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 came from advances a framework for making rudimentary need, impact, and cost–benefit assessments of municipal high-growth high-tech entrepreneurship policy. The framework views ecosystem support organizations like accelerators, incubators, and hubs as components in a presentation that I made city’s venture pipeline. A component’s pipeline size, raise rate, and cost per raise measure its performance. In total, the framework consists of eight objective and reproducible measures based on quantities and qualities of venture capital investment and 16 definitions of related terms-of-the-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 the Kauffman UMM Grant Cohortdefinitions, measures, and examples. I originally attempted It is an inductive, case-study paper.*[[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 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 add empirics but this approach necessarily reduced reconsider a resubmitted paper, revised in the coverage light of materialthe referees' comments.: Although If you decide to revise the paper, it would be very useful if you could also include an author's response to the framework is simple referees, listing what changes you have (or have not) made and used in practicewhere.:If you choose to revise your paper, could you please ensure that it is also resubmitted on or before Feb 06, 2021. (If there is too long a gap, referees may have forgotten what they said previously or be unwilling to review the revised paper, causing further delays.)" Summarizing reviewer 1's comments (i.e., reading between the lines):*The writing is currently pretty good: '''it is well done'''... '''the frontier paper is polished'''... '''very nicely done'''.*The paper works as a whole. The reviewer didn't want anything cut: '''It is a collection of researchcase studies and definitions''', so there arenand '''I don't any published academic papers have ... major comments'''. It's Reviewer 3's comments that I need to address. Jim kindly reminded me to ascribe only normative motivations to the 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 address it like this... He also reminded me that the median review is a reject, and that this a `good' review based on the empiricsdistribution of reviews. So I opted to break The reviewer does say that the paper is useful and helpful::"The defining of key terms is a useful contribution of this paper, as are the identification of potentially useful metrics of HGHT entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the examples are often helpful in highlighting their various applications." The reviewer listed the following three major flaws::"In my view, the major flaws in the original submission study are not (1) considering possible downsides of each individual metric, (2) considering possible downsides in two - breaking using the empirics back out entire battery of measures, and leaving (3) testing alternatives to this measurement approach." I put these as points 1, 2, and 3, and added material from the rest of his review (see below) to create the list of the best attempt bullet-points that I could make at a narrative-based exploration 'll address:#Consider possible downsides of the whole frameworkindividual metrics.#Consider possible downsides in using the entire battery of measures. #Test alternatives to this measurement approach#Discuss the welfare implications of putting more information in the hands of policymakers, including:##It isnot 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 consequencemeasure when applicable (i.e., for the ranking measure).##Discuss that measurement is reductive.##Discuss systematic bias.#Test the effects of using a very unusual framework on various 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. But most people  Measures 1 and 2 provide ways to calculate proxies for return quartiles. Measures 3, 4 and 5 are the central measures of the framework. Measures 6 and 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 showed it need to were enthusiasticcut down the length of the paper. It is also referenceRP asks for a maximum word count of 8,000-bait10,000, though does allow exceptions. Outside Using pdftotext and wc, or doing a count in the review processtex file, it looks like I'm up near 17k. However, some readers were both amused approaches drastically inflate the total with table entries, TeX commands, etc. I expect the current true count is closer to 15k. I need to get it down to at most 12k. A different way of coming at the problem is to say that I'm using 12pt font with 1" margins and worried about its snarky toneone-half line spacing (as implemented using \onehalfspacing in LaTeX, which I[https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/65849/confusion-onehalfspacing-vs-spacing-vs-word-vs-the-world isn'm still trying t the same as 1.5 spacing in word]). AER restricts to 40 pages using this format[https://eml.berkeley.edu//~sdellavi/wp/pagelimits12-12-11.pdf], and Management Science restricts to address32 pages[https://pubsonline.informs.org/page/mnsc/submission-guidelines]. 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 perhaps 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. ===Special Issue Questions===

This paper had The special issue posed a storied submission processseries of questions (the full list is below) that I might rephrase to statements as follows:*The deadline for resubmission was June 15th, 2020. Before this deadline, I emailed the editors #Startups (venture-backed and offered them either this version of pre-venture backed) are the paperfundamental constructs, which contains no empiricsso they are what should be measured, or an empirical paper without examples or definitions. I received no response.and cities (census places geographically define ecosystems)#Consistent measurement is key!*This version of #The pipeline framework lays out the paper was submitted key relationships as an R&R to a Special Issue of Research Policy on June 10thit maps the mechanisms by which ecosystems get established, mature, 2020decline, with manuscript number RESPOL-D-19-01438R1or get renewed. *On September 15th, I sent an email to the editors requesting information but received no response#Venture capital measures add quality dimensions. *I wrote to Using the editors again pipeline framework on October 27th, top of this time using quality measure gives more finely grained evaluations of the Elvesier form, to request another update. The last status reported by Elvesier effectiveness of policy instruments#Venture capital has timing issues but exits are noisiers and longer term (https://eesshort vs.elsevier.com/respol/default.asplong term measures) was 'Required Reviews Complete' on October 9th, 2020.*On 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"#What do existing rankings for ecosystems measure?*On November 8th#Beyond direct pipeline components, I got an official email we should think about the paper that said: "We have now received the referees' reports on your paperuniversities, copies of which I enclose below for your information. As you will seecorporations, the referees make various comments and suggestions for improvementother participants. I have given up on the third reviewer and want #The measures should be able to return assess the paper to you." However, this email only contained one review. I requested clarification and noted that Reviewer 3 had asked for empirics.On November 11th I got an email that saidquestion: "Hello Ed, This To what extent is strange. The comments were in government policy accelerating or inhibiting the comments to the editor. Here they are and they are not worth that much. This special issue has a specific purpose. '''You do not need to run regressions!'''" The comments are below as Reviewer 1. They indicate that the reviewer accepted the paper.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):