Promoting high growth firms (HGFs) has become a strong fixation within enterprise policy. This is a debate article seeking to examine and challenge the mythology perpetuated by policy makers and embedded within high growth entrepreneurship policy frameworks. Within the article we argue that a number of distinctive 'myths' have become deeply embedded within these policy frameworks. Such myths have been built on misconceived preconceptions of HGFs, which has resulted in policy-makers taking a myopic view of these firms. A key aim of the paper is to highlight how false perceptions of HGFs translate into inappropriate policy interventions. The paper challenges some of the most commonly held myths about these firms (that they are predominantly young, small, high-tech, VC-backed, university spin-outs, who grow in an orderly organic fashion, operating similarly irrespective of location) and identifies a clear mismatch between how policy makers perceive HGFs and what they actually look like in reality. Suggestions for the design of future policy approaches are forwarded.

This paper outlines findings from a large-scale interview based study of start-ups who obtained equity crowdfunding in the UK. It takes a novel integrative approach towards the analysis of entrepreneurial networks by examining both personal and business networks involved in the equity crowdfunding process. Adopting a processual perspective, the empirical findings show that networks and social capital play a critical role in the crowdfunding process. Start-ups leverage, build and draw upon a complex array of network actors and "ties" as they move through the different stages of their crowdfunding journey. The paper shows that this form of funding confers important relational benefits to recipients which amount to "more than money". It concludes that equity crowdfunding is a highly "relational" form of entrepreneurial finance, requiring holistic forms of empirical investigation. Implications for theoretical development, managerial practice and further research are outlined.

Efforts to develop entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) have proliferated in recent years, marking it out as the latest industrial policy ‘blockbuster’. This article reports the findings from the first comprehensive empirical analysis of EE policy approaches. It posits a basic typology of different policy frameworks deployed under the ecosystem rubric. The findings suggest the concept is fraught with conceptual ambiguity and is predominantly (and rather crudely) used to promote ‘more’ entrepreneurship. The research suggests the concept is a ‘messy metaphor’, open to wide-ranging misinterpretation and misuse by policymakers. In terms of recommendations, eradicating network failures, avoiding crude policy isomorphism and tailoring bespoke interventions to the specific nature of EEs are viewed as key policy lessons.

Equity crowdfunding has rapidly established itself as an important part of the funding landscape for nascent entrepreneurial ventures. To date, however, little is known about the nature of the demand for equity crowdfunding or its impact on recipient firms. This paper draws on an interview-based study of entrepreneurs in 42 equity crowdfunded start-ups in the UK. The study found strong demand for this funding from these experimental and improvisational entrepreneurs within innovative, consumer-focused, early stage firms. Many entrepreneurs were classic "discouraged borrowers" attracted by the ability to obtain finance quickly with relatively little diminution of their equity or autonomy. In terms of impact, equity crowdfunding seems to confer important intangible benefits to investee companies which amount to more than money. Given their strongly improvisational nature, the concept of entrepreneurial bricolage seems a suitable theoretical lens explicating the behavioural aspects of the entrepreneurs examined.

High growth firms are now a major focus within enterprise policy. This paper provides a theoretically informed analysis of the rationale and effectiveness of targeted public sector support designed to develop these firms. Drawing on empirical research undertaken in the UK, this paper challenges the appropriateness of the theoretical assumptions embodied in these state-backed support instruments. It outlines the nature of these programmes and provides a critique of some of their inherent weaknesses, revealing that the assumptions underpinning these programmes are often flawed. The paper examines the limitations of their selection procedures, the thematic nature of support and exit dynamics. It found that offering early stage firms intensive levels of resources may have important (and detrimental) unintended consequences previously overlooked by policy makers. The paper offers some suggestions for how policy instruments could be better attuned to the needs of these growth-oriented firms.