skip to main content
10.1145/3282373.3282425acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiiwasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Public Initiatives to Improve Conditions for High Tech Start-Ups

Published:19 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Programs and vehicles of public support for companies have been in existence for a long time. However, as the „digital age" spawns new forms of products and services, this paper provides a new perspective concerning the effectiveness of public intervention onto the birth and success of high tech start-ups in a certain socio-economic and local environment on the example of Vienna. Existing tools and vehicles will be discussed that have been implemented in this European metropolis to support innovation, R&D, and entrepreneurship. Additionally, these vehicles will be compared against international standards and other environments to make transparent the advantages and disadvantages of the Viennese tool-set.

References

  1. M. Castells. 1997. Power of identity: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Blackwell Publishers, Inc.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Schot, and W.E. Steinmueller. 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47, 1554--1567Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. T. Lego, A. Mladenow, N.M. Novak, and C. Strauss. 2017. The Economic Value of an Emergency Call System. In International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems. Springer, Cham, 56--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. T.M. Brasseur, A. Mladenow, A., and C. Strauss. 2017. Business model innovation to support smart manufacturing. In Proceedings of American Conference on Information Systems 2017. Workshop on Smart Manufacturing. Boston, USA, 10--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. B.H. Hall, and J. Mairesse, J. 2006. Empirical studies of innovation in the knowledge-driven economy. Economics of innovation and new technology, 15(4--5), 289--299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Drucker. 2012. Post-capitalist society. Routledge.LondonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Mladenow, and K.A. Fröschl. 2011. Kooperative Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S.J. Herstad, H.W. Aslesen, and B. Ebersberger. 2014. On industrial knowledge bases, commercial opportunities and global innovation network linkages. Research Policy, 43(3), 495--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. R.R. Nelson. 1993. NationalInnovationSystems: AComparativeAnalysis. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Rosen, H. S., and Gayer, T. 2010. Public Finance, NinthEdition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. Mowery, and N. Rosenberg. 1979. The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research policy, 8(2), 102--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M.A. Diez. 2001. The evaluation of regional innovation and cluster policies: towards a participatory approach. European Planning Studies, 9(7), 907--923.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. R. Kopetzky, M. Günther, N. Kryvinska, A. Mladenow, C. Strauss, and C. Stummer. 2013. Strategic management of disruptive technologies: a practical framework in the context of voice services and of computing towards the cloud. International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing, 4(1), 47--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. N. Beier, A. Mladenow, and C. Strauss. 2018. Paid Content-Eine empirische Untersuchung zu redaktionellen Sportinhalten. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) 2018. Paul Drews, Burkhardt Funk, Peter Niemeyer und Lin Xie, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, 6. -- 9. März 2018. ISBN 978-3-935786-72-0, 1099--1110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. I. Bursuk, A. Mladenow, N.M. Novak, and C. Strauss. 2016. Online cofounder search in tech startups. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services, ACM, 482--488. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Martin, and J.T. Scott. 2000. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research policy, 29(4--5), 437--447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. G. Becattini. 1990. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion, in F. Pyke, G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger, eds., Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-operation in Italy, Geneva, IILS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R.P. Camagni. 1991. Technological change, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a dynamic theory of economic space. In Regional science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 211--249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. B.T. Asheim, and M. Gertler. 2005. The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., and Nelson, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R.D. Dewar, and J.E. Dutton. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science, 32(11), 1422--1433. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Saxenian. 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. B. Buerger, A. Mladenow, A., and C. Strauss. 2017. Equity Crowdfunding Market: Assets and Drawbacks. International Conference Information Systems 2017. Special Interest Group on Big Data Proceedings. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. B. Buerger, A. Mladenow, N.M. Novak, and C. Strauss. 2018. Equity Crowdfunding: quality signals for online-platform projects and supporters' motivations. In International Conference on Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems. Springer, Cham, 109--119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Jaffe, R. Henderson, and M. Trajtenberg. 1993. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577--598.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. D. Audretsch, and M. Feldman. 1996. R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630--640.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. P. Krugman. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of political economy, 99(3), 483--499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. P.M. Romer. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), 71--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. M.E. Porter. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Boston: Harvard Business Review, 76 (6), 77--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. G. Becattini. 1991. Italian Industrial Districts: Problems and Perspectives International Studies of Management & Organization 21 (1), 83--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. V. Navickas, and A. Malakauskaite. 2009. The impact of clusterization on the development of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 10(3), 255--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. D. Stoerring, 2007. Emergence and Growth of High Technology Clusters, PhD Thesis, Institut for Erhvervsstudier, Aalborg Universitet. Denmark.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. T. Brenner. 2004. Local industrial clusters: existence, emergence and evolution. Routledge. London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. L. Krafft. 2006. Entwicklung räumlicher Cluster -- Das Beispiel Internet- und E-Commerce- Gründungen in Deutschland. Gabler, Springer Fachmedien.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. A. Chatterji, E. Glaeser, and W. Kerr, W. 2014. Clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 129--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. M.G. Colombo, and L. Grilli. 2007. Technology policy for the knowledge economy: Public support to young ICT service firms. Telecommunications Policy, 31(10--11), 573--591. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. C. Keuschnigg, and S.B. Nielsen. 2004. Public Policy, Start-Up Entrepreneurship and the Market for Venture Capital. In S. Parker, (eds), The Life Cycle of Entrepreneurial Ventures, Springer, Berlin, 227--257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. E. Buchinger. 2006. Positionierung der Clusternetzwerk--Initiativen Wiens. ARC/ZIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. T. Andersson, S.S. Serger, J. Sörvik, and E.W. Hansson. 2004. The cluster policies Whitebook. Malmo: International Organisation for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development (IKED).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. G. Fahrenkrog, W. Polt, J. Rojo, A. Tübke, and K. Zinöcker. 2002. RTD evaluation toolbox: Assessing the socio-economic impact of RTD-policies, Published by: European Comission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. J. Lerner, J. 2009. Boulevard of broken dreams: why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed - and what to do about it. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. E. Santarelli, and M. Vivarelli. 2007. Entrepreneurship and the process of firms' entry, survival and growth. Industrial and corporate change, 16(3), 455--488.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. S. Cohn. 2014. Nevada wins Tesla Gigafactory, but at what cost?. URL: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/05/nevada-wins-tesla-gigafactory-but-at-what-cost.html (retrieved online on June 17, 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. sba.gov. 2016. URL: https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/what-we-do/mission (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. C. Bernini, and G. Pellegrini. 2011. How are growth and productivity in private firms affected by public subsidy? Evidence from a regional policy. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(3), 253--265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. D. Cumming, and D. Li. 2013. Public policy, entrepreneurship, and venture capital in the United States. Journal of Corporate Finance, 23, 345--367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. M.G. Colombo, D.J. Cumming, and S. Vismara. 2014. Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 10--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. F. Bertoni, M.G. Colombo, and A. Quas. 2015. The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 543--560.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. High-Tech-Gründerfonds (2016). Boilerplate. URL: https://high-tech-gruenderfonds.de/de/#facts-figures (retrieved online on June 17, 20188)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. G. Metzger, D. Heger, D. Höwer, and G. Licht. 2010. High-Tech-Gründungen in Deutschland: Hemmnisse junger Unternehmen. ZEW Gutachten/Forschungsberichte.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. AWS Gründerfonds (2016). Unternehmensprofil. URL: http://www.gruenderfonds.at/unternehmensprofil/Ueber_den_aws_Gruenderfonds.at. Php (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. D. Rin, G. Nicodano, and A. Sembenelli. 2005. Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets for ECB-CFS Research Network on Capital Markets and Financial Integration in Europe. No. 430.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. A. Bergek, and C. Norrman. 2008. Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1--2), 20--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Ycombinator.com (2016). Stats and Figures. URL: https://www.ycombinator.com/ (retrieved online on 17th June 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. inits.at (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. H. Ho. 2016. Contribution Of Government Funding To Start-Up Success In The Digital Economy: Tekes funding for Finnish young innovative companies. thesis.fi (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. pioneers.io (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. R. Flunger, A: Mladenow and C. Strauss. 201). The free-to-play business model. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services. ACM, 373--379. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. European Commission (2015). Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/public-procurement-innovative-solutions (retrieved online on June 17, 2018)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Public Initiatives to Improve Conditions for High Tech Start-Ups

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader