8. meijaard, brouwer and van der veen  open and less open networks
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

8. meijaard, brouwer and van der veen open and less open networks






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    8. meijaard, brouwer and van der veen  open and less open networks 8. meijaard, brouwer and van der veen open and less open networks Presentation Transcript

    • Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Positive and Normative Insights from the Netherlands OECD Workshop, 7 November 2013, The Hague Meijaard, Brouwer and Van der Veen
    • Overview • Macro-Meso-Micro: Collecting Data on 3 Levels • Legitimacy of Policies • Empirical Study • Case Study • Discussion
    • Macro Benchmarking ‘Framework Conditions’
    • Insight into causalities and leverage Determinants of fast-growth firm levels Short term: Income tax Access to Finance Long term: Attitudes towards entrepreneurship Smaller government Determinants of fast-growth firm dynamics Short term: Exit and Entry burdens Flexibility of labour Long term: R&D collaboration Smaller government
    • Meso Insights into Regional, Sectoral and Value Chain Ecosystems
    • Micro Benchmarking on a Local Level (Survey Stratifications)
    • WEF Stanford Team, 2013
    • But then, if one knows things well: What to do? • By and large: Entrepreneurs should make ‘unbiased’ decisions • Intervene: Only if market failure and/or welfare losses – – – – – Externalities & Spill-overs: too low levels of activity Network effects Information Asymmetries: Growth barriers Natural monopolies Public goods
    • Empirical study Networks and firm boundaries
    • Empirical study of networks • What can we say about the relationship between networks, transaction costs and business growth? • What is the role of the government? • Interviews with different stakeholders: companies, municipalities, business networks, triple helix networks, chamber of commerce etc. Focus on companies. • Internet survey among business owners
    • Network as public good? • A network is a semi public good: non-rivalrous, but excludable • Network effects themselves are not a public good: Only participants of network benefit • Degree of organization of a sector can be low due to complex externalities (free rider effects) • Information exchange between actors => knowledge development, due to learning and inspiration • Knowledge creation is a positive externality • Policy: facilitate creation of networks for knowledge devemopment • Other topics?
    • Findings empirical research • Network is our capital (Y = ANLK ) • Business networks evolve with the growth of companies – Startups -> encouter people (hence, business networks) – Early growth and market growth -> cooperation much more important • Cooperation: to develop knowledge, to innovate. Also, to increase the market (e.g. hubs for transport). To increase market power (e.g. FloraHolland) • Complex externalities, due to many actors, could lead to underdevelopment of networks • Clustereffects: due to many ties, many places to encouter etc. companies work together more often: solve problems, exploit opportunities
    • Triple Helix • Triple Helix cooperation: – Structure and organization important – Vision should be developed in close cooperation with companies, bottum up – Put resonsibilties where they belong – Qualities of people, experience not neccesarily good, comes to people management, inspiration, bringing people together etc. – Specific implementation agenda, what are we going to do? – This way companies see the real value of cooperation with govenment and knowledge institutions
    • Policy Recommendations • Stimulate the creation of networks to create knowledge development (through networks), the market should be in the lead • When there are complex externalities, increase the level of organization in a sector. It wil also lead to increased cooperation on different fields • Simply increase visibility of the government in networks, this is mutually beneficial • Trade missions are highly valued to enter foreign markets, incoming trade mission should be improved
    • Case Study Co-evolution
    • LED-ecosystem In a business ecosystem companies co-evolve capabilities around a new innovation, work cooperatively and competitively (co-opetition) to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations*. The Dutch LED lighting – ecosystem: ± 260 SME’s (hightech/ICT), some large firms, knowledge and public institutions • Goal: share knowledge around fast developments in LED lighting amongst companies that develop, design, produce and sell innovative products based on LEDtechnology • Need: a recognizable, independent network where upto-date knowledge about technological en market developments is available • Role government/Syntens: connect (potential) participants, inform (LEDtalks, Q&A), connect initiatives to boost an internationally recognised cluster -> Roadmap Lighting Topsector HTSM *Moore, 1993, Predators and prey: A New Ecology of Competition, Adner & Kapoor, 2010, Value creation in innovation
    • Discussion • What are good reasons for the government to initiate specific business networks? • Which conditions should be ‘managed’ in relation to the entrepreneurial ecosystem – Short run (to correct e.g. deadweight growth barriers) – Long run (i.e. to correct market failure) • In which other fields than knowledge development should governments stimulate the creation of networks?