Muppets and Gazelles: Political and Methodological Biases in Entrepreneurship Research

Nightingale, Paul; Coad, Alex

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2734865

Cited by 84 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar studies in the US (Decker et al 2015) and several European economies have replicated these findings (Brüderl and Preisendörfer 2000;Deschryvere 2008). Such 'job creation' studies have helped to foster a burgeoning body of empirical research on HGFs (Henrekson and Johansson 2010), thus generating continued debate on their economic impact and the capability of policy makers to generate and support them (BERR 2008;Shane 2009;Greene 2012;Lee 2014;Nightingale and Coad 2014;Brown and Mawson, 2016a). This paper contends, however, that high growth entrepreneurship policy remains underpinned by a number of pervasive 'myths' which have become deeply engrained in policy frameworks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Brown

Mawson

Mason

2017

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Brown

Mawson

Mason

2017

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to some, this focus is symptomatic of the misplaced obsession with SMEs and start-ups in terms of their ability to generate innovation and growth (Isenberg, 2012;Fritsch and Storey, 2014;Mazzucato 2014), despite significant evidence to the contrary (Nightingale and Coad, 2014;Shane, 2009). As Vivarelli (2004, p. 48) notes 'the conventional wisdom is that start-ups are good per se and that all the potential entrepreneurs have to be helped'.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Taking a Look Insidementioning

confidence: 99%

“…By just focusing on start-ups, some ecosystems may not have the full range of actors and interactions necessary to upscale businesses. In many economies, there are sufficient new entrants (Acs et al, 2016) but insufficient quality entrants (Nightingale and Coad, 2014). Consequently, the view that a focus on start-ups is 'bad public policy' (Shane, 2009) has gained currency, arguing that policy should focus on growthoriented firms instead (Mason and Brown, 2013).…”

Section: A Critique Of Emergent Policy Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has quickly established itself as one of the latest 'fads' in entrepreneurship research. At face value, this kind of systemic approach to entrepreneurship offers a new and distinctive path for scholars and policy makers to help understand and foster growth-oriented entrepreneurship. However, its lack of specification and conceptual limitations has undoubtedly hindered our understanding of these complex organisms. Indeed, the rapid adoption of the concept has tended to overlook the heterogeneous nature of ecosystems. This paper provides a critical review and conceptualisation of the ecosystems concept: it unpacks the dynamics of the concept; outlines its theoretical limitations; measurement approaches and use in policy-making. It sets out a preliminary taxonomy of different archetypal ecosystems. The paper concludes that entrepreneurial ecosystems are a highly variegated, multi-actor and multi-scalar phenomenon, requiring bespoke policy interventions.

show abstract

“…The same is true when speaking about the establishment of new organizations, as in this case the development of already existing firms does not matter. Hence, a reconsideration of the field's definition is needed to remove 'political and methodological biases' [Nightingale, Coad, 2013]. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the last decade some debates around the core questions of the field occurred.…”

Section: State Of the Art And The Identity Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurship Theory: New Challenges and Future Prospects

Chepurenko

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muppets and Gazelles: Political and Methodological Biases in Entrepreneurship Research

Cited by 84 publications

References 138 publications

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of high growth firms

Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Entrepreneurship Theory: New Challenges and Future Prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About