The renewal of venture capital: Toward a counter-cyclical model

Abstract

A counter-cyclical model of venture capital is proposed to remedy the dilemma of a private venture capital industry subject to the vicissitudes of the business cycle. A mix of private, public, university, corporate, and foundation venture capitals have the potential to create an industry that is active in all phases of the cycle and at all stages of the firm formation trajectory, thus fulfilling the original venture capital vision of creating economic growth through start-ups based on advanced technology, often developed in universities.

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my appreciation to the other members of the Venture Capital Study Team (Magnus Klofsten, Anders Isaakson and Christian Vintergaard) for their feedback and Goran Arvidsson, Center For Business and Policy Studies (SNS) Stockholm for his support.

Notes

1. J. Schumpeter, Comments on a plan for the study of entrepreneurship, in: R. Swedberg (Ed.) Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1991) (originally published 1947).

2. See H. Etzkowitz, MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science (London, Routledge, 2002).

3. Indeed, two recent reports from the National Bureau of Economic research and the national Research Council document that the Advanced Technology Program has been highly successful in producing technological innovation. See ‘ATP garners praise in two new studies’, Technology Access Report, 16(2), March 2003, pp. 2–3. There are smart people in government, some of whom have had a long-term and highly perceptive view of technological futures and business opportunities. For example, Joseph Licklider, DARPA program officer's support for the creation of computer networks that later became the Internet and former Vice President Gore's advocacy of information highways, exemplify the efficacy of government's role as public venture capitalist. See K. Hafner and M. Lyon, When Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996).

4. See J. Wilson, The New Venturers: Inside the High-Stakes World of Venture Capital (Boston, Addison Wesley, 1986) for a discussion of the ‘nurturing role’ played by venture capitalists in helping attract talent and devising strategy.

5. Discussion between representatives of Yozma and FinnLombardia at the ‘Finance and Knowledge Workshop’, Milan, Italy, November 2001.

6. Etzkowitz, op. cit., Ref. 2.

7. See H. Etzkowitz and M. Gulbrandsen, Convergence between Europe and America: the transition from industrial to innovation policy, Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 1999, pp. 223–233.

8. See www.nvca.org (accessed April 2004).

9. G. Benjamin and J. Margulis, Angel Financing (New York, John Wiley, 2000).

10. L. Ojefors, Director of Industrifonden, Interview with the author, Stockholm, 2002.

11. See www.cdvca.org (accessed April 2004).

12. M. van Osnabrugge and R. Robertson, Angel Investing (San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 2000).

13. M. Feldman et al., Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American Universities, Management Science, 48(1), 2002, pp. 105–121. See also ‘VC's take to tech transfer’, Technology Access Report, 16(1), February 2003, pp. 1–2 for a discussion of renewed private venture capital interest in US university spin-off firms.

14. P. Gompers and J. Lerner, The Venture Capital Cycle (Cambridge, MIT Press, 2002).

15. C. Barrow, Incubators: A Realists Guide to the World's New Business Accelerators (New York, John Wiley, 2001).

16. Gompers and Lerner, op. cit., Ref. 14.

17. See www.finep.gov.br (accessed April 2004).

18. H. Etzkowitz, M. Gulbrandsen and J. Levitt, Public Venture Capital, 2nd edn (New York, Aspen/Kluwer, 2001).

19. See J.-P. Salmenkaita and A. Salo, Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 14(2), 2002, pp. 183–200.

20. D.B. Andretsch, A. Link and J. Scott, Public/private technology partnerships: evaluating SBIR supported research, Research Policy, 31(1), 2000, pp. 145–158.

21. Etzkowitz et al., op. cit., Ref. 18.

22. Anonymous, Signs of the times: start-ups starved for cash while VC coffers stay locked, Technology Access Report, 15(6), 2002, p. 16.

23. B. van Looy et al., Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect? Unpublished manuscript.

24. J. Mervis, Rising deficits could doom science programs, Science, 299(1826), 21 March 2003.

25. V. Bush, Science the Endless Frontier (Washington D.C.: The National Science Foundation, 1960), originally published 1945.