7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
==Current Version==*The final version was accepted to Research Policy on May 17th, 2021. *The 50-day share link is: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1d8SaB5ASINVf *The title was changed to "A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Tech Entrepreneurship Policy"
The current version is a 2nd R&R at Research Policy. It was <pdf>File:Egan_(re2021)_-_A_Framework_for_Assessing_Municipal_High-Growth_High-)submitted on Feb 6th, 2021:Tech_Entrepreneurship_Policy.pdf</pdf>
<pdf>FileThe BibTeX reference is (pending update with volume and number):MeasuringHGHTEntrepreneurshipEcosystemsV4-6.pdf</pdf>
This The original Measuring HGHT Entrepreneurship Ecosystems paper was broken into two:*Measuring HGHT :'''A Framework for Assessing Municipal High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: This Policy''' now contains the definitions, measures, and exampleexamples. It is an informalinductive, bycase-example theory study paper.
Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (view source)
Revision as of 16:46, 8 June 2021
, 16:46, 8 June 2021→Data and Analysis
|Has title=Measuring High-Growth High-Technology Entrepreneurship Ecosystems
|Has author=Ed Egan,
|Has paper status=R and RPublished
}}
==Final Version==
@article{EGAN2021104292, title ={A framework for assessing municipal high-growth high-technology entrepreneurship policy}, journal =Files{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 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 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 files are 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==
*[[Determinants of Future Investment in U.S. Startup Cities]]: The empirical analysis of ESOs is now in this paper!
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 two - 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.
This paper had a storied submission 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 version The first revision of the paper was submitted 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.
*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"
*On November 8th, I got an official email about the paper that said: "We have now received the referees' reports on your paper, copies 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 want to return 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 said: "Hello Ed, This is strange. The comments were in 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!'''" (Note that the comments are below as Reviewer 1. They indicate that the reviewer 1 accepted the paper.)*On February 6th, 2021, I submitted the second revision of the paper.
==Research Policy Special Issue==
==Data and Analysis==
The paper 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):
*[[Hubs]]: Hubs Data v2_'16.xlsx
*[[Federal Grant Data]], including NIH, NSF and other grant data, especially SBIR/STTR. Possibly also contract data.
