Search

Having served under David at the Max Planck Institute in Jena, the authors witnessed first hand as he worked to build up entrepreneurship as an academic discipline. While he was building this community in the field writ-large, he was also building a strong network of entrepreneurship scholars within the team itself. While reflecting upon the benefits of cognitive biases such as optimism for entrepreneurial knowledge spillovers and demonstrating context-dependency of the benefits and drawbacks of cognitive biases, the authors also connect this to how they have experienced David's way of developing a research network.

The development of regions is considerably shaped by their history. We review research that finds significant persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship over longer periods of time. It is argued that the long term persistence of regional entrepreneurship indicates the presence and effect of a culture of entrepreneurship that is conducive to new business formation and regional growth. Hence, regional development is characterized by long term trajectories of entrepreneurship. We derive a number of policy implications and propose avenues for further research.

We formulate a model that explicitly separates two functions in the innovation process: The introduction of new goods and the quality improvement of existing goods. While the latter is performed by the corporate R&D sector, the first is performed by entrepreneurs. We show that in a three sector economy, which also includes a producing sector, there exists a stable non trivial allocation of labor to production, innovation and entrepreneurship. We compute the steady state allocation of labor to production, R&D and Entrepreneurship. We show that the innovation rate decreases if one of the innovative sectors does not exist.

Whereas initially physical capital and later, knowledge capital were viewed as crucial for growth, more recently a very different factor, entrepreneurship capital, has emerged as a dri-ving force of economic growth. In this paper, we define a region’s capacity to create new firms start-ups as the region’s entrepreneurship capital. We then investigate the local embedded-ness of this variable and which variables have an impact on this variable. Using data for Ger-many, we find that knowledge-based entrepreneurship capital is driven by local levels of knowledge creation and the acceptance of new ideas, indicating that local knowledge flows play an important role. Low-tech entrepreneurship capital is rather increased by regional un-employment and driven by direct incentives such as subsidies. All three measures are locally clustered, indicating that indeed, entrepreneurship capital is a phenomenon that is driven by local culture, and is therefore locally bounded.

Public policy spanning a broad range of contexts, ranging from the European Union, to states, cities, and local communities around the globe has turned to entrepreneurship to provide the engine for economic growth, competitiveness in globally linked markets, and jobs. This book explains why entrepreneurship has emerged as a bona fide instrument of growth policy. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship suggests that entrepreneurship provides a crucial mechanism in the process of economic growth by serving as a conduit for knowledge spillovers. Investments in new knowledge and ideas may not automatically spill over and result in commercialization, as has typically been assumed in models of economic growth. Rather, the existence of what is introduced as the knowledge filter impedes the spillover and commercialization of investments in new ideas and knowledge. By penetrating the knowledge filter and facilitating the spillover of knowledge that might otherwise not be commercialized, entrepreneurship provides the missing link to economic growth. This new focus of entrepreneurship as a conduit transmitting the spillover of knowledge generates a series of theoretical propositions, involving not just the impact of entrepreneurship on economic performance and growth, but also the very nature of entrepreneurship. The book concludes that the new millennium may not be so much about the process of Joseph Schumpeter's creative destruction, where entrepreneurial startups displace and ultimately drive incumbent company's out of business, but rather characterized by creative construction.

Since the early 1980s, the role and general perception of entrepreneurship and start-up activities has changed drastically. In this paper, we investigate what determines regions’ entrepreneurial behaviour and the impact of it on regional economic performance. We argue that economic knowledge not only differs from traditional factors of production due to its public goods characteristic but it is also uncertain. With that perspective, the role of entrepreneurship is to take on the corresponding risk by starting up a new firm and thus to ‘test’ uncertain economic knowledge. This implies that knowledge spills over to the start-up firm and therefore entrepreneurship can be expected to have a positive impact on economic performance in a knowledge-based economy. We test this hypothesis using a production function approach. Using data on German regions, we estimate a two-equation system that regresses on both variables, entrepreneurship and economic performance, simultaneously, thus correcting for an endogeneity bias. We find a significant impact of entrepreneurship capital on economic output. On the other hand, spatially-specific entrepreneurship capital is shaped by regional-specific factors. However, the extent of this is different for knowledge based and non-knowledge based measures of entrepreneurship. We derive policy conclusions from our findings.

The paper analyses the impact of venture capital finance on growth and innovation activities of young German firms. Among other variables, our panel of firm data includes data on venture capital funding and patent applications. With statistical matching procedures we draw an adequate control group of non­venture funded but otherwise comparable firms. The analysis confirms other findings that venture funded firms in Germany have higher number of patent applications than those in the control group. However, they do so already before the venture capitalists engagement. After this engagement, the number of patent applications does not differ significantly from that of the control group, however the venture funded firms display significantly larger growthrates. We conclude that the higher innovation output of venture funded firms is mainly driven by the selection process made by the venture capitalist.