrey MacIntosh, 2000. "The Determinants of R & D Expenditures: A Study of the Canadian Biotechnology Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(4), pages 357-370, December.
    9. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2014. "(International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1055-1066.
    10. Liu, Rebecca & Rammer, Christian, 2016. "The contribution of different public innovation funding programs to SMEs' export performance," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-078, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Michael Fritsch & Monika Meschede, 2001. "Product Innovation, Process Innovation, and Size," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 19(3), pages 335-350, November.
    12. Baltzopoulos, Apostolos, 2009. "The Firm and the Region as Breeding Grounds for Entrepreneurs," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 189, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    13. Banerjee, Rajabrata & Gupta, Kartick, 2021. "Do country or firm-specific factors matter more to R&D spending in firms?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 75-95.
    14. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    15. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Fox Merritt B., 2010. "Promoting Innovation: The Law of Publicly Traded Corporations," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 1-68, December.
    17. David Audretsch & Michael Fritsch, 2002. "Growth Regimes over Time and Space," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 113-124.
    18. Paunov, Caroline & Rollo, Valentina, 2016. "Has the Internet Fostered Inclusive Innovation in the Developing World?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 587-609.
    19. Berthold, Norbert & Gründler, Klaus, 2012. "Entrepreneurship and economic growth in a panel of countries," Discussion Paper Series 118, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    20. David B. Audretsch & Max Keilbach, 2006. "Entrepreneurship, Growth and Restructuring," Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2006-13, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:entreg:v:21:y:2009:i:3:p:285-302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TEPN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.