This paper focuses on public innovation support for ventures in their early stages of development. Based on quantitative analysis of programme-specific data, the authors explore and discuss what mechanisms have influenced a public sector actor in selecting ideas for funding. The main findings show, first, that the ‘legal form of the firm’ and the ‘type of industry’ are the main factors that discriminate among firms that have gained public financial support and, second, that explicit and tacit selection criteria affect the process that determines which ideas are to receive support.
AlmusM.NerlingerE. A. (1999), ‘Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter?’Small Business Economics, Vol 13, pp 141–154.
3.
BaumJ. A. C.SilvermanB. S. (2004), ‘Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology start-ups’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 19, pp 411–436.
4.
BergekA.NorrmanC. (2007), ‘Incubator best practise: A framework’, Technovation (forthcoming).
5.
BygraveW. D.TimmonsJ. A. (1992), Venture Capital at the Crossroads, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
6.
Commission of the European Communities (2005), ‘Decision of the European Parliament and the Council: Establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007–2013)’, European Commission, Brussels.
7.
CressyR.OlofssonC. (1997), ‘The financial conditions for Swedish SMEs: Survey and research agenda’, Small Business Economics, Vol 9, pp 179–194.
8.
DavidssonP.KirchhoffB.Hetemi-JA.GustafssonH. (2002), ‘Empirical analysis of business growth factors using Swedish data’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 40, pp 332–349.
9.
EVCA (2006), EVCA 2006 Yearbook, EVCA, Brussels.
10.
FredriksenÖ. (1997), Venture Capital Firms, Relationship and Cooperation With Entrepreneurial Companies, Department of Management and Economics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
11.
HardingR. (2002), ‘Plugging the knowledge gap: An international comparison of the role for policy in the venture capital market’, Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol 4, No 1, pp 59–76.
12.
HoogerverfA. (1990), ‘Reconstructing policy theory’, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol 13, No 3, pp 285–291.
13.
HyytinenA.ToivanenO. (2005), ‘Do financial constraints hold back innovation and growth? Evidence on the role of public policy’, Research Policy, Vol 34, pp 1385–1403.
14.
KaraomerliogluD. C.JacobssonS. (2000), ‘The Swedish venture capital industry: An infant, adolescent or grown-up?’Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol 2, No 1, pp 61–68.
15.
KlofstenM. (2005), ‘New venture ideas: An analysis of their origin and early development’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol 17, No 1, pp 105–119.
16.
KlofstenM.JonssonM.SimónJ. (1999), ‘Supporting the pre-commercialisation stages of technology-based firms: The effects of small-scale venture capital’, Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol 1, No 1, pp 83–93.
17.
LernerJ. (2002), ‘When bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: The design of effective public venture capital programmes’, Economic Journal, Vol 112, pp f73–f84.
18.
Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ.CetindamarD. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation financing in Sweden’, Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Vol 2, No 3, pp 203–221.
19.
Lindholm-DahlstrandÅ.KlofstenM. (2002), Growth and Innovation Support in Swedish Science Parks and Incubators, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
20.
MasonC. M.HarrisonR. T. (1997), ‘Business angel networks and the development of the informal venture capital market in the U.K.: Is there still a role for the public sector?’Small Business Economics, Vol 9, pp 111–123.
21.
MosselmanM.PrinceY.KempR. (2004), ‘Review of the methodologies to measure effectiveness of state aid to SMEs’, Final Report to the European Commission, European Commission, Brussels.
22.
NorrmanC. (2005), ‘Publicly financed support of technology-based ventures’, Licentiate Thesis No 1219, LiU-Tek-Lic 2005: 72, Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Linköping University, Linköping.
23.
NorthD.SmallboneD.VickersI. (2001), ‘Public sector support for innovating SMEs’, Small Business Economics, Vol 16, pp 303–317.
24.
NouiraS.KlofstenM.DahlstrandLindholm Å. (2005), ‘The logic of the entrepreneur: Implications of the entrepreneur's perception of early-stage financing’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol 6, No 2, pp 85–95.
25.
Nutek (2007), Nytta – Nuteks system för uppföljning och utvärdering [Nytta – The Nutek System for Follow-Up and Evaluation], No 001–2007, Nutek, Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, Stockholm.
26.
OakeyR. P. (2003), ‘Funding innovation and growth in UK new technology-based firms: Some observations on contributions from the public and private sectors’, Venture Capital, Vol 2, No 5, pp 161–179.
27.
SIC (nd), ‘Näring åt Goda idéer – Ansökan om villkorslån’ [Nourishment for good ideas – application for conditional loan/information brochure/application form], SIC, Stockholm.
28.
Stiftelsen Innovationscentrum – SIC (2002), ‘Stiftelsen Innovationscentrum 2002’ [Sweden Innovation Centre 2002], SIC, Stockholm.
29.
Stiftelsen Innovationscentrum – SIC (2004), ‘10 år med Stiftelsen Innovationscentrum’ [10 years with Sweden Innovation Centre], SIC, Stockholm.
30.
StoreyD. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
31.
StoreyD., ed (2000), ‘Six steps to heaven: Evaluating the impact of public policies to support small business in developed economies’, in The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 176–193.
32.
StoreyD. J.TetherB. S. (1998), ‘Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union’, Research Policy, Vol 26, No 9, pp 1037–1057.
33.
SVCA (2005), Directory 2005–2006, Swedish Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Stockholm.
34.
Van de VenA. H. (1993), ‘The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 8, pp 211–230.
35.
ZacharakisA. L.MeyerG. D. (2000), ‘The potential of actuarial decision models: Can they improve the venture capital investment decision?’Journal of Business Venturing, Vol 15, pp 323–346.
36.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. F. (2002), ‘Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 27, No 3, pp 414–431.
