Changes

|Has paper status=R and RPublished

==Current Final Version==

*The current final versionwas accepted to Research Policy on May 17th, 2021. which *The 50-day share link is currently : https://authors.elsevier.com/a 2nd R&R at Research /1d8SaB5ASINVf *The title was changed to "A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Tech Entrepreneurship Policy is:"

<pdf>File:MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV3Egan_(2021)_-3_A_Framework_for_Assessing_Municipal_High-Growth_High-Tech_Entrepreneurship_Policy.pdf</pdf>

@article{EGAN2021104292, title = {A framework for assessing municipal high-growth high-technology entrepreneurship policy}, journal = {Research Policy}, pages = {104292}, year = {2021}, issn = {0048-7333}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104292}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321000937}, author = {Edward J. Egan}, keywords = {Entrepreneurship, Ecosystem, Measurement, High-growth high-technology, Venture capital, Ecosystem support organization, Pipeline, Raise rate, Policy cartel}, abstract = {This paper had advances a storied submission process:*framework for making rudimentary need, impact, and cost–benefit assessments of municipal high-growth high-tech entrepreneurship policy. The deadline for resubmission was June 15thframework views ecosystem support organizations like accelerators, incubators, and hubs as components in a city’s venture pipeline. A component’s pipeline size, raise rate, 2020and cost per raise measure its performance. Before this deadlineIn total, I emailed the editors framework consists of eight objective and offered them either this version reproducible measures based on quantities and qualities of venture capital investment and 16 definitions of related terms-of -the paper-art. These measures and definitions are illustrated in 26 real-world policy examples, which assess initiatives in Houston and St. Louis over the last 20 years. The examples reveal an enormous variation in welfare effects, and some policies appear welfare destroying. Many non-profit organizations claim success (and win awards and acclaim) using non-standard measures despite performing at less than half benchmark levels. Policy cartels, which control startup policy in many U.S. cities, also engage in non-market actions to protect their rents.} } The final file series was v4-6-2 in: E:\projects\MeasuringHGHTEcosystems /bulk/vcdb4 Egan (2021) - A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Tech Entrepreneurship Policy.pdf Production files (sent to ResPol):*MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV4-6-2.tex*MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV4-6-2-TitlePage.tex*References.bib*HoustonPipelineV4.png*HoustonVCRaiseRateWithBenchmarkV4.png*econ.bst ==Notice== The original Measuring HGHT Entrepreneurship Ecosystems paper was broken into two:*:'''A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Policy''' now contains no empiricsthe definitions, measures, or and examples. It is an empirical inductive, case-study paper without examples or definitions. I received no response.*This version [[Determinants of Future Investment in U.S. Startup Cities]]: The empirical analysis of ESOs is now in this paper! ==2nd R&R== There were three reviewers for the paper was submitted as an 2nd R&R but Reviewer 2 never returned any comments. Reviewer 1 accepted the paper. Reviewer 3 asked for a revision. The editor said: :"We would be glad to reconsider a Special Issue resubmitted paper, revised in the light of Research Policy on June 10th, 2020, with manuscript number RESPOL-D-19-01438R1the referees' comments. *On September 15th:If you decide to revise the paper, I sent it would be very useful if you could also include an email author's response to the editors requesting information but received no responsereferees, listing what changes you have (or have not) made and where. *I wrote :If you choose to the editors again revise your paper, could you please ensure that it is resubmitted on October 27thor before Feb 06, 2021. (If there is too long a gap, this time using referees may have forgotten what they said previously or be unwilling to review the Elvesier formrevised paper, to request another updatecausing further delays.)" Summarizing reviewer 1's comments (i.e. , reading between the lines):*The last status reported by Elvesier (httpswriting is currently pretty good://ees'''it is well done'''... '''the paper is polished'''.elsevier.com/respol/default.asp) was 'Required Reviews Complete' on October 9th, 2020'very nicely done'''.*On October 28thThe paper works as a whole. The reviewer didn't want anything cut: '''It is a collection of case studies and definitions''', and '''I received an email saying: "Hello Eddon't have ... major comments'''.  It's Reviewer 3's comments that I hope need to get back address. Jim kindly reminded me to ascribe only normative motivations to you shortlythe Reviewer (rather than positive theories). He also said to '''follow the review''' and respond to each point with one of three sentiments:*Disagree*Good point but beyond the scope of the paper*Good point and I have two address it like this... He also reminded me that the median review is a reject, and that this a `good ' review based on the distribution of reviews . The reviewer does say that the paper is useful and I’m waiting on helpful::"The defining of key terms is a thirduseful contribution of this paper, as are the identification of potentially useful metrics of HGHT entrepreneurship. This most definitely will be another R&RFurthermore, the examples are often helpful in highlighting their various applications. More soon"*On November 8th, I got an official email about The reviewer listed the paper that saidfollowing three major flaws:: "We have now received In my view, the major flaws in the referees' reports on your paperstudy are not (1) considering possible downsides of each individual metric, copies (2) considering possible downsides in using the entire battery of which measures, and (3) testing alternatives to this measurement approach." I enclose put these as points 1, 2, and 3, and added material from the rest of his review (see below for your ) to create the list of the bullet-points that I'll address:#Consider possible downsides of the individual metrics.#Consider possible downsides in using the entire battery of measures.#Test alternatives to this measurement approach#Discuss the welfare implications of putting more informationin the hands of policymakers, including:##It is not necessarily true that "standardized measurement" improves outcomes, such as policy, overall. All frameworks are not equal and that any conceived framework is not necessarily better than nothing.##Measurements are rarely if ever neutral (vis-à-vis behavior). There can be systematic bias due to gaming metrics incentivized by rewards attached to the measurement.#Consider the relationship between the conceptual phenomenon and how it is operationalized:##Discuss alternative calculations of a measure when applicable (i.e. As you will see, for the referees make ranking measure).##Discuss that measurement is reductive.##Discuss systematic bias.#Test the effects of using a framework on various comments outcomes. Also for reference, here are the measures in the latest version of the paper:*Measure 1 (Apportioned investment and exit value)*Measure 2 (MOOMI ratio)*Measure 3 (Pipeline)*Measure 4 (Raise Rate)*Measure 5 (Cost per raise)*Measure 6 (Repeat VC)*Measure 7 (ESO Expertise) The old Startup Ranking measure has been dropped. Also, there are two definitions that are close to being measures:*Definition 5 (Local VC)*Definition 8 (Expert) This version also adds Measure 5 (Cost per raise) as a numbered measure. Measures 1 and suggestions 2 provide ways to calculate proxies for improvementreturn quartiles. I have given up on Measures 3, 4 and 5 are the central measures of the third reviewer framework. Measures 6 and want 7 are alternative ways to assess the performance of pipeline components (measure 7 is possible without VC investment data). ===RP Constraints=== Although no-one has asked me to, I need to return cut down the length of the paper to you." RP asks for a maximum word count of 8,000-10,000, though does allow exceptions. Using pdftotext and wc, or doing a count in the tex file, it looks like I'm up near 17k. However, this email only contained one reviewboth approaches drastically inflate the total with table entries, TeX commands, etc. I expect the current true count is closer to 15k. I requested clarification and noted that Reviewer 3 had asked for empiricsneed to get it down to at most 12k.On November 11th A different way of coming at the problem is to say that I got an email that said: 'm using 12pt font with 1"Hello Edmargins and one-half line spacing (as implemented using \onehalfspacing in LaTeX, This is strangewhich [https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/65849/confusion-onehalfspacing-vs-spacing-vs-word-vs-the-world isn't the same as 1. The comments were 5 spacing in the comments word]). AER restricts to 40 pages using this format[https://eml.berkeley.edu//~sdellavi/wp/pagelimits12-12-11.pdf], and Management Science restricts to the editor32 pages[https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/mnsc/submission-guidelines]. Here they are With averages of perhaps 15 words per line and 32 lines per page, this would give just shy of 500 words per page, making 10k words, 20 pages of dense text, and they are not worth that muchperhaps 30 pages with figures, tables, quotes, headings, definitions, etc.  Because the last round was also an R&R, I presumably met all the other constraints. This  ===Special Issue Questions=== The special issue has posed a specific purpose. '''You do not need series of questions (the full list is below) that I might rephrase to run regressionsstatements as follows:#Startups (venture-backed and pre-venture backed) are the fundamental constructs, so they are what should be measured, and cities (census places geographically define ecosystems)#Consistent measurement is key!'''" #The comments are below pipeline framework lays out the key relationships as Reviewer 1it maps the mechanisms by which ecosystems get established, mature, decline, or get renewed. #Venture capital measures add quality dimensions. They indicate that Using the reviewer accepted pipeline framework on top of this quality measure gives more finely grained evaluations of the papereffectiveness of policy instruments#Venture capital has timing issues but exits are noisiers and longer term (short vs. long term measures)#What do existing rankings for ecosystems measure?#Beyond direct pipeline components, we should think about universities, corporations, and other participants.#The measures should be able to assess the question: To what extent is government policy accelerating or inhibiting the progress of entrepreneurial ecosystems?

===2nd R&RReviewers Comments===

Note that there Reviewer 2 never returned any The raw reviewer's comments.are as follows:

==FilesTimeline of Submission==

The files are This paper came from a presentation that I made to the Kauffman UMM Grant Cohort. I originally attempted to add empirics but this approach necessarily reduced the coverage of material: Although the framework is simple and used in practice, it is also on the frontier of research, so there aren't any published academic papers with the empirics. So I opted to break the original submission in: E:\projects\MeasuringHGHTEcosystems /bulk/vcdb4two - breaking the empirics back out and leaving this as the best attempt I could make at a narrative-based exploration of the whole framework. It is, as a consequence, a very unusual paper. But most people I showed it to were enthusiastic. It is also reference-bait. Outside the review process, some readers were both amused and worried about its snarky tone, which I'm still trying to address.

==Notice==This paper had a storied resubmission process:*The deadline for resubmission was June 15th, 2020. Before this deadline, I emailed the editors and offered them either this version of the paper, which contains no empirics, or an empirical paper without examples or definitions. I received no response.This *The first revision of the paper was broken into twosubmitted as an R&R to a Special Issue of Research Policy on June 10th, 2020, with manuscript number RESPOL-D-19-01438R1. *On September 15th, I sent an email to the editors requesting information but received no response. *I wrote to the editors again on October 27th, this time using the Elvesier form, to request another update. The last status reported by Elvesier (https://ees.elsevier.com/respol/default.asp) was 'Required Reviews Complete' on October 9th, 2020.*Measuring HGHT Entrepreneurship EcosystemsOn October 28th, I received an email saying: "Hello Ed. I hope to get back to you shortly. I have two good reviews and I’m waiting on a third. This most definitely will be another R&R. More soon"*On November 8th, I got an official email about the paper that said: "We have now contains received the definitionsreferees' reports on your paper, measurescopies of which I enclose below for your information. As you will see, the referees make various comments and suggestions for improvement. I have given up on the third reviewer and examplewant to return the paper to you. It is an informal" However, by-example theory paperthis email only contained one review. I requested clarification and noted that Reviewer 3 had asked for empirics.*[[Determinants of Future Investment On November 11th, I got an email that said: "Hello Ed, This is strange. The comments were in Uthe comments to the editor. Here they are and they are not worth that much. This special issue has a specific purpose.S '''You do not need to run regressions!'''" (Note that the comments indicate that reviewer 1 accepted the paper. Startup Cities]]: The empirical analysis )*On February 6th, 2021, I submitted the second revision of ESOs is now in this the paper!.

The paper will use uses [[vcdb4VCDB20]] and [[US Startup City Ranking]], as well as a wealth of old McNair material. Sources include (copied to the project folder unless otherwise noted):