IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp2054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New venture creation: Innovativeness, speed-to-breakeven and revenue tradeoffs

Author

Listed:
  • Saul Estrin
  • Andrea Herrmann
  • Moren Levesque
  • Tomasz Mickiewicz
  • Mark Sanders

Abstract

We present a Schumpeterian growth model with new venture creation, under uncertainty, which explains the tradeoff between speed-to-breakeven, revenue-at-breakeven and relates this to the level of innovation. We then explore the tradeoffs between these outcomes empirically in a unique sample of 331 information and communication technology (ICT) ventures using a multi-input, multi-output stochastic frontier model. We estimate the contribution of financial capital and labor input to the outcomes and the tradeoffs between them, as well as address heterogeneity across ventures. We find that more innovative (and therefore more uncertain) ventures have lower speed-to-breakeven and/or lower revenue-at-breakeven. Moreover, for all innovativeness levels, new ventures face a tradeoff between speed-to-breakeven and revenue-at-breakeven. Our results suggest that it is the availability of proprietary resources (founder equity and labor) that helps ventures overcome bottlenecks in the innovation process, and we propose a line of research to explain the (large) unexplained variation in venture creation efficiency. Plain English Summary. This study examines how new businesses deal with uncertainty, focusing on the tradeoff between how quickly they become profitable (speed-to-breakeven) and how much revenue they generate when they do. We analyze data from 331 ICT ventures to understand these tradeoffs better, considering factors like financial resources and labor inputs. We find that more innovative ventures, which tend to be more uncertain, often take longer to reach profitability and may earn less when they do. Moreover, regardless of their level of innovation, all new ventures face a tradeoff between speed-to-breakeven and revenue. The study highlights that unique resources, such as founder equity and founder labor, help businesses overcome challenges in the innovation process. It also suggests further research to understand why some ventures are more efficient than others in the early stage of creating new businesses.

Suggested Citation

  • Saul Estrin & Andrea Herrmann & Moren Levesque & Tomasz Mickiewicz & Mark Sanders, 2024. "New venture creation: Innovativeness, speed-to-breakeven and revenue tradeoffs," CEP Discussion Papers dp2054, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    • Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp2054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp2054.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikael Samuelsson & Per Davidsson, 2009. "Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 229-255, August.
    2. Segerstrom, Paul S & Anant, T C A & Dinopoulos, Elias, 1990. "A Schumpeterian Model of the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1077-1091, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henrekson, Magnus & Johansson, Dan, 2025. "Neo-Schumpeterian Growth Theory: Missing Entrepreneurs Results in Incomplete Policy Advice," Working Paper Series 1514, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

    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. 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.
    2. Chen, Hung-Ju, 2019. "Innovation and FDI: Does the Target of Intellectual Property Rights Matter?," MPRA Paper 94692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Chu, Angus C. & Cozzi, Guido & Furukawa, Yuichi, 2016. "Unions, innovation and cross-country wage inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 104-118.
    4. Gilberto Tadeu Lima, 2000. "Market concentration and technological innovation in a dynamic model of growth and distribution," BNL Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 53(215), pages 447-475.
    5. Chol-Won Li, 2003. "Endogenous Growth Without Scale Effects: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 1009-1017, June.
    6. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    7. Yi-Ling Cheng & Juin-Jen Chang, 2017. "The Quality of Intermediate Goods: Growth and Welfare Implications," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(302), pages 434-447, September.
    8. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Shorter Product Cycles Induce Patent Thickets?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-098, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Chu, Angus C. & Pan, Shiyuan, 2013. "The Escape-Infringement Effect Of Blocking Patents On Innovation And Economic Growth," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 955-969, June.
    10. Rajat Acharyya & Prabal Roy Chowdhury, 2006. "Innovation incentives in an intergrated marketed with vertical product differentiation," Discussion Papers 06-02, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    11. Heiko Bergmann, 2017. "The formation of opportunity beliefs among university entrepreneurs: an empirical study of research- and non-research-driven venture ideas," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 116-140, February.
    12. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders and Product Cycles," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 557-586.
    13. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Howitt, Peter, 2014. "What Do We Learn From Schumpeterian Growth Theory?," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 515-563, Elsevier.
    14. Haruyama, Tetsugen & Zhao, Laixun, 2017. "Trade and firm heterogeneity in a Schumpeterian model of growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 540-563.
    15. Pozzolo, Alberto Franco, 2004. "Endogenous Growth in Open Economies - A Survey of Major Results," Economics & Statistics Discussion Papers esdp04020, University of Molise, Department of Economics.
    16. Chen, Hung-Ju, 2018. "Innovation And Imitation: Effects Of Intellectual Property Rights In A Product-Cycle Model Of Skills Accumulation," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(6), pages 1475-1509, September.
    17. Soete, Luc & Weel, Bas ter, 1999. "Schumpeter and the Knowledge-Based Economy: On Technology and Competition Policy," Research Memorandum 004, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Kerk Phillips & Jeffrey M. Wrase, 1999. "Schumpeterian growth and endogenous business cycles," Working Papers 99-20, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    19. Huy-Cuong Vo-Thai & Trinh-Hoang Hong-Hue & My-Linh Tran, 2021. "Technological- and Non-Technological Innovation During the Growth Phase of Industry Life Cycle: An Evidence From Vietnamese Manufacturing Enterprises," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    20. Alberto Franco Pozzolo, 2004. "Research and Development, Regional Spillovers and the Location of Economic Activities," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 72(4), pages 463-482, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    entrepreneurship; innovation; new venture creation; proprietary resources; stochastic frontier analysis; Schumpeterian growth model;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cep:cepdps:dp2054. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/discussion-papers/ .

    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.