Scott Shane is the 2009 Winner of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research. This essay (in Small Business Economics 2009, 33(2):141-149) is the Prize Lecture he gave upon receipt of the Award in May 2009 in Stockholm, Sweden. The essay draws on his book: Illusions of Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths that Entrepreneurs, Investors and Policy Makers Live By. Yale University Press, 2008.
In this paper, Shane argues that policy makers should avoid subsidizing the typical start-ups and instead focus on high-growth firms. His rationale is that high-growth firms, sometimes called ‘gazelles’, are the source of economic vitality and job creation. Using various sources of data, he demonstrates that typical start-ups are headed by people not necessarily motivated by growth, in industries in which most start-ups fail, and not necessarily the best entrepreneurs, hence not generating innovation, jobs and wealth as policy makers would like to believe. He argues that this is not just a U.S. phenomenon since studies conducted elsewhere show similar results.
This is a rather strong argument given that most government officials do not want to ‘pick winners’ to support. Yet, Shane argues that start-ups with a high probability of generating jobs and enhancing economic growth can be identified.
In Canada, several, such as Wells and Hungerford (Policy Options, September 2011), are advocating that high-growth entrepreneurship is key to Canada’s future economic success.
Questions (to my entrepreneurship students but open to all to comment):
1) What are Shane’s key arguments against policies to support more people to become entrepreneurs?
2) What is your opinion of this paper: do you agree? disagree? why?
3) What is the situation in Canada? (Hint: google the Policy Options paper I mentioned above as one source of information)
(Note: Click on the text bubble next to the title of this post to leave your comment.)