Innovation Policy and Nanotechnology Entrepreneurship

Abstract

In this article, we explore the relationship between innovation policy and new venture creation in the United States. Specifically, we examine two components of innovation policy in nanotechnology-science and technology (S&T) initiatives and economic initiatives-and their relationship with the founding of nanotechnology firms. We find strong support relating new firm formation to S&T and economic initiatives. States with both S&T and economic initiatives had six times as many firms founded than those states without such initiatives. We also find evidence of a first-mover advantage as states with the earliest innovation policies had higher rates of related firm foundings over time. These findings suggest that states that are most attractive to entrepreneurs not only pursue technological innovation and provide resources, but also encourage and legitimize commercial development. Implications for public policy makers and scholars are provided.

The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship

“…Kim, Kim, and Yang (2012) investigate the effect of the triple helix system and habitat factors on the birth and death rates of US firms at the state level; they conclude that government R&D will generate a synergistic effect that indirectly influences regional firm birth rates. Woolley and Rottner (2008) support this concept in their study on the effect of the emergence of nanotechnology policy initiatives and related firm formation in the United States. Their findings suggest that regions that are most attractive to entrepreneurs not only stimulate innovation and provide resources, but also encourage and legitimize commercial development.…”

On the contribution of public procurement to entrepreneurship and small business policy

“…Venkataraman (2004) stressed that public policy support for entrepreneurs needs to reflect the needs of a specific region (see also Chell and Baines 2000;Feldman 2001;North, Smallbone, and Vickers 2001). In the wake of a realization that the entrepreneur is best perceived as being part of a predominantly regional network, there has thus been considerable interest in the role subnational government policy plays in stimulating entrepreneurial dynamics (Audretsch 2004;Parker 2008;Woolley and Rottner 2008). Again, this has not been extended too far in the direction of a public procurement contribution to entrepreneurship policy (Edler and Georghiou 2007).…”

Entrepreneurship: an evolving conceptual framework

“…In other words, for a given action or practice to be called innovative the reason for the change must be conditioned on the creation of added value from what has previously existed in the market. This is supported by authors who have argued that innovation is the cornerstone of entrepreneurial activity and innovation is the fundamental undertaking of the entrepreneurial organisation (Drucker, 2015;Schumpeter, 1934;Woolley and Rottner, 2008). Innovation has been aptly recognised and emphasised in the entrepreneurial process; entrepreneurship is reasoned to be the "competitive entry of innovative new combinations" and innovativeness has become "an important factor used to characterize entrepreneurship" [Herbig et al, 1994;Lumpkin and Dess, (1996), p.142;Zacca et al, 2014].…”

“…An innovative response or solution in the pursuit of opportunity gives sufficiency to the entrepreneurship definition (Aldrich and Ruef, 2006;Kreiser and Davis, 2009;Krueger, 2002;Short et al, 2011;Woolley and Rottner, 2008).…”