Venture Capital and The Financing of Innovation-Wiley-Iste (2018) PDF

Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
Innovation between Risk and Reward Set

coordinated by
Bernard Guilhon and Sandra Montchaud
Volume 6
Venture Capital and the

Financing of Innovation
Bernard Guilhon
First published 2020 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2020

The rights of Bernard Guilhon to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019952874
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-069-0
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter 1. Venture Capital, Behavior and

Performance of Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. The analytical framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. The contractual model and agency problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. The resource-dependent approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. From the theoretical framework to the empirical findings:
observed behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.1. Methodological problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.2. The arbitrations made: the entrepreneurial risk . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.2.3. The change of the relationships over time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2.4. Behaviors of refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.2.5. Risk aversion of venture capitalists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3. The contribution of venture capital to the
performance of innovative companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.3.1. Innovation, growth and employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.3.2. Survival rates and entrepreneurial persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 2. The Sectoral Dynamics of Venture Capital . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.1. Orientation by sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.1.1. The orientation of venture capital by sector in the United States . . 46
2.1.2. The trajectory in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.1.3. The lessons learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.2. High-tech industries, a less stable group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
vi Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
2.2.1. Knowledge base, high-tech sectors, and venture capital:

the macroeconomic influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.2.2. The influence of advanced industries on the
performance of the US economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.2.3. Business creation, growth thresholds, and
the new technology sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2.4. Elements of explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.3. An econometric model for determining high-tech
investment in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.1. The approach used: the analytical framework
and assumptions made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.3.2. The econometric model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.3.3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Chapter 3. The Three Structures for Interpreting

Venture Capital: The Market, Industry and Institutions . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1. An interpretation of venture capital in market terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.1.1. From market efficiency to wealth creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.1.2. Characteristics and functions of the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.1.3. The venture capital market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.1.4. Why talk about a new market? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.1.5. Risk management at market levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.2. An interpretation of venture capital in terms of industry . . . . . . . . . 107
3.2.1. The spread of an industrial logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.2.2. The relative weight of venture capital
investment in relation to GDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.3. The role of institutions in the dynamics
of the venture capital industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.3.1. An econometric model for determining
venture capital investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.3.2. Specific analysis of institutional factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Acknowledgments
For Elizabeth. This book is dedicated to her, though it may have turned
out to be the opposite of what her concerns were. She is all the more
deserving of this dedication for having read and reread it, and in having
suggested changes and improvements, in the form of simpler sentences and
less sophisticated turns of phrase. The material does not exactly make for a
page turner and is perhaps a bit arid, which is yet another reason for
segments that sounded strange and possibly in need of a bit of fine tuning. A
special thank you goes to her.
For Alice, always quick to make space for my insatiable urge to write and
to provide me with all the means to achieve it. And once more, through
SKEMA, she provided the logistical infrastructure and opened its doors wide
to give me the warmest welcome.
For Stéphane, whose taste for reading does not go so far as to include
economics, and who prefers real economic games to reflections on economic
issues.
For Matilde, whose future choices remain to be seen, in hopes that this
book will serve as an inspiration to her to reflect and research.
For Arseniy, who always seems to be out of balance, in hopes that he will
put his very real abilities to use.
Introduction
“Really, what is analyzing, if not choosing and deferring?”

[ALA 10, p. 174]
The works carried out on the subject of venture capital analyze this
financing mechanism in terms of the stages of intervention, the players
involved, the actions and innovative practices they implement. They also
focus on the institutional arrangements that govern them, as well as on the
performance of innovation and growth of the company, the sector in which it
operates, and the economy as a whole.
What economists refer to as innovation implies novelty, but it is not

novelty in itself that constitutes innovation. A new product, service, or
process concept may be filed away and never brought into use. What matters
is how this concept is implemented in economic practice so that the new
feature introduced changes previously established practices and, in turn, the
ways in which certain types of problems are addressed. The idea of
innovation therefore implicitly refers to methods of producing, consuming or
financing, that is to an existing routine that is an accepted way of dealing
with a recurring problem. We will use the definition proposed by Vanberg
[VAN 92]: “An innovation can be considered as a routine that purports to be
new and potentially superior with regard to the accepted way of dealing with
a given problem”.
The phasing out of existing routines is a concept that comes directly from
Schumpeterian analysis. In his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
[SCH 51], Schumpeter points out that capitalism is infinitely malleable,
x Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
whose capability is not to manage existing structures but, by applying

“disjointed pushes”, to create new ones and then destroy them [SCH 51,
pp. 122–123]. He refutes the thesis of the exhaustion of technological
progress, because capitalism is inherently subjected to an evolutionary
process whose fundamental impulse is innovation. The creative destruction
process takes place over the long term and transforms the economic structure
from within “by eliminating outdated elements and continually creating new
ones” [SCH 51, p. 122]. This is the essential source of productivity gains.
The appearance of a new product, more modern equipment, or a new type of
organization is, above all else, an internal phenomenon within a company
that has the effect of modifying the forms of competition on the market
through the effect it has on quality and costs. This process should not be
reduced to a simple phenomenon of competition through pricing, since
creative destruction calls into question “the very foundations and existence...
of existing firms” [SCH 51, p. 124].
However, the Schumpeterian dynamic can only be understood if both the

real and financial dimensions of the act of innovation are taken into account.
Entrepreneurs who create innovations are faced with the need to finance
their projects in order to achieve new discoveries, which means giving a
primary role to financing mechanisms in the desired level of economic
activity. In his own historic period, Schumpeter favored financing through
banks, which over time, came to be seen as very limited in its ability to
support innovative projects.
I.1. Venture capital: an original mechanism for financing

innovative projects
Over the past 40 years, the relationship between industrial structures and
financing structures has changed profoundly. The forms of competition,
including all institutions and organizations involved with competition in the
markets, are the dominant institutional structure. Some institutional
structures (deregulated labor markets, the mobility of skilled labor, more
open and diversified financing, intellectual property rights, etc.) encourage
the emergence of new companies capable of creating marketable
technological knowledge. The emergence of venture capital is a by-product
of the need to develop forms of innovation in financing, allowing new
technological paths that have proliferated in many activities, particularly
high-tech ones, to be explored. At the same time, the deregulation of
Introduction xi
financial systems favors marked-based systems and threatens the stability of

bank-based systems. This has profound implications for how financing is
provided to companies, as well as for the opportunities made available from
private savings. Venture capital funds are multiplying: as professionally
managed organizations, they constitute venture capital (VC) firms, they
gather financing resources and they invest in companies that pass through a
formative period for a limited period of time (5 to 8 years).
I.2. Analysis of the financing chain
In an earlier paper [GUI 08], we defined venture capital as a financing

mechanism for the early stages of a company’s life, and proposed to analyze
it as a two-tiered structure of intermediation.
Financing players:
pension funds, banks,
insurance companies,
Legal and institutional context etc. Industrial experts
Venture capital
Intermediation services
Young innovative
companies
Markets for technological

knowledge
Downstream producers
Figure I.1. The simplified intermediation structure (source: [GUI 08, p. 9])
A venture capital fund is first and foremost an innovative project

management structure, firmly rooted in a legal and institutional context that
expresses the incentives and constraints defined by public authorities
(taxation, legal rules, control mechanisms, etc.). Using this as a basis, the
financing players, constituted mainly in Europe by banks and in the United
States by pension funds, insurance companies, retirement funds, etc.,
xii Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
become involved. In addition to these players, scientific, technological and

industrial experts also take part, whose participation is often required to
assess the market prospects of the projects that are presented.
The second level of intermediation involves projects that are more

specifically technology-intensive. In recent years, institutions specializing in
technological intermediation have emerged as agents acting as interfaces
between venture capital and new technological developments. Particularly in
the United States, many of these intermediaries have taken the form of
Internet service providers that provide information on the quality of
technology projects and growth opportunities. In addition, many technology
companies in the start-up phase, initially financed on an individual basis, are
knowledge producers seeking complementary financing from venture capital
funds and targeted information on downstream opportunities (licensing). In
this perspective, technological intermediation supports the development of
technological knowledge markets in many activities: software,
biotechnology, artificial intelligence, 3D, etc.
This intermediation mechanism creates specific constraints from the point

of view of information [RIN 16]:
– the existence of an agency relationship between the principal (venture
capital) and the agent (entrepreneur), which is absent in bank financing;
– the limited duration of these vehicles requires VC firms to disclose the
real value of their investments to be recovered at the closing date of the
venture capital fund;
– “At this point, institutional investors will be able to know the ‘true’
return to their investment, and can make an informed decision whether to
participate in the VC’s future funds or not. This structure, based on
sequential fund-raising through closed-end fund vehicles that allow
revelation of information about true investment returns, is central to the VC
industry” [RIN 16, pp. 3–4].
Today, the financing chain for innovative projects has been extended, and
the number of stages of the intermediation has increased [EKE 16, p. 2]:
Step 1. Incubation
In the first stage of development, when the company does not

yet exist and its business model is not established, financing is
Introduction xiii
mainly based on love money (Family, Friends and Fools),

public assistance (competitions, loans of honor), or assistance
provided by incubators or accelerators.
Step 2. Seed
This is the first capital contribution made to the company.

Funds can come from business angels, public authorities
(grants), private savings mechanisms such as crowd-funding or
specialized funds (priming funds).
Step 3. Start-up
Generally, it is at this stage that venture capital in the strict

sense of the term becomes involved, mainly through the activity
of specialized funds, but also through public aid at this point as
well.
Step 4. Growth
During the growth phase, growth capital funds are also

involved, which allow the company to expand its business
volume and enter new markets.
Step 5. Exit
The last potential step is the exit: the resale of the company
(usually to large companies wishing to take ownership of its
assets, ideas, and/or the technologies it developed) or an initial
public offering.
These five stages follow the path of a logistic curve from incubation to
exit, with venture capital considered by these authors to include the start-up
and growth phases.
Another slightly different definition has been proposed by the OECD

[OEC 18a, p. 102] which is based on the definition proposed by EVCA:
“Venture capital is a subset of private equity (i.e. equity capital

provided to enterprises not quoted on a stock market) and refers
to equity investments made to support the pre-launch, launch,
xiv Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
and early stage development phases of a business. Venture

capital-backed companies [...] are new created or young
enterprises that are (partially or totally) financed by venture
capital”.
The seed phase is included as part of venture capital. The same is true in
a more recent publication [OEC 18b] in which the OECD includes the
following four steps in its definition of venture capital: seed/start-up/early
stage/late stage venture.
In our opinion, these different definitions refer to constraints on the

information available to work on long series. They are also explained by the
confusion that often occurs between the company’s development stages and
the investment stages:
Development of Concept/
Development Growth Maturity
the company Start-up
Seed
Investment stages Early stage VC Late stage VC Exit
Angels
Table I.1. Progression of development and investment

of companies (source: [NVC 18, p. 7])
The start-up and early stage phase includes the production of the concept,
the business model, and the operational deployment. These three stages are
situations in which the cash flow is negative. The so-called late stage phase
corresponds to the company’s growth phase. During this phase, the viability
of the product is made certain, the company begins to grow, and its
marketing and sales operations play an increasingly important role. In most
cases, and based on the data available to us, venture capital will be identified
in our work during the start-up, early stage, and late stage phases1.
1 Very often, venture capitalists are involved at the seed stage, which is the responsibility of
business angels. The question arises as to whether venture capitalists and business angels are
complementary or may be substituted [HEL 17]. In fact, venture capitalists invest money
from third parties while business angels invest their own money. This distinction is far from
insignificant: if they are complementary, the financial ecosystem is integrated; if they are able to be
substituted, the financial ecosystems are disjointed. The authors suggest that there are two separate
paths in the start-up ecosystem and that this can be explained by the diverse range of companies’
needs.
Introduction xv
Thus, the company’s development is based on types of interventions

made by the players by means of a technical, social, and cultural process that
leads to the emergence of a technological variety, in other words, an
innovation.
I.3. Analysis of the intermediation structure
This structure can be identified by three elements:

– as an incentive structure that defines division of powers and
compensation schemes: venture capital receives two forms of compensation:
an annual percentage on the amount invested plus 20 to 25% of the earnings
at the exit time. The compensation of entrepreneurs varies, depending in part
on balance each of them strike between an entrepreneurial career and the
status of employee in a large company, and on the amount of assets they
personally own (see Chapter 1);
– as an allegiance structure. Financing with venture capital makes it
possible to modify the distribution of rights between the contracting parties.
These are voting rights, the rights to sit on the board of directors, settlement
rights and cash flow rights. In addition, the most critical resource of a
company is its organizational capital [ZIN 00], which is a property that
emerges from its employees’ specific investments. Contributions in equity
only become legitimate because the structure of specific investments can be
considered consolidated enough to grant power to investors:
“In this context, venture capitalists will tend to professionalize

the firm’s management so as not to make it too dependent on
the entrepreneur or a specific professional manager. The
financing of innovation, driven by venture capital, tends to erase
the role of the entrepreneur in some cases once the firm is
incorporated, which facilitates the external financing of the firm
during various ‘rounds of financing’” [GUI 08, pp. 71–72].
However, this allegiance structure remains flexible. There are situations

regarding which the level of performance strengthens the power of venture
capitalists, and there are situations of conflict in which decision-making
power and control rights will be exercised by the entrepreneur;
– as a structure of interrelated rules: those defined by national laws and
which form the legal, fiscal, and operational environment (a situation of
xvi Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
heteronomy) and those defined by the elements of the contracts negotiated

by the participants (a situation of autonomy).
I.4. Justification of venture capital
In addition to representing an original mechanism for financing

innovative projects, many studies have highlighted certain unique features of
venture capital. Here are some of the most important aspects:
First, it appears that venture capital (public programs and the private
financial sector) has enabled dynamic entrepreneurs to create companies
whose emergence and growth have revolutionized high-tech industries such
as IT, digital technology, biotechnology, medicine, etc., as well as services
such as insurance, e-commerce, etc.
Second, venture capital represents only a small fraction of total R&D

expenditures. Venture capital-backed firms accounted for about 3% of R&D
spending in the United States between 1983 and 1992, while accounting for
8% of total patents filed during this period [KOR 00]. It was during the
1970s that venture capital became an important component of the new
innovation system in the United States [KEN 11]2. In total, venture capital
investment has accounted for about 10.2% of innovation flows in 15
European countries since the early 1990s.
2 “The first and most important of the new economic areas might be termed the networked,
distributed computing model that was made possible by the advances in semiconductors. This
includes both the personal computer (Apple, and then in the 1980s, Osbourne, Compaq, and
others) and work stations (Apollo Computers, to be followed in the early 1980s by Sun
Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and many more), components for small computers (Seagate,
Shugart Associates, Tandon Corporation, Zilog and many more), software (Microsoft to be
followed in the early 1980s by Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, to name a few) and even
computer retailers such as Computerland. The computer data networking sector also began its
explosive growth with companies such as Rolm (founded in 1969), Ungermann-Bass, 3Com,
and in the 1980s many more. Additionally, there were continuing opportunities in classes of
larger computers leading to firms, such as Amdahl, and providing components and software
for them, e.g. Oracle. One change for the most successful ICT start-ups of the 1970s and into
the 1980s is that the government market was significant, but no longer critical” [KEN 11,
p. 1708]. (pp. 14–15).
Introduction xvii
Third, venture capital rarely funds fundamental research, with start-ups

devoting a large part of their R&D expenditures to product development and
marketing.
Fourth, venture capitalists are currently facing a new concept, one that
they have looked on with uncertainty, regarding the entrepreneurial skills of
the management team, markets, and technology. Betting on enlightened
investors and decision-makers is not a sustainable proposition in this area.
With regard to markets and technology, there is little or no data, making the
future difficult to predict from existing benchmarks – though not impossible
to imagine. From this point of view, venture capital works as a mechanism
for selection and screening, that must involve experts, people with scientific,
economic, and marketing knowledge, in order to define the scope of the new
concept by carrying out testing and experimentation phases to establish
highly uncertain ideas on solid foundations, particularly in high-tech sectors.
In addition, venture capital funds accumulate knowledge and experience that
support and assist entrepreneurs. In this way, the barriers to entry into
entrepreneurship are not simply financial or informational, but social and
psychological, and their extent also depends on the acceptability of
innovation. Indeed, the start-ups invested in are not primarily producers of
goods or services, they permeate the field of science and innovation
and offer new methods for producing, consuming, knowing, and
communicating. From this perspective, venture capital is an essential
facility, by its nature, that is, it is an essential service infrastructure from
which innovative ideas can be carried out and move forward to business
start-ups3.
Finally, venture capital does not produce developments in isolation,

rather, this type of financing is influenced by macroeconomic (GDP, interest
rates, etc.), institutional, and organizational developments, without one
single reading being applicable. For example, the relationship between
venture capital investment and growth can be interpreted as directly one-to-
one: venture capital is a growth factor and, in turn, growth has a positive and
significant impact on the development of this industry in countries where it
has reached a certain degree of maturity. Moreover, institutional changes are
3 This makes it possible to give context to the approach, defining a venture capital fund solely
as a portfolio of start-ups whose risk frontier is to be adjusted by distributing it using strictly
financial techniques.
xviii Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
inextricably linked to the development of this industry4. Finally, the very

significant role played by new players such as business angels has made it
possible to have a more detailed division within the organization of the
financing chain and to encourage the implementation of supervision and
selection processes that have reduced the uncertainty surrounding the new
concepts. Not to mention serial entrepreneurs and investors who are able to
invest large sums in start-ups, either directly or through fund structures, and
who have built a reputation for skills, qualifications, and integration into
effective networks.
I.5. Problem addressed by the book
The fundamental issue addressed in this work is organized around the

following four proposals:
1) the players involved take decisions by mobilizing different knowledge
sets in relation to the innovative project. More specifically, venture capital
activities use two types of knowledge:
“Instrumental knowledge represents the means of production

used within a process of activity. They include scientific and
technological knowledge, knowledge relating to management or
organizational principles, etc. The second type refers to
interpretative knowledge that helps to define situations, to
develop representations of reality, and to give meaning to a
productive activity. Interpretative knowledge is developed
during a filtering phase that seeks to identify the contributions
4 In the United States, if we look exclusively at companies created after 1974, “the idea here
is to see what portion of the companies that could have received VC financing, choose to use
VC financing. To get at the companies who could have used VC financing, we limit our
sample to those companies that came of age after the Prudent Man Rule. By excluding firms
like Ford Motor Company and General Electric, we can better estimate the importance of VC
to young companies. Approximately 1,339 currently public US companies were founded
after 1974. Of those, 556 (42%) are VC-backed. Focusing on these companies dramatically
increases our measures of VC impact. VC-backed companies comprise 63% of the market cap
of these “new” public companies, versus 21% for the full sample. Employment share
increases similarly, from 11% to 38%. The most impressive figure is arguably R&D spending,
with VC-backed firms making up an overwhelming 85% of the total R&D of the post-1974
public companies. Given that the VC industry has been in large part spurred by the relaxation
of the Prudent Man Rule, these results provide an illustration of the importance of
government regulation” [GOR 15, p. 5].
Introduction xix
of new knowledge in relation to existing solutions and to

evaluate technological projects in terms of their effectiveness
and utility...” [GUI 08, p. 63].
Instrumental knowledge is held by entrepreneurs, and its purpose is to

delimit all possible activities. The purpose of interpretative knowledge is to
delimit all conceivable activities, they are held by venture capitalists
(assisted by experts). Of course, there are overlaps: entrepreneurs also
develop representations that are supposed to correspond to productive and
market opportunities, venture capitalists hold instrumental knowledge they
have obtained from areas such as their previous experience as entrepreneurs.
The intersection between these two sets of knowledge represents the
achievable activities;
2) the attention span of the players is limited [SIM 83]. No single player
can control all the elements included in an innovative project. It is
recognized that cognitive limitations depend on the distance of the players
from the content of the project [FLE 01]. If instrumental knowledge is close
to the knowledge bases held by entrepreneurs (for example, the project
consists of the recombination of a known set of components), the behavior
adopted is described as exploitation. In contrast, while interpretative
knowledge is knowledge that is distant from what is normally found in the
field of venture capital intervention, it is exploratory in nature and needs to
be supported and expanded on by the use of scientific and industrial experts.
In this context, the “attention network” must operate in such a way that links
are created between the entrepreneur who directs attention to salient points
of the project, and the network members who receive this attention [LAZ
11]. This allows for the exchange of information;
3) from these two proposals, it follows that the financing of innovative
projects with venture capital is fundamentally ambiguous. Points of
ambiguity may be generated by the difficulty of distinguishing between
more and less worthwhile projects. Similarly, technological knowledge can
lead to divergent assessments of the contribution of a technology. In this
case, the productive and commercial aspects of the project must be rethought
and reassessed;
4) ambiguity can be reduced by mechanisms for consolidation and
valuation, known as syndication, staged financing, improvement of
intangible assets, assistance provided by the entrepreneurial support
xx Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
network, the increased presence of informal investors, increased testing and

experimentation phases, etc.
I.6. Overview of the book
The purpose of this book is to analyze the operating mechanisms and

interpretation structures of this type of innovation financing, using a dual
approach based on analytical considerations and applied economics. The
scope of the investigation includes the United States, Europe and particularly
France. We have paid less attention to the Asia/Pacific region due to the
difficulty of obtaining significant samples of venture capital-backed
companies. and series long enough to establish robust results and
considerations. The levels of analysis that are the motivation for the three
axes of our reflection are based on three types of logic.
Chapter 1 identifies the rationale of the main players who make use of
this following financing mechanism: the project leader (the entrepreneur)
and the person(s) responsible for the fund (venture capital). The logic of
control and sanction is at the basis of the contractual model. The cooperative
logic serves as a pillar for the scheme which postulates mutual dependence
between the two players, with neither of them able to exert a unilateral and
asymmetric influence on the behavior of innovative start-ups. In addition,
facing how difficult it can be to select the right projects, venture capital
works at the limits of uncertainty through syndication and staged financing,
which partially reduces failures and disappointing investments (exits at zero
value). The difficulty of selecting the right projects is therefore real. For his
part, the entrepreneur must deal with a type of risk that cannot be diversified,
and in all too many cases, when the ambiguity is removed it reveals only a
negative outlook. In addition, some European countries, such as Italy, have
distinguished themselves from the United States by promoting less
permissive cultural behaviors in terms of innovation, resulting in a strong
resilience of family capital and a strong attachment to traditional ownership
values. This is what we have called the refusal attitude towards this type of
funding.
Chapter 2 highlights the different forms of sectoral logic. Since the goal
is to study a mechanism for financing innovative projects, it was natural to
focus on the most promising sectors in terms of innovation, that is high-tech
sectors. The sectoral orientation of venture capital makes it possible to
Introduction xxi
highlight the specific features of Europe and the United States, as well as the
consolidation mechanisms that distinguish the industrialization trajectory in
the United States: R&D spending, manpower qualifications, testing and
experimentation phases, etc. These innovative practices that seek to reduce
ambiguity are not used with the same intensity in Europe. For example,
R&D does not seem to be considered by private players as a crucial variable
capable of transforming a small enterprise into a high-growth firm, which it
feeds into both through filing patents and through its attractiveness to
qualified productive resources. To complete this analysis, we have sought to
highlight the determining factor of high-tech investment in Europe in order
to assess the quality of the environment.
Chapter 3 focuses on macroeconomic and macro-social variables whose

coherence is highlighted by the model presented. This leads us to favor the
analysis of the institutions we have compared using structures typically
employed for interpreting this activity: on the one hand, the market, and on
the other hand, industry. Markets and industries are embedded in
institutional mechanisms that we highlight in several ways: the construction
of a European venture capital megafund, public authorities’ interventions
through tax exemption mechanisms or, as a counterpoint, the insufficient
mobilization of certain players in France faced with the need to create a real
entrepreneurial ecosystem. The ambiguity on display here involves the
attitude of public authorities, namely with regard to managing venture
capital as a niche or to making it an instrument of industrial policy. A more
specific analysis of the institutional variables is thus carried out to highlight
the idea that orienting institutions so that they are complementary is stronger
for market-based systems and that it favors the expansion of this industry.
1
Venture Capital, Behavior and

Performance of Stakeholders
The venture capital industry is structured on the management of assets

carried out by third parties. This chapter will focus on the logic guiding the
actions of the various different stakeholders to make venture capital an
effective mechanism for financing innovation. The social practices that take
place are done within three-way relationships between the following players.
Institutional investors (pension

funds, banks, insurance
companies, etc.)
1 2
3
General Partner Venture capital funds
(VC firm) (VC funds)
4
6
Entrepreneurs
(companies)
Figure 1.1. Simplified diagram of venture capital activity: (1) collection of funds;
(2) distribution of returns obtained; (3) low level of contribution; (4) management fees
and payments; (5) investments; (6) end of the investment relationships (source:
[RIN 11])
We have identified three main areas of investigation: interactions

between financed firms and venture capital (selection, investments,
Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation,

First Edition. Bernard Guilhon.
© ISTE Ltd 2020. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
strategies, exits), interactions between venture capital funds and institutional

investors (collection of finances, distribution of returns), and finally the
organization of venture capital firms and their relationships, including
syndication. We adopt the point of view of the works of literature which
considers the “General Partner” as a firm and the company as a start-up that
receives funding. When we consider the financing chain for innovative start-
ups, we may note two characteristics unique to France: first, the relative
weakness of long-term funds, and second, the significant participation of the
public sector [EKE 16]. For regulatory reasons (prudential ratios),
investments by banks and insurance companies in long-term, high risk
projects are necessarily limited. The influence of public intervention is given
in Table 1.1.
United Scandinavian
Germany (1) France (4)
Kingdom (2) countries (3)
Public
22.3 2.9 13.4 22.3
institutions
Family offices
18.8 6.5 6.9 19.1
and individuals
Insurance
8.4 9.6 4.3 16.6
companies
Funds of funds 15.5 18.6 22.1 14.7
Pension funds 21.5 36.3 27.4 11.0
Banks 6.1 2.2 5.6 7.2
Private
3.6 1.8 1.5 5.0
companies
Sovereign
0.7 15.4 10.5 2.7
wealth funds
Capital markets 0.2 1.6 1.5 0.8
Academic
institutions,
3.1 5.1 6.6 0.8
donations, and
foundations
Total 100 100 100 100
Table 1.1. Distribution of private equity funds raised, by type of investor (in %),
2012–2015: (1) = Germany + Switzerland and Austria; (2) = United Kingdom +
Ireland; (3) = Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden; (4) = France + Belgium and
Luxembourg (source: [EKE 16, p. 5] from EVCA)
Table 1.1 shows the funds raised by private equity. Despite the similarity
of these statistics, venture capital must be considered as distinct from private
Venture Capital, Behavior and Performance of Stakeholders 3
equity, even if these two financing mechanisms are of a comparable nature

(illiquid and medium- to long-term investments). The two do not take the
same approach to the problem of fundraising. In particular, with regard to
venture capital in Europe, the difficulty of finding the right options for
departure explains why this industry consistently underperforms. This would
explain why the funds raised on the European venture capital market do not
reach the levels of those raised on the private equity market.
With regard to venture capital, a recent article states that:
“France is characterized... by the importance of venture capital

financing through public funds, which represent more than a
quarter of the amounts raised. This is partly due to the lack of
pension funds and university foundations. In fact, the time scale
of these investors, which spans a greater period than that of
other institutional players (banks, generalist funds, etc.) and
their greater capacity to take risks (compared to insurers, for
example), makes them important players in other countries.
France is also characterized by its smaller specialized funds. As
an example, the largest French funds are about 10 times smaller
than the largest American funds. This fragmentation poses a
particular problem for the most important fundraising events,
beyond the start-up phase, which are essential for supporting the
growth of successful start-ups and keeping them within the
territory” [FRA 17, p. 2].
It should be noted that the target company and the entrepreneur do not
occupy the same position in these two configurations. In private equity- and
particularly in buyouts – the company already exists, it is established, is
often mature, and generally functions as part of the “old economy”. Investors
acquire existing companies, improve their business model (the targets are
very often underperforming business units) by transferring modern
managerial tools and financial techniques to them to increase their value.
Poorly managed companies become attractive targets that can be
transformed into profitable companies [MEY 06].
By contrast, in venture capital, the company does not exist at the

beginning of the process. It is only a concept of a product, process, or
service, which will be developed in the “new economy”. The trade-off
between seizing on an entrepreneurial opportunity and being employed in a
large company, given the entrepreneur’s aversion to risks, often leads to the
conclusion that entrepreneurial choice is not very profitable because of the
specific risks faced by the start-up that is to be created. The risk of exposure
to corporate volatility is much lower in later stages (development or
transmission). On the other hand, managers of venture capital and
development capital funds are exposed to the same difficulty of diversifying
their portfolios.
Moreover, the financial flows do not have the same purpose. Venture
capital represents an institutional and organizational innovation that makes it
possible to organize young innovative companies and professionalize their
management, so that – in the case of the most efficient among them – they
can make it into the technology stock market (going public). Following the
logic of private equity, opportunities for profit can be found when the funds
become owners of mature companies in which operators identify
opportunities to create value, by optimizing their business portfolio and
restructuring the scope of these companies. To this end, companies are often
removed from the stock market, their shares become the property of one (or
more) funds and, since they are no longer listed, they cannot be bought on
the stock exchange by the public: they “go private”, hence the term private
equity. A new model known as the “not publicly traded” model has emerged
and developed rapidly in recent years, which contradicts the underlying logic
of capitalism.
We will focus on three aspects. First, we will specify the framework for
analyzing the relationships between venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.
Then, we will analyze the real behavior of these two categories of actors.
Finally, we will highlight the contributions made by venture capitalists to the
performance of innovative companies.
1.1. The analytical framework
Academic literature essentially uses two approaches: the agency theory

and the resource dependency approach.
1.1.1. The contractual model and agency problems
Over the lifespan of the company, a financing gap is created when

potentially profitable investment opportunities cannot be taken advantage of
due to a lack of internal financing. Additional external capital might then be

provided by shareholders, banks, venture capitalists, companies, etc. In the
first stage of development, when the company does not yet exist and its
business model is not defined, funds may be provided by the entrepreneurs
themselves, their families, and/or their friends. In addition to this, they may
receive public support (competitions, honorary loans) or support provided by
incubators (see Box 1.1) or accelerators1 [EKE 16]. The authors of the cited
work distinguish the incubation phase from the seed phase (with funds
usually provided by business angels, but also from public authorities or
specialized funds) and the start-up phase, in which venture capitalists are
very active2.
“EuraTechnologies [is] an ecosystem where major digital firms and start-ups

coexist... The path to creating a company is filled with challenges: deciphering
the administrative process, convincing investors, building an address book of
potential clients... To address these challenges, the incubator gives guidance and
advising. It brings in lawyers, accountants, tax experts, managers... An army of
experienced professionals, whose job it is to show newcomers the ropes before
letting them take the wheel. Alongside the multitude of small businesses, digital
giants such as IBM and Capgemini have created their own operations to
‘directly access project leaders’, says Massimo Magnifico [Chief Operating
Officer of EuraTechnologies]. The presence of large laboratories,
such as those of the Institut national de la recherche consacré au numérique
(Inria) or the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA), continue to contribute
to the richness of the site... The owners of a technology talk to companies who
will ‘potentally [find it] a practical application...’”
Box 1.1. The EuraTechnologies incubator (source: [NUN 17, p. 18])
1 Accelerators differ from incubators in the limited duration of their schedules, the provision
of tutoring and training, and the payment of salaries. In addition, these programs are
organized into cohorts, that is companies enter and exit these programs in groups [COH 14].
2 This does not prevent them from participating in the previous seed step as well. New
methods have emerged in the start-up phase: “crowdfunding” (a call for private savings
contributions: funds are raised from a large number of participants, each providing a very
limited amount) or crowd equity, which allows large investors (banks, large companies, etc.)
to select start-ups seeking external financing. More often than not, the start-up is acquired in
this case.
The literature has often focused on the opacity of the information

involving start-ups, particularly those that are technology-intensive [CAR
02]. In addition to the fact that coverage by the media only very rarely works
in favor of young companies (except at international trade fairs), an
innovative idea that can lead to a new product, process, or service is a
strategic asset that the company must protect in order to receive future
returns. In this sense, restricting information is a rational strategy for
controlling intangible assets. Moreover, since these are innovation-based
companies whose concept is based on R&D expenditures, their situation can
be compared to what has become known as the “lemons market” and
modeled by Akerlof in 1970. When projects involve long-term R&D
investments, funders have more difficulty distinguishing between worthy
projects and ones that are less so. The existence of such problems of
information imbalances gives rise to three types of difficulties: adverse
selection, moral hazards, and opportunism.
In its extreme version, adverse selection means that the market for R&D
projects can disappear if the information imbalance is too severe. Indeed, if
the cost of disclosing information to the market is very high, the quality of
the signal surrounding the potential project is reduced [HAL 10]. The
ambiguity is very strong in this case. According to Hall, this mechanism can
be attenuated in two ways. First, if R&D expenditure is an observable signal
that can be audited externally, and second, if the innovator is a serial
entrepreneur whose reputation has been built through previously founded
and successful start-ups.
Moral hazards occur when the entrepreneur – and venture capitalist do

not share the same objective, with the former preferring to invest in activities
that are rewarding for themselves, but not necessarily for the company.
Regardless of this difference, the entrepreneur may have excessive
confidence in a project and overestimate it, while the probability of success
will only gradually become apparent over time. In this context, the
entrepreneurs and the venture capitalists will disagree on the time
commitment and the number of rounds of funding required. Venture
capitalists face the dilemma of either having to wait too long to cancel a
project or having to cancel it too quickly. However, it is possible to
accelerate or slow down the project’s financing rate, depending on the
progress that has been made and the expectations formed at each stage.
There is also nothing from preventing the venture capitalists from including
a termination rule in the contract (based on certain criteria), thus eliminating
the possibility for opportunistic behavior by a contractor seeking to extend

the duration of the project.
These considerations show that providing equity capital from external

sources will be more difficult to achieve for innovative projects than for
ordinary investments, and this difficulty is still greater for innovative start-
ups. In this context, how can we mitigate agency problems?
Venture capitalists have several possibilities for doing so. In addition to a

qualitative evaluation of the project to be carried out on the basis of the
business model provided by the entrepreneur, investors pay the most
attention to the composition of the management team during the evaluation
phase. In addition, external cognitive resources can be mobilized within the
“entrepreneurial support network” that has been formed [KEN 04], including
those of experts whose intervention is necessary to assess the commercial
potential of projects, and those of institutions specializing in work as
technological intermediaries (legal advisors, intellectual property specialists)
who act as interfaces between investors and technological start-ups. Finally,
the practice of syndication multiplies the skills required to review a project,
while spreading the financial risks over time during the investment phase:
“This refers more generally to work on the advantages of a

system called hierarchy, in which a project is accepted on the
basis of the observations of several people in relation to the
polyarchy characterized by independent decision-makers” [GUI
08, p. 103].
Indeed, the authors (Sah, Stiglitz, etc.) stress the difficulty for individuals
to gather, absorb, and make use of large masses of information in a limited
period of time, which gives rise to the idea that a deliberation within an
information ecosystem is able to do better, which is to say, lead to better
decisions, than a single individual whose capacity for attention is necessarily
limited.
Guilhon and Montchaud also point out that the contract is necessarily the
result of negotiations between the venture capitalists and the company’s
managers, seeking financing. The most notable aspects are regarding the
financial package (amount of funds injected, types of securities used:
convertible preference shares, contractual protection mechanisms, etc.) and
the drafting of the shareholders’ agreement (inclusion of the venture
capitalist(s) on the Board of Directors, granting of decision-making rights,

financing in stages, incentive mechanisms, etc.). In particular, the allocation
of decision-making rights and the exercise of these rights depend on
observable measures of the financial and non-financial performance of
companies.
In this way, the discretionary allocation of rights and the possibility of

using performance incentive systems create the equivalent of a hierarchy in
the sense described by Williamson: the ability to give orders and carry out
the administrative management of the project. However, the intensity of the
hierarchical relationship varies, and is exercised on a structure that is not
very thoroughly integrated when considering the different rounds of funding.
The hierarchical relationship varies in intensity and this expresses that:
“The venture capital contract is a hybrid, a complex

combination of equity and debt (and one that in fact frequently
contains convertible priority securities or other similar
investment vehicles) that more closely resembles debt when the
company has poor performance (control is given to the investor)
and more closely resembles equity when the company
demonstrates good performance (control is transferred to the
entrepreneur, which is consistent with the logic of incentive)”
[HAL 02, p. 47].
As enticing, as it may be, contractual analysis through the agency

relationship has several limitations. Despite the presence of mechanisms for
flexibility that allow the relationships between these actors to change over
time based on the company’s performance and the information received,
some elements are inevitably left out of contracts, which by definition are
always incomplete. In addition, once the decision has been made to invest,
agency costs can be mitigated through a cumulative learning process. Over
time, as a result of investments already made in many areas and the
experiences gained, venture capitalists learn to better interpret the observed
performance of funded start-ups [DIM 08]. Dimov and Murray point out that
the cumulative learning process allows the VC firm to form a group of
experienced managers, that is “intangible and tacit human capital that
represents a secure and inimitable source of advice for the less experienced
managers of the companies in the portfolio” [DIM 08, p. 130]. The
accumulation of expertise skills, the product of learning through practice,
makes it possible to extract higher returns on investment and to engage in
projects with higher added value, in particular, the most innovative start-ups.
In addition, more effective monitoring (advising, etc.) and governance
processes are being adopted in the start-up (and possibly seed) activities,
which are becoming more specialized.
Finally, despite the flexibility of the contract and the effects of learning,
the oversight mechanisms present a negative image of the relationship
between venture capital and the entrepreneur. In particular, the transfer of
rights is punitive in nature. Moreover, this image is incomplete. By
considering venture capital as the principal and the entrepreneur as the agent,
we are ignoring the fact that venture capitalists, in addition to their oversight
activities, are often very involved in the management of funded start-ups and
that the company’s manager(s) are not simply agents expected to perform
tasks that the principal imposes on them. These two players have
interdependent roles, and because of the relative imbalance of knowledge
between them, “their relationship should be considered as one of mutual
dependence based on the relationships of power” [PAR 16, p. 15].
1.1.2. The resource-dependent approach
An analysis of the different types of knowledge, and their placement

within a scheme for the distribution of roles between venture capitalists and
entrepreneurs, makes it possible to specify the way in which a resource
dependency approach complements the logic of the contract.
As mentioned above, the business of venture capital involves two types

of knowledge. The intangible means of production used within an activity
process are qualified as instrumental knowledge. They are explicit (i.e.
scientific and technological knowledge) and/or tacit in nature. In this case,
they are procedural in nature (knowing how to do it). The second type refers
to interpretative knowledge that helps to define situations, imagine
representations of reality, and give meaning to a productive activity by
integrating it into a value chain. This kind of knowledge works to reduce the
ambiguity associated with certain real-world conditions, particularly in high-
tech activities. The respective roles of these two categories of agents are not
set in stone. When entrepreneurs develop representations of interpretative
knowledge that are supposed to correspond to production opportunities and
market opportunities, they are not always able to evaluate the information
created by their innovation. That is how new certain ways of acting,
consuming, or communicating may be. Therefore, it is important for
cognitive attention of financial decision-makers and experts to be focused,

through producing a model that can present salient points. Indeed, since
cognitive attention is limited, the different aspects of the project are
sequenced.
The possible and conceivable activities that an innovative project may

take cannot be superimposed on each other; there must be an intersection
between these two sets of knowledge. The literature notes that venture
capitalists and experts gain new knowledge and, as a result, develop
capacities of expertise that improve their ability to evaluate projects, to
appreciate intangible assets (patents, R&D expenditures), the viability of a
business model, etc. Entrepreneurs actively participate in this legitimization
process by using their technical skills to find a place in a market that fits the
product, and by seeking to define a distinct space and identity so that the
company and the market become synonymous.
Identity can be constructed from several mechanisms, such as by

reproducing cognitive models that are easy to identify and have been
implemented elsewhere, particularly by investors. In particular, in services
related to the Internet, a cognitive model can be built around the notion of
secure transactions, or the notion of trust. Similarly, patenting allows
innovators to give investors an indication of their R&D spending, the
capacity of their expertise, and technological lead in a given field. The
actions taken jointly between these two groups of players are intended to
reduce the ambiguity of the situation created by the innovative project. This
ambiguity exists because players may assign different functionalities to a
new technology. They have their own “cultural resources” (skills, theoretical
diagrams, etc.) that focus the attention on certain aspects that become more
salient to them than others [LEO 11]. According to Leonardi, technologies
are “interpretatively flexible” [LEO 11, p. 349], thus venture capitalists and
entrepreneurs may have different interpretations of the problems that a
technology is supposed to solve. In this context, innovation is not so much a
process for solving problems, which are supposed to exist somewhere until
they are solved, but rather a process for constructing problems. When the
problem is shared by the actors, ambiguity is reduced.
By contrast with the logic of a contract, the forms of involvement and the
type of coordination between the actors are different. Relationships of
mutual dependency produce a cooperative form of governance based on the
implementation of reciprocal and complementary knowledge that, far from
demonstrating the preeminence of venture capital, generates strong

interactions between themselves and the company’s management. Their
involvement depends on both the attitudes they share about the projects and
the resources they control. Because of their innovations, start-ups face
specific risks that depend on the newness of the innovation. While adhering
to the same project, both actors may have a preference for risk, more so in
the “early stage” phase, but that is different or changes over time when the
company reaches a more advanced stage (a “late-stage venture”. The start-up
begins to grow, the viability of the product is proven, and the business
activity focuses on marketing and sales). The interdependence or reciprocal
influence exercised by each actor depends on the extent of the resource held
by one player, on the performance of the other, and the extent of control that
each player exercises over the resource or a replacement for that resource
[PAR 16]. The knowledge and skills possessed create a situation of mutual
dependence, since it is rare for either player to fully master all the elements
required to perform an action or achieve the desired result.
1.2. From the theoretical framework to the empirical findings:

observed behaviors
Kaplan and Stromberg argue that transitioning from theoretical modeling

to practice does not pose any major difficulties: “Venture capitalists are real-
world entities whose behavior is very similar to that of theoretical investors”
[KAP 03]. These players are supposed to be able to solve what Gilson calls
“the problem of simultaneity”, that is bringing together entrepreneurs,
investors and financial intermediaries at the same time. In fact, the behaviors
observed through the empirical estimates run up against methodological
difficulties. Taking note of these difficulties allows us to take a more
cautious approach to theoretical predictions. Moreover, the relationships
between these players vary based on the trade-offs they make, they change
along the stages of the company’s life, they are part of a social and economic
context, and finally, for the venture capitalists, they represent an aversion to
risk that can be reduced by syndication.
1.2.1. Methodological problems
The behaviors observed depend on the information contained in the

databases that face sample selection problems [INR 11]. For these authors, it
is conceptually impossible to precisely define a company’s date of birth.

Should we favor the first stage of financing, or admit that entrepreneurs can
make their projects mature well before they are taken over by a funder?
Indeed, personal or family financing may have enabled them to pay research
and development (R&D) expenses, develop a business model, or develop a
new concept while working as an employee at a large company.
In addition, empirical estimates face the difficulty of isolating the effects

of selection from the effects of treatment, also known as “coaching” effects.
Selection effects appear from the moment when the empirical data only
include firms that have obtained financing, neglecting those that have been
refused financing or those that have refused an equity contribution. In the
first case, the screening process excludes “the worst entrepreneurs” from
receiving any financing. Assuming that the transaction is completed, it
depends not only on the quality of the project, but also on the entrepreneurs’
personality and their ability to anticipate demand – variables that are difficult
to enter into any database, and yet raise a problem of endogeneity. Venture
capitalist finances a project because the entrepreneur has chosen wisely
regarding the field and year of creation of the start-up (market timing skill)
[GOM 08]3.
Reverse causality means that expectations of future events can influence

the behavior of agents. In particular, Da Rin et al. [RIN 11] point out that a
quality project can quickly lead to an initial public offering (IPO) and
motivate venture capital investment. Such investments hold convertible
preference shares, while entrepreneurs hold ordinary shares. In the case of an
IPO, the preference shares are converted into ordinary shares, which allows
the funder to retain an interest in a successful company. The opposite
causality can also play a role: the investment made can strengthen the quality
of the entrepreneurial project and encourage an initial public offering at an
early stage in the lifespan of the start-up.
If this now results in moving forward in terms of performance, (see

section 1.3), a strong growth in the revenue of the start-ups that are financed
can be attributed to selecting the right projects, or to the financial and non-
financial support provided to the portfolio companies (treatment effect)
[BER 11, VIC 11]. It should also be remembered that the selection effect is
3 Heckman-style models reduce problems of selection on variables that cannot be observed.

sometimes difficult to interpret when the reputation effects of the most

experienced venture capitalists attract higher quality projects.
1.2.2. The arbitrations made: the entrepreneurial risk
Arbitrations are not always financially explicit. If we analyze the

behavior of the three stakeholders shown in Figure 1.1 (investors,
entrepreneur-founders, and venture capitalists), we find that the financial
assessment mainly concerns investors, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists
who implement only small amounts of financial capital, but a great deal of
human capital [HAL 07]. The authors consider that the “venture company”
represents an option that can be expressed as follows: provide financial
capital or allow the company disappear due to a lack of liquidity.
The data used by these authors are taken from the United States, over the
period between 1987–2003. The database lists 54,699 rounds of financing
and 13,049 exits for 19,434 companies. The 13,049 exits can be subdivided
into 1,936 IPOs, 4,802 acquisitions, and 6,281 exits at zero value. The
investors earn higher than market returns (payments are made 32 months
after the investment). The 3% annual amount represents the return that
exceeds the risk-adjusted cost of capital.
As far as the entrepreneurs are concerned, they are extremely exposed to

the specific volatility of the company and the return obtained is that of the
human capital they provide. If the exit is done through an IPO, the average
value received by contractors is $22 million (in 2006 dollars), but the
distribution of the values received is very skewed. It should be noted that
68% of start-ups provide no value, and only 0.2% of them have IPOs valued
at $1 billion or more. In this model, entrepreneurs are confronted with the
possible trade-off between the probability of obtaining the best result and a
return that is much lower, but is guaranteed. Calculating this probability
indicates that the expectation of receiving $21 million in earnings generates
only $1 million in effective wealth. In other words, when a venture capitalist
agrees to invest in the company, the entrepreneur would like to sell it for
$1 million. These evaluations make it possible to estimate the
entrepreneurial risk over the period: the effective gain represents only 4.7%
of the gain expected by the entrepreneur. Nevertheless, the entrepreneur
accepts this risk because the venture capital firm uses the value of the best
exits, in order for the entrepreneur-founders to accomplish their tasks.
Venture capitalists receive two forms of compensation: 3% annual of the

amount invested, plus 20% to 25% of the earnings at the time of the exit.
Over the period under review, their average remuneration was $8.3 million
[HAL 07].
There are several important conclusions to be drawn. First, venture

capitalists are unable to control the efforts of entrepreneurs to commercialize
their projects. This justifies the analysis in terms of moral hazards and
explains the use of the exit value to motivate entrepreneurs, who face a
“non-diversifiable entrepreneurial risk” [HAL 10b]. Second, venture
capitalists establish a mechanism for self-selection among entrepreneurs,
which explains why only those who are highly motivated and confident in
the quality of their project apply for funding, knowing that the amount they
receive in compensation may be negative. Finally, the workings of this
mechanism also explain why entrepreneurs receive salaries lower than
market rates during the early stages of the financing.
More recent data have made it possible to give updated results [HAL
10b]. These involve 22,004 start-ups financed over the period of 1987–2008.
Included in this total are 2015 IPOs, 5,625 acquisitions, 3,352 exits at zero
value, 4,220 exits over five years at zero value and 6,792 start-ups that have
not yet attained their exit value. The estimates are based on a sample of
companies that have been listed on the stock exchange. Just under 25% of
entrepreneurs receive the full exit value ($91 million) and one-sixth of them
receive less than 20% of this value. Those who own 20% of the shares
receive less than one-fifth of $48 million, or about $9.2 million. All these
calculations are made at constant 2006 dollars. In the sample selected by
Hall and Woodward, if we exclude the 6,792 start-ups that have not yet
completed their exit process, we see that the exits at zero value make up
49.8% (7,572/15,212) of the companies, or nearly half.
In total, the probability of earning millions of dollars is low, and “the

economic advantage of entrepreneurship over an alternative career is not
significant” [HAL 10b, p. 1177]. The gap between salaried employment and
entrepreneurial employment is even greater, since the latter comes with few
assets in the beginning. It is this economic agent who bears much of the
burden of the risk specific to the company. By using a standard risk aversion
coefficient of two, the authors observe that the advantage of entrepreneurial
opportunity is generally low or negative. In other words, the higher the
wages in salaried employment (in the case of highly qualified senior
executives in large companies), the more the advantage of entrepreneurial

opportunity is lost, except in the case of entrepreneurs with significant
assets.
In fact, significant fundraising events occurred in France in 2016

(investment in start-ups increased by 24% to €2.25 billion) despite a below-
average performance in Europe (see Box 1.2). Worldwide, investments have
trended downward. Several elements played a role in this trend. The
difficulties in exiting investments did not allow for capital gains to be
generated that could be reinvested in other projects:
“At the same time, many start-ups have been negatively

affected by the excessively high evaluations they obtained in
2014 or 2015. These young companies, most often unprofitable
ones, had to accept very strict clauses that guaranteed that their
investors to recover their investment share, or even double or
triple it, in the event of a sale or IPO at a discount. In this
context, the priority for start-ups then became to control costs.
This resulted in cutbacks in areas ranging from benefits in kind
to social plans” [CAS 17, p. 3].
Moreover, even if entrepreneurship is on the rise, particularly in Europe

and France (when costs increase faster than earnings and taxes become
heavier, new forms of activity replace a salaried work relationship [GUI
16a]), the skills of entrepreneurs should not be underestimated (see Box 1.3).
This explains the high failure rate of start-ups, whose survival rate remains
low. In a US study of data from 10 start-up accelerators, it appears that out
of every 100 start-ups in ICT, 92 fail:
“In the American entrepreneurial world, more than 25% of

start-ups end up in liquidation, and the percentage of those that
do not repay their full investment share is much higher still; in
short, a few brilliant successes compensate for a large majority
of failures” [EKE 16, p. 8].
In France, estimates place failure rates between 60 and 75%. On the other
hand, it’s worth noting that entrepreneurial activities are generating
increasing returns. A successful exit provides significant gains and/or assets,
which makes entrepreneurship more attractive than paid employment and
“reduces the specific risk burden of a second start-up” [HAL 10b, p. 1184].
According to the Association française des investisseurs pour la croissance

(AFIC), the average net internal rate of return (IRR) on venture capital over 10
years was -0.2% at the end of 2013, with the average of the top 25% at 11.8%. In
Europe, the average net IRR was 1.68% in the same year, with the top 25%
obtaining 15.5%. This difference in performance may also contribute to the low
level of interest of foreign private capital in French venture capital. However,
further studies should be carried out, given the fact that a 2015 report by the
fonds communs de placement dans l’innovation (FCPI) and fonds
d’investissement de proximité (FIP) shows an average net IRR of the sampled tax
funds of -5.1% for 2014, well below the AFIC average, which would drive the
average down. It would be useful to establish the net performance of French
venture capital funds subscribed by institutional investors, without including tax
funds such as FCPI/FIP, so that it can be assessed in comparison with other
European funds. These low profitability figures in themselves suggest that there
is no significant shortage of capital dedicated to start-ups in France.
Box 1.2. Performances in France are below the European average

(source: [EKE 16, p. 4])
“It thus became obvious that these flexible, quick-moving ‘start-ups’, adept
at new ways of thinking, would create jobs and bring down established
companies – perhaps we should call them ‘end-ups’ – ... Why does it feel so
good to sing the praises of start-ups while on the other hand signing death
warrants for large companies? Because start-ups position themselves as a
winning combination between three different areas: they are instilled with the
creative drive of the liberal economy, they exalt the values of dynamism and
entrepreneurial intensity, and they promote themselves based on the belief that
‘small is beautiful’...
“However, not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur. An army of pseudo-

Start-ups has sprung up, made up of small, twisted and malignant companies that
‘hack’ large companies. But how many hares are really racing against the
tortoises [large companies, slow by definition], how many start-ups are offering
true alternative and cheaper models? Very few. Blablacar perhaps, or Criteo, to
give the most recent example. In reality, most start-ups do not compete with
large corporations, they simply work their way into their own micro-markets...
But, when all is said and done, how many jobs do they really create?
“The point here is not to discourage entrepreneurs, but to dim the spotlight
that has been shined on them a bit so they don’t get blinded”.
Box 1.3. Start-ups and large companies (source: [DUE 17, p. 7])
1.2.3. The change of the relationships over time
Venture capital investment does not have the same effects at different
stages in the company’s life. The relationship of mutual dependence between
venture capitalists and entrepreneurs changes. The former encourages the
latter to take risks at the early stages of the company’s life “as a means of
increasing the market value of the company being funded” and discourages it
from adopting risky behavior in later stages, in order to preserve the value of
the innovations that have been achieved [PAR 16, p. 2]. In other words, the
valuation of early stage companies depends on the newness of
the innovation, while their valuation at the end of the period depends on the
commercial viability of the innovations achieved.
As these authors find, it can be assumed that the initial period is one of
high potential yields and a high probability of failure. However, both of
these players have reasons to keep going. Entrepreneurs who benefit from
equity contributions are often very confident and motivated. Venture
capitalists, on the other hand, are able to withstand potential losses when the
start-up begins, due to the low level of the sunk costs of the investments,
particularly through adopting step-by-step financing and reducing risks
through a moderate diversification of their portfolio.
In later stages, the company begins to develop, the product is marketed,

and value is extracted, either from the existence of a tangible product or
from intellectual property revenues. At this stage, venture capitalists are
much more averse to risks. The failure of an R&D program is a much greater
burden and adjustment costs have to be paid due to increased competition,
partly as a result of the inevitable dissemination of knowledge. At the same
time, R&D is an asset that is difficult to redeploy, and whose sunk costs
increase with cumulative capital expenditures and are “higher than those of
ordinary investments” [HAL 10a, p. 20].
Park and Tzabbar also find that that placing too much focus on
innovation may come at the expense of other activities that bring value to the
start-up, such as improving sales and marketing along a clearly defined
technological line and, it would appear one that is recognized by the market.
The aversion to capital risk increases as the start-up develops; the investment
they make reinforces the creation of novelty in the “early stages” and slows
it down later, especially when compared to companies that are not backed by
venture capital. In fact, in the context of mutual dependence, the attitudes of

venture capitalists are mediated by the nature of the power of the company’s
management.
The management of the company (personal/collective) exercises two

forms of power: structural power and technical power. Structural power is
entrusted to the organizational structure and hierarchical authority: the
stronger this power is4, the more likely it is to reinforce positive attitudes
towards innovation and risk-taking at the beginning of the lifespan of the
start-up. The confidence managers have in their own judgments, the
possibility to earn gains, and the reduction of potential threats, lead venture
capitalists to believe that the knowledge held by the people bringing the
project forward represents a highly feasible productive and commercial
opportunity. Conversely, interests are opposed in the “late stage”. For
venture capitalists, the priority is no longer to strengthen innovation, but to
promote sales and manage intellectual property. At the same time, they are
encouraged to achieve their gains in order to redeploy their financing to
other start-ups. The outlook of the entrepreneurs extends over the long term,
confident that future gains will be greater than current gains. They can
influence the more short-term prospects of venture capitalists and reduce the
amount of spending on innovation.
The technical expertise of the entrepreneur-manager5 is complementary

to the knowledge provided by venture capitalists. The latter are influenced
by entrepreneurs, the knowledge they hold tends to reduce the information
imbalances that are an obstacle to their decision-making process. The
entrepreneurs’ technical expertise provides a balanced approach to
innovation within an existing technological trajectory. Based on a realistic
outlook, they weigh the opportunities and costs associated with taking risks
and moderate the potential enthusiasm of venture capitalists in the early
stages of the process. Conversely, they use their implicit knowledge to
persuade venture capitalists of the importance of the calculated risks and, in
the late stage, moderates their inclination towards commercialization and
licensing at the expense of innovation.
4 Structural power is measured by the centralization of decision-making processes at the top

of the organization.
5 Technical expertise is measured by the number of patents whose inventors are also directors
of the start-up, and the impact they have.
The sample selected by Park and Tzabbar consists of 482 independent

biotechnology start-ups, excluding subsidiaries and joint ventures, over a
period of 30 years (1973–2003). The empirical results confirm their
assumptions: venture capital financing has a positive effect on innovation in
the early stages, while having the opposite effect on companies over 12 years
old. In fact, the behavior of the venture capitalists changes as the company
ages:
– the structural power of entrepreneur-managers reinforces the positive
impact of venture capital on innovation and the level of novelty in the early
stages, and reduces its negative effect in the late stage;
– technical expertise has the effect of reducing the enthusiasm of venture
capitalists for innovation and moderating the negative impact of this type of
financing on innovation during the late stage, by avoiding an excessive focus
on marketing and commercialization.
In this model, the mutual dependence within a generally positive effect

on innovation has the effect of smoothing out the innovation behavior of
start-ups, avoiding both periods of uncontrolled growth and periods of abrupt
contraction. Mutual dependence makes it possible to grasp more complex
relationships between these two players, by rebalancing the power of venture
capital with that exercised by company management, whether it has an
organizational and formal origin or is produced by instrumental knowledge.
In fact, this model forms part of an interplay between instrumental and
interpretative knowledge. Structural power is more oriented towards the
project of the start-up, it reinforces its quality by giving it meaning and
legitimacy. Technical expertise is more focused on the element of time,
smoothing out the jerkiness that may be caused by the venture capital
financing and ensuring the survival of start-ups over the longer term, whose
value tends to erode as they grow older and have to balance innovation and
the protection of intellectual property.
1.2.4. Behaviors of refusal
First, let’s consider the case of venture capitalists. Intellectual property is

a source of income. Often, companies – especially larger ones – combine
operations marketing a product with licensing operations, the sale of patents,
or engineering services. Producers of knowledge are at the same time
industrial producers, and specialization is said to be relative. Smaller
companies, especially start-ups, can specialize entirely in the production and

sale of knowledge: this is known as absolute specialization [GUI 04].
In recent years, the development of commercial exchanges of knowledge

has seen the emergence of companies that have specialized in the
purchase/sale of knowledge and in challenging patents filed by other
companies. The threat of a long and costly trial often leads small companies
to compromise to avoid the potentially high costs of preparing a case and
legal fees. Indeed, entities that challenge patents are not engaged in R&D or
product manufacturing activities:
“As a result, not only can they not be taken to court for
infringing third parties’ patents, but, in relation to the opposing
party, they also pay charges that are generally less high due to
legal proceedings that, for reasons of technological expertise,
may involve exhaustive discovery requests.” [LAL 17, p. 103].
It is tempting to see venture capitalists as having been caught up in this

whirlwind of intellectual asset commodification [FEL 14]. In particular,
venture capitalists would be attracted by the possibility of monetizing the
patents of the start-up they are considering financing, in the case that the
entrepreneurial project fails. This financial opportunity could motivate some
venture capitalists to make the investment. In fact, studies done in the field
based on surveys and interviews indicate that the vast majority of them do
not consider the potential revenues that could come from the sale of patents
to “patent trolls”, whose main activity (if not their only activity) is licensing
and patent litigation.
However, legal challenges can have the effect of damaging the image of a
company that may potentially receive funding. In addition, they represent
specific costs for the start-up, and management and engineers are mobilized
to defend their intellectual property. “When companies incur expenses to
defend their position, they do not develop, and when companies spend time
and effort responding to these challenges, they do not invent” [FEL 14,
p. 11]. This process may convince venture capitalists not to invest in a
company whose patents are in dispute.
For the entrepreneurs, is it conceivable to refuse a venture capital

transaction? These entrepreneurs’ attitudes depend on the quality of the
projects submitted, the way they make their judgements, and how confident
they are in their own judgments. In the literature, two attitudes have been
identified to justify attitudes favoring refusal. On the one hand, the difficulty
of appropriating the knowledge produced may lead entrepreneurs to seek
other forms of external financing [CRO 16]. On the other hand, some
venture capitalists practice active and restrictive monitoring, and “this
managerial activism can be considered as an excessive intrusion into the
management of their company” [CRO 16, p. 6]. Beyond these aspects, three
socio-economic factors seem to explain attitudes of refusal: human capital,
the size of the company, and the type of ownership.
The human capital of entrepreneurs represents the first potential area for
friction. Will the technical knowledge and managerial skills they possess
encourage them to conclude the transaction or encourage them to be
cautious? This perspective is a clear departure from the idea of a
complementary cognitive relationship between the technological knowledge
held by entrepreneurs, and the strategic and entrepreneurial skills held by
venture capitalists. The second element is the size of the firm. Is there a
relationship between the size of the firm and the likelihood that they would
refuse such financing? The authors hypothesize that the larger the size of the
firm, the more likely it is that the firm would refuse this funding. The third
element concerns the ownership structure and type of control. If family
capital is used extensively, this can be an obstacle to the participation of
venture capital.
The sample studied is extracted from the RITA database on Italian firms
for the years 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009. Financial and accounting data are
available for the period from 1994 to 2009. The companies interviewed were
asked whether they had received an offer to receive venture capital financing
during their lifespan, whether they had refused and, if so, what was the basis
for their refusal. The search of the database indicates that 120 companies
received an offer to receive venture capital over the first years of their
existence, 40 of them refused, and 80 accepted. The refusals were broken
down into three categories: the lack of financial needs, the need to maintain
ownership and control of the company, and the dissatisfaction with the
valuation price and the terms of the contract.
Next, the authors obtained information on 103 of the 120 companies in

the survey. Their preferred indicator is sales growth, and their estimates are
intended to answer the question of whether the refusal to receive venture
capital funds has influenced the route the company took to achieve growth.
There are several elements that would appear significant in the decision to
refuse this funding, and the consequences of that decision:
– the type of ownership strongly motivates the decision to refuse. In this
context, family ownership, which is highly developed in Italy (and in some
other European countries), is an obstacle to the expansion of the venture
capital industry, including for companies that have reached a certain size;
– the second reason concerns the characteristics of the human capital of
the founding entrepreneurs. Those who have received advanced technical
education and have managerial experience are often motivated to turn down
this funding. By contrast, those with extensive economic training are better
able to assess the benefits of venture capital financing and the costs and risks
it involves;
– the companies that declined the offer for financing obtained a much
slower growth rate than those that accepted it. The fear of potentially losing
control of the company limits the development of the company and
“entrepreneurs have a stronger attachment to the private benefits of control
(including non-monetary benefits, such as a sentimental attachment to the
company) than to growth rates that would be higher, but would be shared
with a venture capital firm” [CRO 16, p. 9]. Opting for a growth rate that is
less than optimal, but allows the entrepreneur greater control is a
characteristic feature of the sample under study, which cannot be extended to
other societal contexts without careful consideration.
All these elements represent obstacles to expanding this method of

financing. Perhaps singling out high-tech companies from within this sample
would have made for more interesting results, but this proved impossible. In
any case, these results complement those obtained in the previous section to
a certain extent. The power and technical experience of the entrepreneurs
works not only to moderate the tendency of venture capitalists toward
increased or decreased innovation, but also to reject their intrusion in order
to promote a long-term vision of the company that is developing less rapidly,
but that they fully assume.
1.2.5. Risk aversion of venture capitalists
There are several different mechanisms that can be implemented to

reduce risk aversion among venture capitalists. The most frequently
referenced are investment and syndication.
1.2.5.1. Funding in stages

In a previous paper [GUI 08], we highlighted that this method of
financing is a hybrid, based on the relationship established between the
venture capitalists and the entrepreneurs. The relationship between investor
and innovator is based on a sufficiently flexible contractual arrangement that
allows options for investment decisions to be changed and decision-making
powers to be shifted. There are situations in which venture capitalists have
the right to cut off funds to a project when they believe it has performed
poorly. The control of the venture capitalist over the investment decision
establishes a situation characterized by an investment organized in stages, in
the form of a sequence of short-term investments. “Rounds” of financing are
an instrument used to limit the risk assumed by venture capital, but they do
so by creating potential conflicts between the entrepreneurs, initial investors
(“insiders”), and potential investors (“outsiders”). On the other hand, step-
by-step financing expresses the negotiating power of venture capitalists.
There are other situations in which the level of performance achieved is
justification for control to be held by the innovators/entrepreneurs. In this
case, venture capital acts more like a shareholder, who is far from being
passive, given the instruments at its disposal (convertible preference shares,
etc.).
From an analytical standpoint, step-by-step financing is an incomplete

contract [RIN 11, p. 40] and an initial contract could very well specify the
introduction of more sophisticated clauses when the subsequent steps are
reached. Empirically, the evaluation of investments made in stages only
measures ex-post achievements, whose relationship to the company’s
performance is not clear. For example, shorter intervals between each stage
could very well result from a deliberate intention of the venture capital firm,
or they may be the result of good performance by a company that achieves
its objectives faster than expected [RIN 11, p. 41].
The empirical work on this point can be approached in different ways.

We have chosen the analysis proposed by Colombo et al. [COL 14], in
which investors either finance entrepreneurial start-ups that have adopted
open source software (OSS) by opening their business model, or start-ups
that develop and sell proprietary software developed from internal R&D.
The question is whether start-ups in the first category, which access external
knowledge through collaborations with software developers6, benefit from a

larger number of funding stages. The sample surveyed includes 524
entrepreneurial start-ups listed in the SDC Platinum database. Of these, 124
have adopted an OSS business model, while the remaining 390 used a
proprietary model. The results indicate that high quality venture capitalists
are associated with the financing of start-ups of the first type, while the
second type benefit from a greater number of financing stages. The quality
of venture capitalists is identified by their past experience (the number of
contracts already completed), their specific industry experience, the number
of financing rounds in start-ups exited through an IPO, the total amount
already invested in entrepreneurial start-ups, and the position they occupy in
syndication networks. Financing in stages reduces agency costs but also, and
most importantly, it is better adapted to the higher risk and increased
complexity of an investment in start-ups with an open business model.
Indeed, an open-source system increases the difficulties of coordinating
external sources of knowledge (e.g. those generated through collaborations)
and modifies the mechanisms for creating value, which is often reduced due
to the presence of unexpected costs (e.g. development costs).
Overall, financing in stages allows venture capitalists to monitor the

company’s progress while still allowing them the possibility to leave the
project as a way to limit losses. For Gompers and Lerner, financing in stages
has two advantages: “[it] keeps the owner/manager on a tight leash, and it
reduces the potential losses inherent in making a wrong decision” [GOM 98,
p. 140]. From this point of view, it helps to at least partially solve, the
problems of information, reduce the ambiguity of the project, and allows the
various rounds of financing to be adapted to the company’s real needs.
1.2.5.2. Syndication
Syndication can be analyzed in different ways. It requires the venture
capital firm that initiated the project to show interest and profit in order to
persuade another venture capitalist to commit to the same project. It is
generally observed that experienced and recognized venture capital funds
have a preference to form syndication agreements with each other,
particularly in the early stages. More recently, it has been shown that
6 These companies operate in the software business and participate in the free circulation of
the basic version of open source software, but they also sell a premium version of the software
that incorporates the technological advances they have made.
syndication agreements are often concluded with privileged partners from

venture capital communities, which are often complex and different in size
and influence, but homogeneous in the way they take action during specific
stages.
In fact, the interpretation in terms of the knowledge held by the players

involved leads to the conclusion that investors and networks built through
syndication represent an important form of social capital that is useful to the
companies receiving the financing [TER 16]. By syndicating, venture
capitalists obtain information on various fields, which they are responsible
for interpreting and applying to the company’s specific project. In other
words, the networks that are formed offer informational advantages to
support investment decisions. More specifically, the social capital that
investors build through their previous syndication experience is an important
asset for both venture capitalists and the company receiving the financing.
The resources created through these networks provide two types of benefits
[TER 16, p. 396]:
– the value of the social capital for portfolio companies depends on their
access to a variety of information on the basis of which venture capitalists
carry out their advising activities. These groups must have both in-depth
expertise in the sector and knowledge from the various fields in which they
interact. A “heterogeneous syndication” creates links through which a
domain of knowledge can be useful in another context by offering a new
solution or adding a new perspective to the project being analyzed;
– social capital strengthens the ability to interpret how this broad range of
information applies to the company’s specific field. In practice, there may be
“interpretative barriers” to understanding the information and assessing its
value, which may limit the ability to interpret the various different types of
information to be applied to the current project. It all depends on the
configuration of the networks that have been built.
The most critical aspect is the level of redundancy of the information that
the players involved access from the network. The direct links that form
around the main players involved are characterized by being seen to a certain
extent as “closed” (the players are directly connected to each other, the
information is redundant), or as “open” (the other players are not connected,
there are “structural holes”, to use Burt’s expression, the information is said
not to be redundant). As these authors have found, it is recognized that
redundant information reduces the likelihood that anything will be
misrepresented, while non-redundant information flows in open networks

allow players who come into contact with other previously unconnected ones
to access rich, diversified, and commercially useful information for their
own benefit. In this context, networks of syndication must find a balance
between the advantage of having redundant information and the advantages
of the diversity of non-redundant information. Closed networks may be
limited by the lack of information that is not redundant, where venture
capitalists have difficulty challenging the representations acquired and tested
within groups in which most participants have already co-invested in the
past. In open networks, only a few venture capitalists have previously made
syndicated investments.
In making their analysis, the authors take into account both the structure
of the syndication network (open/closed) and the properties of the
knowledge held by investors (diverse/specialized). The knowledge is similar
when the players have previously worked on the same knowledge fields, and
diverse when they specialize in different areas. Thus, by including the
properties of this knowledge, it is possible to determine how these
configurations can facilitate access to information that is both diverse and
easy to interpret. In this sense, there are two types of networks that have
emerged: closed and diversified networks, and open and specialized
networks.
Closed and diversified networks have the advantage of greater diversity,

which is combined with information that is easy to interpret, produced by a
closed network. In this way, venture capitalists can gain access to best
practices, and identify current trends and developments in the various
sectors. Some players have co-invested in the past, but in different sectors,
and this gives a wider range of alternatives. The interpretation of diverse
information is possible because the connections that have been firmly
established between players require them to use more time and effort. In
addition, the connections between two players and third parties help to build
trust in their relationships. A triangulation process takes place, making it
easier to make interpretations through interactions that form a distributed
cognitive process [TER 16, p. 400]. This approach encourages exchanges
and analysis of the business models of different companies.
Open and specialized networks among venture capitalists are only

“closed” to a very limited extent. Focusing on the same knowledge areas,
these are rife with “structural holes”, that is areas where the information is
non-redundant. Partners in the syndication have little previous co-investment

experience but strong incentives to share information, and the similarity of
knowledge increases their trust. The advantage of diversity is obtained by
comparing different geographical contexts, which creates non-redundant
information. As for requirement of specialization, this is related to the fact
that the information everyone uses comes from a familiar field. Receivers
are given an “interpretive scheme” [TER 16, p. 404] to assess the
significance of the information obtained regarding the information they
already have. In this context, venture capitalists do not have relationships
with third parties, as was the case in previous networks. Syndicated networks
of this type are able to provide high quality advice to funded companies.
The empirical estimates obtained from this conceptual map assess the
success of a funded start-up when it obtains a second round of funding. The
scope of application is made up of information technologies and the Internet
industry (hardware, network hosting, searches, various applications, etc.),
which encompasses 11 established sectors and 21 new emerging sectors, or
10,266 companies receiving financing, spread out over 34,146 rounds of
financing, raised from 5,032 venture capital funds.
The most significant results confirm that closed/diversified and

open/specialized syndicated networks are more effective. More specifically,
new companies in established sectors are more likely to succeed (obtain a
second round of funding) if their networks can be categorized as
closed/diversified. By contrast, those operating in emerging sectors are more
successful if they are backed by open/specialized networks. In addition,
some estimates indicate that the informational benefits associated with social
capital can be maximized if “the redundancy and non-redundancy of
information coexist” [TER 16, p. 420]. Indeed, redundancy is effective in
making interpreting information easier, and non-redundancy protects
diversity through the triangulation with third parties. When these players are
not similar in the knowledge they have within a network, the connections
they share with third parties act as an important mechanism for interpreting
information. In other words, it has been found that the effects produced by
the structure of a network are not sufficient to explain the success or failure
of the syndication of venture capital firms. It is also necessary to take into
account the nature of both the instrumental and interpretative knowledge that
venture capitalists possess in closed/diversified and open/specialized
configurations. It can also be seen that diverse information comes either
from the position of venture capitalists in networks with many “structural
holes”, or from their position in networks composed of a varied mixture of

actors (with dissimilar knowledge).
The results obtained confirm the relevance of the hypotheses that were
proposed. In a way, they complement those obtained by Gompers et al.
[GOM 08], who note that the influence of experienced venture capitalists is
not always decisive. In emerging sectors in particular, their influence
becomes decisive when they are able to attract critical resources by building
syndication networks that allow them to interpret information and apply it to
the projects they analyze. In this sense, syndication, as analyzed in terms of
knowledge and network structure, makes it possible to select the best
projects and shorten the time between the different rounds of financing. As a
result, the effectiveness of financing in stages becomes a characteristic of
syndication when it brings together knowledge and skills in the most
appropriate configurations.
1.3. The contribution of venture capital to the performance of

innovative companies
It is worth recalling the methodological difficulties that were already

noted at the beginning of this chapter. A distinction must be made between
the pairing of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs and the involvement of
the former in the companies they finance. This pairing is considered a
selection effect: the most experienced venture capitalists are able to select
the most talented entrepreneurs. The effect of implication is an effect of
treatment: the effects considered are the incremental effects of the actions of
venture capitalists, that is the processes by which they add value to the
companies in their portfolio. These two effects influence the performance of
companies. Also to be considered are the “forward looking” selection
effects, that is the fact that certain entrepreneurs seek out certain venture
capitalists because of the services of added value they are likely to provide
[RIN 11, p. 37]. More generally, the question of reverse causality also arises
in the case of private equity. In this context, it is necessary to assess the
approaches that seek to isolate the selection effects from the treatment
effects [BER 11]. Having made these clarifications, two areas of
performance will be analyzed. The first includes innovation, growth, and
employment performance. The second involves the survival rate of
entrepreneurial firms and the effects of persistence.
1.3.1. Innovation, growth and employment
The idea that long-term growth is closely related to a country’s capacity

for innovation is commonly accepted in the literature [AGH 16]. Many
studies have concluded that the deficit of innovation in Europe is due to its
limited ability to transform scientific knowledge into marketable products
and services. Indeed, a large number of these potential innovations fall into
what has become known as the “Valley of Death”. It is possible to link the
stages of technological innovation with the forms of financing that support
them. The chain from R&D to a market launch does not function
unambiguously, disruptions may occur, which of course may result from the
technological obstacles encountered, but also because of the existence of
“financing gaps” that hinder the transition from concepts to the creation of a
prototype and demonstrations. The venture capital industry can potentially
play a significant role in making it past these milestones, just as access to
incubators facilitates the transition from research to product development.
First, the impact of venture capital on performance will be analyzed by

providing a few macroeconomic benchmarks. We will then continue this
reflection at the level of individual sectors, then at the microeconomic level
by highlighting its influence on companies’ innovation strategies.
To assess the effects of venture capital on innovation (estimated using

patents), we use the work of Popov and Rosenboom [POP 11], which covers
21 European countries over the period 1991–2005. The authors estimate the
doubling of venture capital investment led to an increase of about 2.5% in
new patents7. In fact, the results vary widely between European countries.
With the exception of countries with low venture capital investment, there is
a significant effect on the propensity to patent since every dollar of venture
capital investment is equal to three times that of every dollar invested in
7 Other research does not confirm this result. Lahr and Mina [LAH 16] find, from and
examination of a sample of 940 American and British start-ups (2004–2005), that venture capital
investments do not lead to an increase in new patents. Once the investment is made, venture
capitalists do not seek to increase the knowledge base of invested firms, but develop an
operating strategy by reducing the time it takes to bring inventions to a market. In this way,
contribution of equity capital can allow more innovations and fewer patents to coexist. The
progression from idea to sale on the market therefore has a negative effect on the decision to
obtain a patent.
traditional R&D [POP 11, p. 20]. By considering venture capital spending

within different national contexts, the results suggest that venture capital is
more effective in creating innovation in countries where the barriers to
entering the market are lower. Similarly, the effect of venture capital is more
significant on the number of patents filed in countries where the labor
market is more flexible and less highly regulated. Finally, it can be observed
that the effect of venture capital on innovation is stronger in countries with a
higher level of human capital training. In total, venture capital investment
has accounted for about 10.2% of innovation flows in 15 European countries
since the early 1990s.
The relationship between venture capital and innovation has been

analyzed at the level of individual sectors by Bertoni and Tykvovà [BER
12]. These authors examine the type of investor (public versus private) and
assess the influence exerted by the structure of the transaction (syndication
versus non-syndication). To perform this analysis, they used the VICO
database to construct a sample set of 865 European companies (159 of which
were venture capital funded) operating in biotechnology (673) and
pharmaceuticals (192). The companies backed by venture capital received
their first round of financing between 1994 and 2004, and were significantly
younger than firms that had not received this type of financing8 (8.86 years
for the first group, and 10.94 years for the second). The innovation output
was measured through the number of patents obtained.
This econometric modeling led to six significant results:
First, venture capital investment has a positive relationship with the

patents held one to five years after the investment was made. This increase is
much higher than for the companies in the control group.
Second, syndication relationships led by private venture capitalists show

a significant increase in the number of patents held by the companies
financed compared to those of the control group from t +2 to t +5.
Third, syndication increases the innovation output to a much greater

extent than autonomous transactions, either by public (government) or
private venture capitalists.
8 These firms form the control group.

Fourth, the analysis of the transaction structures was refined to take into
account the players involved in the syndication. The model considered
separates syndicated transactions into two groups: heterogeneous (private
and public venture capital) and homogeneous (private or public venture
capital). The coefficient of heterogeneous syndication is very significant, and
its influence is very strong, while the coefficient of homogeneous
syndication is never significant.
Fifth, the model estimates the influence exerted by the syndication

manager. When a heterogeneous syndication is organized, the innovation
output increases more significantly through the action of private venture
capital than through that of government-based venture capital.
Finally, a heterogeneous syndication led by private venture capitalists is

the most effective form out of all transaction structures9 for promoting
innovation in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
This lends credence to idea that venture capital does not have the same
effectiveness when applied to different types of investors or transaction
structures. Instead of pitting private and public venture capital firms against
each other, the authors show that:
“The mode of investment used by governmental venture capital

investors is also a key variable in the design in effective
innovation policies. Specifically, to support innovation,
governmental venture capital investors should not invest alone
but should syndicate with private partners. In addition, private
venture capital investors should be allowed by their
governmental partners to lead the syndicate” [BER 12, p. 17].
The relationship between venture capital and innovation can also be

assessed qualitatively by analyzing the influence on innovation strategy.
Four strategies have been distinguished [RIN 13]: “No-Make-No-Buy”,
“Buy-only”, “Make-only”, “Make-and-Buy”. The latter strategy represents
the empirical dimension of the concept of absorptive capacity [COH 90],
which the authors extend by introducing the idea of transformation [ZAH
02] produced through the recombination of internal and external knowledge.
9 Only private, only public, homogeneous private syndication, homogeneous government

syndication, heterogeneous syndication led by public venture capital.
More precisely, this strategy involves the construction of the capacity for
absorption10. The hypothesis tested is that there is a link between venture
capital and the Make-and-Buy strategy, which involves companies whose
innovations can quickly be put on the market. The sample tested consists of
10,000 Dutch companies, 161 of which are backed by venture capital (data
from the CIS, ThomsonOne and PATSTAT).
One-third of companies adopt this strategy, and companies backed by

venture capital achieve a higher percentage of sales from innovation and are
committed to building capacity for absorption. By testing a smaller sample
of firms before and after receiving venture capital financing, it appears that
companies change their strategies after obtaining this type of financing (the
probability increases by 17%). In this context, venture capitalists play an
essential role in guiding companies towards the acquisition of external
knowledge (R&D conducted under the contract, the purchasing of licences).
In particular, those operating in high-tech industries (chemicals,
pharmaceuticals, electronics, IT services, and R&D services) are more
mature in terms of their technological development than those receiving only
public funds, the latter of which are less subject to environmental pressures
and the requirements to rapidly market the product in order to make it easier
to list the company on the stock market or sell it after a few years.
The empirical estimates generally indicate that venture capital has a

positive effect on the growth of companies. There are four arguments for this
[GRI 14]. First, venture capitalists are often better able than other players in
the capital market to select entrepreneurial companies with a high potential
for growth. Second, venture capitalists bring added value to companies that
are financed through managerial skills, behavioral control, and the
monitoring of results. Third, receiving venture capital funding is seen by
third parties as an indicator of a portfolio of high quality companies. Without
this indicator, companies have difficulty accessing additional external
financial resources and other abilities that often prove critical. Finally,
companies that receive venture capital funding benefit from the networks of
contacts they obtain through venture capitalists, both suppliers and
institutional investors who form their entrepreneurial support network.
10 “Finally, Make-and-Buy is the strategy that combines the two innovation operations,
internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition, and entails the creation of a capacity for
absorption” [RIN 13, p. 13].
Based on the VICO database (made up of 7 countries, and 2 groups of

companies: those that received venture capital funding, and others), Grilli
and Martinu [GRI 14] monitored a cohort of 534 companies that received
their first round of funding between 1994 and 2004. The research question
was: does the growth rate of funded companies increase steadily after the
first phase of funding? To refine their analysis, the authors distinguish
between independent venture capital funds (private, IVC) that do not receive
public funding, and government venture capital funds (GVC) managed by a
“General Partner acting in representation of government authorities” [GRI
14, p. 1524]. The mission of the GVCs is to use public financial resources to
provide the development and growth of economic projects with high impact.
In the general model tested by the authors, they find a positive and
significant impact on sales growth, but the effect of venture capital on
employment is not significant. When venture capital funds are differentiated
between private and public ones, IVCs have positive effects on the growth of
sales, whereas with GVCs, this effect is not significant. This observation
leads the authors to question the ability of public entities to stimulate the
growth of companies, particularly high-tech companies, through taking
action directly on the finance market. The relative ineffectiveness of these
entities is not only a product of the low availability of financial resources,
but also of their lack of ability in carrying out value adding activities. In
addition, the authors estimate the effects on growth when syndication
partners are led by a public or private investor. Only one positive and
significant effect is obtained on the growth of sales the public investor is not
the leader of a syndicate.
In a more recent study [GRI 15], the authors look at the “high-tech”
sectors in seven countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain,
United Kingdom), for which they use a longitudinal database (VICO) over
the period of 1984–2009. This database contains usable information from
8,391 start-ups in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, ICT, etc. The originality
of the study lies in its more in-depth analysis of the behavior of public
players, which are broken down into government (PUVC) and academic
(UVC) players. University funds operate through technology transfer offices.
Of the 8,391 start-ups, 761 are backed by venture capital. Private and
public funds continue to have a positive overall effect on growth. The study
confirms the positive effect of private funds alone, but the effect is more
significant if the company is young. As far as public players are concerned,
government funds have a greater impact than university funds, both in terms
of the growth in company sales and in employment. On the other hand, there
are no effects on so-called mature companies.
The results obtained partly confirm those obtained over a shorter period
(1994–2003) and only for Italian companies [BER 11]. The sample consists
of 538 companies, 68 of which are backed by venture capital. This
confirmation is only partial, since, as mentioned earlier, the venture capital
industry is “underdeveloped” in Italy. The investments that are made have a
stronger effect in the short term than in the long term, which is to say, much
of the positive effect is obtained after the first financing stage. This effect
was measured in the following manner: the size of the company (measured
by the number of employees) at the end of the year following the first phase
increased in comparison with a company that did not obtain such financing.
The additional growth that can be attributed to venture capital financing is
approximately 40% for employment and sales over the period. The effect on
employment is very strong in the short term – the employment rate after the
first round is 110% larger than it is without venture capital – and by the
second year after the first round of financing, the rate of employment growth
decreases. For sales, the effect is 87% when the same time benchmarks are
used. By incorporating additional variables into their model, the authors find
that the use of venture capital (a treatment effect)11 makes it possible to
professionalize the company’s management, and obtain additional financial
resources through an IPO. The results confirm Gibrat’s law: small
companies tend to grow faster than larger companies.
1.3.2. Survival rates and entrepreneurial persistence
It is difficult to address the issue of entrepreneurial start-ups without

considering it within the environment in which these companies operate.
Ecosystems of innovation that support entrepreneurial dynamics can have
several configurations, ranging from localized “clusters” to incubators and
science parks. According to these authors, the important thing is to consider
the interplay of similar and dissimilar knowledge in the creation of new
companies.
11 In this study, the selection effects (project quality, future growth prospects, etc.) were
neutralized, they play no role in the positive relationship between venture capital investment
and the company’s growth.
On the one hand, the many different players and the variety of
technological combinations within a given location lead to the creation of
local knowledge bases. These knowledge bases make it possible for
knowledge to be transferred and influence the number of venture capital
funds and, in turn, the creation of innovative start-ups. On the other hand,
venture capital start-ups benefit from the positioning of venture capitalists
within information-rich networks of heterogeneous groups of players, often
in a central role. The intersection of these two aspects makes it possible to
broaden the role played by venture capitalists: not only do they play a role as
discoverers, financiers, providers of advisory and control services, but they
also play a “liaison role” in the formation of alliances involving a financed
company and in the functioning of this alliance [JOL 16]. In particular, as
Williamson considers, they lower transaction costs and provide effective
protection against contractual risks (opportunism, knowledge leakage, etc.)
in collaborations between firms.
New companies seek out alliances to strengthen their competitive

position, but they lack the reputation, experience, contacts, and funding to
mitigate the risks associated with forming an alliance, including the risk of
finding the right partner. Venture capital firms influence the type of
collaboration between start-ups (governance decisions) providing legitimacy
for the alliances in two main areas:
– cognitive, due to the complementary nature of the knowledge the
participants have;
– socio-political, with reference to the reputation and experience of
venture capitalists, and the effectiveness of mechanisms of governance to
mitigate contractual risks.
Jolink and Niesten [JOL 16] analyze a sample of 564 venture capital-
backed start-ups over the period of 2009–2014. They find that, the start-ups
studied are more likely to choose a joint venture financed by venture capital
as the governance structure for a collaboration, and this effect is all the more
pronounced as venture capitalists have become involved in syndication
networks.
Outside of contractual protections, alliances accelerate the development

of start-ups and allow them easier access to additional financial and non-
financial resources. More specifically, they bring innovative start-ups into
broad networks of knowledge production and technological development
that are made through the combination of relationships structured around

R&D and networks organized around value chains.
However, the ability to attract greater and better resources explains the
widening gap between entrepreneurs who have successfully validated their
projects and others. Their success partly depends on the experience of
venture capitalists. When venture capitalists have greater experience, their
financing has a largely positive effect on whether or not an entrepreneur
succeeds and becomes a serial entrepreneur [GOM 08]. From the perspective
of venture capitalists, the persistence effect can be explained in two ways:
– either through establishing syndication networks configured to meet the
needs of established or emerging sectors;
– or through the effects of specialization on a specific phase of the
process (such as the early stage). These effects partly overlap with the
previous explanation since, in this case, venture capitalists have better
information and obtain a competitive advantage through the accumulation of
resources that are difficult to imitate.
More broadly, the persistence of entrepreneurs also depends on the

information that is available on the past actions of entrepreneurs. In this
case, there is a wide range of alternatives available to them. In particular,
they have the choice of financing their companies by using their own
resources, by using bank loans, or by benefiting from equity contributions.
By using their own resources, the attitudes of persistent entrepreneurs are
embedded in national contexts characterized by innovative cultural
behaviors. In the United States, because the persistence of entrepreneurs is
self-sustaining, it tends to create an ecosystem:
“Successful entrepreneurs often reinvest their earnings in other

companies, creating a multiplier effect. They provide not only
seed funding, but also entrepreneurial skills. This phenomenon
is less prevalent in France, mainly because successful
entrepreneurs leave for other countries” [EKE 16, p. 5].
1.4. Conclusion
The developments described above first draw attention to the theoretical

approaches used to analyze the relationships between venture capitalists and
entrepreneurs, as well as the underlying logic behind them. The logic of

oversight and penalization is at the basis of the contractual model, the logic
of cooperation serves as a pillar of the scheme which postulates mutual
dependence between the two actors, neither of which is able to exert
unilateral and unbalanced influence on the behavior of innovative start-ups.
Venture capital is an expensive form of financing, given its large number

of failures and disappointing investments (exits at zero value) and the
significant amount of risk taken by entrepreneurs, which cannot be
diversified. The existence of these risks explains the real dimensions of this
industry. If we consider this in terms of flows, it is estimated that in 2008,
only 1% of the 600,000 new companies created in the United States each
year were given venture capital financing [BAL 08]. Puri and Zarutskie
[PUR 11] estimate that only 0.11% of the new companies created over the
period of 1981–2005 were financed by venture capital. This figure increased
0.22% over the period of 1996–2000. Other studies have confirmed these
statistics: for example, the Kaufman Survey estimated in the early 2000s that
1% of all start-ups receive venture capital financing. Another study even
estimates that, over the same period, less than 0.5% of new entrepreneurs
were looking for this type of financing for their businesses. In Sweden,
between 2002 and 2009, only 1.2% of the 46,000 companies created each
year were financed by venture capital [SOD 12]. On the other hand, despite
these low percentages, a large proportion of successful IPO start-ups (around
35%) were financed by venture capital.
The other important element that has been determined from this chapter is
that the phenomena of serial entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial persistence
that characterize venture capital today cannot be analyzed without taking
into consideration the national contexts in which ecosystems develop and the
activities around which they are organized. The unique conditions of each
country make it possible to identify the institutional advantages obtained
within different countries [HAN 99]. For new knowledge to be produced and
new activities to form, specific institutional arrangements must be made,
including deregulated labor markets, a high mobility of skilled labor,
substantial rewards for inventors and innovators, and a sufficiently open
capital market for venture capital to be freely accessible (see Chapter 3). An
institutional architecture of this type multiplies the places where scientific
and technological knowledge is created, encourages people to move between
firms or between universities and firms, promotes the creation of new firms,
and facilitates access to sources of financing. It is here where the core
rationale for venture capital can be found: it promotes companies’ strategies

for exploration.
Indeed, using a strict definition of property rights, the logic of a market

economy stretches throughout the chain, from basic research to the creation
of new companies, by putting universities, laboratories, and research centers,
products, processes, and organizations in competition with each other and by
providing the resources needed to finance radical innovations through the
existence of sophisticated financial markets. In this context, entrepreneurial
initiative and competition are the most effective mechanisms for achieving
such innovations.
By contrast, the institutional architecture of most European countries,

particularly Italy, favors less permissive cultural behavior in terms of
innovation, resulting in a robust persistence of family capital and a strong
attachment to traditional property values. These norms and values work to
restrict innovative behavior intended to achieve objectives legitimized by the
social system as a whole. The innovation of products and services is part of a
slower, more incremental dynamic. Strengthening this dynamic requires new
criteria for performance and rules of allocation that change the incentive
structure of companies. In other words, making economic part of a process
of acculturation, ultimately providing new cultural resources centered on a
greater individualization of payment, rewards for inventors and innovators, a
respected image of the entrepreneur-innovator within society, etc. This can
be seen as a form of innovation, both organizational and institutional.
Once created, ecosystems for innovations in financing, gain efficiency by

transforming the position system of the various actors. This is the case with
business angels, who can be considered as informal venture capitalists [LAH
16]. Until recently, they were involved in the early stages of the lifespan of
start-ups, which, on average, are 10 months old when they receive such
funding – a time when they have not yet turned a profit. In addition,
“business angels” invest in companies located within well-defined
geographical areas for relatively small amounts, on average less than
$1 million in the United States. In recent years, this community has been
changing, and new players have emerged, described as “super angels” [EPS
09]. This term refers to serial entrepreneurs and investors who are able to
invest large sums in start-ups, either directly or through funding structures
and who have built a reputation for talent, qualifications, and integration into
effective networks. These super angels work within a much wider
geographic area, sometimes internationally, financing companies that are

technologically advanced and have high growth potential. The dynamics of
the innovation financing ecosystem are a closed loop: venture capital
products, past successes have allowed these super angels to generate enough
gains to be able to provide new entrepreneurs with financial resources, as
well as entrepreneurial skills.
2
The Sectoral Dynamics of Venture Capital
The Schumpeterian model assumes that long-term growth is first and

foremost the result of the innovations that are implemented within a given
economy. The means by which innovation drives growth is a complex
process in the sense that it weaves together different technological, social,
economic and financial realms. The process of creative destruction can be
read as the process of spreading a new idea that redistributes different shares
of the market, changing the rules of the game and the formats of production
and distribution of existing products and/or services. The dynamics of the
process envisioned by Schumpeter are a conflict between the old and the
new. Established firms and existing interests are constantly seeking to block
or delay the entry of new competitors into their sectors [AGH 17].
In the context of venture capital, the question becomes the influence this
type of financing has on the spread of new ideas. Empirical research
indicates a multiplier effect of venture capital on the diffusion of innovation
in the sense that this process takes place both inside and outside the venture
capital industry. This implies that venture capital-backed companies are
profitable, but also, and most importantly, that the effects of the spread of
these ideas appear at the macroeconomic level, along with the possible
consequences they have on the direction of activity in innovation worldwide
[GON 13]. In the view of this author, venture capital certifies the value of
the innovations proposed, and feeds into sequences of innovations as part of
a chain. The means by which ideas are spread is not isolated from the
progression of the investment cycle [NAN 12]. The start-ups that are
financed during the most active investment periods benefit from successful

exits (IPOs or trade sales), they file more patents in the years after their
financing period ends, and their patents are more frequently cited than those
created by start-ups financed in less active investment periods. As a result,
the spread of knowledge and its assimilation by other innovators
(“technology spillovers”) occurs with greater intensity during periods of
greater activity. As a result, venture capital plays a crucial role in the
processes of creating and commercializing new technologies.
The overlap of these two mechanisms, that of creative destruction (new

technologies dominating existing technologies) and that of the propagation
of knowledge, allows us to analyze venture capital, both in terms of the
allocation between sectors of this mechanism for financing innovation and in
terms of its contribution to the creation of new activities. Against this
backdrop, a pattern of development in advanced economies is emerging,
which focuses on the slowing pace of innovation in traditional industries,
particularly in consumer goods, and on the dynamism of the innovation
occurring in the sectors of the digital economy.
In fact, the analysis we have given here addresses only one aspect of the
sectoral dynamics at work, since a thorough analysis would need to take into
account the many different factors that characterize the different sectors:
supply, demand, market structure, international competition, productivity
levels, types of financing, and more broadly, the interweaving of the
different institutions, networks, and organizations that exist at the sectoral
level to form a system.
An approach that begins through venture capital financing sheds light on

the sectoral dynamics and the distortion of these dynamics in recent years. It
justifies the dualistic approach to innovation (traditional activities/new
activities) by highlighting the contribution of venture capital to the
emergence and development of high-tech (HT) sectors whose operating logic
and impact on macroeconomic performance deserve to be addressed in their
own right. Section 2.3 proposes a model for determining investment in the
high-tech sectors that we have developed, constrained by statistical
information, from the broader perspective of private equity.
Before discussing the content of the three sections, it is worth giving an

overview of private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC) operations in
Europe, based on the statistics produced by Invest Europe [INV 16]. These
The Sectoral Dynamics of Venture Capital 43
statistics cover 1,200 European private equity firms, representing 91% of the
€564 billion of capital managed in Europe.
2000 2006 2009 2015
0.35% 0.55% 0.19% 0.30%
Table 2.1. PE investments as a % of GDP1 (26 countries, 2000–2015)

(source: [INV 16])
This more detailed analysis gives priority to the countries with the most
significant amounts.
United
Denmark France Germany European total
Kingdom
0.799% 0.437% 0.388% 0.198% 0.302%
Table 2.2. PE investments as a % of GDP (selected countries

and total for Europe, 2015) (source: [INV 16])
The relative importance of venture capital is shown in Table 2.3.
United European
Denmark Finland France Germany
Kingdom total
0.109% 0.047% 0.034% 0.032% 0.025% 0.025%
Table 2.3. Investments in VC as a % of GDP (selected countries

2
and total for Europe, 2015) (source: [INV 16])
A comparison of Tables 2.2 and 2.3 reveals that the hierarchy has
changed. Certain forms of specialization are developing, which may hinder a
more broad-reaching spread of certain practices in Europe:
1 These are investments made by funds whose business activity is mainly concentrated in
Europe. Infrastructure funds, real estate funds, primary and secondary funds of funds, etc. are
excluded.
2 These figures have been obtained from the location of the VC firm and not from the location
of the companies that are included in the portfolio of investments.
“The high concentration of the headquarters of these funds in

the United Kingdom is due both to the fact that the UK has
become specialized in the production of very high value-added
financial services, and to a legal tradition based on the common
law legal code, which offers greater protection to investors than
what is guaranteed under the Commercial Code in Germany or
under the Civil Code in France... Regarding the first aspect,
practical know-how is particularly valuable in the management
of buyouts. In this context, it does not come as a surprise
considering private equity more broadly, that 80% of
investments made in the United Kingdom are done on buyout
operations” [GUI 08, p. 91].
It can thus be assumed for the UK that by 2015, the difference between
PE (0.799%) and VC (0.032%) can be attributed largely to buyout capital.
These operations amount to 0.677% of GDP, the rest (0.084%) being
allocated to growth operations. More generally, venture capital generally
represents only a small portion of Europe’s GDP.
Now we will examine the distribution of this venture capital by sector.
2.1. Orientation by sector
To analyze the orientation of venture capital by sector, we use the

statistical data produced by KPMG in the study “Venture Pulse Q4 2018”.
Between 2010 and 2015, the outlook on a global level shows significant
growth in the capital invested ($45 billion in 2010, $141 billion in 2015) and
the number of transactions (8,459 deals made in 2010, 17,992 in 2015). The
number of transactions recorded globally decreased in 2016, faster than the
capital invested, suggesting that the transactions were larger, with their
average size increasing for the early stage phase.
Venture capital is mainly invested in ICT (software and hardware) and

pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. The activity of the software sector has
seeped into many other activities, particularly in the collaborative economy,
by changing the production and distribution formats of traditional services
(Uber, Airbnb). The significance of the Pharma and Biotech sector can be
explained by the strong demand for innovative technologies. Within this
movement, large companies are strengthening corporate venture capital
(CVC).
Sectors 2010 2018
Software 22% 40%
Pharma & Biotech 13% 10%
Media 3% 3%
ICT equipment 12% 2%
Healthcare services and

15% 7%
systems
Medical equipment
8% 2%
and supplies
Commercial services 8% 5%
Table 2.4. Distribution of VC investments by country and sector (source: [VEN 19,
p. 15])
2010 Q3 2018
Invested capital $11 billion $109 billion
% of total number of
11% 18.5%
operations
Table 2.5. CVC participation, all countries3 (source: [VEN 19, p. 19])
The share held by large companies of the capital of start-ups, intended to

strengthen R&D or to take a position to wait for an acquisition, has increased
considerably over the period under consideration. This movement is even
more pronounced for the United States, a country in which the share of the
CVC has increased significantly since 2013.
As we have noted, venture capital investments increased sharply between

2010 and 2015, declining slightly in 2016, together with a fairly sharp
3 “The capital invested is the sum of all the round values in which corporate venture capital
investors participated, not the amount that corporate venture capital arms invested themselves.
Likewise, the percentage of deals is calculated by taking the number of rounds in which
corporate venture firms participated over total deals” [VEN 19, p. 17].
decline in exits (1,810 in 2014 and 1,285 in 2016). Cyclical phenomena are
certainly important, but the fact cannot be overlooked that investors assess
profitability and liquidity issues more accurately [VEN 17].
2.1.1. The orientation of venture capital by sector in the United

States
Sectors 2010 Q3 2018

Software 26% 44%
Media 3% 2%
ICT equipment 9% 3%
Health care services and
15% 5%
systems
Medical equipment
9% 5%
and supplies
Table 2.6. Distribution of venture capital by sector in the United States (2010, 2018)
(source: [VEN 19, p. 50])
Venture capital in the US is on the forefront of global trends, accounting

for nearly 55% of capital invested and for 60% of operations. The logic
behind the hierarchy of the investment sector in the United States is imposed
on a global scale in its favoring of high-tech sectors: ICT, pharmaceuticals
and biotechnology, health, etc. An identical phenomenon can be observed
for CVC. However, the imposition of a logic through a dominant economy
does not imply that a single model is being adopted by the European or
Asian economies.
2010 2014 Q3 2018

Invested capital $8 billion $24 billion $100 billion
% of total number of
10% 11% 32%
deals made
Table 2.7. The weighting of CVC in the United States, 2010, 2014, and 2018 (source:
[VEN 19, p. 50])
American corporate venture capital represents 90% of the global CVC

(the amount of investments from Europe totals 9.5 billion dollars in 2018).
This is accompanied by a slower growth in operations, and therefore an
increase in their average size. The increase in this investment (+1,150% over
8 years) requires the motivations of large companies to be considered. These
are companies that are seeking to consolidate their position on a global scale
in the context of constant technological change in the digital economy, and
to remain involved in the various rounds of financing in order to
complement their internal R&D efforts. The progression in the
industrialization of American venture capital is pushing this activity towards
high-tech sectors, transforming certain traditional activities (transportation,
trade, the decline of shopping malls, etc.) and inducing profound changes in
the organization of large companies.
More specifically, beyond the financial returns of the investments made,

CVC firms pursue strategic benefits by gaining the opportunity to open
“windows” into new technologies, and to amplify these effects by supporting
the R&D efforts of the firms in which they invest. The CVC influences
companies’ R&D efforts in several ways [PAI 17]. Authors Paik and Woo
have identified three effects, the first of which is direct corporate
governance. The majority ownership of the property (in the case of
syndication) allows for strategic influence to be exercized on the start-up
receiving the investment, due to a longer investment horizon than that of
independent venture capitalists.
The second effect is described by the authors as the CVC venture

interaction effect. Large companies provide the companies receiving the
investment with access to complementary assets that facilitate their activities
in marketing or informing the public. Finally:
“Relative to established companies, ventures that develop new

technologies suffer from greater uncertainty due to a lack of
legitimacy [...] and may hesitate to fully commit their resources
to R&D. However, when an established incumbent backs the
venture’s technology with a significant ownership stake, the
overall uncertainty can be reduced due to a technology
endorsement effect” [PAI 17, p. 675].
In total, the company receiving the investment can spend more of its
resources on R&D than it does on marketing. The three mechanisms by
which the CVC can influence the company’s R&D investment strategy,
produce effects of a different nature. The effect of technology approval
reduces ambiguity; it is taken by the market as an indicator the quality of the
technology that large companies consider to be “an industrial standard” [PAI
17, p. 675]. By contrast, the other two effects have the effect of increasing
R&D investment through the series of internal mechanisms in place within
the start-up receiving the investment.
In particular, CVC investment allows the company to benefit from

spillovers of knowledge that can come directly from the large company, or
indirectly from other operators via the support these operators provide,
forming connections with the parent company’s developers, legal experts,
marketing consultants, etc. The study cited above validates the relevance of
the hypotheses concerning the interplay of these three mechanisms in the
high-tech sectors: ICT and biotechnology and pharmaceuticals4.
2.1.2. The trajectory in Europe
This trajectory is shown in Table 2.8.
Years Invested capital Number of operations

2010 $9 billion 2,101
2011 $10 billion 2,657
2012 $10 billion 3,223
2013 $10 billion 4,117
2014 $15 billion 4,723
2015 $18 billion 4,378
2016 $16 billion 3,142
Q3 2018 $24 billion 3,424
Table 2.8. VC financing in Europe (2010–2018) (source: [VEN 19, p. 63])
4 Another outcome can be determined from this study: “In general, we find that the average
number of patents per thousand dollars of R&D expenditures is higher for companies funded
by CVC than for companies funded by IVC, exclusively at the level of 1% materiality [...],
which suggests that companies funded by CVC benefit from higher productivity in their R&D
expenditures” [PAI 17, p. 675].
The decrease in the number of operations during the years 2015 and 2016
is very significant. This decrease is a reflection of a phenomenon of
geographical concentration: the venture capital financing ecosystem
continues to grow stronger around major European cities, a shift that is
occurring in conjunction with greater financing being provided for
companies at the later stage. When we look just at Q4 2016 compared to Q4
2015, we notice a 13% decline in invested capital with total activity down
42% [VEN 17, p. 74]. These figures recovered very significantly in the first
nine months of 2018. A breakdown of these figures by sector provides us
with additional clarification.
Sectors 2010 Q3 2018

Software 13% 36%
Media 2% 2%
ICT equipment 22% 4%
Services and systems
10% 2%
of health care
Medical equipment
9% 4%
and supplies
Table 2.9. Distribution by sector of venture capital in Europe (2010–2018, main

sectors) (source: [VEN 19, p. 66])
The importance of ICT is increasing, but not enough to close the gap with
the United States. Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology remain at a good level
($2 billion in 2016). The number of operations has increased significantly
for ICT, from 26% of the total in 2010 to 43% in 2016.
The CVC statistics reflect a phenomenon that is growing, but remains

less significant than in the United States, in which the business capital
invested has increased from $3 billion in 2010 to $5.5 billion in 2016 and
then to $9.5 billion in 2018. The number of operations has increased
significantly, from 13% of total investments in 2010 to 17% in 2016, as
evidenced by the operations carried out by a few major French groups (see
Box 2.1).
“Large companies have long understood that they need to buy start-ups to
‘reinvent themselves and speed up the pace of innovation’, as the Boston
Consulting Group points out in a recent piece on deep-tech, disruptive
innovations. More recently, these companies have begun to play the role of
venture capital investors, by creating or participating in investment funds known
as Corporate Venture Capital (CVCs), similar to what has been done by
American digital and Internet players such as Google, Intel, Microsoft or
Salesforce.
For the start-up rating agency EarlyMetrics, ‘having a share in the capital of a
start-up, even just 10% or 15%, gives access to 100% of its skills and
technologies’. And it costs 10 times less than carrying out innovations internally.
L’Oréal is well aware of this, and has just invested in a fund, Partech Ventures,
an investor specializing in new technologies. ‘Our goal is to connect with start-
ups around the world with high potential, and help finance the most promising
among them’, this company says.
A common fund for eco-mobility
The Partech Ventures fund has also received investments from Renault.
Engie has provided its own investment fund with 115 million euros. Total
Energy Ventures participated in Sigfox’s €150 million fundraising campaign at
the end of 2016. No one wants to be left behind, and to make sure there are no
missed opportunities, large companies have joined forces around the activities in
which they are most involved. For example, Air Liquide, Michelin, Total, SNCF,
and Orange have created the European Ecomobility Ventures fund to invest
between €0.5 and €5 million in eco-mobility start-ups. The fund has already
invested in six start-ups, including two French companies, Ouicar and ez-Wheel.
And the movement has only just begun”.
Box 2.1. “When the big names in the CAC 40 get in on the venture capital game”
(source: [CAU 17])
2.1.3. The lessons learned
On the basis of the sectoral configurations and, more generally, the

behaviors of the players, two remarks can be made.
2.1.3.1. The increasing concentration of the funding ecosystem

This aspect has already been addressed in previous works, but never in
the context of Europe. On this point, we will follow the conclusions of the
study carried out by the European Investment Fund [EIF 16]. To carry out
their analysis, the authors classified the major cities of Europe on the basis
of their volume of activity (particularly those related to venture capital
investments backed by the EIF) carried out by their start-ups over the past
20 years. A minimum number of investments (20) is required for a city to be
classified as a “VC Hub” over the period of 1996–2014. The top six cities
are: London, Paris, Cambridge, Berlin, Munich, and Dublin.
Why use the term “hub”? “The use of the word ‘hub’ for a city with a
high level of venture capital suggests its ability to attract, but also radiate,
VC investments across multiple ends” [EIF 16, pp. 21–22]. In quantitative
terms, the top 20 metropolitan areas represent 39% of the EIF’s venture
capital investments. But, as the authors point out, hubs are powerful catalysts
for investment development, with 83% of all amounts invested originating
from the 20 hubs that were considered. This leads to the conclusion
formulated in this study: hubs are certainly not the only entities in this
ecosystem that exert a gravitational pull, but they constitute the “beating
heart” of a complex network of national and international investments that
“often cross each other’s path, apparently at random” [EIF 16, p. 24].
Indeed, it is noted that 23% of investments remain in the hub, 40% of them
go to other locations within the same country, and 37% cross international
borders.
Another indicator of the geographical concentration of venture capital can

be seen in the fact that the six largest cities in the United States represent
44.5% of total venture capital investment worldwide.
Overall, the financing ecosystem in Europe seems to be evolving towards

both greater geographical concentration and greater centralization of
decisions as large companies begin to play an active role through CVCs.
From a sectoral point of view, the attractive pull of hubs concerns ICT start-
ups and service activities (consumption, finance, transport) most specifically.
Thus, it is advantageous for these sectors to locate a start-up near these hubs,
whereas the agglomeration effects are less obvious in the life sciences and
for “greentechs”.
2.1.3.2. The particularities of European and American venture capital

We know that the very pronounced fragmentation of the venture capital
market in Europe does not allow this industry to reach the critical size for it
to achieve economies of scale. The investments made by European countries
reflect the effects of the economic behaviors and social structures that
produce strong differences between countries.
United Kingdom 0.046
France 0.038
Germany 0.029
Spain 0.018
Italy 0.005
European Union 0.028
United States 0.211
Table 2.10. Venture capital investment rates (as a % of GDP, average 2007–2015)
(source: [BUI 16, p. 18])
The investment gap between Europe and the United States affects the size
of operations.
European Union 1.3
United Kingdom 2.4
France 2.0
Germany 0.9
United States 6.3
Table 2.11. Average size of operations (by rounds of financing), in millions of euros,
2007–2015 average (source: [BUI 16, p. 18])
The average size is significantly smaller in Europe, with US venture

capital-backed companies receiving an average of €6.3 million in each round
of financing, almost five times more than their European counterparts. In
addition, more than 7,750 companies backed by venture capital received
$69.1 billion in financing in the United States in 2016, the highest annual
total (after 2015) in 11 years [NVC 18].
The specific differences with venture capital in the US are made clear
through a contrast of the breakdown by sector, as shown by the breakdown
produced by PwC [PWC 17] (Table 2.12), with the European data given in
Table 2.8.
Mobile
Consumption
Internet Health communi- Software Others
and services
cations
Quarter 2
46% 12% 17% 6% 5% 16%
2015
Quarter 3
49% 12% 16% 6% 6% 13%
2015
Quarter 4
48% 13% 14% 6% 5% 13%
2015
Mobile and Consumption

Internet Health Software Others
telecom. and services
Quarter 1
45% 13% 16% 4% 5% 17%
2016
Quarter 2
48% 12% 16% 5% 5% 14%
2016
Quarter 3
48% 13% 13% 7% 7% 15%
2016
Quarter 4
48% 12% 15% 8% 8% 13%
2016
Quarter 1
44% 1% 14% 6% 6% 17%
2017
Table 2.12. Allocation of venture capital by sector in the United States (in %, 2nd
quarter 2015 – 1st quarter 2017) (source: [PWC 17, p. 19])
This breakdown offers the advantage of more clearly demonstrating the

orientation of venture capital towards the digital economy. In the first
quarter of 2017, the Internet and software sectors accounted for 50% of
investment in the United States, a figure that is probably underestimated,

given that a portion of the investment in healthcare is in the digital economy.
Investments ($ millions) Number of operations
7 887 656
Table 2.13. Venture capital and “digital health” in the United States (2nd quarter
2015 -1st quarter 2017) (source: [PWC 1.7 p. 21])
In Figure 2.1, through a breakdown of the capitalization of firms with

venture capital backing by sector, we observe that the industries that
received the most investment in 2014 are high-tech industries (Apple,
Google, or Cisco) and biotechnology (Amgen, Celgene or Genentech).
Figure 2.1. Market capitalization of venture capital-backed firms as a % of each

industry (source: [GOR 15, p. 10])
The allocation of greater preferential resources to new technologies

would seem to require a more specific analysis of activities in the high-tech
fields.
2.2. High-tech industries, a less stable group
An analysis of these industries is faced with two difficulties. First, these

sectors are supposed to be the sources of innovation in productive systems,
and they have been undergoing continual reconfiguration since the 1990s,
during the technological revolution in ICT and the Internet. Transformations
have accelerated over the past 10 years or so, with the developments that
have been made in the digital economy (such as artificial intelligence, Big
Data, 3D, etc.). This context of permanent innovation is changing the way
these sectors are formed, blurring the lines between them in terms of their
desired goals.
Second, the analysis of high-tech industries is done using two main areas
of focus. First, the dynamics of these sectors are influenced by
macroeconomic and macro-social capacities: public policies, the growth rate,
the number of researchers per million inhabitants, the quality of the
workforce, the influence of industry, the complexity of exports, etc. The list
of these indicators reflects the importance of economic, social, and
institutional mechanisms for the production and spread of knowledge. One
often-cited example is the relationship between the development of these
industries and the extent and quality of a country’s industrial base through the
processes of expansion, contraction, and transformation this base undergoes.
On the other hand, these industries have their own dynamics. They are
embedded in specific innovation systems, and as a result, the innovation
processes they spur are carried out on the basis of a group of institutions,
networks, and organizations that promote the production of knowledge, the
creation of businesses, and the proliferation of highly skilled jobs. However,
this does not mean that these sectors form a homogeneous whole.
Knowledge- and technology-intensive firms coexist with firms that are less
knowledge- and technology-intensive; high-growth firms have innovation
processes that, while similar to firms with slower growth patterns, differ
significantly, particularly in terms of the connections established with
universities and research centers. For slower-growth firms, these
relationships are not a major source of information [HÖL 16]. They rely
more on internal company information sources and external sources from
customers, suppliers and competitors.
The question we are asking here is in two parts. Do innovation policies

promoting the development of new knowledge bases have stimulating effects
on the emergence of high-tech sectors and the emergence of start-ups backed

by venture capital, to the detriment of existing mechanisms? In other words,
what is the influence of macroeconomic policies on venture capital financing
in high-tech sectors?
In turn, this leads us to question the influence that high-tech industries hold
over macroeconomic performance. We will examine the case of advanced
industries in the United States. Then, we will carry out an international
comparison to connect certain high-tech sectors and the creation of start-ups.
2.2.1. Knowledge base, high-tech sectors, and venture capital:

the macroeconomic influence
To identify this influence, we use the work of Hopkins and Lazonick

[HOP 14] who analyze how the United States accumulates and strengthens
parts of its knowledge base on the basis of investments made by three types
of organizations: households, governments, and businesses.
Knowledge is a collective good that can be accumulated. This

accumulation is done through learning processes that result in the formation
of a knowledge base. In particular, the authors consider “the R&D process as
an approximation of the collective and cumulative learning through which a
high-tech base forms” [HOP 14, p. 28]. This process promotes the growth of
high-tech sectors (ICT, biotechnology, clean energy), which differs by
activity, and forms an integral part of a system that is not one of innovation
on the national level, but is a “global innovation system”.
From the standpoint of efforts made by the public sector, Hopkins and
Lazonick analyze the role of government agencies that govern the
distribution of public R&D funds. At the same time, public programs
contribute to the development of a “start-up culture” [HOP 14, p. 42] by
providing funding to new companies (SBIR, STTR, ATP programs, etc.). As
far as companies are concerned, the division of cognitive labor changes
when moving from the Old Economy to the New Economy. Previously,
companies mainly carried out internal R&D, partly financed by public funds,
to carry out basic and applied research. In the New Economy, research
laboratories are scaled back or disappear, giving way to the outsourcing of
R&D to start-ups, which these authors claim devote a large part of their
R&D expenditure to developing products. The financing mainly concerns

high-risk stages (early stages) to enable these start-ups to overcome
technological and commercial barriers5.
Overall, public and private policies for developing the high-tech

knowledge base have fostered the emergence and consolidation of
knowledge and technology-intensive activities in the United States,
supported by an entrepreneurial model built on and legitimized by the
reputation of start-ups backed by venture capital. As a result, the knowledge
base is subject to the effects of value extraction (shareholder preference),
which drives the restructuring of large companies that innovate on a large
scale and on a regular basis6 – but which, in some sectors such as
pharmaceuticals, do not invest enough in basic research.
Hopkins and Lazonick suggest that despite a high level of R&D

spending, the arrangements between organizations for investment in the
knowledge base have broken down, challenging the collective and
cumulative nature of the learning processes that guide the accumulation of
knowledge. This, in their view, is the source of the erosion of America’s
dominance on an international scale.
A criticism of this comes to mind. If learning processes make clear the

role of organizations in relation to the market, which is seen as being unable
to learn, why not admit that large companies, which often have difficulty
exploring new technological paths, also learn to use the division of labor
within the industrial organization of knowledge production, and to use start-
5 “These start-ups, mainly in the fields of ICT, biotechnology (in particular bio-pharmaceuticals)
and clean technologies (e.g. solar energy, wind energy, and electric vehicles), have been able to
raise significant capital since the late 1970s in the private equity stages, followed by listings
through the issuance of shares if and when they achieve an IPO. When IPOs are not possible, many
start-ups seek merger and acquisition (M&A) agreements that provide financial returns for their
investors and ensure the start-up’s access to the buyers’ internal funds” [HOP 14, p. 44].
6 “These are firms such as Western Digital, General Motors, Xerox, Texas Instruments,
Qualcomm, Proctor & Gamble, Microsoft, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson, Intel, Google,
DuPont, Cisco, Apple, Amazon, and Amgen, to name a few. Many of these firms dominate
their industries and command considerable influence not only over what kinds of R&D
projects are ultimately valued by the economy today (given the technologies they seek to
develop), but also over the ways in which educated labor is trained, utilized and rewarded for
carrying out their core R&D activities” [HOP 14, p. 48].
ups as a complement to their internal R&D? Especially since large

companies, as we have said, are more strongly committed to corporate
venture capital in order to strengthen their R&D spending and not to be left
behind in the movement toward technological acceleration, particularly in
the digital economy.
In addition, the contemporary organization of industries dominated by

large companies is increasingly more modular. Large companies externalize
their decision-making rights, which is to say, they transfer the design and
production of certain modules of knowledge to specialized suppliers. The
notion of cognitive modularity proposed by Langlois [LAN 02] refers to the
growing process of knowledge specialization and the multiplication of
islands of differential knowledge. The transfer of decision-making rights on
intangible assets occurs in tandem with the movement to refocus on the core
skill sets of companies, and has the effect of focusing the cognitive attention
of agents, generating cost savings and efficiency gains and developing
learning:
“Cognitive work itself is therefore the subject of an increasingly

fine-grained division of the labor process, promoting actions
that are carried out by many agents, both inside and outside the
firm... In particular, large companies use specialized suppliers
(universities, research centers, start-ups, etc.). Particularly in the
so-called high-tech sectors, specialized suppliers become
responsible for exploratory aspects, while established firms
assume exploitation functions (development, production,
marketing)” [GUI 04, p. 25].
However, the complementary relationship between internal cognitive

resources (produced by established firms) and external cognitive resources
(produced by start-ups, university laboratories, research centers) is not
achieved mechanically. It requires fixed costs to be incurred in order for the
transfer of knowledge between the sender and the receiver to take place.
Fixed costs can be divided into two categories: those for protecting
intellectual assets, and, most importantly, those of establishing coordination
so that knowledge can be exchanged and commercialized. This requires
strong interactions between producers and users, intended to promote the
transmission of visible information in the form of technical assistance
(know-how, procedures, etc.).
This does not in any way lead to the idea that established firms only play
a secondary role in the innovation process. Garcia-Macia, Chang-Tai and
Klenow [GAR 16], using US data sets (Longitudinal Business Database
from 1976–1988 to 2003–2013), arrive at the following results: established
firms are responsible for 81% of the growth in productivity, while incoming
firms contribute the remaining 19%. It is true that the authors assess the
contribution to growth of the various sources of innovation (creative
destruction, synonymous with radical innovations driven by incoming firms
and incremental product improvements by incumbent firms) based on an
employment dynamic calculated using a specific growth model. The
contribution of innovations from newly created firms represents about 25%
of growth, most of which is attributed to innovations implemented later by
established firms. In this context, it is not surprising that most of the growth
is provided by established firms, since “the relative share of employment of
incoming firms is modest” [GAR 16, p. 4].
Moreover, the Schumpeterian scheme is essentially dynamic. During the

first period, entrepreneurs will launch the first “gazelles” backed by venture
capital financing provided either by public programs (Apple, Intel, Compaq,
etc.) or by the private financial sector (Microsoft, Digital Equipment,
Genentech, etc.). These innovative companies work to renew the core of the
American high-tech industry and challenge the industrial and technological
supremacy of existing firms. During the second period, they become large
companies and concentrate their innovation efforts on a more incremental
path. In this way, venture capital financing is at the heart of the redefinition
of the productive system in the United States, the rise of high-tech sectors
and their increased competitiveness, and, more generally, the high levels of
growth that began in the 1980s. A few years later, a massive gap can be seen
between the United States and the EU-15, particularly in high-tech activities.
Analyzing the dynamics of high-tech sectors requires considering the

complementary forms taken by innovation, which refers to the division of
cognitive labor that is particularly marked in high-tech sectors.
2.2.2. The influence of advanced industries on the performance

of the US economy
The topic of advanced industries has been the subject of numerous

studies, including the study conducted by Muro et al. [MUR 15].
60
Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation
Figure 2.2. The 50 components that make up the advanced industries sector
(source: America’s Advanced Industries [MUR 15, p. 3])
According to the authors of this report, the influence exerted by these

industries is considerable. In 2013, this sector provided 12.3 million jobs
(9% of total employment) and the added value it created represented 17% of
the GDP, 90% of private sector R&D, 85% of all patents, and 60% of
exports. It employed 80% of the country’s engineers.
In addition, advanced industries have a high employment multiplier

coefficient, with each new job added creating 2.2 additional jobs:
“This means that in addition to the 12.3 million workers

employed by advanced industries, 27.1 million American
workers owe their jobs to economic activity supported by
advanced industries. In this way, when taken both directly and
indirectly, the sector supports nearly 34 million jobs, or nearly a
quarter of total employment in the United States” [MUR 15, p. 3].
Since 2010, there has been accelerated growth in this industrial grouping,
with employment and output growth rates 1.9 and 2.3 times higher than
average. In particular, advanced services created 65% of new jobs (IT
service design alone created 250,000 jobs). Its labor productivity is higher
than in the rest of the economy ($210,000 compared to an average of
$101,000). Advanced industries tend to create ecosystems within large
metropolitan areas. However, in many places, the capacity of some
ecosystems has been eroded after several waves of offshoring and
disinvestment.
Figure 2.2 breaks this sector down into three groups: 35 industrial
activities, 3 energy-related activities, and 12 service activities (R&D,
software, telecommunications, etc.). In a way, this system of grouping is a
reconfiguration of high-tech activities, basing them on inputs and processes
that create value. Traditional categorizations lost their meaning when the
influence of digital technologies was released on the economy:
“For that matter, an auto company like Tesla Motors has an

occupational profile similar to a software company. Against this
backdrop, the delineation of a single, high-value, advanced
industries sector – defined by its innovation and workforce
assets and characterized by its converging technologies and
business models – help keep the focus on what matters at a
moment of extraordinary economic change” [MUR 15, p. 13].
Advanced industries are characterized by two variables:

– R&D expenditure/employment > 450 dollars. This ratio ranks advanced
activities in the top 20% of all industries, and is considered a significant
factor in technological innovation and economic growth through the direct
and indirect effects (spillovers) it produces. The advantage of this ratio is
that work and R&D are inputs into the production process, while the added
value, achieved in the traditional R&D/VA ratio, is an output. In this way,
the approach is homogeneous and makes it possible to highlight a coherent
set of “high value” economic activities, identified from fixed assets;
– the proportion of jobs in the STEM category must be > 21%. “STEM
[science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] workers are closely
involved in both the development of new techniques and technologies and in
the adoption and spread of these technologies” [MUR 15, p. 20].
As they develop, advanced industries tend to form regional ecosystems

centered on knowledge, skills, and innovation capacities. These elements
indicate that:
“Competitiveness is not exclusively microeconomic in nature,

and this competition moves toward intermediate levels
consisting of localized clusters of companies and institutions.
The meso-economic rules of the game imposed by globalization
are as follows: the technologies, knowledge, and skills found
within one location must necessarily be different from those
found in the other areas of concentration, otherwise they
become ‘commodities’. Above all, it is an issue of carrying out
unique outputs of research, products, and services” [GUI 17a,
p. 29].
This movement involves public players who devise forms of

collaboration in such a way that public sector R&D can be effectively
applied to bring it closer to commercialization and the market. For their part,
large companies build accelerators for start-ups in order to accelerate
technological developments in adjacent markets. In addition, within these
ecosystems, innovation centers help start-ups by providing support, advice,
and access to venture capital. This is achieved by connecting entrepreneurs
with VC funds in an innovation plan that increasingly embraces the
configuration of platforms that bring together different agents (universities,
laboratories, funders, entrepreneurs, etc.) to formulate and solve problems
that exceed the individual capacities of a single company. In this way, the
ambiguity of some innovative projects is reduced.
We will make two remarks to conclude this section:

– R&D expenditures are only a fraction of total innovation expenditure,
which includes, in addition to internal and external R&D, the purchasing of
new capital goods, the purchasing of external knowledge, and the marketing
and training expenditure required by the introduction of new products and
processes. The analysis of advanced industries supports this idea by
suggesting that organized ecosystems represent “the collective infrastructure
of the innovation process” [GUI 17a, p. 122], in which partnerships are
defined, tests are carried out, advice is provided, and access to venture
capital financing is facilitated. Innovative start-ups find it necessary to
access external knowledge and protect their knowledge by formal processes
(patents) in order to create indicators to be seen by investors.
– another study presents a different configuration of the high-tech sector in
the United States [WOL 16]. It includes 33 manufacturing industries and 12
service activities. In 2014, this total represented 17 million jobs (12% of total
employment) and 23% of the country’s production. The identification of
high-tech industries is based on a single criterion, that of the jobs held by
STEM workers in each area of activity. STEM jobs represent 5.8% of all
jobs, the authors apply a coefficient of 2.5, and when the 14.5% threshold of
jobs held by STEM workers is reached, the industry in question is considered
as high-tech. In 2014, high-tech services accounted for 52.6% of high-tech
employment, compared to 17% for high-tech manufacturing industries, with
the rest being located in agriculture, mining, public services, etc.
2.2.3. Business creation, growth thresholds, and the new

technology sector
Many studies have concluded that European high-tech industries are

relatively small in comparison with American industries in the same sector.
This conclusion has been particularly well established in the ICT sector
[ART 16]. This originates from the fact that providing financing for these
companies faces specific challenges. A comparison with the United States
provides a clear demonstration of this fact.
In the first chapter, we noted the transformations undergone by the

entrepreneurial financing ecosystem upstream of venture capital players by
highlighting the role played by business angels as a kind of substitute for

venture capital in the early stages of corporate financing. The influence of
informal investors is becoming increasingly important, particularly in the
United States, as shown in Table 2.14.
Country 2005 2010 2015

United States 22,700 265,400 304,930
United Kingdom – 4,555 8,000
France 1,600 4,250 10,000
Table 2.14. Number of business angels (United States, United Kingdom, France;
2005–2010–2015) (source: [ART 16, p. 2])
Business angels form part of “a group that can be categorized somewhere

in between informal founders, ‘friends and family’ financing, and formal VC
investors” [WIL 15, p. 6]. According to this author, the life cycle of a
company can be represented in terms of the stages it goes through and the
financing methods that it receives. This makes it difficult to manage the
options offered by the various financing instruments at each stage that allow
the thresholds of growth to be crossed.
There are several interconnected factors that can explain the gap between
American and European trajectories. First, it should be recalled that there are
significant differences in venture capital investment rates (stricto sensu) (see
Table 2.10). Considering the outstanding funds for 2010 and 2015 reinforces
this claim.
Country 2010 2015

United States 23.5 60.1
United Kingdom 0.7 1.9
Germany 0.0 1.5
France 1.2 1.5
Spain 0.2 0.1
Italy 0.0 0.1
Table 2.15. Outstanding funds ($ billion), United States and European countries,
2010–2015 (source: [ART 16, p. 2])
These disparities are highlighted even further during the exit process. The
low number of new companies that are able to carry out IPOs is a relevant
indicator of the difficulties these companies experience in obtaining the
additional financing needed for them to grow. With the exception of the
United Kingdom, European financial markets are lacking in depth, and do
not have sufficient liquidity for high-growth securities. The risk is that
venture capitalists will quickly sell companies that are not sufficiently
consolidated, since they do not expect satisfactory financial outflows on the
stock market.
Country 2010 2015

United States 1,110 1,210
United Kingdom 507 537
Germany 141 111
France 92 109
Italy 52 73
Table 2.16. IPOs, number of transactions, United States7, European countries,

2010–2015 (source: [ART 16, p. 4])
The difficulties in growing businesses are not in contradiction with the

high number of new business start-ups in Europe and, in particular, in France
(Table 2.17).
However, the increase in the number of start-ups has not led to the
consolidating of the new technologies sector, and, more specifically, the
NICT sector, whose contribution to total production remains low in France
(Table 2.18).
Country 2010 2015

Germany 0.38 0.31
France 0.99 0.62
Spain 0.61 0.75
Italy 0.51 0.54
Table 2.17. Number of new business start-ups (as a % of the total population), in the
United States and European countries, 2010–2015 (source: [ART 16, p. 4])
7 In the United States, between 2010 and 2018, IPOs “remain the main extreme valuation
factor for ‘unicorns’ in their early stages. However, despite the existence of these
overvaluations, mergers and acquisitions remain the most common course of action given the
volumes of revenue that are achieved” [VEN 19, p. 53].
Country 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

United States 5.85 5.71 5.67 5.81 5.85
United Kingdom 4.99 5.18 5.10 5.16 5.19
Germany 4.54 4.73 4.74 4.87 4.94
France 4.57 4.43 4.36 4.29 4.13
Table 2.18. Added value of NICTs (as a % of total VA) (source: [ART 16, p. 4])
There are two points to be made about statistics. The breakdown by

sector is different from that used in the previous tables; it is based on data
from the OECD and Natixis. The list of advanced industries (see section
2.2.2.2) is based on a finer-level breakdown (four-digit, NAICS Code) and
includes total production and not the added value, as in Table 2.18.
In addition, the gap between the United States and France widened
between 2010 and 2014 (from 1.28% to 1.7%), which suggests a higher level
of fragility for this sector in France.
2.2.4. Elements of explanation
The high level of sensitivity to macroeconomic and macro-institutional

frameworks and the difficulty of accessing complementary productive
resources would appear to be the defining features of young innovative
companies. In addition, the costs and constraints of innovation take a
particular form in high-tech industries.
2.2.4.1. Sensitivity to macroeconomic and macro-institutional

frameworks
There are no statistics for venture capital-backed start-ups on their own.
Given this constraint, we look at companies with high growth potential
(high-growth firms or HGFs; see the introduction to this chapter). The
document produced by the European Commission [HÖL 16] states that
HGFs are spread throughout all sectors, but are over-represented in the
knowledge-intensive services sector. HGFs are defined as companies that
have an annual growth rate of 10% or more for three years and have 10
employees at the beginning of that period. In Europe, HGFs represent 10.4%
of the business population and 14.7% of employment over the recent period8.
8 The influence wielded by HGFs is also affected by developments in demand. If we reduce

the gap between real and potential GDP (output gap) in the share of HGFs, we can see that
On average, European countries have a larger proportion of slow-growing

and stagnant firms than the United States. This phenomenon is not only due
to the inadequacy of projects to generate innovation. More than anything
else, the differences between countries and large regions also depend on
favorable institutional conditions (entrepreneurship, the quality of the
workforce, legal and administrative regulations, etc.) and the patterns of
specialization, all of which reflect a country’s ability to embrace and benefit
from radical technological change [HÖL 16, p. 251].
These considerations are much broader in scope than a narrow focus on

start-ups. Still, they reveal the importance of the quality of the knowledge
base (R&D indicators, etc.) and the importance of institutional variables. As
far as R&D is concerned, we know that the differences between Europe and
the United States are an outcome of specific business demographics. The
further down we move in the distribution of companies by size, the more we
notice a very significant presence of American companies that invest in
R&D. R&D therefore appears to be a crucial indicator, with the potential to
transform a small company into a high-growth firm with the ability to
become an important player in its sector.
Let’s explain how this mechanism works. In the US, small companies
invest more in R&D than their European counterparts, and are concentrated
in the most R&D intensive sectors [VEU 15]. The lack of innovative start-
ups (“yollies” – young leading innovators) in innovation-based growth
sectors is the main source of the lack of innovation in Europe. The authors
observe a very high level of inertia in R&D performance in Europe, and this
persistent innovation gap is correlated to the industrial structure:
“New firms fail to play a significant role in the innovation

dynamics of European industry, especially in the high-tech
sectors. This is illustrated by their inability to enter the market,
and more importantly, for the most efficient innovative entrants
to grow to world leadership. The churning that characterizes the
creative destruction process in a knowledge-based economy
encounters significant obstacles in the EU, suggesting barriers
to growth for new innovative firms that ultimately weaken
Europe’s growth potential… This inability of new European
this gap is associated with a lower share of HGFs in times of crisis or cycle reversals, while in
periods of expansion, this share increases [HÖL 16, p. 252].
firms to grow large seems to manifest itself particularly in the

high-tech, high-growth sectors, most notably in the ICT sector”
[VEU 15, p. 6].
It is also noted that there is a lower degree of specialization of the

European economy in high-growth and R&D-intensive sectors. In the United
States, 35% of total business R&D is carried out by yollies, compared to 7%
in Europe. When considered in their own right, European yollies are no less
R&D-intensive than their American counterparts in certain sectors, but they
most often operate in less R&D intensive sectors. The structural effect is due
to the lower presence of yollies in “innovation-based growth sectors”9. The
burden of financial constraints, both internal and external, are the main
barriers to innovation. These come in addition to the cultural barriers related
to the degree of social acceptance of innovations, administrative constraints,
a lack of skills, and the difficulties in forming partnerships. Given these
considerations, there are two recommendations that are of particular interest
to us: embedding venture capital in a global innovation policy, and
promoting an integrated market for this mode of financing so as to achieve a
critical size that alone can make it “viable, fluid, and dense” [VEU 15, p. 9].
2.2.4.2. The sensitivity of innovative companies to cash flow and R&D

performance
Like many authors, we address the problem of the behavior of innovation
in Europe and the United States by analyzing the difficulties of accessing
external financing for innovators who are not small start-ups facing risky
projects. The sensitivity of R&D investment to cash flow reveals the
intensity of financial constraints [CIN 15]. Yollies are more sensitive to the
availability of internal financing (in the case of start-ups, internal financing
can be assimilated to the resources provided by the entrepreneurs, their
families, or even business angels) and, as a result, they face increased
financing constraints. The study shows that this greater sensitivity exists
only for European yollies, particularly in the medium and high-tech sectors.
In a study already mentioned, Cincera and Veugelers [CIN 13] put

forward an explanation that is made in terms of the rate of return on R&D
9 In short, everything that is related to ICT and health: biotechnology, computer hardware &
services, HC equipment & services, Internet, pharmaceuticals, software and telecom
equipment, etc.
investments to justify the low density of European yollies, particularly in

high-tech sectors. As we can see, these firms have higher rates of return than
the average for innovative firms, and it is in the United States that the gap is
most pronounced between the yollies and the average innovator10. For
Europe, the results are not significant. In this context, European policies
must go beyond reducing administrative barriers for innovative start-ups.
Indeed, low rates of return reduce the level of appetite for highly innovative
risky projects. Low rates of return with respect to the risks involved have the
effect of blocking venture capital investments. As the authors point out, the
problem is not simply a lack of venture capital supply.
2.2.4.3. The difficulty of accessing additional resources

The issue facing Europe is how it can efficiently channel productive
resources towards high-tech firms with high growth potential. The
differences with the United States, as we have said, lie in the difficulties new
European companies have in crossing growth thresholds. Over the period
from company creation to age 35, employment increases by a factor of 10 in
American companies and by a much smaller factor in Europe. The growth of
firms in the United States is driven by a more dynamic distribution, in which
the most dynamic firms grow faster, while those that are less dynamic
contract faster. The differences observed could reflect a higher degree of
experimentation and learning through practical experience among incoming
American firms. These differences are more pronounced in high-tech and
emerging sectors, where the need to experiment and increase investment in
knowledge capital (computer data, design, brands, organizational know-how,
etc.) is more pressing.
In other words, the difficulty in capitalizing on the growth of the new

technologies sector faced by Europe, and France in particular, can be
attributed to the obstacles faced by young innovative firms when seeking
access to complementary resources to test their ideas (prototypes and
business models), to develop marketing strategies and to produce on an
economically viable scale. In this context, their location within innovation
ecosystems can provide an answer to this problem, but this requires better
targeted industrial policy measures.
10 In this study, yollies are companies created after 1990 and which have a particularly strong
presence in the high-tech sectors. The sample consists of 363 companies: 218 are American,
59 European, 3 Japanese, and 83 are from the rest of the world.
On a broader level, we must consider the process of reallocating

productive resources to its full extent and remember that firms that produce
patents attract twice as many jobs to the United States as they do to the
average OECD country. The literature indicates that there are several factors
that influence this process: the quality of resources, the quality of the legal
and administrative environment, the transmission of information between
producers, and the intensity of competition [SYV 14]. The combined
interplay between these elements causes considerable changes in the
economic fabric. Syverson indicates that in the United States, the standard
deviation of sales growth rates can reach 50%, which means “that in a
typical year, fully one-third of firms can expect to see their revenues grow
very quickly (by 60% or more) or shrink very quickly (by 40% or more)”
[SYV 14, p. 3]. Strong surges cause high entry and exit rates that reallocate
economic activity in a direction that most often rewards high-productivity
firms. Of course, these variations primarily concern young innovative
companies for which the selection process is even more marked due to the
wide dispersion of performance in terms of level and variation. The
consequence is not insignificant since the strong growth of successful
companies consolidates the sectors, especially the high-tech sector, in which
they operate.
2.2.4.4. The costs and constraints of high-tech investment

From the point of view of venture capital investment, high-tech activities
have both similarities and differences with other activities.
The constraints of funding have already been mentioned. Innovation is an

inherently uncertain process. Innovation returns are extremely biased,
requiring specialized intermediaries who make use of their instrumental and
interpretative knowledge to determine whether or not to invest [KER 14b].
Information imbalances are high, and these firms have no history. Finally,
companies have a high percentage of intangible assets, with knowledge
embedded in human capital and patents.
Investment levels vary widely in high-tech sectors, a fact which is linked

to the marketing of new concepts that are declined to form a system within a
wave of new technology. As Kerr et al. point out, “the actual distribution of
returns in such ventures (notably those linked to high-tech sectors) has a low
medium value but very high variance” [KER 14a, p. 3]. This means that the
majority of venture capital investments are failures and, in this context, an
institutional environment that facilitates experimentation is crucial to

maintaining a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem and reducing the
ambiguity around innovative projects.
The authors mentioned above identify three reasons why the

experimentation process is primarily characteristic of high-tech industries.
First, VC firms need to experiment and their business model facilitates
experimentation – especially in sectors that are “capital-efficient”. The
relevance of certain financial commitments and the subsequent scaling up of
such commitments (e.g. ICTs) should both be tested. Secondly, the costs of
experimentation have dropped sharply in the high-tech sectors (ICTs,
software, computer simulations, etc.) and “the frequency with which one
learns new information about the product is very high” [KER 14a, p. 15].
Finally, more generally, the experimentation approach makes it possible to
approach venture capital in a less banal way. VC firms do not simply put
together a portfolio of early-stage start-ups and entities that take risks that
they seek to reduce by distributing it; they carry out numerous tests based on
knowledge that is still intuitive and uncertain. Their behavior is most akin to
sequential investors, which reserve the possibility to invest more at a later
date. From this perspective, syndication and staged financing are part of the
overall experimentation process.
The main issue is the emergence of radical innovations and the expected
consequences this has for industries and forms of organization during certain
periods.
At the end of the second stage of this chapter, there are two remarks that
emerge:
– the dynamics of high-tech sectors are at the heart of the renewal of the
productive fabric in the United States and are driven by the emergence of
young, innovative companies. The related selection process leads to the
elimination of the least efficient companies, and the consolidation of those
most likely to attract additional productive resources and continuously
improve their own skills [SYV 14]. This form of competition results in a
small number of winners, and therefore gives rise to quasi-monopolistic
markets (Microsoft, GAFA). Venture capital is permeated by a two-way
logic [GUI 17b]. When the initial high-risk project carried out by the
entrepreneur and financially supported by the venture capitalist is successful,
the growth of the companies helps drive growth in the sector or sectors they
are part of, while creating monopoly rents and promoting the abuses of a
dominant position (see the case of Google). Moreover, in the case of digital
platforms, these take the form of private governance structures that encroach
on existing institutions. Triggered by algorithms, they define a number of
rules that transform the production and distribution formats of certain
services (i.e. Uber, Airbnb, etc.). In a way, these rules define “what can be
done by whom and under what terms” [KEN 16]. As Kenney and Zysman
point out, these organizations tend to give precedence to the computer code
created by the platform over legal codes, particularly in the area of labor law.
It is easy to understand why digital platforms would be linked to venture

capital financing. Langley and Leyshon [LAN 16] identify two effects in
particular. First, the platform’s business model improves the time structure
of venture capital funds because returns are obtained more quickly. The
accelerated expansion of the scale of operations, the construction of a niche
around a network of multiple markets (a “multi-sided market network”), and
the ease of sharing and carrying out transactions made possible by digital
connections, create network effects that promote the economic scale-up of
the platform:
“In terms of time structure, venture capital funds are therefore

managed by the platform’s business model, precisely because
this model is built on the revenue streams that can be generated
by the rapid evolution of platforms. To borrow the expression of
Feng et al. applied to the Internet boom, the platform's business
model specifies the ‘variable form of the relationship between
innovation [supported by venture capital] and the cost recovery
[for investors] under the current form of capitalism’. When the
business model makes extracting rents viable for the platform’s
rapidly evolving intermediaries, the growth trajectory of start-
ups is achieved, and it is valued by venture capital and leads to
a situation of liquidity.” [LAN 16, p. 14]
Second, the business model of the business platform improves the

composition of the portfolio of the venture capital funds. This model
explicitly coordinates network effects to create revenue. The explanation
scheme borrows both from the processes of experimentation and selection of
venture capital before reaching the market (see above) and from the efforts
made by platforms to ensure their dominance in their own market niche. This
is a form of market selection that takes the form of acquisitions of small
rivals, or the implementation of strategies aimed at strengthening market

positions. In this case, the extraction of rents by the platforms is in line with
the strengthening of oligopolistic and even monopolistic trends in the
intermediary process. This is the logic of “winner takes all”: “Platforms seek
to extract rents from their network, which are essentially monopoly rents”
[LAN 16, p. 15]. Inevitably, public policies will be needed to oversee the
deployment and operation of these structures. In some cases, they should not
hesitate to dismantle these quasi-monopolies in order to reproduce areas of
competition where necessary.
We did not mention venture capital investments in the clean-tech sector.

These have grown since the late 1990s, with their volume and number of
transactions increasing from 1995-1 to 2008-3 before falling sharply in 2009
[SHA 13]. Between 2011 and 2016, investments fell by almost 30%, and
their share in total venture capital increased from 16.8% in 2011 to 7.6% in
2016 [DEV 17]. Venture capital has two aspects in this sector: it is highly
concentrated in a few metropolitan areas, and is mainly present in the late
stage and in a few technological areas such as energy efficiency, solar, and
transportation. However, these fields have technological foundations closely
linked to traditional software areas in total venture capital. These
technologies are less capital-intensive than other clean technologies, have a
shorter time frame, and can be applied to a wide range of products and
services [DEV 17, p. 7].
For these authors, traditional venture capital is poorly suited for clean-
tech sectors for two reasons. On the one hand, the literature has reported a
gap between venture capital and clean technologies [KER 14b]. The capital
invested and the duration of the investment required for learning about the
viability of a project are so high “that innovative projects with great potential
are not carried out without the support of the government” [KER 14b, p. 12].
On the other hand, budgetary restrictions in the United States have

created considerable uncertainty in this area. One possible solution is to
strengthen public-private partnerships, as these forms of organization
increase laboratory participation in the commercialization, entrepreneurship,
and operation of local innovation systems. In addition, “technology-to-
market” programs facilitate private sector access to technical leadership and
expertise found within national laboratories and renowned research
institutes. Thus, new forms of organization are needed, which will have to
base project financing on three aspects, namely an increased time horizon,
adequate incentive structures, and mission-based investment strategies [DEV

17, p. 11].
The first two sections of this chapter have presented a collection of

materials showing the interest that should be paid to the high-tech sectors.
Intensive in technology and knowledge, these sectors are at the root of the
what are often radical disruptions introduced into the fabric of the production
system. They have polarized a large fraction of venture capital investment
for more than 20 years, particularly in the United States, and their growth
cannot be separated from the dynamics of innovative start-ups. Their
sensitivity to the macroeconomic and institutional framework, their R&D
behavior, and the conditions for the entry and exit of firms seem to indicate a
specific configuration of venture capital investment in these sectors, which
we will model within the context of European countries.
2.3. An econometric model for determining high-tech investment

in Europe
The creation and development of high-tech firms are a major challenge

that European countries must face in order to improve their capacity for
innovation.
How are European countries addressing this problem? Does intangible

capital play a key role in the growth of the sectors considered?
It should be noted that, given the constraints of the available statistical

information, we did not consider venture capital, but instead private equity
(PE)11. Indeed, to our knowledge, the declination of the variables
representing human capital (R&D, full-time R&D personnel, per capita
R&D personnel, etc.) only exists for private equity. It should be recalled that
11 “[EVC 11] provides data on PE capital invested in high-tech companies, defined as having
‘exclusive ownership of certain intellectual property rights (such as design rights, patents,
copyrights, etc.) that are critical to adding value to a company’s products and activities, and
which are developed internally by its permanent team” [EVC 11, p. 7]. EVCA points out that
“although companies with these attributes are not limited to specific industries, they are most
often found in telecommunications, Internet technology, computer equipment, computer
software and services, electronics, semiconductors, biotechnology, nanotechnology, medical
instruments, and devices” [EVC 11, p. 7]. The developments in this section use the work
published in [GUI 16b].
private equity includes venture capital, and extends it to investments in more

mature companies with high growth potential.
2.3.1. The approach used: the analytical framework and

assumptions made
To analyze the factors for determining PE investment in high-tech sectors

(HTPE), we took the approach used by the Industrial Organization (I/O),
based on three factors: market structures-behavior-performances [SCH 80].
In this nested scheme, performance is the result of the behavior of
companies, which in turn is conditioned by the structure of the industry and
the nature of the basic conditions. What influences do the basic conditions
exert on the industry being considered and the behavior of PE firms?
The basic conditions are traditionally considered from the point of view
of supply and demand. Supply is considered to be provided by fund
management firms that raise capital from investors (banks, pension funds,
insurance companies, etc.), and the demand comes from companies that may
receive capital investments. We consider that the determining factors of
investment are composed of four elements: the macroeconomic framework,
the institutional framework, the exit conditions of the companies receiving
the investment, and the dynamics of innovation:
– to assess the macroeconomic situation, the first basic condition is
economic growth. A favorable situation of economic growth encourages
capital providers to invest more in PE firms, which increases their
investment capacity. For their part, the entrepreneurs increase their demand
for financing [GOM 98, FEL 13]. Economic growth is thus a favorable
condition for investment, on both the supply and the demand side (H1);
– the second macroeconomic indicator is the interest rate. Suppliers face
a trade-off between investing in PE and venture capital funds and making
alternative financial investments repaid at the prevailing interest rate [GOM
98, BON 12]. In this context, a high interest rate can penalize the PE’s
activity. From the demand side, the interest rate determines the choice of
financing between equity and debt for companies. High borrowing costs will
accelerate the demand for equity capital. The overall impact of this variable
thus depends on the predominance of an effect of supply or demand: if the
influence is ˂ 0, the supply effect prevails (H2a), if it is ˃ 0, the demand
effect is required (H2b). From this, there are, three assumptions that
characterize the overall macroeconomic context:
H1: economic growth has a positive impact on HTPE investment.
H2a: the interest rate has a negative impact on the HTPE investment.
H2b: the interest rate has a positive impact on the HTPE investment.
– the institutional environment is basically favorable to equity financing.
From a regulatory point of view, the institutional framework corresponds to
the legal and tax-related regulations that govern the behavior of agents, that
is PE firms, investors, and entrepreneurs. Again, this is a basic condition that
affects both the supply and demand for financing. For the HT segment, we
assume that a favorable legal and tax framework has a positive impact on
investment in companies of this type (H3). To our knowledge, this
hypothesis has not been tested in the literature.
H3: a favorable legal and tax environment has an impact > 0 on HTPE
investment;
– the exit conditions are another determining factor to be considered. The

risks faced by PE firms and investors are essentially that of not recovering
their capital, or that of obtaining insufficient profits. In this context, the
existence of actionable exit mechanisms is crucial for the development of
this industry. More specifically, market-based systems, which generally
correspond to deep and structured financial markets, provide exit
opportunities for fund management companies via public offering (PO) of
investee companies, thereby promoting private equity and venture capital
activities on the supply side [AMA 99, ARM 04]. Moreover, on the demand
side, the importance of initial PO gives entrepreneurs “an additional
incentive to start a company” [JEN 00]:
“Regarding HT companies in particular, there are specific stock
markets that can accommodate these companies, such as the
NASDAQ in the United States. It should be noted that the exit
opportunities for private equity firms are not limited to stock
markets, including in countries with market-based financial
systems. Indeed, trade sales (TS), corresponding to the sale of
the shares held in investee companies to industrial corporations,
also constitute an exit mechanism with high potential,
considered by Félix et al.” [FEL 13]. [GUI 16b, p. 447]
Thus, we assume that good exit conditions, whether in general or

specifically for the exit channels used (notably PO and TS) positively
influence the HTPE investment (H4). In their work, the authors conclude
that there is a positive impact on venture capital investment of the total
offering proceeds raised by IPO companies, and the value of the mergers and
acquisitions (MA) transactions made. More precisely, the extent of the
impact of the context of the exit on HTPE investment is differentiated
according to the exit channels used, with the influence of the PO exit being
stronger than that of the trade sale exit (H5). This assumption is justified by
the fact that private equity financing and stock markets are closely linked.
This relationship is well-established in the literature. This leads to the
following assumptions:
H4: a favorable exit context (IPO or TS) has an impact > 0 on HTPE
investment.
H5: the intensity of the impact of this variable is differentiated according

to the exit channels used, with a greater influence of the PO exit compared to
the TS exit;
– finally, innovation is a basic condition on both the demand and the

supply sides [FEL 13]. It expands entrepreneurial opportunities, thus
increasing the demand for financing. In addition, it has the potential to
attract investors and PE firms, particularly to companies in the high-growth
HT segment. The dynamics of innovation can be assessed on the basis of
R&D expenditures, the human resources employed in the R&D activities,
and the outputs of this activity (patents). The human resources in R&D can
be assessed by taking into account all R&D personnel or, more restrictively,
only researchers. All these indicators can be used on all PE segments or
exclusively on the HT segment.
In general, we assume that the dynamics of innovation, considered in

these different aspects, has a positive impact on HTPE investment (H6). The
indicators related to the HT segment have a stronger impact on these
investments (H7). Finally, we hypothesize that research resources have a
higher impact than total R&D personnel, whether in all segments or only in
the HT segment (H8). Researchers may be seen as repositories of the tacit
and explicit knowledge necessary for innovation.
H6: the dynamics of innovation, as measured by R&D expenditure, total

R&D personnel, researchers, and patent applications, in general or in the HT
segment, have an effect > 0 on HTPE investment.
H7: the impact of the innovation indicators defined on the HT segment

alone is more significant on HTPE investment.
H8: The impact of research resources on HTPE investment is greater than

that produced by total R&D personnel, for all fields and for the HTPE
segment.
2.3.2. The econometric model
We will first present the model variables, then the analytical structure of
the model, and finally the results obtained and the discussions they generate.
2.3.2.1. The variables selected

This econometric study is carried out on a sample of 17 European
countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom. Due to the limited availability of
certain data, the period examined is 2002–2009.
The list of variables is shown in Table 2.19.
Variable Definition Role Expected sign

Macroeconomic Variables
Measures the
Real GDP growth rate influence of
GDPt-1 +
(delayed by one year) economic dynamics
(Eurostat) (H1)
Emphasizes whether
the interest rate
Ten year government
appears as a trade-off
Int t-1 bond yields (delayed by -/+
criterion from the point
one year) (Eurostat).
of view of investors or
companies (H2a, H2b).
Institutional Variable
Index of the legal and tax
environment that favors
the development of PE Assesses the influence
and VC, of the
Instt -
and entrepreneurship (a institutional
weak index indicates environment (H3).
a more favorable
environment) (EVCA).

Exit variables
Evaluates the impact
Total PE divestments
of
ExitTot t-1 divided by GDP (delayed +
the overall
by one year) (Eurostat).
exit context (H4).
PE divestments Evaluates the impact
ExitPO t-1 by PO (public offering) of the exit by PO (H4)
+
divided by GDP (delayed (H5, ExitPOt-
by one year) (Eurostat). 1˃ExitTSt-1).
PE divestments by TS Evaluates the impact

divided by GDP (delayed of exit by TS (H4). -
ExitTS t-1
by one year) (EVCA).
Innovation variables
BERD (Business
Enterprise Research and
Identifies the impact
Development)
of financial resources
RD t-1 expenditure +
invested in BERD
divided by
(H6) (H7).
GDP (delayed by
Identifies the impact
BERD expenditure in the
of financial resources
HT sector divided by
RDHTt-1 invested in BERD in +
GDP (delayed by
the
HT sector (H6).
BERD personnel in full- Measures the impact
time equivalent per of total human
Persot-1 +
inhabitant (delayed by resources employed in
one year) (Eurostat). R&D (H6).
Measures the impact
BERD personnel in
of total human
HT sectors in full-time
PersoHTt-1 resources employed in +
equivalent per inhabitant
BERD (H6) (H7
(Eurostat).
PersoHT t-1 ˃ Persot-1).
Evaluates the impact
BERD researchers in full
of human resources in
time equivalent per
Research t-1 terms of the +
inhabitant (delayed by
researchers employed
one year (Eurostat).
in BERD. (H6) (H8).

Assesses the impact of
BERD researchers in HT human resources in
sectors in full-time terms of researchers
ResearchHT t-1 equivalent per inhabitant employed in BERD in +
(delayed by one year the HT sectors (H6)
(Eurostat). (H7 ResearchHTt-1˃
Research t-1).
Patent applications to
Evaluates the impact of
EPO (European Patent
innovation results in
Patent t-1 Office) per inhabitant +
terms of patent filings
(delayed by one year)
to the EPO (H6).
(Eurostat).
Assesses the impact of
HT patent applications to innovation results in
the EPO per inhabitant terms of patent filings
PatentHT t-1 +
(delayed by one year to the EPO in the HT
(Eurostat). sectors (H6) (H7
PatentHTt-1˃ Patentt-1).
Table 2.19. The variables used: definition, role, assumptions and expected results
(source: [GUI 16, pp. 451–452])
We used the EVCA index to identify the legal and tax environment. This
indicator includes three elements: the legal and tax environment for Limited
Partners and PE firms and for invested companies, as well as the retention of
talent in companies and PE firms12. The first element is a basic condition of
supply, the second is demand-related, the third encompasses both aspects.
With regard to the exit context and in order to assess its impact on HTPE
investment (H4), we consider disinvestments made in full (by PO, by TS, by
12 “More specifically, the tax and legal environment for limited partners and management
companies takes into account criteria related to investors, such as pension funds and insurance
companies, fund structures, and tax incentives. The tax and legal environment of the
beneficiary companies refers to the incentive of companies and tax incentives for research and
development, while that for retaining talent in the beneficiary companies and fund managers
takes into account the taxation of stock options, interest, etc. Thus, several criteria are used to
evaluate these three categories. The assessment is based on a scale ranging from 1 (the most
favorable environment for the development of risk capital and the venture capital industry) to
3 (least favorable environment). An average of the scores assigned numerically is used to
produce a composite score for each country” [GUI 16b, p. 450].
a sale to another PE fund, by a sale to financial institutions, by a sale to

management, etc.) divided by GDP (ratio delayed by one year), and then
disinvestments by PO/GDP (delayed by one year) and disinvestments by
TS/GDP (delayed by one year). The last two indicators are used to test
whether PO exits have a stronger influence on HTPE investment than TS
exits.
The innovation indicators are as follows (EUROSTAT): business R&D

expenditure divided by GDP, business R&D expenditure in the HT sector
divided by GDP, full-time equivalent personnel per inhabitant, full-time
equivalent personnel in the HT sectors per inhabitant, full-time equivalent
R&D researchers per inhabitant, and patent filings with the European Patent
Office. As mentioned, all explanatory variables are delayed by one year,
with the exception of institutional variables.
2.3.2.2. The structure of the model: the determining factors of PE

investment in high-tech sectors
Macroeconomic situation
GDP growth
Interest rate
Institutional framework
Tax and legal regulations
Exit conditions
All exits
PO exit HTPE Investment
TS exit
Innovation dynamics
R&D expenditure (all areas or
focused on HT)
Total R&D personnel (all areas or
HT-focus)
Researchers (all areas or focused on
HT)
Patent applications (all areas or HT
focus)
Figure 2.3. The structure of the investment model in high-tech sectors

(source: [GUI 16b, p. 449])
2.3.3. Results and discussion
Table 2.20 shows the results of several regressions specified according to

the logic of the analytical model and taking into account the constraint on the
correlation of variables. The regressions named A, B, and C incorporate the
total exit, PO exit, and TS exit variables respectively. Type 1 and 2
regressions correspond to global innovation and high-tech innovation
respectively. Regressions a, b, c, and d correspond respectively to business
R&D expenditure, total R&D personnel, R&D researchers and patent filings.
The number of observations varies according to the availability of
information. All regressions obtain a satisfactory adjusted R2.
Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg.

A1a A1b A1c A1d A2aa A2b A2c A2d
-0.002 -0.0030 -0.0042 -0.0016 0.00139 -0.0022 -0.0030 -0.0024

GDP_1 5225 793 352 256 49 488 057 298
(-0.89) (-1.08) (-1.47) (-0.55) (-0.72) (-0.73) (-0.94) (-0.82)
0.01570 0.01735 0.01645 0.01500 0.00313 0.00648 0.00596 0.01178

Int_1 57*** 23*** 24*** 23*** 32 2 76 2**
(3.13) (3.33) (3.20) (2.75) (0.95) (1.25) (1.07) (2.36)
-0.000 -0.0003 -0.0002 -0.0002 -0.0002 -0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0001

Inst 3413* 082* 842* 329 483** 714 143 617
(-1.95) (-1.80) (-1.67) (-1.28) (-2.04) (-1.00) (-1.15) (-0.94)
0.20227 0.20915 0.20734 0.21742 0.08728 0.24265 0.24198 0,.2211

Exit 59*** 15*** 82*** 49*** 61** 4*** 49*** 885***
Tot_1
(6.80) (7.15) (7.05) (7.04) (2.28) (8.56) (7.93) (7.23)
0.02965
RD_1 11*** – – – – – – –
(4.13)
0.12703
Staff_1 – 94*** – – – – – –
(4.17)
0.20687
Resear_1 – – 32*** – – – – –
(4.21)
1.75769
Patent_1 – – – 8*** – – – –
(2.92)
Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg.

A1a A1b A1c A1d A2aa A2b A2c A2d
0.10525
RDHT_1 – – – – 74*** – – –
(4.98)
0.36760
StaffHT_1 – – – – – 72** – –
(2.14)
0.51050
ResearHT_ 33*
– – – – – – –
1
(1.67)
4.726**
PatentHT_ *
– – – – – – –
1
(2.82)
-
-0.000 -0.0002 -0.0001 -0.0001 0.00032 0.00006 0.00020
Cons- 0.00007
926 437 836 766 46 15 49
tant 22
(-0.27) (-0.69) (-0.52) (-0.49) (1.33) (0.17) (0.54)
(-0.20)
Nber of
110 109 106 113 62 79 75 113
obs
R2 0.5065 0.5093 0.5174 0.4549 0.3984 0.6042 0.5776 0.4523
Adjuste
0.4827 0.4819 0.4933 0.4295 0.3447 0.5771 0.5470 0.4267
d R2
Reg. B1a Reg. B1b Reg. B1c Reg. B1d Reg. B2a Reg. B2b Reg. B2c Reg. B2d
-0.00358 -0.004229 -0.005788 -0.002334

0.000723 -0.0059299 -0.006579 -0.0034795
GDP_1 73 8 8* 5 8*
(0.36) (-1.58) (-1.68) (-1.02)
(-1.10) (-1.29) (-1.75) (-0.68)
0.0161776 0.0179262 0.0170601 0.0158247 0.0113617

0.0027324 0.0073441 0.0065275
Int_1 *** *** ** ** **
(0.79) (1.15) (0.93)
(2.78) (2.97) (2.88) (2.51) (1.98)
-0.00062 -0.000560 0.0005296 -0.000523 0.0003312 -0.000486 -0.000509 -0.000416

Inst 07*** 3*** ** ** ** 4** 5** 5**
(-3.13) (-2.89) (-2.77) (-2.56) (-2.66) (-2.40) (-2.26) (-2.17)
0.6903625 0.7985015 0.8000809 0.7848743 1.108293* 1.005642* 0.8734988

-0.0778858
ExitPO_1 *** *** ** ** ** ** **
(-0.27)
(2.99) (3.54) (3.55) (3.28) (4.77) (4.05) (3.75)
Reg. B1a Reg. B1b Reg. B1c Reg. B1d Reg. B2a Reg. B2b Reg. B2c Reg. B2d
0.0402098
RD_1 *** – – – – – – –
(4.97)
0.1687575
Staff_1 – *** – – – – – –
(4.93)
0.2763107
Resear_1 – – ** - - - - -
(5.03)
2.589898*
Patent_1 – – – ** – – – –
(3.81)
0.1130145
RDHT_1 – – – – ** – – –
(4.56)
0.2822856
StaffHT_1 – – – – – – –
(1.31)
Resear 0.4715233
– – – – – – –
HT_1 (1.23)
7.258359*
Patent **
– – – – – – v
HT_1
(3.91)
0.0005756 0.0009592
0.0004747 0.0002681 0.0003299 0.0004076 0.00085** 0.0005304
Constant ** **
(1,23) (0.68) (0.83) (1.01) (2.06) (1.33)
(2.40) (2.16)
Nber of
110 109 106 113 62 79 75 113
obs
R2 0.3437 0.3411 0.3588 0.2751 0.3436 0.3959 0.3474 0.2799
Adjusted
0.3121 0.3091 0.3267 0.2412 0.2850 0.3545 0.3001 0.2462
R2
Reg. C1a Reg. C1b Reg. C1c Reg. C1d Reg. C2a Reg. C2b Reg. C2c Reg. C2d
-0.00451 -0.005120 -0.006242

-0.0038218 0.0010918 -0.0028354 -0.0039544 -0.0046649
GDP_1 62 9* 2**
(-1.23) (0.55) (-0.85) (-1.13) (-1.49)
(-1.51) (-1.70) (-2.04)
0.0152357 0.0167756 0.0160933 0.0145861 0.0109749

0.0026086 0.0050388 0.004972
Int_1 *** *** ** ** **
(0.77) (0.90) (0.81)
(2.85) (3.02) (2.92) (2.55) (2.08)
-0.00050 -0.000474 -0.000465 -0.000397 -0.000280 -0.000345 -0.000318

-0.0002611
Inst 61*** 4*** 9** 9** 9** 4* 4*
(-1.43)
(-2.81) (-2.69) (-2.65) (-2.17) (-2.29) (-1.73) (-1.82)
0.6743346 0.705158* 0.6882777 0.7510991 0.9767595 0.9401517 0.7662512

0.2147936
ExitTS_1 *** ** ** ** ** ** ***
(1.54)
(5.39) (5.77) (5.51) (5.95) (7.24) (6.45) (6.03)
0.0294557
RD_1 *** – – – – – – –
(3.75)
0.1250022
Staff_1 – *** – – – – – –
(3.78)
0.2018726
Resear_1 – – ** – – – – –
(3.73)
1.757795*
Patent_1 – – – ** – – – –
(2.74)
0.1068622
RDHT_1 – – – – ** – – –
(4.94)
0.3518728
StaffHT_1 – – – – – * – –
(1.89)
ResearHT_ 0.5386077
– – – – – – –
1 (1.61)
Reg. C1a Reg. C1b Reg. C1c Reg. C1d Reg. C2a Reg. C2b Reg. C2c Reg. C2d
4.381857*
PatentHT_ *
– – – – – – –
1
(2.42)
0.0004331
0.0003114 0.000171 0.0002518 0.0002221 0.0002953 0.0005058 0.0003396
Constant *
(0.88) (0.48) (0.69) (0.61) (0.78) (1.26) (0.93)
(1,80)
Nber of
110 109 106 113 62 79 75 113
obs
R2 0.4425 0.4413 0.4461 0.4005 0.3696 0.5386 0.4961 0.3918
Adjusted
0.4157 0.4142 0.4184 0.3725 0.3133 0.5069 0.4595 0.3634
R2
Table 2.20. Econometric results (source: [GUI 16b, p. 454-455-456]). Value of the t
statistic in brackets. *: significant at 10%, **: significant at 5%, ***: significant at 1%
The following observations can be made about the results that were
obtained:
– economic growth does not play a significant role (H1 is not validated).
With regard to venture capital investment (not limited to the HT segment),
the empirical literature shows mixed results: there is no relationship for Jeng
and Wells [JEN 00], Armour and Cumming [ARM 04], Bonini and Alkan
[BON 12], positive impact for Gompers and Lerner [GOM 98] and
Felix et al. [FEL 13]. It is therefore necessary to take into account the
composition of the investment. Indeed, according to Jeng and Wells, “the
expansion stage is less influenced by macroecomic dynamics than the seed
and start-up stages”. In this case, the product has already reached the market,
the company is starting to earn profits, and the financing is more focused on
increasing production capacity and supporting R&D. Veugelers [VEU 11]
points out that in Europe, most of the activity is focused on the expansion
stage, which reflects the existence of an “early-stage European equity gap”.
Moreover, in a way, considering total private equity financing in high-tech
firms supports the analysis of Hopkins and Lazonick, who consider that, for
the United States, economic growth directs public financing towards high-
risk stages, that is early stages, which has developed a “start-up culture” and
has encouraged the disengagement of large companies that outsource a large
proportion of their R&D spending. The relationship between economic
growth and equity financing for companies is thus mediated by the public
policies that are implemented. Finally, it should be noted that the lack of any
significant influence by economic growth on private equity investment is the
case, to the extent that economic activity is relatively stable in its level over
the period studied, where large fluctuations only generate effects during the
following years;
– the positive and significant impact of the interest rate in most
regressions suggests an interpretation in terms of demand (H2b is validated).
Indeed, from the point of view of entrepreneurs, an increase in interest rates
makes financing through debt more expensive, and thus makes equity
financing more attractive. Moreover, debt does not seem to be an appropriate
form for high-tech companies with high-risk innovative projects (high
information asymmetries, absence of track records, low or non-existent
collateral, highly uncertain yield) [CAR 02, GUI 08b]. It should also be
noted that the rise in interest rates disrupts relations between bankers and
entrepreneurs, as it causes the elimination of good projects due to the
phenomenon of adverse selection. These elements create a positive demand
effect in favor of private equity. However, we do not claim that the interest
rate has no effect on supply, since in this case, investors would switch to
other classes of assets by abandoning private equity. It simply means that the
effect of demand prevails. On this point, the literature provides contrasting
results that reveal that the influence of this variable depends strongly on the
samples that are used;
– the institutional variable is significant in many regressions. It has the
expected negative sign (H3 is validated). High-tech investment is logically
favored by an appropriate legal and tax environment, both from the point of
view of investors and entrepreneurs. The results obtained are consistent with
those of Armour and Cumming, who use the same variable to explain
venture capital investment across all segments. These results highlight the
role played by public policies in creating favorable conditions for the
development of this form of financing. Indeed, the legal and tax framework
creates constraints and incentives. These are not only the operational rules
that govern the creation, operation, and liquidation of private equity funds.
There are also rules that more broadly that can influence the behavior of
players and the orientation of this financing towards the HT segment. Public
policies can also take other forms, such as the financing of public investment
funds, public research, the establishment of public incubators and
accelerators, etc.;
– the exit variables are very significant and have a positive impact on the
HTPE investment (H4 is validated). This is in line with the results found in
the literature. In addition, the results indicate a stronger effect of the PO exits
relative to the TS exits, in agreement with H5. Hege [HEG 01] had already
noted the preferences of management companies and contractors for PO
exits. Indeed, PE firms are motivated by the search for profitability and the
creation of reputation effects. As for entrepreneurs, in addition to the
expected benefits, they seek to preserve their independence (see Chapter 1).
They are reluctant to exit through the sale to industrial partners who would
place them in a situation of dependency. The results also suggest a strong
relationship between stock markets and HTPE investment, while the link
with venture capital investment is not as clear in econometric studies;
– H6, H7, and H8 are validated. R&D expenditures, total R&D personnel,
researchers, and patent filings, whether or not these variables are limited to
the HT segment, are often significant and have a positive impact on HTPE
investment (H6 is validated). To our knowledge, variables related to total
R&D personnel and researchers have never been tested in previous
publications, regardless of the dependent variable.
The variables representing the HT segment have a stronger influence on

the HTPE investment (H7 is validated). In addition, the researcher variable
has a stronger impact than the total personnel assigned to the R&D activity,
for all segments or only the HT segment (H8 is validated). This result shows
the decisive role played by knowledge and skills in advanced technological
fields (see section 2.1).
The consideration of the elements that make up the innovation

environment therefore makes a significant contribution to the existing
literature. Knowledge-based assets play a key role in the expansion of
companies and the growth of high-tech sectors. This proposal is consistent
with the analyses carried out at the national level. For example, Germany has
developed internationally recognized high-tech activities and the investment
in these areas is based on high R&D expenditures, a large number of
scientific and technical staff, and a major position in Europe in terms of
patents. It should be noted that innovation as considered here is limited to
the business sector. It is logical to include the public sector as a source of
skills and as a provider of funds (i.e. through R&D expenditures), which
refers to the role of public authorities in building innovation capacity.
These proposals are in line with the findings of Veugelers and Cincera
[VEU 15]:
“An important initial observation is that a general innovation

policy aimed at improving the innovation environment remains
necessary. Economic policy measures are also needed to
address the specific obstacles faced by new companies in new
sectors. This includes inter alia access to external financing for
fast-growing, highly innovative projects, through public funding
and/or by leveraging private risk funding” [VEU 15, p. 9].
These elements must all be coherent. It is necessary to think in terms of

innovation environments and consider the measures that would be suitable
for this objective.
2.4. Conclusion
This chapter is implicitly based on the distinction between traditional and

high-tech activities. The differentiation between these two possible
allocations of venture capital is based on their rate of innovation and their
contribution to the growth of sectors that generate technological spillovers to
the rest of the economy (ICT, the digital economy, etc.). High-tech activities
take on particular importance in cases in which companies carry out
innovative projects that may challenge the structure of the sector, and as a
result, lead to a renewal of the fabric of the productive system.
These industries – which, as we have seen, are unstable in their scope –

have two characteristics. Empirically, they would lead us to believe that
venture capital is becoming internationalized, due to the fact that it does not
conform to a uniform development pattern for these industries from a
dominant economy, the US economy. The innovation gap between Europe
and the United States is primarily linked to a smaller population of new
companies and, above all, to different positions of different sectors. The
difficulties in successfully crossing the growth thresholds are also due to the
less developed forms of organization in Europe (such as business angels),
the varied structure of European funds, and the specific features of the legal,
tax and operational environment in which these activities exist on both sides
of the Atlantic.
Analytically, the focus should be on R&D spending, which is

characterized by high levels of inertia in Europe. More fundamentally, R&D
does not seem to be considered by private players as a crucial variable with
the potential to transform a small company into a high-growth firm, which it
feeds both through the patents it files and through its attractiveness to
qualified productive resources. Moreover, if venture capital is a privileged
place for analyzing entrepreneurship from the perspective of
experimentation [KER 14a], it does not seem that processes of learning
through step-by-step financing (including those performed by business
angels) and syndication have been able to spread as innovative practices as
widely as in the United States. However, these practices are a consequence
of a limited capacity for attention, and furthermore, they can strongly
influence the forms that innovation takes, and in particular the trade-off
between exploration and exploitation. Therefore, cultural attitudes cannot be
overlooked in understanding the importance of high-tech activities at the
national or regional level.
3
The Three Structures for Interpreting

Venture Capital: The Market,
Industry and Institutions
In this chapter, we will seek to provide a summary of the thinking

developed in this book. The first chapter focused on economic agents in their
desire to reach a contract and in their ability to bring about changes in the
risk boundaries, particularly with regard to venture capitalists. With the
financing applicants, we analyzed the entrepreneurial risk and the careful
consideration of the trade-offs they would make between being in a position
of managing a start-up versus the situation they would face as employees.
The various contractual terms that are used give rise to an analysis of venture
capital in terms of the market.
The second chapter considered the sectoral orientation of venture capital.

Venture capital is a mechanism for financing innovation which affects a
wide range of activities, including high-tech industries. The investments
made in these industries are the vehicle for radical innovations and, as such,
are preferred as an area to implement policies, particularly in the United
States. In analyzing the decisive factors for this mechanism with respect to
high-tech industries in Europe, we have introduced macroeconomic and
macro-social variables, including institutions.
In this third chapter, we analyze venture capital more systematically

as an industry for financing innovation, with the consideration that
the foundations of this activity are institutional. Both markets and
industries, as means for players to coordinate, are embedded in institutional

arrangements that design specific national configurations. This analysis of

institutional architectures will be carried out after presenting a model for
determining investments made by venture capital in European countries.
3.1. An interpretation of venture capital in market terms
From the 1970s–1980s onwards, the relationship between economic

structures and financing methods was profoundly transformed through the
disruption of the hierarchy of institutional forms. Before the mid-1970s,
economic and social processes allowed economic growth to manifest itself in
both its intensity and its duration. In this context, the dominant institutional
form is the relationship of wage relation, defined as the series of conditions
that govern the use and compensation of labor (work time, mobility, direct
and indirect components of wages, etc.). In many countries, production
systems mainly seek out opportunities internally. Employee-management
bargaining ensured that economic behaviors were relatively homogeneous,
promoting adherence to a system of values and representations concerning
the functioning of the economy and the “rules of the game” for the society in
question. A grammar was established that created a connection between the
growth-productivity-modernization of productive systems-wage compensation.
Once external pressure became stronger, the forms of competition, that is,
all institutions and organizations involved in the competitive process in the
markets, came to be the dominant form of institutions. The dynamics of
growth imply a faster pace of modernization of the productive system, and in
particular, of the industrial technological base. As it expands, globalization
reflects the idea of a higher level of integration of economies into the global
division of production and trade. The external constraint becomes an
“objective” constraint, the system of the positioning of the various different
countries is defined by the mapping of global competition and the demands
of modernization. Economic, social and technological transformations are no
longer imposed in the name of progress, and are instead justified through the
threat of losing competitiveness.
Technological development tends to depreciate the specific capital

accumulated through seniority, and to accelerate the obsolescence of human
capital, while at the same time requiring updated strategies for the
production and spread of knowledge. The production of new knowledge and
the emergence of new activities are transforming economic and social
The Three Structures for Interpreting Venture Capital 93
relations: the downgrading of activities and companies, the multiplication of

locations where scientific and technological knowledge is created, the
increased mobility of people, etc. These transformations work to promote a
new culture that values the emergence of new companies capable of creating
marketable technological knowledge and that requires access to specific
sources of financing, radically different from financing by banks.
This new situation, a situation that is the product of technological,

institutional and organizational factors, gives rise to “a general shift in the
boundaries of risk driven by competitive pressure, in favor of innovation”
[AMA 99]. In this context, venture capital would appear to be a mechanism
for financing innovative projects to explore promising technological paths
that are left unexplored by large companies. The deregulation of financial
systems that originated in English-speaking countries favors market-based
systems and, as a result, threatens the stability of the configuration of
European financial systems, which are based on banking. The financing
behavior of companies is diversifying at the same time as private savings
offer new opportunities. Venture capital funds are multiplying, and while the
professionalization of these funds is developing rapidly across the Atlantic,
their development is much slower in Europe. The literature focuses on the
emergence of a new market.
3.1.1. From market efficiency to wealth creation
There are three designs that compete to explain this phenomenon [BOE
10]:
– neoclassical theory, which is based on two pillars: the rationality of
individual behavior, which is reduced to optimization, and the coordination
of individual behavior ensured by the market. From this perspective, markets
are efficient and all opportunities for profit opportunities are taken. “This
view focuses on the economic situation that exists when all changes have
ceased. In an efficient market, the prices are set in response to the quantities
supplied and requested, and fully reflect available information” [FAM 95].
Therefore, an efficient market is a means of processing information;
– the neo-Keynesian approach, which holds that markets are imperfect
and inefficient, which means that public intervention is necessary to
counteract the failures of the market;
– by focusing on market processes, the classical and institutional

perspective leads to the idea that there are many untapped opportunities.
In contrast to standard theory, this perspective analyzes the mechanisms by
which markets create knowledge within a field of activity, rather than
reducing them to the status of simple means for processing information. In
other words, the supposed advantage of the market is not in its properties for
creating balance, but in its properties for spurring innovation and learning.
Markets can contribute to “knowledge solutions”, that is, they can encourage
the combination of modules to produce new knowledge when a problem
arises or a new project for production is considered. Our analysis of venture
capital will use this as its basis.
This dynamic perspective considers both the need to include the

contributions of the information economy (to justify that venture capital is
different in nature from bank financing) and to go beyond this aspect. First,
there are two arguments that explain the difficulty for small entrepreneurial
businesses to access bank financing. It should be recalled that the lack of
transparency in information is considered to be the most significant feature
of start-up financing. The concept for a new product or process that they
define is a strategic asset that they must protect if they wish to earn future
profits. In this context, limiting the dissemination of information is a rational
strategy for a company wishing to retain control of its intangible assets. In
addition, young, innovative companies are prone to overestimating the
potential of their project in terms of its technical characteristics and the
supposed receptivity of the market, and consequently, to underestimate the
real risks. Thus, entrepreneurs have privileged information on the situation
and prospects for the development of their project with regard to their
financiers.
More specifically, we have seen that information imbalances between the

company and its lenders give rise to three types of difficulties: adverse
selection, agency problems described as moral hazards, and opportunism
(see Chapter 1). In the credit market, the increase in interest rates as a
selection instrument increases the risk taken by lenders, in particular by
discouraging entrepreneurs with the safest investments, or encouraging them
to develop riskier projects. Therefore, in order to make an appropriate
selection, a serious assessment of projects and the capacities of expertise
must be made for technology-intensive projects. After the loan agreement is
signed, the lender may have difficulty monitoring the use of the funds that
are borrowed and ensuring that a portion of the borrowed funds will not be
used to finance any alternative projects with higher levels of risk than the
original project. These problems are considered as moral hazards. Finally, if
an entrepreneur declares an income lower than the income obtained in order
to obtain, for example, a restructuring of his/her debt, then this is considered
as opportunism.
However, Stiglitz [STI 01] acknowledges that it is necessary to go

beyond the information economy. History plays a part, and the events that
occur at the beginning of a given development path influence the current
behavior of different players, forcing them to create and acquire new
knowledge to understand and, potentially, influence new developments. “In
this case, knowledge is different from information in that it is the result of
the economic process and not what determines it a priori” [COH 12].
Indeed, as markets develop, they have a stimulating effect on the processes
of invention and innovation, ultimately leading to greater efficiency in
production processes. This interpretation is based on the conception
formulated by Smith, which draws a connection between three elements: the
expansion of opportunities (the size of the market), the division of labor, and
the choice of new production techniques. This in turn serves as the basis for
the formulation of the “Kaldor–Verdoorn law”, reflecting the existence of
dynamic returns at scale. It is interesting to note that the dynamics of
increasing returns must be understood at the industry level, despite the fact
that each company faces decreasing returns. In fact, the increasing
complexity of the division of labor reduces the proportion of social
knowledge controlled by a unit, though each company becomes more
competent in its specialization.
Dynamic efficiency is considered by modern theorists as the most

significant function. The market becomes a place for creating/acquiring new
knowledge and learning from mistakes, and no longer just a mechanism for
allocating resources within a static efficiency framework (in terms of
transaction costs, low price dispersion, and the role of incentives, risk
selection and management). The coordination mechanisms are established
both on the basis of information held by one economic player on the
behavior of other players and on the means of acquiring new knowledge, in
order to respond to imbalances that arise during the path to growth. The
dynamics driven by the market allow new things to be considered, fueled by
innovations developed by companies benefiting from equity contributions
from venture capitalists, among other things.
3.1.2. Characteristics and functions of the market
This is the approach taken by several authors [ROS 11] who have chosen
three groups of parameters to characterize markets in a dynamic perspective.
The technical parameters involve the definition of the good or service, the
dominant concepts and product standards, the tangible or intangible location,
the critical mass of supply and demand, the critical volume of transactions,
and the measurement of the stability of supply and demand. The behavioral
parameters include agent interaction, reputation effects, and the transparency
of the transaction. The economic parameters reflect the learning effects that
save transaction costs by allowing for “sparse actions”. For this, it is
essential to put in place institutions and regulations relating to product
quality, the certification of agents, and the transparency of transactions. The
interactions between agents outweigh the utility functions of the agents
individually and as social institutions, markets are more than just a
mechanism for exchanging and reducing transaction costs.
Markets differ significantly in their characteristics and, as a result, they

are able to perform different functions. “A well-functioning market is
capable of performing a variety of functions that a series of isolated
transactions cannot do” [ANT 09, p. 12]. The role of the market has
changed: it is not only a mechanism for allocating resources (the place where
supply and demand are balanced), but also, and most importantly, a process
by which economic agents learn and innovate by identifying and seizing on
latent opportunities (a place where new ideas are generated and continuous
improvements are made). Instead of using a formal logic of choice applied to
a group in which the alternatives are known, the consequences arising from
each alternative and the value of each consequence are known, companies
apply the rules for making decisions that allow them to improve their
knowledge of their environment. This perspective has already been
established by A. Marshall1.
The knowledge created by the market is created through dynamic

adaptations to constantly changing circumstances. As a result, the market
evolves and performs its function of coordination by preventing
misalignments from accumulating.
1 “Marshall’s agents do not pick optimal points ex ante from given opportunity sets. Instead,
they obey simple feedback-based decision rules in less than completely known environments”
[LEI 93, p. 9].
3.1.3. The venture capital market
A venture capital market is created when “a set of previously isolated

precursor transactions spark an emergence process” [ROS 11, p. 183]. But
for this process to materialize, a number of conditions are required, including
the creation of a new type of intermediary operation known as a qualitative
pre-emergence condition. The existence of new supply-side agents (venture
capitalists), organizing relations between investors and firms receiving
financing, as well as the development of new strategies and forms of
intervention (contracting), have gradually formed the structure of venture
capital markets.
In particular, for Gilson [GIL 02], the structuring of contracts makes it

possible to respond not only to information asymmetries and problems, but
also to the particularly high level of uncertainty in the case of high-tech
companies in the seed or start-up phase. Through contracts, venture
capitalists define the terms and conditions for the allocation of funds, as well
as the mechanisms for monitoring and incentivization. An incentive contract
is used to align the agent’s actions with the interests of the principal. In this
case, the aim is to encourage companies to act in the direction desired by
venture capital organizations. From this perspective, the contract is
necessarily the result of negotiations between venture capitalists and
company managers, with the determining factor being the bargaining power
of each party. This step is the financial arrangement and the drafting of the
shareholders’ agreement.
In addition, as we have seen, step-by-step financing allows venture

capitalists to monitor the company’s progress while still allowing for the
possibility of abandoning the project, and thus limiting losses2. It is thus an
effective mechanism for dealing with information asymmetries, agency
problems and uncertainty. Moreover, for Gompers and Lerner, step-by-step
financing has the advantages of closely controlling the owner/manager’s
actions and reducing potential losses caused by a wrong decision. While a
venture capital market can be identified in its totality, this is less so in part:
the product being marketed here is the provision of equity capital, together
with the provision of value-added services. The evolution of this market
2 Gilson [GIL 02, p. 9] points out that “the implicit right of venture capital funds to
participate in subsequent rounds of financing [...] is protected by an explicit right of refusal”.
results from individual and collective learning processes that have made it
possible to identify venture capital funds with knowledge and experience.
It is on this basis that a new venture capital market can be established,

whose emergence gives rise to very specific processes [ROS 11]. First, this
new market gives rise to the creation of business groups, within which the
various partners create apprenticeships and join privileged networks. The
theory of “entrepreneurial spawning” focuses on this aspect.
The replication process [GUI 08] can be addressed on the basis of

whether the focus is on the contractual structure of the venture capital
market or on the learning of future entrepreneurs and their integration into
privileged networks. This design was proposed by Gompers et al. [GOM
05]. The mechanism of the design focuses on the creation of new businesses,
with the basic idea that the reproduction of entrepreneurial capacities can be
achieved in two ways.
In the first of these two, replication is the result of the bureaucratization

of large industrial companies (the “Xerox view”). These companies are
reluctant to finance highly innovative projects for three reasons. First, their
organizational structure suffers from an inability to respond to radical
technological changes that challenge organizational knowledge and
accumulated collective skills. In addition, they have difficulty assessing the
quality of entrepreneurial opportunities that are outside their main areas of
activity comprised by their fundamental skill sets. The information
asymmetry regarding these opportunities is considered very high, which
leads these companies to determine that they have not accumulated enough
skills and experience to engage in projects they consider to be innovative. In
other words, the cognitive attention of these companies’ R&D laboratories
has not been directed towards these new technological perspectives. Finally,
the allocation of capital by these widely diversified industrial firms between
their different units is very poor, with the budgeting of their operations
functioning as a kind of “socialism” [SCH 98]. Indeed, they have a tendency
to waste capital on business activities that are characterized by a low Tobin
Q ratio (firm market value/book value of assets) by investing more than
independent firms. The opposite is true for business activities with a high Q
coefficient. Investment inefficiencies are compounded in companies in
which managers have low shareholdings in the company’s
capital, which causes agency problems and control costs between
management and investors.
Given the fact that the “Xerox view” hypothesis is not sufficiently
exhaustive, the second mechanism used by Gompers et al. is called the
“Fairchild view of spawning”. In this context, employees of venture capital-
backed companies learn to become managers by gaining experience in an
entrepreneurial environment. This experience constantly provides them with
networks of suppliers of goods, capital and labor, as well as with consumers.
Moreover, these employees are less averse to risk than their counterparts
working in long-term firms.
It is therefore not a venture capital market in the strict sense, but a

replication process in which the positive externalities produced by location
in a given area are important, although geographically limited. The firms that
feed into this process of reproduction are located in areas of high venture
capital density (Silicon Valley and Massachusetts). The effects of
localization, which must be analyzed more as effects of agglomeration than
as effects of concentration, are therefore preponderant, almost becoming a
tautology, since the venture capital industry already exists (companies are
venture capitalists in a sense, and vice versa) and it is at the root of the
economic dynamism of these clusters. The authors therefore deliberately
place themselves on the demand side of the capital demand created by
innovative firms, since the supply of capital to be invested already exists.
It can also be argued that the process of replicating entrepreneurial

capacities is somewhat mechanical in nature, since the companies that feed
into this process have technologies that are more appropriate for venture
capital financing. In reality, this is not the case: the effect of technology does
not play a role. Firms located in such environments tend to reproduce fewer
technologically related companies than those located outside these privileged
areas. Therefore, it is not the firm’s technology feeding into this process that
is important, but the skills and experience accumulated by future
entrepreneurs. In this context, the public policies intended to increase the
supply of capital or stimulate investment are misguided. Entrepreneurial
activities are subject to increasing returns, and the most crucial aspect of
these activities is the knowledge some of its employees gain, who have the
ability to become entrepreneurs.
This approach undermines the role of venture capitalists, who are

gradually phased out through agglomeration effects. To a certain extent, the
proposed thesis recreates the behaviors of a general investment model for
venture capital activity on a reduced scale, with the condition that it is
limited to high-tech activities (software, electronics and biotechnology).

Overall, the dynamics of this model of entrepreneurial talent supply are
based on the mobility of skilled labor and the experience acquired by certain
employees.
The comments that may be made on this model involve the smooth
transitioning from the employees to entrepreneur-innovators.
There are arguments to be made in favor of this thesis. Competition

policy in the United States encourages large companies to adopt a prudent
policy of technological diversification, thereby encouraging employees to
take advantage of certain technological opportunities. Large companies are
potential areas where innovations can be made, thanks to the patents they
hold that may be of interest to venture capital funds. Similarly, younger
companies whose creation has been financed by venture capital are
themselves the source of new entrepreneurial firms. This implies that the
dynamics of venture capital in the US are not a response to the
bureaucratization of large companies. They are fully in line with the global
innovation dynamics in that they confer a very high level of social
legitimacy to the creation of companies and the exploitation of new
technological opportunities.
However, there are two objections that can be made. The first assumes
that the existence of a strong entrepreneurial culture provides employees
with the skills required to run a company. Admittedly, the unbalanced
distribution of critical resources to certain clusters offers more opportunities
for businesses to be created. However, the analysis of the problem that is
adopted leads to the point that the spread of knowledge justifies the supply
by venture capitalists and experts of the services needed to select projects
and coordinate the actions of the company. By contrast, Gompers et al.
consider that the critical resources needed by future entrepreneurs already
exist in existing companies.
A more realistic conception of critical resources invites us to focus on

three aspects [STU 03]. In some areas, a higher rate of creation of young
innovative companies benefits from the proximity effect of existing
companies (the mobility of highly skilled employees), but also from the
presence of technical experts and venture capital funds. Such funds are not
only providers of capital. They also encourage some employees to leave
their companies to create new ones. They also identify strategic partners and
appropriate networks of suppliers/users. In addition, by providing funds and

expertise, venture capitalists increase the ability of start-ups to file patents,
which may convince other venture capitalists that the firm clearly stands out
from its competitors [MAN 06]. Finally, the necessary intervention of
venture capitalists is highlighted in many studies. It does not make sense to
consider that the supply of entrepreneurial talent actually exists. While future
entrepreneurs possess scientific and technological knowledge, they often
lack the productive and commercial knowledge to ensure the operations of
their companies are effectively managed.
The second objection is that the authors only consider the positive aspects
of localization. However, there are negative externalities that result from
increased competition between firms that are located close to each other.
Indeed, as Stuart and Sorenson note, firms that benefit from an open labor
market and expanding labor mobility risk “occupying structurally equivalent
positions”, both in supplier/user networks and in their technological and
strategic choices. The growth of organizations can be inhibited when firms
recruit qualified personnel from the same set of organizations. The process
of endogamy eventually leads to decreasing yields, with the effect of the
spatial proximity of resources tending to weaken as the industry in the area
becomes more mature. Negative effects are generated from the very
proximity of venture capital, since acute competition between firms tends to
lower the rate of IPOs.
However, despite the reservations about the development of a venture

capital market based on entrepreneurial spawning, the fact remains that when
the technology path is characterized by an exploration/exploitation type
innovation model, complementary aspects and cumulative effects can be
created between large companies and new technology start-ups. Indeed,
thanks to the previous experience accumulated by some of their employees,
the technological assets of a company – all elements which do not
necessarily have a direct link with the core capabilities of this entity – are
likely to produce elements that can be used in start-ups.
Other processes are fueling the rise of these new venture capital markets
as well, including the co-evolution of venture capital funds and start-ups
driven by foreign investment, as shown in the case of Israel [AVN 06]. This
process of co-evolution has led to the development of collective learning and
the establishment of relationships between actors with interchangeable roles:
entrepreneurs who have become venture capitalists, venture capitalists who
have become involved in foundations dedicated to start-ups, etc. On this

basis, effects of reputation have been generated that have spurred foreign
investment (foreign investment has accounted for 50 to 60% of total venture
capital investment since 1999). For these authors, the co-evolution process
“was the main driver of the overall dynamics”.
This process is not automatic: the supply of funds has been stimulated by
interventions made by the public sector (the “Yozma program”). In
particular, the profitability of the Yozma funds has led to new venture capital
funds being injected, and the internationalization process has helped to
achieve a critical mass. Therefore, analyzing venture capital as an
intermediary activity is insufficient. On the one hand, a critical mass of
transactions must be achieved, a necessary condition for new knowledge to
be obtained. On the other hand, the entry of new venture capitalists into this
market, even one that includes tax regulations and appropriate institutions,
could not have taken place without a massive, coordinated and deliberate
entry driven by public policy.
3.1.4. Why talk about a new market?
In the light of the arguments developed above, we freely agree with the
cited authors in that systemic and evolutionary arguments add a significant
component to the analysis of venture capital activity. However, can this
activity be reduced to a market? When Gilson refers to a venture capital
market, he defines it directly from a private contractual structure that covers
the entire venture capital cycle. But the hierarchy of roles is very clear:
public authorities are and should only be passive investors, since if they
intervene, they may cause the selection process to be biased by attracting the
right investors.
The analysis proposed by Rosiello, Avnimelech and Teubal is much more

syncretic. It considers the critical mass of stakeholders and the volume of
transactions; it shows that an interconnection of public and private agents
(local and foreign) is needed, and it establishes the co-evolution between
venture capitalists and start-ups as the central framework on which the
dynamics of the process of emergence is based. This analysis considers that
learning is created from relationships between agents that capitalize on
individual and collective experiences.
First, it should be recognized that the knowledge held by the future

entrepreneur is the key to unlocking potential inventions and innovations
(this entrepreneur imagines things that others do not). Therefore, the
opportunity for production that is associated with new knowledge is only a
subjective and cognitive category – that is, it exists only in the mind of the
person carrying out the project. This person must persuade venture
capitalists that the idea being proposed has the potential to be turned into a
marketable product. In this context, venture capitalists make use of
interpretative knowledge that helps to define situations, build representations
of reality and give meaning to a productive activity. The goal is to identify
the contributions of new knowledge in relation to existing solutions and to
evaluate technological projects in terms of efficiency and utility (a “business
idea”). The judgment of venture capitalists and the individual experts who
assist them is formulated on the basis of a “representativity heuristic” [TVE
86]:
– Are different elements of new technological knowledge complementary
to each other, and thus able to be combined with existing knowledge? How
do they fit into the value chain?
– Have they taken costs into account and recognized objective qualities?
– What is their value to consumers?
Overall, in emerging businesses, the uncertainty faced by venture

capitalists is of a qualitatively different nature from that faced by mature
industries. This can be expressed in the following question: what is the
dominant design concept that will ultimately structure this emerging
productive activity, and more generally, what are the elements of the
function of the objectives that innovative firms will favor?
To assess the quality of the project and the degree to which it is

inventive, plans for financing are developed within an institutional
framework that is provided by the entrepreneurial support network. Formed
on the basis of the rather complex division of labor in the United States (law
firms, venture capitalists, individual experts, investment banks, specialized
consulting groups), this organizational structure is based on cooperation. It is
a form of social interaction that facilitates not only communication and
coordination, but also learning. The significant actions of these networks
require creating rules that can be easily communicated (declarative
knowledge) and creating new routines, that is know-how that make it
possible to translate the project into action, namely expertise and the
assessment of technological choices, the assessment of intangible assets
(patents, the value-relevance of R&D), the positioning in the value chain, the
selection of an appropriate organizational form, the definition of an
appropriate business model, etc. In other words, the technological project is
configured by the entrepreneurial support network in such a way as to
acquire the necessary legitimacy to obtain the support of private investors
and/or public authorities and reduce its ambiguity. This complex process of
interactions goes far beyond the market and does not appear to fall within the
usual interactions between the supply and demand sides that are formed on a
market, even if it is a place for creating knowledge as well as a place for
learning to occur.
The limits of an interpretation made in terms of markets are also made

clear by implementing the arguments developed in Chapter 1.
3.1.5. Risk management at market levels
The emergence of venture capital coincides with the need to create ways
to finance innovations that explore promising technological pathways. The
funding constraints are very specific. Innovation is an extremely uncertain
process. The returns it offers are extremely biased, requiring specialized
intermediaries who use their instrumental and interpretative knowledge to
make judgments that encourage investment in a project. Indeed, information
asymmetries are significant, entrepreneurial firms have no history to draw
from, collateral is low or non-existent, the percentage of intangible assets is
high, and knowledge is contained in human capital and patents.
In this context, any references made to a market cannot refer to its

properties of equilibrium or dynamic efficiency. Indeed, how can we
imagine a market when such a market would involve exchanging an equity
contribution accompanied by providing value-added services for knowledge
that can be transformed over time into a marketable product or service [GUI
17c]? In fact, all these elements are part of a series of individual and
collective learning processes that create social interactions and, as we have
noted just now, lead to the formation of entrepreneurial support networks. In
the United States, this form of organization is based on cooperation and
learning, and has also identified venture capital funds with the knowledge
and experience to support and assist entrepreneurs. Thus, the barriers for
entry into entrepreneurial activities are not only financial or informational,

but also social and psychological. The investment process is sufficiently
complex that it requires the intervention of several financial partners and the
implementation of processes of experimentation and selection.
An analysis of the involvement of large companies from this point of

view would offer some noteworthy results. A venture capital transaction
very often involves several financial partners. This is referred to as
syndication, the analysis of which can be compared to corporate venture
capital through the study by Paik and Woo (see Chapter 1). As we have
noted, a large company that invests in a start-up on a majority basis will
influence the strategic R&D decisions of the invested company by
implementing three mechanisms for wielding influence. The effects of direct
governance effect inflate the start-up’s R&D expenditures since it is part of
an extended time horizon, especially if the current project strengthens the
core competencies of the large company. In addition, interaction effects are
generated when the start-up has access to complementary assets or relevant
information, as well as effects stemming from the approval of the
technology, which reduces uncertainty due to the adoption of the newly
created technology generating confidence in the quality of the innovation.
All in all, these effects have an impact on decisions on the strategic
allocation of resources, given that they shift the boundaries of R&D
spending and their effects are only felt through internal mechanisms in the
relationship between large companies and start-ups. The market does not
come into play in these cases.
More specifically, the influence of corporate venture capital on

innovation may be less related to the transfer of knowledge that is able to be
patented to the parent company than to increasing the level of attention paid
by top management to significant changes in the environment of the large
firm [MAU 13]3. According to these authors, corporate venture capital can
3 “CVC can therefore be considered as a kind of ‘radar’ that identifies and highlights
emerging technologies and new companies [...]. As such, the investments made by CVCs can
have a significant impact on the knowledge of business opportunities and the corresponding
business models among managers and executives of a CVC. Even when an established
company does not transfer a specific technology that a start-up can commercialize, CVC
investments can provide important information about the evolution of an area of technology.
The information provided by CVC’s investments can also influence how senior managers
view the possibility that an area of technology may become important to the existing
be analyzed through the inter-organizational links that are built through

syndication, as a “warning mechanism”.
In addition, the process of experimentation that is inherent to the practice

of venture capital is reinforced for the three reasons mentioned above [KER
14a]. First, it involves testing the relevance of different financial
commitments and the scaling up of these commitments at a later date. Also,
the costs of experimentation have dropped sharply in high-tech sectors (ICT,
software, digital simulation, etc.) and knowledge of new products is rapidly
accumulating.
Finally, the approach of experimentation implies that venture capital

firms do not simply build up a portfolio of start-ups in response to a risk they
seek to reduce, but that they carry out a number of tests on concepts that do
not yet have a solid foundation. Venture capitalists behave primarily like
sequential investors, who have the opportunity to spread their involvement in
a project over a period of time. In this way, funding provided in stages is part
of the overall experimental approach.
In this context, market mechanisms cannot be used as a guide in the

phases of experimentation. The “survivors” are not chosen by consumers and
competition, as is the case with the Darwinian natural selection process of
the market. The decision of whether or not to continue investing in a project
is taken by venture capitalists, well before the start-ups begin to compete on
the market or have generated positive cash flow.
Venture capital is an expensive form of financing. Taking risks on the

limits of currently understood technology implies that strategic decisions on
the allocation of resources will be made on the basis of the entrepreneurial
support network. In terms of the transfer of knowledge, companies make use
of mechanisms outside the market to organize these transfers and reassess
the investment process through financing in stages.
company. These higher-level learning processes are not always influenced by the individual
start-ups that receive investments from the established company. Rather, they are influenced
by the information received during the project screening process from experienced venture
capitalists, as well as by the portfolio of transaction proposals they process for investment
purposes, as part of the syndication process” [MAU 13, p. 942].
It should also be noted that the geography of the venture capital market
differs from that of the venture capital industry. The respective investment
flows of this industry can be compared geographically. The breadth of the
market and the cash flows in the venture capital industry was different in
2015 ($3,806 billion versus $4,000 billion) due to their magnitude and
orientation [INV 15, p. 37]. The market aggregates investments in European
companies, regardless of the location of the venture capital firm that makes
these investments. The industry aggregates investments according to the
geographical origin of the venture capital firm’s registered office and, at the
European level, the total figure indicates investments made by European
venture capital firms regardless of the location of the companies in the
portfolio. The tendency toward internationalization that characterizes the
venture capital industry in Europe can therefore be interpreted at two levels:
intra-European and international.
These developments lead us to think more in terms of industries, a

category chosen by many authors and specialized bodies [AVN 06, NVC
18], etc., whose dynamics are based on complex interactions and on the
implementation of structural European and national policies, giving priority
to R&D and innovation.
3.2. An interpretation of venture capital in terms of industry
The industrialization of a financing operation is part of an evolutionary

process. The qualitative conditions that shape this type of operation give rise
to two types of arguments: the diffusion of an industrial logic, and the
influence of internal and external factors in this activity. Previous works
have identified these factors [GUI 08]: the importance of venture capital
investment in relation to GDP, the public support for R&D and innovation,
the orientation by sector of investments, and the existence of specialized
financial markets. We will focus in particular on the first two factors, as the
third was discussed in Chapter 2. The fourth factor will be addressed in the
third section of this chapter.
3.2.1. The spread of an industrial logic
A clarification of what this logic is comprised of allows us to analyze

certain points and illustrate certain aspects of venture capital.
3.2.1.1. Specialization of firms and managerial capital

The logic of the industrial sector connects elements such as the
investments that are made (physical capital, human capital, etc.), market
growth, the performance achieved, and the recovery of capital invested for
reinvestment. With regard to venture capital and taking into account venture
capitalists and entrepreneurs, we may establish the following sequence:
Tangible and intangible investments → increase in tangible and

intangible capital → market growth (number of deals →
performance returns → recovery of invested capital (outflows)
and reinvestments
Venture capital firms have constanly been searching for highly qualified
individuals over the past 30 years, particularly in the United States and later
in Europe, to coordinate their actions with the players in the entrepreneurial
network and improve their managerial capital. Recent studies [BLO 16]
point out that the capital stock, in the broad sense of the term, bears the
adjustment costs, in particular the costs of organizational resistance to new
management practices. With regard to private equity and consultancy
activities, the authors specify that “management practices are likely to be
harder to change than plant or equipment” [BLO 16, p. 10]. In contrast to the
approach that specifies that specific practices can be adapted to different
environments (“management as a design”), they propose to consider
management as a technology, that is as a set of best practices that are
suitable for a wide range of environments. For example, the collection of a
large amount of information before making decisions, distributing
investment decisions over time, etc. In this context, managerial innovations
can be considered as technological innovations, which reinforces the theory
of industrialization.
Gompers et al. [GOM 09] investigate the ways in which organizational

structure affects behavior and performance. They question the extent to
which the level of specialization of the management teams of venture capital
firms affects their results. Using a large database covering the period 1975–
2003 in the United States, the authors refute the following two hypotheses:
“1) Generalist venture capital firms will be better at allocating

capital across industries.
2) Capital will be better allocated in generalist venture capital

firms if the venture capitalists themselves are generalists”
[GOM 09, p. 820].
Venture capital is suitable for this analysis due to the diversity of

organizational structures. The top management of venture capital firms has
sought to improve the quality of human resources and its attributes.
One way in which it has done this has been to recognize that the
economic value of existing human resources increases through
specialization. Indeed, the observation is that the performance of specialized
firms seems to be generally better: there is a positive relationship between
the specialization of management teams and the future success of their
investments. Past performance plays a significant role in determining the
funds that are raised in the future.
Therefore, managerial practices reinforce management technologies that

focus on specifying resources, including skilled human capital.
In other words, rather than considering human capital as a general

resource, venture capital firms choose to make investments that change the
characteristics of their human resources in order to implement more effective
actions. A diversification of activities and skills may occur, but this can only
be achieved within the limits defined by the characteristics of future
technological innovations and those of the corresponding human capital.
As a result, industrialization is a slow process, carried out through trial

and error, that allows venture capitalists to create better endowed and more
efficient4 funds. The improvement of managerial capital influences the
governance of venture capital funds, while at the same time affecting the
performance and growth of the business.
3.2.1.2. Internal rates of return (IRR)

“The IRR is the rate of return that cancels out the net present
value of a series of cash flows. The Net Internal Rate of Return
4 This practice makes it possible to put other forms of industrialization into perspective, such
as risk management, using purely financial techniques. Once listed on the stock exchange,
companies are faced with other forms of industrialization. In particular, “the industrialization
of shareholding that has strengthened large institutional investors and equipped them with
professional techniques to maximize their profits” [SEG 19].
(NIRR) is also called the investors’ internal rate of return,

because it measures the net performance achieved by investors
on their investments in a private equity vehicle (FCPR, SCR,
Limited Partnership, etc.). It takes into account the negative
flows relating to successive calls for funds and positive flows
relating to distributions (in cash and sometimes in securities), as
well as the net asset value of the shares held in the vehicle on
the calculation date. The IRR is the net of management fees and
carried interest. It includes the impact of cash flow, the time
effects and the estimated value of the portfolio” [INV 17].
Venture capital Growth capital Buyouts

Net IRRs since
1.4% 7.1% 13.6%
inception
Net IRR over 15
2.3% 5.9% 15.1%
years
Net IRR over 10
2.6% 4.5% 8.3%
years
Net IRR over 5
5.5% 7.0% 14.5%
years
Net IRR over 3
1.8% 12.8% 14.8%
years
Table 3.1. Net returns on risk capital

in France at the end of 2017 (source: [INV 17])
The spread of the performance remains significant. The 30-year average

IRR for venture capital is 1.4%, which is lower than the European average
(see Chapter 1). The transmission capital has the highest performance, with
an average performance of 13.6%.
The United Kingdom has the strongest performance in private equity due
to its high level of specialization in the production of very high value-added
financial services and the accumulation of expertise, particularly of persons
qualified in the management of this type of capital (buyouts). In this context,
as we have noted (see Chapter 2), a very high proportion of investments in
the United Kingdom are in transmission operations.
For closed funds, that is those that have already returned their money to
investors (or not), the spreads are even more pronounced. Over the same
period, venture capital has an average IRR of -1.7%, while growth capital
has an average IRR of 9% and buyout capital of 20.4%.
3.2.1.3. Activity growth

Several indicators can be used. We have chosen the number of supported
companies and the increasing concentration of this activity.
The increase in the number of companies supported in 2016 and 2017 in

France is shown in Table 3.2.
Amount invested in million Number of companies

euros supported
5,495 (2016) 1,040 (2016)
Total capital-investment
6,395 (2017) 1,179 (2017)
507 359
Venture capital
571 458
1,765 521
Growth capital
1,717 552
3,222 153
Buyouts
4,193 156
Table 3.2. Amount invested and number of companies supported per

segment in France in 2016 and 2017 (source: [BPI 17])
The strongest growth was seen in venture capital. The number of

companies supported grew by 28% between these two years.
The second indicator is the concentration of this activity in the United

States:
“– In 2016, 253 venture capital funds raised $41.6 billion, a ten-
year high, to deploy in promising start-ups;
– twenty-two first-time funds raised $2.2 billion in
commitments last year, the largest amount by first-time
managers since 2008;
– the concentration of capital managed by fewer funds
increased in 2016 as seven funds closed with more than
$1 billion in commitments, driving the annual median VC fund
size to $75 million (the highest median size since 2008)” [NVC
18, p. 10].
However, “while the sector has become more concentrated in terms of the
capital accumulated and managed by a few venture capital firms, small
businesses remain numerous and powerful. Contrary to what is widely
believed, at the end of 2016, only 68 companies managed more than
$1 billion in US venture capital assets. By contrast, 334 companies managed
$50 million or less” [NVC 18, p. 10].
All in all, the spread of an industrial logic acts as a factor in the selection
of the most efficient practices, as well as acting as an organizational factor
because of the repercussions on human capital in general and on managerial
capital in particular. The performance of venture capital funds is improving,
and the inevitable consolidation is taking place within the industry.
3.2.2. The relative weight of venture capital investment in

relation to GDP
Venture capital only represents a small fraction of GDP. Its overall

effectiveness depends both on the total amount of funds that are
implemented and on the distribution of the financial efforts over the different
stages. There is a significant difference between the efforts made by various
different countries.
3.2.2.1. Statistical benchmarks

Israel 0.37
United States 0.35
Canada 0.15
Korea 0.086
Ireland 0.08
Finland 0.05
Sweden 0.040
France 0.035
Spain 0.035
Denmark 0.03
Germany 0.029
United Kingdom 0.028
Belgium 0.027
Norway 0.027
Japan 0.022
Australia 0.012
Table 3.3. Venture capital investments as a % of OECD countries’ GDP,

year 2016 (source: [OEC 18a, p. 125])
The statistics indicate that venture capital only represents a small

percentage of GDP, often less than 0.05%. From these statistics, two
countries clearly stand out: Israel and the United States. These are countries
with high percentages of R&D expenditures with respect to GDP, and which
have oriented their innovation policies towards disruptive innovations.
However, these figures must be interpreted carefully, because they do not
take into account the differing realities from one country to another5. Also, a
look behind these figures reveals behaviors that are quite different.
Many studies have indicated that US R&D policy gives great importance
to SMEs. Does this mean that venture capital financing is more oriented
towards the seed/start-up/early stage phases rather than the expansion phase?
Seed/start-up/early stage Later stage

Israel 0.265 0.111
Canada 0.087 0.068
Korea – 0.086
5 “There is no standard international definition of venture capital, nor any breakdown of

related investments by stage of development. In addition, the methods by which data is
collected differ from country to country. Venture capital data are mainly derived from
national or regional associations of venture capital investors who produce them themselves, in
some cases with the support of commercial data providers, with the exception of Australia,
where venture capital statistics are collected and published by the Australian National
Statistical Office. The statistics presented give the aggregation of investment data according
to the location of holding companies, regardless of the location of private equity companies,
except for Australia, Korea and Japan, where the data refer to the location of venture capital
companies. For Israel, the data refer only to venture capital-backed companies in the high-
tech sector. Data for the United States also include venture capital investments made by
companies that are not venture capital companies, excluding investments that are 100%
financed by companies and/or business angels. The data for Australia, Japan and New
Zealand refer to the budgetary year. For Europe, they include only venture capital investments
(seed, start-up and later stages of development) made by conventional fund managers such as
private equity funds making direct investments, mezzanine private equity funds, co-
investment funds or rescue/turnaround funds; investments made by business angels,
incubators, infrastructure funds, real estate funds, distressed debt funds, primary funds of
funds or secondary funds for funds are excluded from these data; the amount of investments
only reflects the amount of equity invested by conventional fund managers and not the value
of the financing cycle as a whole. Development capital or capital to finance the acquisition of
companies by their managers or employees, currently or previously financed with venture
capital, is also not included” [OEC 18a, p. 126].
Ireland 0.056 0.020

Finland 0.039 0.011
Sweden 0.021 0.019
France 0.017 0.018
Spain 0.018 0.017
Denmark 0.025 0.005
Germany 0.014 0.015
Belgium 0.011 0.016
Norway 0.014 0.013
Japan 0.019 0.003
Australia 0.009 0.003
Table 3.4. Venture capital investment as a % of GDP by phase,

year 2016 (source: [OEC 18a, p. 126])
Israel can rightly be considered as a start-up incubator, with investments

made in Israel in the early stages being twice as much as in the US, and with
the expansion phase often taking place abroad. In France, investments in
start-ups increased by 34% to €2.24 billion. The number of transactions
increased at a more modest pace (+18% for a total of 587). This is due to the
massive amount of fundraising that is new in France, and reflects the
increased maturity of this industry. However, the amounts invested remain
lower than in many European countries, even though the number of deals
increased sharply in 2016.
It is true that venture capital benefits from low interest rates, a kind of
godsend, which allows operators to undertake riskier investments. The
figures are likely to be lower for the years 2018 and beyond. Indeed, the end
of the ISF will probably have negative consequences for the financing of
new companies. According to a study by France Digitale, the expected loss
is between 150 and 300 million euros for start-ups. The actions of the public
authorities are therefore not neutral with regard to the financing of this
activity.
3.2.2.2. The role of public authorities

We will focus here on three points: the public financing of R&D, the
means used to channel savings towards the development of start-ups, and the
proposals put forward by the Conseil d’Analyse Economique (Economic
analysis board) to strengthen venture capital in France.
3.2.2.2.1. Public financing of R&D

The structural characteristics of public R&D expenditure in France have
been analyzed in a recent report [DEM 18]. Public expenditures in France
represent 0.86% of GDP, but the growth of these expenditures is low, at
about 1.5% in volume. It is unique in that it employs a large number of
support staff (117,787 researchers at full-time equivalent positions), or 3.8
researchers per 1,000 workers. Researchers have lower relative salaries than
researchers in other OECD countries.
The French public research system is largely based on public research

organizations whose members are often associated with universities in mixed
laboratories. Looking at the sectors of execution (higher education, State,
non-profit institutions), it can be seen that the State represents 53% of the
total, while in Germany, universities account for 55% of public expenditures.
As a result, it does not come as a surprise that in France, 58% of

expenditures are allocated to fundamental research, 28% to applied research
and 4% to experimental development. Project financing accounted for 10%
of resources in 2012, placing France last among OECD countries. In terms
of results, France represents 3.3% of the world’s scientific publications,
which places it – in comparison to the active population – on the low end of
the average of developed countries (1.8 annual publications per 1,000
workers). In the total number of global citations, France’s relative share is
3.8% (29% for the United States). The share of patents increased from 7.2%
to 12.1% between 1999 and 2011.
Using a sample of 23 countries, the authors of this report linked

government domestic civil R&D expenditures (GERD), expressed in
constant $ and in purchase parity power, to three performance indicators: the
total number of scientific publications, the number of publications ranked
within the top 10% and the total number of patents filed. Thus, it was
possible to estimate the technological frontier in order to deduce the distance
from each country to the frontier. As it turns out, France is not on the
forefront of efficiency:
“France is relatively far from being in the lead, in an

intermediate position among countries with similar
expenditures. French public research has a lower performance
score than Korea, with a 60% higher level of expenditures over
the period” [DEM 18, p. 9].
Using the same approach, the United States is not positioned as a leader
in efficiency, which may suggest that returns decrease at scale and that
threshold effects may be in play.
In the case of France, if we’re being optimistic, we might hope that the
elements mentioned above may change somewhat through the major
orientations of the current innovation policy in a way that would favor start-
ups and breakthrough innovations. The government seeks to give priority to
public research in its own way by encouraging teacher-researchers from the
public sector to establish links with the private sector. They will now be able
to devote 50% of their time to creating businesses, compared to 20% today,
and retain 49% of the capital if they leave the company that was created.
Therefore, this would not commit additional resources to increasing the
salaries of teacher-researchers, and would seem to take into account the low
salaries of the public sector and its consequences on the migration of
intellectual capital to high-wage countries, particularly the United States.
Will this measure be enough [GUI 18a]?
Public support for R&D activities is likely to create a demand for venture
capital financing in order to develop innovative products, services and/or
processes. Indeed, public intervention in R&D is a critical factor in the
creation and development of research infrastructures, the implementation of
mission-oriented research, and the support of research projects characterized
by the anticipation of important social benefits that companies do not find
sufficiently attractive.
On the side of the companies seeking financing, a study sought to

evaluate the sources of knowledge that entrepreneurs prefer based on the
perception of an opportunity and the actions they trigger [AMO 17]. For this
purpose, the authors of this study selected a sample of “knowledge intensive
entrepreneurial” firms (KIEs) from 10 European countries. These firms are
located in high-tech sectors. KIEs are favored as the main areas for growth
and societal well-being. Eleven sources of knowledge were identified in the
questionnaires sent to the 420 KIE firms. The Likert scale ranks responses
from 1 to 5, with 1 being unimportant and 5 being extremely important.
The average level of knowledge sources is then compared with data on

the experience, age and education of the entrepreneurs. This functions as if
companies were to press different keys on a keyboard according to their
activity, their constraints and their environment. The results indicate that the
most educated entrepreneurs rely on research institutes, “probably due to

their higher level of absorptive capacity” [AMO 17, p. 12], which facilitates
the transition from research to the commercialization of new concepts. In
Southern and Eastern European countries, first-time entrepreneurs attach
great importance to the firm’s internal R&D (probably due to the weakness
of public research) and have less experience in the sector. These are the ones
that, in our opinion, have a high likelihood of being supported by venture
capitalists. In Western and Northern Europe, great importance is given to
public research programs funded by the States and the EU, as well as to
relations with private research institutes. Research programs are preferred by
less experienced and more educated entrepreneurs. Overall, this finding,
which does not make an explicit link with venture capital, fits well enough
with the EU’s European Venture program to set up a mega-venture capital
fund to finance particularly innovative entrepreneurial projects (see below).
To clear up any misunderstandings, it should be recalled that while small

and mid-size companies represent a larger share of R&D carried out by
companies in Europe than in the United States, it must be acknowledged that
many European countries have low levels of R&D, and relatively less
developed public research systems (Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, etc.)
that are not large enough to allow companies with intensive R&D operations
to emerge. This explains the significant proportion of small and mid-size
companies in the R&D expenditures carried out by companies overall.
Moreover, a higher concentration of R&D expenditures to small and mid-
size businesses does not imply higher levels of performance.
While some companies, particularly technology-intensive ones, can grow

rapidly and become important players in certain sectors, for start-ups,
crossing the growth thresholds is likely to lead to greater success in the
United States than in Europe:
“Start-ups are comparable in number in Europe and the United

States, but ten years after their creation date, American start-ups
have twice as many employees on average compared to their
European counterparts... Today, successful start-ups are more
commonly found in America and Asia than in Europe. In 2015,
Europe had only 15 ‘unicorns’, compared to 90 in the United
States and 31 in Asia. Five of the top ten US companies are
former start-ups, and play a key role in the economy. A
comparative analysis of the average age of market
capitalizations in France and the United States shows that the

gap has doubled over the past 15 years: in 2015, it was 91 years
in the United States versus 132 in France (by contrast, it was 84
and 104 years in 2000)” [FRA 17, pp. 1–2].
This analysis suggests that there are different paths of development that
may be taken by innovation financing between countries or regions. To the
extent that the venture capital industry is divided into stages (start-up, early
stage, later stage), the industrial development paths that may be taken very
much depend on the capacities deployed by venture capitalists as well as the
general and the specific knowledge they have of the entire value chain,
together with experts and the players in the entrepreneurial network.
Moreover, as we have just seen, the knowledge of the players can only be
developed through the actions of the public sector necessary to correct the
imperfections of the venture capital market for the financing of innovation: in
the United States, these may include the first programs to support innovative
companies (SBIC, SBIR), the solvency of demand for dynamic small
businesses (Small Business Act), or public interventions that favor R&D.
Therefore, if there is one common element that can be found among all
these, it is that the development of this industry on a European scale clearly
requires this market to be made more dynamic and relatively homogeneous,
but also the implementation of structural policies deliberately intended to
favor R&D and innovation.
3.2.2.2.2. Public initiatives in favor of venture capital

Now, we will analyze the European initiatives favoring the VentureEU
program and the proposals for putting savings to use to finance start-ups in
France.
The creation of a European venture capital megafund: VentureEU

VentureEU is a €2.1 billion public and private investment program
launched by the European Commission and the European Investment Fund
(EIF) to boost investment in Europe’s innovative start-ups and “scale-ups”
(expanding companies):
“Europe is full of talented people, top researchers and skilled

entrepreneurs, but it must build better capacities to transform
this potential into success. The access to venture capital plays
an essential role in innovation. Today, the Commission and the

EIF announced the names of the six participating funds that will
receive support from the EU to commit to investing in the
European venture capital market. With funding from the EU of
€410 million, these funds are expected to raise €2.1 billion in
public and private investment, which is estimated to result in
€6.5 billion in new investment in innovative start-ups and scale-
ups across Europe, doubling the amount of venture capital
currently available in Europe...
Venture capital is essential for the capital markets’ union to

function correctly, but it still has yet to develop fully in Europe.
In 2016, venture capital invested around €6.5 billion in the EU,
compared to €39.4 billion in the US. In addition, the size of
venture capital funds in Europe is too small: the average size of
such firms in Europe is €56 million, compared to €156 million
in the United States. As a result, start-ups with high potential
are moving to ecosystems where they are more likely to
develop rapidly. The number of companies that had reached
‘unicorn’ status by the end of 2017, i.e. a value of more than
$1 billion, totaled to 26 in the EU, compared to 109 in the
United States and 59 in China.
VentureEU will offer European innovators new sources of

financing, which will give them the opportunity to grow into
global companies. Some 1,500 start-ups and scale-ups from
across the EU are expected to have access. Venture EU will be
financed initially by the EU, which will provide up to €410
million of investment – including €67 million from the EIF’s
own resources: €200 million under the Horizon 2020 InnovFin
Equity program, €105 million under the COSME program
(European program for small and medium-sized enterprises),
and €105 million under the European Strategic Investment Fund
(under the ‘Juncker plan’). The remaining financing will be
raised mainly from independent investors by the managers of
the selected funds.
The six funds will acquire shares in a number of smaller venture

capital funds and cover projects in at least four European
countries each. The funds in which they will invest will help to
finance small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) and mid-cap

companies in various sectors, such as information and
communication technologies (ICT), digital, life sciences,
medical technologies, resource use efficiency and energy
efficiency.
Investments by the EU in VentureEU will be managed by the

EIF under the supervision of the Commission, and will be
deployed through six professional and experienced fund
managers, which will ensure a true market approach. This will
attract further investment and significantly increase the access
to this type of financing by start-ups and scale-ups in the EU...
The Commission has announced the creation of a pan-European

venture capital fund of funds (VentureEU) program within the
framework of the capital markets union (UMC) and the start-up.
This initiative was first proposed in 2015 by Commissioner
Moedas as part of the ‘Open Science, Open Innovation’ strategy
in 2015. In November 2016, the Commission and the EIF
launched a call for expressions of interest, which attracted 17
applications before the deadline of January 31, 2017. For its
first step, the Commission examined all investment proposals
and pre-selected them according to their suitability for the
program. The EIF then submitted the candidates that had been
pre-selected to its standard due diligence procedure, from which
six were selected to receive funding and invited to enter into
negotiations with the EIF at the end of 2017. The first two
agreements, between IsomerCapital and the EIF, and between
Axon Partners Group and the EIF, were signed in Brussels. The
other four (Aberdeen Standard Investments, LGT, Lombard
Odier Asset Management and Schroder Adveq) were expected
to be completed in 2018.
VentureEU is part of the larger ecosystem currently being

created by the EU to give Europe’s many innovative
entrepreneurs every opportunity to become global companies.
In particular, as part of the action plan for the establishment of a
capital markets union, the Commission has presented a series of
measures to improve access to finance for small and growing
businesses in order to create jobs and stimulate growth. The
Investment Plan for Europe also seeks to improve the business

environment in the EU by making better use of financial
resources and removing barriers to investment.
On March 1, 2018, new regulations governing venture capital

funds (EuVECA) and European social entrepreneurship funds
(EuSEF) took effect, allowing for such funds to be more easily
managed by their managers, regardless of their size, and a wider
range of companies can now benefit from their investments.
These new regulations also reduce the costs for the cross-border
marketing of EuVECA and EuSEF funds, and simplify
registration procedures.
As announced in the revised EU Industrial Policy Strategy, the

Commission is currently studying the complementary
establishment of a European scale-up action for risk capital
(ESCALAR), allowing venture capital funds to increase their
investment capacity” [COM 18].
The main objective of establishing pan-European venture capital funds is

to use public funds more effectively, serving as a magnet for private
investment, which is often reluctant to engage in European venture capital
since there is no appropriate vehicle. Fund-of-funds intermediaries can fill
the gap between large institutional investors and small venture capital funds.
This program takes into account the system of the position of venture
capital players in Europe. Private investors have reduced their investments
since 2008, which has created financing problems for European start-ups.
Government investments in venture capital funds have stepped in to bridge
the gap. However, national authorities often invest with the idea that they
would like to promote their own companies at the expense of activities
within the entire community.
In addition, existing venture capital funds do not have the size and scale
to meet the financing needs of expanding companies. This has given rise to
the idea of creating a mega fund to channel private resources into
community leadership.
At the same time, this institutional and organizational innovation at the

European level reinforces the liberal conception of the EU, with 50% of the
funding coming from independent private investors. “VentureEU will be
managed by six professional and experienced fund managers under the

supervision of the Commission and the EIF, which will ensure a real market
approach” [COM 18]. This mechanism can be integrated into the “Smart
Specialization Strategy”, which is based on an interactive process in which
entrepreneurs identify market opportunities based on new technological
applications and produce information. Then, the public authorities assess
these potential opportunities and work to incentivize the players capable of
updating them [GUI 17a].
In this context, entrepreneurship is distinctive in nature. The entrepreneur

is not a “subsistence entrepreneur”, that is, an individual who has made a
trade-off between independence and employment, and who, above all, seeks
to be his/her own boss. The entrepreneur is also not part of the structural
approach that considers the firm or industry as the unit of analysis:
“Indeed, the idea that one company, sector, or economy may be

more entrepreneurial than another suggests that entrepreneurship
is associated with a particular market structure (i.e. a market
made up of many small or start-up companies)” [FOS 08, p. 76].
The underlying assumption of this analysis appears to be a functional

concept of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a function, activity, or
process characterized by judgment, innovation and energy, regardless of
occupational or structural dimensions. “The entrepreneur can be an owner, a
manager, or even a team of managers who follow(s) the entrepreneurial
discovery process and take(s) actions” [FOS et al. 08, p. 76].
National savings used to help start-ups

The question posed in the report by France Stratégie is: how would it be
possible to channel savings into venture capital financing [FRA 17], given
the knowledge that:
– the creation of start-ups in Europe is as dynamic as in the United States,
but the growth rate of these start-ups is much lower, and;
– the percentage of venture capital in France in relation to GDP in 2016 is
2.4 times lower than that of Korea, 4 times lower than that of Canada, and 10
times lower than that of the United States?
The report cited above indicates that the increase in the level of financing
should set a target of a fourfold increase of €8 billion, the stakes of which
are twofold: to increase the overall flows invested, and to allow the
emergence of larger players, since the size of existing funds is insufficient to
meet the financing needs of growing companies. In this context, the report
states that “the most logical solution, and also the most radical one, is to
rethink the tax regime in order to equalize the tax rates on capital income”
[FRA 17, p. 3]. This first option has resulted in the introduction of a flat tax
of 30% applied to all capital income.
The second option consists of rescaling existing niches and improving the
way they are targeted. Indeed, the existing tax relief schemes have much
weaker effects than those of other countries, notably the United Kingdom.
“– FCPIs (Fonds commun de placement dans l’innovation – Mutual fund in

innovation), whose assets are mainly invested in the equity capital of innovative
SMEs (the eligibility of SMEs corresponds to an amount of R&D expenditure, or
is issued by the BPI), and FIPs (Fonds d’investissement de proximité – Proximity
investment funds), whose assets are mainly invested in SMEs within a given
geographical area, allow their investors to benefit from an 18% reduction in their
income tax on the amounts invested. This reduction is capped at €4,320 for a
couple, which corresponds to an investment of €24,000. For those subject to the
Impôt de solidarité sur la fortune (ISF – Solidarity tax on wealth), the tax due
in this respect may be reduced by an amount equal to half of the sums invested,
capped at €18,000, which therefore corresponds to an investment of €36,000.
These two schemes generated around €800 million in 2015.
– The so-called IR-SME and ISF-SME schemes allow a part of the funds
invested to be deducted from the income tax due by the taxpayer, without going
through a fund (as in the two previous cases). The tax advantage for these direct
investments is limited to €18,000 (IR-SME, for a maximum investment of
€100,000) and €45,000 respectively (ISF-SME, for a maximum investment of
€90,000). Although these schemes have an age criterion for determining the
eligibility of companies (less than seven years), they are not specifically intended
for innovative companies”.
Box 3.1. Existing measures in France in favor of SMEs (source: [FRA 17, pp. 3–4])
By comparison, the three British schemes (the “Enterprise Investment

Scheme”, “Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme”, and “Venture Capital
Trust”) raised nearly €3.3 billion in financing in 2015, a figure well above
the €2.2 billion raised in France, only part of which was used to finance
venture capital.
In addition, the French Court of Auditors recommended merging the FIP

and FCPI schemes, which would increase the average size of the funds, thus
enabling them to “finance larger tickets or projects, attract foreign fund
holdings and generate economies of scale on management fees” [FRA 17,
p. 4].
The third option is to review the composition of existing savings products

and how they are targeted. In this context, venture capital financing would
be increased by encouraging institutional investors to make more of such
investments.
As the authors of this report rightly point out, this option would
strengthen the derogatory tax regime while directing investors to favor
contracts that would provide more efficient financing for the economy.
However, the difficulty lies in the complexity of the devices and their poor
readability – unless we rethink the overall tax architecture, particularly by
incorporating tightening measures that may not be well-accepted in the
current climate.
Proposals to strengthen venture capital in France

The authors of the report cited above [EKE 16], after having reviewed the
current state of venture capital in France, question the interventions of the
public sector, raising two questions: what doctrine, and what governance?
Public interventions can have negative effects, despite their laudable
intentions at the outset. In particular:
– public intervention may displace certain private actors who

are in de facto competition with an actor who does not face the
same objectives of profitability or raising capital from third
parties;
– pressure groups, through the political process, can prompt
choices to be made that are different from those that
independent experts would make;
– political figures may be tempted to use public interventions
for electoral purposes, either to capture the votes of groups they
target or to position themselves on strong symbols that convey
their message to the electorate;
– in a similar sense, it is very difficult to stop public initiatives.

This is true whether or not the initial project is justified. These
factors mean that industrial policies are not always successful in
the long term, and that institutions come to be stacked on top of
each other over time;
– the significant influence of the public sector may be perceived
negatively by foreign investors, who would consider Bpifrance
as the ‘strong arm’ of the French government, marred by a
reputation for ‘protectionism’ (especially after the conflicts with
Uber and its blocking of the sale of Dailymotion), or would fear
geographical quotas of French exposure [EKE 16, p. 6].
Based on this observation, the authors make seven recommendations

[EKE 16, pp. 8–11]:
1) “to clarify the industrial policy doctrines underlying Bpifrance’s direct
interventions and those of the PIAs (French future investment programs), to
interconnect them and to adopt best practices in this area”;
2) since Bpifrance’s action may hinder the emergence of an autonomous
ecosystem, it is necessary to “conceive the actions of Bpifrance as an
industrial policy intended to give rise to an autonomous venture capital
industry (and not as a permanent substitute)”;
3) “to provide Bpifrance with a system of governance that ensures its
independence and long-term responsibility as well as an enlightened vision
on international best practices. To interconnect Bpifrance’s strategies with
the Commissariat général à l’investissement (General commission for
investment) to optimize public intervention and the evaluation of these
actions”;
4) “to promote the involvement of the scientific community in the
entrepreneurial dynamic in France”;
5) “to clarify the taxes levied on foreign investors, be they individuals or
institutions, who invest in French venture capital funds and simplify their
access to these funds”;
6) “to ensure that the way in which entrepreneurial taxes are applied
encourages the reinvestment of the capital gains generated within the
ecosystem”;
7) “to evaluate the effectiveness of all public policies involving venture
capital (both fiscal and industrial through the action of Bpifrance and the
PIAs) in optimally allocating the budgetary effort allocated to the creation of

an autonomous entrepreneurial ecosystem”.
Recommendations 5, 6 and 7 speak to the issue of a tax review, and they

are not unrelated to option 3 proposed by France Stratégie. This paper
broadens the issue of funding from an upstream question on public
intervention, creating a coherent system. This intervention should be
organized around the primary objective of promoting the development of an
autonomous venture capital industry.
Recommendations 1 and 3 propose to select and adopt international best

practices in this area. The collective performance of the venture capital
industry would be enhanced if information on these practices were able to be
observed and transferred. But even if it is, there is no evidence that a
convergence will occur around the best practices. The necessary learning in
a changing environment is based on the idea that the players in the
ecosystem have multiple connections and limited attention. If international
practices are easily observable, the ability to process the information will be
limited in relation to the amount of information available. The entire system
depends on the visibility of these practices and their innovative nature.
However, innovative organizational practices are relatively easy to observe
and, even when they are, they tend to spread without firmly established
information being produced on what it is that is truly effective. In addition,
practices often incorporate tacit knowledge, which plays the role of an active
integrating agent. It is not part of processes of inference or deduction. This
element makes innovative practices difficult to observe [NIG 14].
Finally, the promotion of scientific research (recommendation 3) should

enable researchers to engage in creating businesses, which implies measures
on the protection of intellectual property and the possibility for entrepreneurs
to file provisional patent applications.
3.3. The role of institutions in the dynamics of the venture capital

industry
We will approach this area in two steps. The first step adopts an approach
of applied economy. An econometric model of investment determination
allows us to highlight the role of certain institutions in this type of financing.
The second step analyzes the influence of institutional architectures more
broadly whose characteristics largely shape the development of the venture

capital industry.
3.3.1. An econometric model for determining venture capital

investment
Following the model presented in Chapter 2, we analyze the determinants

of venture capital investment using the Industrial Organization (I/O)
approach. This approach is based on the set of economic, institutional and
organizational variables that influence the behavior of players, without
neglecting adjustments to the market. In this approach, firms are not studied
in themselves, but as part of an industry whose behavior and performance we
are trying to explain. The point of reference is the structure/behavior/
performance paradigm, three areas of focus that are related to the basic
conditions in an industry.
In our analysis, we will prioritize the basic conditions, because they

contain the institutional factors whose impact on the venture capital industry
is being assessed. “Behavior” refers to the investments that are made, that is
the amounts invested by venture capital firms in the companies in their
portfolio. As in the previous model, the supply corresponds to fund
management companies that raise capital from different investors, and the
demand is generated by companies seeking financing for their projects. The
basic conditions include the macroeconomic, institutional, entrepreneurial,
and exit characteristics that form the environment for this activity. An
econometric study is undertaken to explain venture capital investment from a
sample of 18 European countries over the period 2002–2009 [GUI 15]. We
wanted to extend the model until 2012, but the difficulties of aligning the
variables with their definitions over the initial period 2002–2009 left us no
choice but to abandon it, due to the problems encountered regarding how
robust the estimates were. That is why we have limited ourselves to the
period of 2002–2009.
There is only a small amount of economic work on the issue addressed

here [GOM 98, ARM 04, FEL 13]. The studies cited are the closest to our
investment determination analysis. The structure/behavior/performance
paradigm provides useful elements for analyzing the dynamics of the venture
capital industry.
3.3.1.1. The analytical framework

The basic conditions are traditionally considered from the point of view
of supply and demand.
On the supply side, the macroeconomic environment is reflected in the

GDP growth rate, which is likely to influence fundraising from investors.
The more funds raised, the greater the amount of capital that is available to
operators for investment.
The interest rate is a macroeconomic indicator that is a trade-off variable.

It is considered that if the interest rate increases, the attractiveness of venture
capital investment decreases, which in turn affects the amounts allocated to
the companies in the portfolio6:
“Of course, the trade-off question does not arise for all capital
holders, as some of them will immediately ignore investments
in venture capital funds due to the considerable uncertainty
surrounding the success of companies, and its corollary in terms
of future returns on investment” [GUI 15, p. 197].
The institutional environment is a variable that encompasses regulatory,

normative, and cultural aspects, with the former corresponding to public
policies and rules that govern the activity and behavior of agents.
On the supply side, we must also consider the tax and legal framework
that governs the behavior of fund management companies and investors.
This variable is part of the tax and legal environment that promotes the
development of venture capital and entrepreneurship. It is proposed by
EVCA for European countries (2008).
Armour and Cumming [ARM 04] also consider political interventions by

means of the allocation of public capital to venture capital. They consider
two scenarios: that of a positive impact on the amount of funds raised, and
that of a negative impact on these two variables7. In addition, we must
6 It is also conceivable that very low interest rates could, as mentioned above, encourage
riskier investment by operators, particularly in periods of quantitative easing.
7 “Logically, a positive impact on fundraising and investment is expected in so far as
government-sponsored funds can encourage private investment. This is confirmed by Leleux
and Surlemount’s study (2003) based on 15 European countries during the period 1990–1996.
However, a reduction of fund-raising and investment levels can be envisaged due to the fact
consider the nature of the financial system as part of regulatory institutions.

A market-oriented system (see below) provides opportunities for exits
through IPOs held by the companies receiving the funds, and should
encourage venture capital activity. This is less true in the case of a bank-
oriented system. The various studies on this question lead to contrasting
results. Therefore, the opportunities for exits in the following model are not
limited to financial markets (IPOs), even in countries with a market-oriented
financial system. As for the sales of companies to industrial enterprises
(trade sale), we consider them an important exit mechanism for the
development of this industry8.
On the demand side, the macroeconomic situation influences

entrepreneurial dynamism by multiplying opportunities for the creation and
development of new businesses. As for the interest rate, it is a basic
condition of the venture capital industry, considering that a low rate makes
bank financing more attractive or encourages riskier investments. Most of
the work on this point does not identify any positive impact of this variable
on venture capital activity.
The institutional factors that emerge on the demand side primarily

concern the tax-related and legal environment of companies seeking
financing9. With regard to the companies’ exits, it is also possible to consider
stock markets and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) from the perspective of
that government-sponsored funds can crowd out private investment. Such a crowding out effect
is highlighted by Cumming and MacIntosh (2003a) for Canada following the introduction of
legislation establishing subsidised Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations (LSVCCs).
Armour and Cumming’s econometric study (2004) confirms its crowding out effect.
Consequently, this raises the question of how governments can efficiently support VC activity”
[GUI 15, p. 198].
8 “According to EVCA, divestments by trade sale represent 28.4% of the total amounts divested
in 2009 in Europe, and those by public offering represent only 11.9%” [GUI 15, p. 199].
9 “Anything that encourages entrepreneurship, namely advantageous corporate taxation,
attractive stock options devices, etc., creates favourable conditions for VC activity. That is
why the tax and legal environment of investee companies is taken into consideration in the
previously mentioned EVCA’s (2008) composite index of the tax and legal environment
favouring the development of private equity, VC and entrepreneurship. This index
incorporates dimensions affecting both the supply and demand of VC financing. However, in
their analysis, Armour and Cumming (2004) neglect the demand dimension of this index,
considering only that of supply” [GUI 15, p. 200].
the demand for venture capital. Some studies mention that financial returns
(IRRs) and the existence of speculative financial bubbles are also potential
factors for demand.
As for entrepreneurial dynamics, these are affected by the macroeconomic

business environment, whose influence on venture capital is reflected in
increased demand for financing. Beyond the general aspects related to
entrepreneurial dynamics, a specific dimension has caught our attention: the
innovative capacity of businesses, because companies that develop innovative
projects are a priority target for venture capitalists. Two indicators were used:
R&D expenditure and patent filings, which Armour and Cumming’s study
notes have a positive impact on venture capital investment.
3.3.1.2. The econometric model

The sample selected includes 18 European countries10. Limited by the
information available and the problems of homogenization of certain
variables, the period studied is from 2002 to 2009. The structure of the
model is as follows:
Macroeconomic
variables
GDP
Interest
Entrepreunarial Institutional
variables
R&D
VC investment variable
Patent Inst
Exit variables
SMcapital
M&A
Figure 3.1. The variables considered in the model (source: after [GUI 15, p. 201])
10 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom.
The dependent variable is the total venture capital investment divided by

GDP. The GDP growth rate delayed by one year is a basic condition of
supply and demand:
“On the supply side, a dynamic economy can have a positive

effect on venture capital commitments, and it is fundraising that
determines the scale of investment. On the demand side, if the
economy grows rapidly, entrepreneurs may have more
opportunities to create or expand their businesses. Therefore,
we may observe increases in the demand for VC funds”
[GUI 15, p. 202].
In terms of supply and demand, the expected impact of economic growth

on the dependent variable is positive.
The real interest rate used corresponds to the real yield on government
bonds. This variable is delayed by one year. The EVCA Composite Index
refers to the fiscal and legal environment that supports the development of
venture capital and entrepreneurship in European countries11. More
specifically, this index includes three elements: the tax and legal
environment of limited partners and fund management companies, the
environment for invested companies, and the environment that allows
capabilities to be maintained in invested companies and fund management
companies. As in the previous model, this composite index is calibrated from
1 (most favorable environment) to 3 (least favorable environment). The
expected relationship between this variable and the dependent variable is
negative.
The context of the exit is assessed using two indicators. The first is the
capitalization of stock markets divided by each country’s GDP (a variable
delayed by one year). We also used the value of mergers and acquisitions
(M&A) divided by GDP (delayed by one year), which represents
opportunities for exits in terms of divestments by sale to other companies.
These two variables are expected to have a positive effect on venture capital
investment, particularly from the supply side.
11 This indicator provides information on the competitiveness of risk capital and venture
capital performance by country [EVC 08].
The context of innovation is understood through two variables. R&D

expenditure of businesses divided by GDP (one year later) expresses R&D
intensity and corresponds to an indicator of resources committed. Patent
applications submitted to the European Patent Office (EPO) per capita and
delayed by one year are used as a performance indicator. The expected
impact of these two innovation variables on the dependent variable is
positive.
The explanatory variables are presented in Table 3.5.
Expected
Variable Definition Role
effect
Macroeconomic variables
Real GDP growth rate
Measures the influence of
GDP_1 (one year behind). +
economic dynamics.
(Eurostat).
Underlines whether the interest
rate is a trade-off criterion
between investment in VC funds
and alternative investments
Real ten-year
remunerated by the interest rate
Interest_ government bond
from the point of view of the -/+
1 yields (delayed by
investor or as a trade-off between
one year). (Eurostat).
private equity financing from VC
organizations and debt financing
from banks from enterprises’
point of view.
Institutional variable
Index of the fiscal and
legal environment
conducive to the
development of PE,
Assesses the influence of the
INST VC and -
institutional context.
entrepreneurship (a
low value represents a
more favorable
environment) (EVCA).
Output variables
Stock market Assesses the impact of the
SMcapita capitalization divided financial market environment as
+
l_1 by GDP. (delayed by an
one year) (Eurostat). exit opportunity.
Value of mergers and
Assesses the impact of mergers
acquisitions divided
M&A_1 and acquisitions as an exit +
by GDP (delayed by
opportunity.
one year) (EVCA).
Innovation variables
BERD expenditure
divided by GDP Assesses the impact of resources
R&D_1 +
(delayed by one year) invested in innovation
(Eurostat).
Patent filings to the
EPO Assesses the impact of the results
Patent_1 per capita of innovation activity in terms of +
(delayed by patent filings.
Table 3.5. Presentation of the explanatory variables (source: [GUI 15, p. 205])
3.3.1.3. The results obtained

Table 3.6 presents the results of four regressions (A1, A2, B1, and B2)
that take into account the correlation constraints of the variables. The
different regressions (ordinary least squares method – OLS) obtain R2 and
adjustedR2 values with good quality.
Reg. A1 Reg. A2 Reg. B1 Reg. B2

-0.0045462 -0.0063474 -0.0038759 -0.0033056
GDP_1
(-0.86) (-1.21) (-0.82) (-0.68)
0.0103541* 0.0116272* 0.0131707* 0.0161141**
Interest_1
(1.70) (1.96) (1.76) (2.12)
0.0000896 0.0002542 -0.0005571** -0.0004794*
INST
(0.29) (0.84) (-2.04) (-1.74)
0.0018932*** 0.0020634***
SMcapital_1 – –
(6.01) (7.01)
0.0102126*** 0.0112383***
M&A_1 – –
(4.71) (5.05)
0.0096471 0.0386361***
R&D_ 1 – –
(0.65) (3.58)
-0.4624055 1.745646**
Patent_1 – –
(-0.43) (2.03)
-0.0005646 -0.0007981 0.0009625* 0.0009089
Constant
(-0.80) (-1.15) (1.74) (1.62)
Number of
91 94 110 113
observations
Ajusted R-
0.4702 0.4711 0.3788 0.3302
squared
Table 3.6. Econometric results (source: GUI 15, p. 206). Value of t in brackets.
*: significant at 10%, **: significant at 5%, ***: significant at 1%
Shifting the growth rate by one year has no impact on venture capital
investment. This confirms the results of several studies that reflect the
difficulty of establishing a relationship between these two variables. The
sample tested is composed of European countries whose venture capital
activity is more focused on the expansion phase. The fragmentation of
European economies and the low investment returns on the initial stages
meant that “over the period 1985–2009, Veugelers [VEU 11] noted that the
seed and start-up investments made in 13 major European countries
represented only 38% and 22% of the investments that were made in
America over the same period” [GUI 15, pp. 205–206]. The relationship
between venture capital investment and GDP growth was studied by Meyer.
Although there is a two-way relationship between these variables, countries
with high venture capital activity grow faster, but the opposite is not true.
Granger’s tests to assess the direction of causality indicate that “venture
capital investments in the United States...lead to real GDP growth”
[MEY 06].
The positive and significant impact of the interest rate leads to an

interpretation in terms of demand. This does not mean that the interest rate
has no effect on the supply side, as an increase in the interest rate may lead
investors to prefer other asset classes. The results obtained, as was the case
with the model presented in Chapter 2, simply mean that the effects of
demand outweigh the effects of supply.
The INST variable is significant in two regressions with the expected

negative sign. This confirms the result obtained by [ARM 04] with the same
variables. The two output variables SMcapital_1 and M&A_1 are very
significant at the 1% threshold, and the relationship is positive. Thus,
favorable exit conditions create strong incentives to invest in venture capital.
More specifically, the incidence of the variable M&A_1 is particularly

high, and even higher than that of SMcapital_1. This may be explained by
the fact that some of the economies selected in the sample do not have
developed financial markets, that is those that are established and structured,
and in this context, that sales to other companies represent a preferred exit
channel for venture capitalists in Europe.
Finally, innovation variables have a positive and significant effect in

several regressions, showing the close connection between venture capital
and innovation.
Venture capital is a mechanism for financing innovation, very often

oriented towards breakthrough innovations. Venture capital financing
frequently defines new technological paths and leads to the chain
multiplication of highly innovative projects by offering investment
opportunities to venture capitalists. The variable RD_1 is significant at the
1% threshold in the B regression. The growth of R&D expenditure as a
percentage of GDP increases opportunities for investment. This result
confirms previous developments in public R&D spending that may increase
the demand for financing from entrepreneurs with marketable projects. The
Patent_1 variable is less significant (at the 5% threshold in the B2
regression). An increase in the number of patents filed sends a good signal to
investors, it promotes the establishment of a “track record” for start-ups and
a lower-risk venture capital investment.
3.3.2. Specific analysis of institutional factors
Institutional factors produce specific architectures, which we will analyze

in our first step. This will allow us to go beyond the model presented in our
second step.
3.3.2.1. Institutional architectures

Many authors have stressed the importance of institutional architectures
on the dynamics of innovation [GOM 98, AMA 99, HAN 99]. In a market-
based institutional architecture, high-tech activities develop rapidly, because
market-based governance mechanisms are able to resolve major
organizational conflicts that affect this activity [CAS 00]. First, a flexible
and deregulated labor market is particularly active. Managers protect the
company’s assets through hiring and firing when required by certain
circumstances, while scientists and skilled workers are free to move from
one firm to another through employment contracts that incorporate explicit
non-disclosure clauses applied to specific technologies. This explains the
high labor mobility that exists within technology clusters in the United States
[GUI 17a] and, in the relationships between firms, of career opportunities
based on the likelihood of high turnover. In addition, a dynamic labor market
facilitates retraining that compensates for the depletion of skills produced by
rapid technological change.
Second, the financial risks of innovation are borne by venture capitalists

who trade-off technological uncertainty for short to medium-term financial
losses, against the prospect of significant long-term gains. In addition, IPOs
represent a favorable mechanism for exits, since firms can adopt a portfolio
strategy that allows them to spread risks across different investments and test
different concepts through lower experimental costs. This allows deferrals
and capital savings.
Third, wage labor is becoming more financialized: company shares are

becoming a common form of compensation for recruiting and retaining
qualified staff, through the practice of stock options. The prospect of
significant financial compensation, provided to varying degrees according to
the status of individuals, makes it possible to enhance employees’ individual
motivation (bearing in mind this mechanism alone is insufficient to ensure
the organizational integration of employees). The contribution of scientists
to codified intellectual property is recognized to the extent that they can
publish under their own name, alongside that of the firm. This mechanism is
part of a virtuous circle. Successful firms are able to attract renowned
scientists who, for their part and thanks to the contacts developed within
their own network, attract the attention of venture capitalists. An illustrative
case can be found in biotechnology.
The complementary nature of institutions that characterizes market-based

systems encourages the emergence of radical innovations produced by
companies that explore new technological paths. By contrast, the
institutional architecture in Germany creates obstacles to radical innovations,
but it favors the organization of incremental and continuous progress within
sophisticated, but previously formulated, technologies.
Therefore, an economy based on private ownership and employment can

give rise to different configurations depending on the precise (institutional)
forms that social relationships take over time. In this context, it is possible to
contrast the institutional characteristics of wage labor, the financial system,
and the organization of companies on a case-by-case basis. The US labor
market is based on decentralized negotiations and high labor mobility, that is
the preponderance of an external market to attract high-level skills. By
contrast, in Germany, the coordinated system for wage negotiations
promotes the progression of employees along educational and professional
trajectories and makes long-term employment practices in companies more
meaningful, even if there is a decline in this type of employment at the

present time.
As a result, employees are involved in the organization of work and

changes in remuneration. Co-management mechanisms generally make it
possible to anticipate and absorb shocks of demand and to plan the
management of the employment cycle, while allowing for necessary
retraining. The system is more brutal in the United States: shareholder
preference (shareholder value) prioritizes stockbroker redundancies and the
imposition of minimum legal constraints on the organization of the
company.
In addition, the financing provided is mainly directed towards productive

operations. It is largely based on the attitude of banks and of the Länder to
promote training and learning processes. Financial games (hostile takeovers,
for example) are not the priority in the relationship between companies. By
contrast, mergers and acquisitions are increasing in the United States: a fluid
and abundant capital market encourages the development of purely financial
strategies; and the possibility that financial arrangements may lead to
takeovers in order to absorb capital in the form of knowledge and skills held
by targeted firms (quality of R&D laboratories, number of patents, etc.) and
to consolidate market positions.
More generally, differentiations characterize successive phases of the

investment. Market-based systems, particularly in phases of rising economic
activity, can be considered to be more suitable for financing early stage
investments, while bank-based systems are more suitable for financing
projects in the expansion phase, once the company’s economic performance
has been established. Similarly, an exit through an IPO is emblematic of
market systems, while a transfer to another industrial company is more
frequent in countries where investment banks and public interventions can
promote such solutions [AMA 99].
All these elements suggest that the institutional environment somehow

“locks” the company into a specific development trajectory that remains
extremely sensitive to its initial conditions. The opportunities for resources
offered to businesses by their entrepreneurial support network (human and
financial resources, advice and expertise, etc.), the existence of well-
established university-enterprise transfer mechanisms and, on the other end
of the spectrum, the presence of liquid and established financial markets,
allow start-ups to engage in projects to create and market new products, new
technologies, etc. To say that the conditions in which these firms are created
and developed are important as much for their organizational growth would
be to significantly minimize the importance of strictly technological
strategies, which are not enough by themselves. It is probably the
combination of these elements that justifies the effectiveness of the
institutional environment in the United States in promoting radical
innovations.
Taking into account the institutional framework makes it possible to

analyze the configuration European countries are adopting in their quest to
develop a venture capital industry. These countries have been adopting new
principles for financing innovation for the past 20 years or so, the shaping of
which cannot be found in the existence of an active labor market for
experienced scientists and managers, nor in the American contractual model
governing the venture capital market (see Gilson’s thesis).
3.3.2.2. Beyond the model presented

The study of the different varieties of capitalism offers interesting
perspectives for analyzing venture capital [HAL 01]. According to Hall and
Soskice, economies draw upon their institutional architectures to build
“comparative institutional advantages” that give them a better capacity to
develop certain activities than other countries. In this analytical framework,
“venture capital is better suited to thrive in a liberal market economy” [SIN
13, p. 23]. In addition to a more pronounced orientation towards disruptive
innovations, we have seen that liberal market economies have specific
characteristics: a deregulated labor market, a training system conducive to
the acquisition of high qualifications and general skills, and a liquid,
established, and structured financial market.
The characteristics of coordinated market economies conflict with this

description. Organized around bank-based systems, they focus on building
networks and various forms of collaboration, as opposed to the competitive
relationships of market economies. In addition to the different capacities of
these two types of economies to promote radical versus incremental
innovations, a hierarchy can be established between the different
institutional components. The existence of open and specialized financial
markets encourages venture capital investment, while other institutions such
as the tax and legal system, the labor market, the education system, and the
corporate governance system are complementary elements in the

development of financial markets. Singh [SIN 13] constructs a variable
referred to as an aggregate financial structure that includes three indicators:
activity (a measure of stock market activity relative to banks), size (market
capitalization relative to the bank credit ratio) and efficiency (liquidity of
financial markets relative to banking system inefficiencies approximated by
the amount of overhead costs).
In his work, the author identifies the following elements: a developed

financial market, a fluid labor market, human capital corresponding to
radical innovations and cultural factors (which are informal institutions) that
favor entrepreneurship. More specifically, barriers to entrepreneurship
hinder the development of the venture capital industry. The most important
barrier is the rigidity of the labor market, which has been confirmed in
several studies [ROM 04]. Due to the greater aversion to risk in this area, the
entrepreneurial culture in Europe is considered to be “lagging behind”.
Econometric estimates lead to the following results:
– a more market-based structure is associated with more sustained
venture capital investments. This is particularly the case in the United States
and Canada;
– the two determining factors in explaining venture capital investments
are the development of the aggregate financial structure and the rigidity of
the labor market.
These different elements are organized in Figure 3.2.
Formal institutions (labor

market, legal system,
corporate governance,
education system)
Financial structure
(market-based versus Venture capital
+ bank-based) investments
Informal institutions
(entrepreneurial culture)
Figure 3.2. The market configuration of venture capital

This pattern of analysis leads to the conclusion that the United States has
a comparative institutional advantage that classifies its growth as “venture
backed-growth” [SIN 13, p. 64]. Its innovation-led macroeconomic growth
performance owes much to the development organized by the public and
private players in its venture capital industry. The long and often
contradictory learning processes in the economic context (e.g. the Internet
bubble) that are carried out by venture capitalists, with the corollary of the
formation of entrepreneurial support networks often organized within
clusters, dedicated to a given activity (semiconductors, biotechnology,
pharmaceuticals, etc.), have made it possible, despite significant failure
rates, to reconcile the demands of investors and the needs of entrepreneurs.
Venture capital in Europe (with the exception of the United Kingdom)

would seem more like a niche [SIN 13, p. 64] within a system more heavily
dependent on bank-based financing. However, we are witnessing a shift in
the financial structures in Northern Europe towards the market. In other
countries, niches are gradually being created thanks to partial developments
in the tax and legal system and in the relationships between public and
private players. However, this organization could be improved by more
clearly connecting the economic doctrine that could make venture capital an
instrument of industrial policy. As Ekeland, Landier, and Tirole point out,
the challenge is to build a truly autonomous venture capital industry and to
create an entrepreneurial ecosystem that many European countries, and
France in particular, need more than anyone else.
3.4. Conclusion
In this chapter, we have presented the three structures for interpreting the
venture capital industry. We have accepted the idea of the emergence of a
new venture capital market that requires very specific processes to function.
First, this new market is giving rise to the emergence of business groups
within which the various partners are learning and joining privileged
networks. The investors and entrepreneurs are no longer those presented in
standard theories: they acquire knowledge, learn, build interactions that put
them on the path to innovation, and no longer of equilibrium. But very often,
the agents are replaced by the effects of agglomeration (as in the thesis of the
reproduction of entrepreneurial capacities) or by a massive and coordinated
public intervention, necessary to form the basis of a process of co-evolution.
In addition, the relationship between risk and the market was analyzed
within the market to identify the non-market processes underlying the

relationships between large companies and start-ups, and the processes of
selection and experimentation implemented by venture capitalists.
In the second step, this mechanism for financing innovation was analyzed
as part of an evolutionary process. Indeed, time is an essential factor in the
formation of an industry. The qualitative conditions that shape the
trajectories of industrialization are based on two types of arguments: the
spread of an industrial logic that develops within an investment/reinvestment
loop and that favors the creation of specialized managerial capital, and the
influence of factors that are internal and external to this activity. Among
these factors, we have favored the relative weight of venture capital
investment in relation to GDP and the role of public authorities at the
European and French level, whose interventions are intended to improve the
coordination of public and private players and express a strong desire to
build an autonomous venture capital industry.
The third step in our approach focused on the role of institutions. The
econometric model we used allowed us to assess the influence of certain
institutions on the volume of venture capital investments. A more in-depth
analysis of institutional factors reveals national configurations that could
encourage further development of this industry. However, the venture capital
industry in Europe is extremely fragmented. Indeed, the legal, fiscal, and
operational environment in which this industry develops is still largely
determined at the national level, a factor that blocks the emergence of
economies of scale. Similarly, the particularities of national institutions were
brought to light, which show the United Kingdom to be closer to the United
States (market-based systems), while France and Germany have a
configuration that makes them more akin to bank-based systems.
In this context, the institutional arrangements that are being put in place
are giving rise to a more hybrid form of organization in this industry [GUI
08], which reflects the progressive arrangements, and the long and
sometimes contradictory learning process that takes place in the different
countries. The industrial organization of venture capital, analyzed in terms of
its structures, behavior and performance (types of funds, types of investment,
positioning on the different phases of projects, orientation of investments by
sector, incentive schemes, etc.), expresses both the specificity of national
contexts and the homogenization tendencies reflected in the different
practices that are adopted.
This dynamic of homogenization/differentiation influences the ways in

which European countries adopt new principles for financing innovation that
develop under the influence of tax and legal systems, and the changes
affecting the labor market. In light of this, we may make two remarks:
– on the one hand, the spread of best practices, if this does in fact occur,
does not mean that the reproduction of these practices occurs identically. In
fact, it must be considered that the trend towards homogenization is partly
based on the idea that “the range of financial support mechanisms is not
infinite” [DUB 03];
– on the other hand, forms of specialization are being reinforced and
developed that may hinder widespread dissemination of certain practices and
legitimize the perpetuation of certain national particularities. It is worth
noting that innovative practices such as syndication and staged financing
have not spread as widely as in the United States. In addition, the venture
capital industry at the European level is based on the existence of specific
constraints that do not exist in the American economy: high fragmentation,
differences in profitability, much lower average investment size, and much
lower number of public policies oriented towards R&D and innovation.
Overall, the venture capital industry in the United States reinforces a model
of specialization with a science-based nature that is more pronounced than in
Europe.
Conclusion
Venture capital has its own history and geography. The gradual
implementation of a mechanism for financing innovative projects, led by
new companies, only became a reality in the United States after the Second
World War with the creation of the ARD firm in 1946. This organizational
innovation has a wide array of lessons to offer. It is not just a question of
raising funds and providing financial support to small local businesses, but
also, and most importantly, one of assessing the technological, productive,
and commercial opportunities that are emerging in small businesses. The
functions of venture capitalists take shape over the course of a long chain of
interventions, from seeding to maturity, requiring VC firms to implement
their interpretative knowledge (based on the entrepreneurial support
network) and instrumental knowledge (productive, managerial, and
organizational) required to effectively manage the companies receiving the
investments.
It is here that the intersection with geographical considerations takes

place. The United States is in a leading position because it is able to activate
the entire financing chain. The division of funding works greatly facilitates
the development of start-ups by allowing venture capitalists to focus on the
early and late stages. The transformations taking place in the world of
finance and the development of financial markets clearly show the rise of
China, India and Japan, etc. At the same time, the development of new paths
of internationalization, driven by large-scale financial movements, have
secured China’s pre-eminence within the region of Asia.
Venture capital is a significant component of a country’s overall

innovation dynamic, which is based on a pattern that alternates from phases

of rupture and progression – highlighting the fact that, over the past 40 years,
the literature has focused more on the relationship between venture capital
and radical innovations. This can be justified when we consider the number
of venture capital-backed companies during this period that have changed
the way they produce, purchase, and communicate. We can also consider
that the spread of computer and digital technologies has transformed the
nature of relationships between social groups, between teachers and
educators, between places of power and centers of protest.
In a way, venture capital itself is a form of contradiction. It highlights the

role of the entrepreneur-innovator as the carrier of an innovative project that
places him in the forefront of the procession, and inscribes him in the logic
of a contemporary capitalism that is profoundly different from organizational
capitalism. As Rosanvallon points out, technological objects increasingly
incorporate scientific applications, and “creativity has become the main
factor of production” [ROS 11, p. 300]. This is one of the aspects of a kind
of capitalism that favors singularity and autonomy, and characteristic of an
economy strained by a state of permanent innovation. The largest market
capitalizations are those of companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft) [GOR 15,
p. 2] that have gone from being “gazelles” to holding a quasi-monopolistic
position on their market within a few years. The singularity goes so far as to
identify the company with its creator (Facebook with M. Zuckerberg,
Amazon with J. Bezos, etc.), tying together their personal wealth with the
company’s market capitalization, forgetting that there are also other
stakeholders: shareholders, employees, etc.
On the other hand, the capitalism of creativity puts in perspective the

individual action. We agree that, unlike other economic decisions (financial
investments, business expansion), innovation is a process that is unlikely to
be made more likely, involving chances of success or failure that cannot be
determined in advance and requiring deliberation. Moreover, innovation
obeys a path of dependence, with the most novel items of today based on
works done yesterday. These characteristics mean that innovation is not an
individual, high-risk act along the lines of a lottery, but one that requires
strong economic, social, and cognitive interactions between players. As we
have determined in our analysis, the places where these interactions occur lie
within the entrepreneurial support network, which is an important factor in
reducing the ambiguity of innovative projects.
Conclusion 145
These elements justify treating venture capital, not as a market (although

offers and requests for financing exist and lead to deals), but as an industry
characterized by the existence of many different players, the spread of new
logical systems of operation (specialization, testing, selection, and
experimentation) and the strong influence of institutions (the labor market,
education system, tax and legal climate, financial markets). Giving sufficient
consideration to these issues legitimizes the questions which Chapter 3 has
attempted to answer. This allows us to buttress the analyses made in terms of
stakeholder and the logic of the sector with macroeconomic and institutional
considerations. This approach involved presenting two econometric models
which sought to successively highlight the determining factors of venture
capital investment in the high-tech sectors and at the macroeconomic level of
the European countries selected in our sample.
Considering the work done on the performance of this method of

financing, particularly in the United States, the results obtained are
indisputable regardless of the variable used: the number of patents filed,
R&D expenditures, growth and employment, etc. [GOR 15]. Despite the fact
that it is costly and often unsuccessful, since, as we recall, it involves testing
the economic relevance of highly uncertain concepts, the contributions this
mechanism makes to the financing of innovation are indisputable. This is
evident by the rapid expansion of this type of financing in Europe and in the
Asia/Pacific region.
Nevertheless, in the light of this reading, what conclusions are to be

drawn regarding the thesis of creative destruction, developed in the
introduction to this book?
Like other forms of investment, venture capital is subject to cycles of

boom and bust. In particular, from the mid-1990s onwards, the financial
community’s beliefs shifted in favor of venture capital-backed start-ups.
This led to a massive transfer of financial resources from traditional sectors
to the new economy. The dynamic companies that wield so much influence
today (Intel, Cisco, Microsoft, etc.) are considered to be the top players from
among those start-ups that will succeed in establishing themselves on the
market. From that point forward:
“Analysts do not examine the solidity of their organizations, let

alone how viable they are, because they are convinced of the
specificity of start-ups: they must spend the funds they receive
from venture capitalists very quickly, because they are the first
company likely to take the entire market. As a result, financiers
will reward ambitious entrepreneurs who consume and actually
waste large amounts of capital” [BOY 02, p. 114].
In addition, the proliferation of venture capital firms has the effect of

promoting the creation of young and inexperienced funds with very limited
industrial skills and experience. These organizations have no qualms with
refinancing new companies that apply for different “financing rounds”, even
though their losses have increased.
This implies that newly created start-ups can easily find financial
resources. And the result of this is a net destruction of capital invested in the
disappearance of young companies from the new economy. This trend began
when the dot-com bubble burst (in the early 2000s) and the drop in stock
prices occurred. This led to a contraction in investment and employment,
which first affected the financial sector and then spread to the sectors of the
new economy.
The Schumpeterian model no longer applies, since capital is destroyed in

the economy by the very act of financing new innovative companies, which
are supposed to provide opportunities for profit. In addition, there is a clear
crowding out effect, as traditional sectors are deprived of financial resources
to ensure their steady growth.
Over the past 10 years, it is possible to identify periods of subsidence

linked to the 2008 crisis (we talk about the deep depression suffered by
venture capital in Europe) and a boom (in the case of France, news outlets
report that “French start-ups are celebrating”). During this last phase, we
might note an open and not very selective access to capital, provided that the
innovative project is part of the digital economy? In reality, history does not
repeat itself [GUI 18b].
A recent work [ALO 17] analyzes the relationship between the change in
the productive fabric and the increase in labor productivity in the United
States. Despite the introduction of new digital technologies, productivity
growth dropped by more than half between 1995 and 2015 (from 2.8% to
1.3%).
Conclusion 147
Young firms1 contribute quickly and significantly to productivity growth.

But the difference compared to firms that are already established and more
mature (20 years and older) is rapidly decreasing. Two-thirds of the effect
disappears after five years, and the effect completely disappears after
10 years. Productivity gains are also affected by the entry/exit process of
firms. However, the entry rate of new firms has been declining since the
mid-1990s, resulting in a decrease in the number of firms in all sectors,
including ICT. More specifically, the exit rate significantly exceeded the
entry rate between 2008 and 2011, and the net creation rate remained slightly
positive until 2015. Many studies highlight the decline in entrepreneurial
dynamism and note that the share of employment attributed to new firms has
fallen by 30% over the past 30 years.
The authors cited above have determined two distinct periods: 1996–2004
(high productivity), and 2005–2016 (low productivity), and make two
observations. The first is that the innovations implemented within firms have
a much weaker influence on productivity than market forces exerted on
young firms through the effects of the selection and reallocation of economic
activity (inefficient newcomers lose market share and exit very quickly). The
decline in entrepreneurial dynamism is reflected by a deficit in the number
of start-ups, and the lasting effect of this deficit that gains in productivity
slowed by about 0.5%. It also reflects a strengthening of the concentration
and market power of the most dynamic and productive firms described by
Autor et al. as “Superstar” firms [AUT 17].
This is a complete departure from Schumpeterian dynamics, since the

effects obtained on the market have a greater influence on productivity than
the innovations made within firms. The second observation is that the most
productive firms already established have not gained market share at the
expense of the least productive firms. In the case of established firms, it is
widely accepted that as one firm increases its productivity, another firm will
see its productivity decrease. This blocking of the reallocation of added
value between mature firms more than compensates for the modest
productivity gains achieved within firms.
1 Young firms are those between 0 and 19 years old. This does not generally match up to the
firms selected to be used as samples in this work.
Artus [ART 18] explains how Schumpeterian dynamics are blocked by

two factors. First, very low interest rates significantly reduce companies’
interest charges, and have artificially allowed inefficient companies to
continue their operations. Second, wage stagnation and the distortion of
income sharing to favor profits have increased profitability and helped to
keep low-productivity firms in business, despite a marked development of
digital technologies in OECD countries.
While overall productivity growth is slowing, productivity gains are

nevertheless dispersed among firms due to the slowdown in the spread of
new technology. Research conducted in 40 countries and across many
sectors indicates the existence of a U-shaped curve, a kind of “productivity
trap” whose edges are made up of young firms with low initial productivity
but rapid growth, and large firms with high productivity. The companies
caught in this trap are no different in size than the large companies located at
the top of the distribution. On the other hand, they suffer from a low
efficiency of their intangible inputs, particularly in knowledge- and
technology-intensive activities.
This can be explained by the strategies of Superstar firms that block the
spread of digital knowledge and technologies, by capturing growing market
shares and protecting their intellectual assets (a practice evidenced by the
decrease in the speed of patent citations). The slowdown in the spread of
technology maintains the dispersion of gains in productivity. A command of
Big Data and the best tools to use this data allow the most dynamic firms to
provide better services and reinforce their advantages. They are part of a
virtuous circle, since this strategy makes it possible to consolidate their
markets, make their products and services essential to consumers, and lead to
quasi-monopolistic situations (by using their market power to erect barriers
to entry and protect their dominant position – particularly by buying up start-
ups financed by venture capital). This runs contrary to what was theorized by
Schumpeter, which reduced monopolistic practices to the objective of
restricting production by increasing selling prices.
The transition to a new technological regime involves a principle of

selection in that some organizations have shown themselves capable of
creating their own environment, and therefore of escaping from a situation in
which they would be forced to adapt by learning to organize a fully
completed whole that they can appreciate and modify under the benevolent
Conclusion 149
guidance of the authorities of competition2. The result of this is a very

significant increase in the costs of adopting technology for a large number of
companies, which leaves them caught in the productivity trap. Indeed, digital
technologies take a considerable amount of time to operate effectively, most
likely several years. Threshold effects must be achieved, and additional
investments are needed, such as the redesign of processes, training expenses,
changes in the company’s organizational structure, etc. [BRY 17]. Thus,
maintaining national and international competition in this field requires
increasing both the stock of tangible and intangible capital available to
companies.
Schumpeterian dynamics are disrupted in the United States for several

reasons. First, innovation is not effective in rebuilding the productive
system, including the start-up deficit, decline in entrepreneurial dynamism,
increased concentration on activities benefiting from high returns of scale
and network effects, the maintenance of operations, and especially of old and
unproductive companies.
Second, the difference in output growth rates between the most dynamic
and less dynamic firms was 16% in the 1990s. It fell to 4% in 2008 and
beyond. It even turned negative in 2011. This begs the question as to
whether this can be interpreted as a slow movement toward the
homogenization of the American economy, characterized by less dispersed
output growth rates and minor differences between dynamic and less
dynamic firms. This observation, if proven true, is not insignificant nor the
most pleasant for economists addressing another question: how can they
reconcile the logic of the digital economy based on the principle of “winner
take all” (increasing returns and decoupling of the market space from
production) and the strategy of massive data appropriation and control by
some firms with the assumption that the models of economic dynamism of
the different sectors are becoming more and more similar? This remains a
mystery: “Something has happened to the incentives or the ability to be a
high-growth firm in the high tech sector” [DEC 15, p. 22].
2 “Some American business leaders have found ingenious ways of creating barriers to the
market to prevent any form of serious competition, helped by lax enforcement of existing
competition laws and the lack of updating of these laws for the 21st Century economy. As a
result, the share of new businesses in the United States is declining” [STI 19].
Third, the start-up deficit is troubling. These companies are the most
productive and profitable, and are the most likely to make major innovations,
thanks in particular to high spending on R&D. They are not run by
“subsistence entrepreneurs”, but by “transformational entrepreneurs” [SCH
10] who run these companies with high growth potential in high-tech
sectors. This is particularly true in knowledge-intensive services (software,
Internet service provision, web portals, etc.) and in certain industrial sectors
(IT, peripherals, etc.), that is in activities with the highest percentage of
STEM workers.
Fourth, it is possible to analyze these trends as a challenge to the logic of

venture capital. The statistics available to us clearly indicate an increased
weight of the unlisted to the detriment of listing and initial public offering
(IPO). As Artus recently pointed out, there were more than 8,000 companies
listed in the United States 20 years ago, while today there are only 3,8003.
This context means there are less runaway and speculative bubbles for
venture capital, but also more exits done through a sale to other companies,
which can increase the concentration and market power of large companies.
Finally, could we be witnessing a reversal of the mechanisms? Creative

destruction means that the new replaces the old (which means that it is low-
producing companies that disappear, and not traditional activities) and this
brings productivity gains that are essential for improving living standards.
Since 2005 and ever since then, innovation has tended to make existing
structures more rigid. New elements appear without making any significant
progress (“Gordon’s thesis”), unproductive firms are maintained thanks to
monetary policies compatible with their needs, technological diffusion slows
down, and concentration increases and promotes the creation of monopoly
rents.
3 “There are several fundamental reasons for this movement. The trend towards mergers and
acquisitions over the past two years has obviously contributed to the downgrading of this
rating. Companies have become larger and more dominant, as have the GAFAs, which buy up
many start-ups, or even kill their competitors” [MAU 19].
References
[AGH 17] AGHION P., “Entrepreneurship and growth: Lessons from an intellectual
journey”, Small Business Economics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–24, 2017.
[ALA 10] ALAIN, Idées. Introduction à la philosophie, Flammarion, Paris, 2010.
[ALO 17] ALON T., BERGER D., DENT R., PUGSLEY B., Older and slower: The start-
up deficit’s lasting effects on aggregate productivity growth, Working document,
NBER, 2017.
[AMA 99] AMABLE B., PAILLARD S., PETIT P., Finance and innovation: Venturing on
the risk frontier, Report, TSER/European Commission, 1999.
[AMO 17] AMOROSO S., AUDRETSCH D.B., LINK A.N., Sources of knowledge used
by entrepreneurial firms in the European high-tech sector, Working document,
JRC, 2017.
[ANT 09] ANTONELLI C., TEUBAL M., Venture capital as a mechanism for
knowledge governance: New markets and innovation-led economic growth,
Working document, University of Turin, 2009.
[ARM 04] ARMOUR J., CUMMING D., The legal road to replicating Silicon Valley,
Working document, University of Cambridge, 2004.
[ART 16] ARTUS P., “Y a-t-il un problème de financement des entreprises en
France ?”, Natixis, Flash Economie, no. 1390, pp. 1–6, 2016.
[ART 18] ARTUS P., “Si ‘Schumpeter’ revient, il va falloir en assumer les
conséquences sur l’emploi”, Natixis, Flash Economie, no. 401, pp. 1–6, 2018.
[AUT 17] AUTOR D., DORN D., KATZ L.F., PATTERSON C., VAN REENEN J., The fall
of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms, Working document, NBER,
2017.

[BAL 08] BALLOU J., BARTON T., DESROCHES D., POTTER F., REEDY E.J., ROBB A.,
SHANE S., ZHAO Z., “The Kauffman firm survey: Results from the baseline and
first follow-up surveys”, The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2008.
[BER 10] BERNOTH K., COLAVECCHIO R., SASS M., Drivers of private equity
investment in CEE and Western European countries, Working document,
German Institute for Economic Research, 2010.
[BER 11] BERTONI F., COLOMBO M.G., GRILLI L., “Venture capital financing and
the growth of high-tech start-ups: Disentangling treatment from selection
effects”, Research Policy, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1028–1043, 2011.
[BLO 16] BLOOM N., SADUN R., VAN REENEN J., Management as a technology,
Working document, NBER, 2016.
[BOE 10] BOETTKE P.J., “What happened to efficient markets?”, The Independent
Review, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 363–375, 2010.
[BON 12] BONINI S., ALKAN S., “The political and legal determinants of venture
capital investments around the world”, Small Business Economics, vol. 39, no. 4,
pp. 997–1016, 2012.
[BOY 02] BOYER R., La croissance, début de siècle. De l’octet au gène, Albin
Michel, Paris, 2002.
[BPI 17] BPIFRANCE, Capital-investissement, Working document, PCN Horizon
2020, 2017.
[BRY 17] BRYNJOLFSSON E., ROCK D., SYVERSON C., Artificial intelligence and the
modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics, Working
document, NBER, 2017.
[CAR 02] CARPENTER R.E., PETERSEN B.C., “Capital market imperfections, high
tech investment, and new equity financing”, Economic Journal, vol. 112,
no. 477, pp. F54–F72, 2002.
[CAS 00] CASPER S., “Institutional adaptiveness, technology policy, and the
diffusion of new business models: The case of German biotechnology”,
Organization Studies, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 888–914, 2000.
[CAS 17] CASSINI S., MARIN J., “Les start-up françaises à la fête”, Le Monde,
January 2017.
[CAU 17] CAULIER S., “Quand les grands du CAC 40 jouent au capital-risque”, Le
Monde, April 2017.
[CIN 13] CINCERA M., VEUGELERS R., Differences in the rate of return to R&D for
European and US young leading R&D firms, Working document, KU Leuven,
2013.
References 153
[CIN 15] CINCERA M., RAVET J., VEUGELERS R., “The sensitivity of R&D investments
to cash-flows: Comparing young and old EU and US leading innovators”,
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2015.
[COH 90] COHEN W.M., LEVINTHAL D.A., “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1,
pp. 128–152, 1990.
[COH 12] COHENDET P., GAFFARD J.L., “Coordination, incitation et création de
connaissance”, Management International, vol. 16, pp. 11–19, 2012.
[COH 14] COHEN S.G., HOCHBERG Y.V., “Accelerating start-up: The seed
accelerator phenomenon”, SSRN Electronic Journal, March, 2014, available at:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2418000.
[COL 14] COLOMBO M.G., CUMMING D., MOHAMMADI A., ROSSI-LAMASTRA C.,
WADHWA A., Open business models and venture capital finance, Working
document, CESIS, 2014.
[COM 18] COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE, 2,1 milliards d’euros pour stimuler les
investissements de capital-risque dans les start-up innovantes en Europe, Press
release, VentureEU, 2018.
[CRO 16] CROCE A., GRILLI L., MARTINU S., “Why do entrepreneurs refuse venture
capital?”, SSRN Electronic Journal, March 2016.
[DEC 15] DECKER R.A., HALTIWANGER J., JARMIN R.S., MIRANDA J., Where has the
skewness gone? The decline in high-growth (young) firms in the US, Working
document, NBER, 2015.
[DEM 18] DEMENET A., “La recherche publique française en comparaison
internationale”, Trésor-éco, no. 219, 2018.
[DEV 17] DEVASHREE S., MURO M., “Cleantech venture capital: Continued decline
and narrow geographic prospects”, Brookings, pp. 1–11, 2017.
[DIM 08] DIMOV D., MURRAY G., “Determinants of the incidence and scale of seed
capital investments by venture capital firms”, Small Business Economics,
no. 30, pp. 127–152, 2008.
[DUB 03] DUBOCAGE E., RIVAUD-DANSET D., “L’émergence du capital-risque : la
politique publique française”, Les notes de l’IFRI, no. 55, pp. 1–64, 2003.
[DUE 17] DUEZ E., HISQUIN F., “Et à la fin, c’est la tortue qui gagne”, Le Monde,
January 2017.
[EIF 16] EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND, The European venture capital landscape:
An EIF perspective, vol. 1: The impact of EIF on the VC ecosystem, Working
document, EIF, 2016.
[EKE 16] EKELAND M., LANDIER A., TIROLE J., “Renforcer le capital-risque français”,
Les notes du conseil d’analyse économique, no. 33, Paris, pp. 1–12, 2016.
[FAM 95] FAMA E.F., “Random walks in stock market prices”, Financial Analysts
Journal, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 75–80, 1995.
[FEL 13] FELIX E.G.S., PIRES, C.P., GULAMHUSSEN M.A., “The determinants of
venture capital in Europe – Evidence across countries”, Journal of Financial
Services Research, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 259–279, 2013.
[FEL 14] FELDMAN R., “Patents demands & start-up companies: The view from the
venture capital community”, Yale Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 1–50, 2014.
[FLE 01] FLEMING L., “Recombinant uncertainty in technological search”,
Management Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 112–132, 2001.
[FOS 08] FOSS N.J., KLEIN P.G., KOR Y.Y., MAHONEY J.T., “Entrepreneurship,
subjectivism and the resource-based view: toward a new synthesis”, Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 73–94, 2008.
[FRA 16] FRANCE STRATÉGIE, Quinze ans de politique d’innovation en France,
Report, Commission nationale d’évaluation des politiques d’innovation, 2016.
[FRA 17] FRANCE STRATÉGIE, Mobiliser l’épargne pour le financement des start-up,
Projet 2017/2027, Premier ministre, 2017.
[GAR 17] GARCIA-MACIA D., HSIEH C.-T., KLENOW O.J., How destructive is
innovation?, Working document, CES, 2017.
[GIL 02] GILSON R.J., Engineering a venture capital market: Lessons from the
American experience, Research document, Stanford Law School, 2002.
[GOM 98] GOMPERS P.A., LERNER J., “What drives venture capital fundraising?”,
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, no. 1, pp. 149–192,
1998.
[GOM 08] GOMPERS P.A., KOVNER A., LERNER J., SCHARFSTEIN D.S., Performance
Persistence in Entrepreneurship, Working document, Harvard Business School,
2008.
[GOM 09] GOMPERS P., KOVNER A., LERNER J., “Specialization and success:
Evidence from venture capital”, Journal of Economics and Management
Strategy, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 817–844, 2009.
[GON 13] GONZALES-URIBE J., Venture capital and the diffusion of knowledge,
Working document, Columbia GSB, 2013.
References 155
[GOR 15] GORNALL W., STREBULAEV I.A., The economic impact of venture capital:
Evidence from public companies, Working document, Stanford University
Graduate School of Business, 2015.
[GRI 14] GRILLI L., MARTINU S., “Government, venture capital and the growth of
European high-tech entrepreneurial firms”, Research Policy, vol. 43, no. 9,
pp. 1523–1543, 2014.
[GRI 15] GRILLI L., MARTINU S., “New technology-based firms in Europe: Market
penetration, public venture capital and timing of investment”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1109–1148, 2015.
[GUI 04] GUILHON B., Les marchés de la connaissance, Economica, Paris, 2004.
[GUI 08] GUILHON B., MONTCHAUD S., Le capital-risque mécanisme de
financement de l’innovation, Hermes-Lavoisier, Paris, 2008.
[GUI 12] GUILHON B., Les paradoxes de l’économie du savoir, Hermes-Lavoisier,
Paris, 2012.
[GUI 13] GUILHON B., “Quand l’innovation est prise au piège”, Le Monde, May,
2013.
[GUI 15] GUILHON B., MONTCHAUD S., “The impact of basic conditions on
investment in the venture capital industry. Evidence from European countries”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, vol. 19,
no. 3/4, pp. 194–214, 2015.
[GUI 16a] GUILHON B., “Technologies, complexité et anxiété”, Les Echos, September
2016, available at: http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/entreprises-marches.
[GUI 16b] GUILHON B., MONTCHAUD S., “An econometric study of the determinants
of high-tech private equity investment in Europe”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 441–467, 2016.
[GUI 17a] GUILHON B., Innovation and Production Ecosystems, ISTE Ltd, London
and John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2017.
[GUI 17b] GUILHON B., “Économie digitale et capital-risque : des relations
croisées”, Économie Matin, November 2017.
[GUI 17c] GUILHON B., “Le capital-risque : un simple phénomène de marché ?”,
The Conversation, December 2017.
[GUI 18a] GUILHON B., “La recherche publique française semble manquer
d’efficience”, Manifeste pour l’industrie, May 2018, available at:
http://manifestepourlindustrie.org/lu-pour-vous/sur-lindustrie/.
[GUI 18b] GUILHON B., “Quand vous entendez ‘destruction créatrice’, méfiez-
vous…”, The Conversation, October 2018.
[HAL 01] HALL P.A., SOSKICE D., Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional
Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
[HAL 07] HALL R.E., WODWARD S.E., The quantitative economics of venture
capital, Working document, University of Stanford, 2007.
[HAL 10a] HALL B.H., “The financing of innovative firms”, Review of Economics
and Institutions, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2010.
[HAL 10b] HALL R.E., WOODWARD S.E., “The burden of the nondiversifiable risk
of entrepreneurship”, American Economic Review, no. 100, pp. 1163–1194,
2010.
[HAN 99] HANCKÉ B., “Varieties of capitalism revisited: Globalisation and
comparative institutional advantage”, La lettre de la régulation, no. 3, pp. 1–4,
1999.
[HEG 01] HEGE U., “L’évaluation et le financement des start-up internet”, Revue
économique, vol. 52, pp. 291–312, 2001.
[HEL 17] HELLMANN T., SCHURE P., VO D., Angels and venture capitalists:
Complements or substitutes?, Working document, Saïd Business School, 2017.
[HÖL 16] HÖLZL W., “High-growth firms in Europe”, in Science, Research and
Innovation of the EU, pp. 247–276, European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
[HOP 14] HOPKINS M., LAZONICK W., Who invests in the high-tech knowledge
base?, Working document, The Academic-Industry Research Network, 2014.
[INV 16] INVEST EUROPE, 2015 European private equity activity, statistics on
fundraising, investments and divestments, Report, Invest Europe, 2016.
[INV 17] INVEST EUROPE, 2016 European private equity activity, statistics on
fundraising, investments and divestments, Report, Invest Europe, 2017.
[JEN 00] JENG L.A., WELLS P.C., “The determinants of venture capital funding:
Evidence across countries”, Journal of Corporate Finance, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 241–289, 2000.
[JOL 16] JOLINK A., NIESTEN E., “The impact of venture capital on governance
decisions in collaborations with start-ups”, Small Business Economics, vol. 47,
pp. 331–344, 2016.
[KAP 03] KAPLAN S.N., STROMBERG P., Venture capitalists as economic principals,
Report, NBER, 2003.
[KEN 04] KENNEY M., PATTON D., Supporting the high-technology entrepreneur:
Support network, geographies for semiconductor, telecommunications
equipment and biotechnological start-ups, Working document, BRIE, 2004.
References 157
[KEN 11] KENNEY M., “How venture capital became a component of the U.S. NSI”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1677–1723, 2011.
[KEN 16] KENNEY M., ZYSMAN J., “The rise of the platform economy”, Issues in
Science and Technology, vol. XXXII, no. 3, pp. 61–69, 2016.
[KER 14a] KERR W.R., NANDA R., RHODES-KROPF M., Entrepreneurship as
experimentation, Working document, Harvard Business School, 2014.
[KER 14b] KERR W., NANDA R., Financing innovation, Working document, Harvard
Business School, 2014.
[KOR 00] KORTUM S., LERNER J., “Assessing the contribution of venture capital to
innovation”, The RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 674–692,
2000.
[LAH 16] LAHR H., MINA A., “Venture capital investments and the technological
performance of portfolio firms”, Research Policy, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 303–318,
2016.
[LAL 17] LALLEMENT R., Intellectual Property and Innovation Protection: New
Practices and New Policy Issues, ISTE Ltd, London and John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 2017.
[LAN 02] LANGLOIS R.N., “Modularity in technology and organization”, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 49, pp.19–37, 2002.
[LAN 16] LANGLEY P., LEYSCHON A., “Platform capitalism: The intermediation and
capitalisation of digital economic circulation”, Finance and Society, pp. 1–21,
2016.
[LAZ 11] LAZER D., MERGEL I., ZINIEL C., ESTERLING K.M., NEBLO M.A., “The
multiple institutional logics of innovation”, International Public Management
Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 311–340, 2011.
[LEI 93] LEIJONHUFVUD A., “Towards a not too rational macroeconomics”,
Southern Economic Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1993.
[LEO 11] LEONARDI P.M., “Innovation blindness: Culture, frames, and cross-
boundary problem construction in the development of new technology
concepts”, Organization Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 347–369, 2011.
[MAN 06] MANN R.J., SAGERT T.W., “Patents, venture capital, and software start-
ups”, Research Policy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 1–16, 2006.
[MAU 13] MAULA M., KEIL T., ZAHRA S., “Top management’s attention to
discontinuous technological change: Corporate venture capital as an alert
mechanism”, Organization Science, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 926–947, 2013.
[MAU 19] MAUJEAN G., “La Bourse se vide, la Bourse se meurt”, Les Echos, April
2019.
[MAZ 14] MAZZUCATO M., PENNA C.R., Beyond market failures. The market
creating and shaping roles of state investment banks, Working document, SPRU,
2014.
[MEY 06] MEYER T., “Private equity: Spice for European economies”, Journal of
Financial Transformation, no. 18, pp. 61–69, 2006.
[MUR 15] MURO M., ROTHWELL J., ANDES S., FIKRI K., KU LKARNI S., “America’s
advanced industries: What they are, where they are, and why they matter”,
Brookings, February 2015.
[NAN 12] NANDA R., RHODES-KROPF M., Investment cycles and start-up innovation,
Working document, Harvard Business School, 2012.
[NIG 14] NIGHTINGALE P., What is technology? Six definitions and two pathologies,
Working document, SPRU, 2014.
[NUN 17] NUNES E., “A Eura Technologie, les chercheurs parlent aux entreprises”, Le
Monde, January 2017.
[NVC 18] NVCA, NVCA 2017 Yearbook, PitchBook, Seattle, 2018.
[OEC 18a] OECD, Panorama de l’entrepreneuriat 2017, OECD, Paris, 2018.
[OEC 18b] OECD, Entrepreneurship at a glance highlights, 2018, available at:
https://www.oecd.org/sdd/business-stats/EAG-2018-Highlights.pdf.
[PAI 17] PAIK Y., WOO Y., “The effects of corporate venture capital, founder
incumbency, and their interaction on entrepreneurial firms’ R&D investment
strategies”, Organization Science, June 2017, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.2017.1133.
[PAR 16] PARK H.D., TZABBAR D., “Venture capital, CEOs’ sources of power, and
innovation novelty at different life stages of a new venture”, Organization
Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 336–353, 2016.
[POP 11] POPOV A., ROOSENBOOM P., “Venture capital and industrial innovation”,
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009.
[PUR 11] PURI M., ZARUTSKIE R., “On the life cycle dynamics of venture capital
and non venture capital financed firms”, The Journal of Finance, 2011, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01786.x.
[PWC 17] PWC, CB insights money tree, Report, 2017.
[RIN 11] RIN M. (DA), HELLMANN T., PURI M., A survey of venture capital research,
Working document, TILEC, no. 2011–111, 2011.
References 159
[RIN 16] RIN M. (DA), First high-level follow-up dialogue on financing for
development in Asia and the Pacific, Working document, Incheon, 2016.
[RIN 17] RIN M. (DA), PENAS M.F., “Venture capital and innovation strategies”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 781–800, 2017.
[ROM 04] ROMAIN A., VAN POTTELSBERGHE B., The determinants of venture
capital: Additional evidence, Working document, Deutsche Bundesbank, 2004.
[ROS 11] ROSIELLO A., AVNIMELECH G., TEUBAL M., “Towards a systemic and
evolutionary framework for venture capital policy”, Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, vol. 21, pp. 167–189, 2011.
[ROS 11] ROSANVALLON P., La société des égaux, Le Seuil, Paris, 2011.
[SCH 51] SCHUMPETER J., Capitalisme, socialisme et démocratie, Payot, Lausanne,
1951.
[SCH 80] SCHERER F.M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1980.
[SCH 98] SCHARFSTEIN D.S., The darkside of internal capital markets II: Evidence
from diversified conglomerates, Working document, 1998.
[SCH 10] SCHOAR A., “The divide between subsistence and transformational
entrepreneurship”, in J. LERNER, S. STERN (eds), Innovation Policy and the
Economy, vol. 10, pp. 57–81, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2010.
[SEG 19] SEGRESTIN B., “Faire le pari de l’investisseur éclairé n’est plus tenable”,
Le Monde, March 2019.
[SHA 13] SHACHMUROVE E., SHACHMUROVE Y., Environmental economics and
venture capital, Working document, PIER, 2013.
[SIM 83] SIMON H., Administration et processus de décision, Economica, Paris, 1983.
[SIN 13] SINGH K., Institutions and venture capital, PhD thesis, Université de
Technologie de Delft, 2013.
[SOD 12] SÖDERBLOM A., “The current state of the venture capital industry”,
Näringspolitiskt forum, 2012.
[SPE 09] SPENCER A., “‘Super angels’ shake up venture capital”, Bloomberg
Businessweek, May 2009, available at: http://www.businessweek.com/
magazine/content/09_22/b4133044585602.html.
[STI 03] STIGLITZ J.E., “Information and the change in the paradigm in economics”,
in R. ARNOTT, B. GREENWALD, R. KANBUR, B. NALEBUFF (eds), Economics for an
Imperfect World. Essays in Honor of Joseph Stiglitz, MIT Press, Cambridge,
2003.
[STI 19] STIGLITZ J.E., “Market concentration is threatening the US economy”,

Project Syndicate, 2019.
[STU 03] STUART T., SORENSON O., “The geography of opportunity: Spatial
heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms”,
Research Policy, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 229–253, 2003.
[SYV 14] SYVERSON C., “The importance of measuring dispersion in firm-level
outcomes”, IZA World of Labor, vol. 53, pp. 1–10, 2014.
[TER 16] TER WAL A.L.J., ALEXY O., BLOCK J., SANDNER P., “The best of both
worlds: The benefits of open-specialised and closed-diverse syndication
networks for new ventures’ success”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 61,
no. 3, pp. 393–432, 2016.
[TVE 82] TVERSKY A., KAHNEMAN D., Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristic
and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
[VAN 92] VANBERG V., “Innovation, cultural evolution and economic growth”,
in U. WITT (ed.), Explaining Process and Change, pp. 105–121, University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1992.
[VEN 17] VENTURE PULSE., “Global analysis of venture funding 2017”, KPMG
Enterprise, 2017.
[VEN 19] VENTURE PULSE., “Global analysis of venture funding 2018”, KPMG
Enterprise, 2019.
[VEU 11] VEUGELERS R., “Mind Europe’s early-stage equity gap”, Bruegel Policy
Contribution, no. 18, pp. 1–10, 2011.
[VEU 15] VEUGELERS R., CINCERA M., “The impact of horizon 2020 on innovation
in Europe”, Intereconomics Forum, 2015.
[VIC 11] VICO PROJECT., “Venture capital. Policy lessons from the VICO project”,
Seventh Framework Programme, 2011.
[WOL 16] WOLF M., TERRELL D., “The high-tech industry, what is it and why it
matters to our economic future”, Beyond the Numbers, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 1–9,
2016.
[ZAH 02] ZAHRA S.A., GEORGE G., “Absorptive capacity: A review,
reconceptualization, and extension”, The Academy of Management Review,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 185–203, 2002.
[ZIN 00] ZINGALES L., “In search of new foundation”, Journal of Finance, vol. 55,
no. 4, pp. 1623–1653, 2000.
Index
A, C I
angels, 5, 38, 39, 64, 68, 89, 90, 113 ICT, 15, 33, 44–46, 48, 49, 51,
capital development, 4, 111, 113 55–57, 63, 68, 71, 89, 106, 120,
co-evolution, 101, 102, 140 147
incremental, 28, 38, 59, 136, 138
D, E industrial structures, 67
innovator, 6, 10, 23, 37, 38, 42, 68,
development, 4, 5, 20, 22–24, 26, 29,
69, 100, 119, 144
32, 33, 35, 36, 42, 51, 55–58, 62,
institutional, 1–4, 16, 32, 37, 38, 55,
66, 74, 76, 78, 80, 87–89, 92–95,
66, 67, 71, 74–76, 78, 81, 87,
97, 101, 107, 113–118, 126–131,
91–94, 103, 109, 121, 124,
137–143, 148
126–132, 135–141, 145
digital economy, 42, 47, 53–55, 58,
intangible assets, 6, 10, 58, 70, 94,
89, 146, 149
104
dynamic, 34, 38, 39, 41, 92, 94–96,
100, 102, 104, 107, 118, 122,
K, L
125–127, 130, 131, 132, 135, 142,
143–149 knowledge, 9–11, 17–21, 24–35, 37,
endogeneity, 12 42, 48, 55–58, 62, 63, 66, 67,
entrepreneur, 1–23, 28, 36–39, 59, 69–71, 74, 76, 77, 88, 92–106,
62, 68, 71, 75, 76, 87, 88, 94, 95, 116–118, 122, 126, 135, 137, 140,
98–101, 103, 104, 108, 116–118, 148, 150
120, 122, 126, 131, 135, 140, 144, instrumental, 9, 19, 143
146, 150 interpretative, 9, 19, 27, 70, 103,
entrepreneurial ecosystem, 71, 126, 104, 143
140 learning, 8, 9, 56–58, 69, 73, 90,
externalities, 99, 101 94–98, 101–106, 126, 140, 141,
148

location, 35, 43, 51, 62, 69, 93, 96, reverse causality, 12, 28
99, 107, 113 reward, 6, 37, 38, 57, 70, 146
seed, 5, 9, 36, 86, 97, 113, 123, 134,
O, P 143
skills, 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 21, 28, 32,
open innovation, 120
36–39, 50, 55, 58, 62, 68, 71, 88,
production, 9, 20, 35, 41, 44, 55, 57,
98–100, 109, 118, 135–138, 146
58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 72, 74, 86, 92,
start-ups, 2–20, 23, 24, 27, 29, 33–38,
94, 95, 103, 110, 144, 148, 149
41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 56–58,
public
62, 63, 65–69, 71, 74, 86, 91, 94,
authorities, 5, 88, 102, 104, 114,
97, 101, 102, 105, 106, 111, 113,
122, 141
114, 117–122, 134, 135, 138, 141,
policies, 55, 73, 87, 99, 102, 125,
145–150
128, 142
U, Y
R, S
uncertainty, 47, 70–73, 87, 97,
R&D, 6, 10, 12, 17, 20, 23, 29–32,
103–105, 128, 136, 145
36, 45–48, 56–58, 61–63, 67, 68,
yollies, 67–69
74, 77–82, 86, 88, 90, 98, 104–107,
113–118, 123, 130, 132, 133, 135,
137, 142, 145, 150
radical innovations, 38, 59, 71, 91,
136, 138, 139, 144
resources, 4, 7, 9–11, 25, 28, 32–39,
47, 54, 58, 66–71, 77–80, 90, 95,
96, 100, 101, 105, 106, 109, 115,
116, 119–121, 132, 133, 137, 145,
146
Other titles from
in
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management
2019
AMENDOLA Mario, GAFFARD Jean-Luc
Disorder and Public Concern Around Globalization
BARBAROUX Pierre
Disruptive Technology and Defence Innovation Ecosystems
(Innovation in Engineering and Technology Set – Volume 5)
DOU Henri, JUILLET Alain, CLERC Philippe
Strategic Intelligence for the Future 1: A New Strategic and Operational
Approach
Strategic Intelligence for the Future 2: A New Information Function
Approach
FRIKHA Azza
Measurement in Marketing: Operationalization of Latent Constructs
FRIMOUSSE Soufyane
Innovation and Agility in the Digital Age
(Human Resources Management Set – Volume 2)
GAY Claudine, SZOSTAK Bérangère L.
Innovation and Creativity in SMEs: Challenges, Evolutions and Prospects
(Smart Innovation Set – Volume 21)
GORIA Stéphane, HUMBERT Pierre, ROUSSEL Benoît
Information, Knowledge and Agile Creativity
HELLER David
Investment Decision-making Using Optional Models
(Economic Growth Set – Volume 2)
HELLER David, DE CHADIRAC Sylvain, HALAOUI Lana, JOUVET Camille
The Emergence of Start-ups
(Economic Growth Set – Volume 1)
HÉRAUD Jean-Alain, KERR Fiona, BURGER-HELMCHEN Thierry
Creative Management of Complex Systems
LATOUCHE Pascal
Open Innovation: Corporate Incubator
(Innovation and Technology Set – Volume 7)
LEHMANN Paul-Jacques
The Future of the Euro Currency
LEIGNEL Jean-Louis, MÉNAGER Emmanuel, YABLONSKY Serge
Sustainable Enterprise Performance: A Comprehensive Evaluation Method
LIÈVRE Pascal, AUBRY Monique, GAREL Gilles
Management of Extreme Situations: From Polar Expeditions to Exploration-
Oriented Organizations
MILLOT Michel
Embarrassment of Product Choices 2: Towards a Society of Well-being
N’GOALA Gilles, PEZ-PÉRARD Virginie, PRIM-ALLAZ Isabelle
Augmented Customer Strategy: CRM in the Digital Age
NIKOLOVA Blagovesta
The RRI Challenge: Responsibilization in a State of Tension with Market
Regulation
(Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 3)
PELLEGRIN-BOUCHER Estelle, ROY Pierre
Innovation in the Cultural and Creative Industries
PRIOLON Joël
Financial Markets for Commodities
QUINIOU Matthieu
Blockchain: The Advent of Disintermediation
RAVIX Joël-Thomas, DESCHAMPS Marc
Innovation and Industrial Policies
(Innovation Between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 5)
ROGER Alain, VINOT Didier
Skills Management: New Applications, New Questions
(Human Resources Management Set – Volume 1)
SAULAIS Pierre, ERMINE Jean-Louis
Knowledge Management in Innovative Companies 1: Understanding and
Deploying a KM Plan within a Learning Organization
SERVAJEAN-HILST Romaric
Co-innovation Dynamics: The Management of Client-Supplier Interactions
for Open Innovation
SKIADAS Christos H., BOZEMAN James R.
Data Analysis and Applications 1: Clustering and Regression, Modeling-
estimating, Forecasting and Data Mining
(Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis Set – Volume 2)
Data Analysis and Applications 2: Utilization of Results in Europe and
Other Topics
VIGEZZI Michel
World Industrialization: Shared Inventions, Competitive Innovations and
Social Dynamics
2018
BURKHARDT Kirsten
Private Equity Firms: Their Role in the Formation of Strategic Alliances
CALLENS Stéphane
Creative Globalization
CASADELLA Vanessa
Innovation Systems in Emerging Economies: MINT – Mexico, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Turkey
CHOUTEAU Marianne, FOREST Joëlle, NGUYEN Céline
Science, Technology and Innovation Culture
CORLOSQUET-HABART Marine, JANSSEN Jacques
Big Data for Insurance Companies
CROS Françoise
Innovation and Society
DEBREF Romain
Environmental Innovation and Ecodesign: Certainties and Controversies
DOMINGUEZ Noémie
SME Internationalization Strategies: Innovation to Conquer New Markets
ERMINE Jean-Louis
Knowledge Management: The Creative Loop
GILBERT Patrick, BOBADILLA Natalia, GASTALDI Lise,
LE BOULAIRE Martine, LELEBINA Olga
Innovation, Research and Development Management
IBRAHIMI Mohammed
Mergers & Acquisitions: Theory, Strategy, Finance
LEMAÎTRE Denis
Training Engineers for Innovation
LÉVY Aldo, BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal
Financial Management: USGAAP and IFRS Standards
MILLOT Michel
Embarrassment of Product Choices 1: How to Consume Differently
PANSERA Mario, OWEN Richard
Innovation and Development: The Politics at the Bottom of the Pyramid
(Innovation and Responsibility Set – Volume 2)
RICHEZ Yves
Corporate Talent Detection and Development
SACHETTI Philippe, ZUPPINGER Thibaud
New Technologies and Branding
SAMIER Henri
Intuition, Creativity, Innovation
TEMPLE Ludovic, COMPAORÉ SAWADOGO Eveline M.F.W.
Innovation Processes in Agro-Ecological Transitions in Developing
Countries
UZUNIDIS Dimitri
Collective Innovation Processes: Principles and Practices
VAN HOOREBEKE Delphine
The Management of Living Beings or Emo-management
2017
AÏT-EL-HADJ Smaïl
The Ongoing Technological System
BAUDRY Marc, DUMONT Béatrice
Patents: Prompting or Restricting Innovation?
BÉRARD Céline, TEYSSIER Christine
Risk Management: Lever for SME Development and Stakeholder
Value Creation
CHALENÇON Ludivine
Location Strategies and Value Creation of International
Mergers and Acquisitions
CHAUVEL Danièle, BORZILLO Stefano
The Innovative Company: An Ill-defined Object
(Innovation Between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 1)
CORSI Patrick
Going Past Limits To Growth
D’ANDRIA Aude, GABARRET Inés
Building 21st Century Entrepreneurship
DAIDJ Nabyla
Cooperation, Coopetition and Innovation
FERNEZ-WALCH Sandrine
The Multiple Facets of Innovation Project Management
(Innovation between Risk and Reward Set – Volume 4)
FOREST Joëlle
Creative Rationality and Innovation
GUILHON Bernard
Innovation and Production Ecosystems
HAMMOUDI Abdelhakim, DAIDJ Nabyla
Game Theory Approach to Managerial Strategies and Value Creation
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 3)
LALLEMENT Rémi
Intellectual Property and Innovation Protection: New Practices
and New Policy Issues
LAPERCHE Blandine
Enterprise Knowledge Capital
LEBERT Didier, EL YOUNSI Hafida
International Specialization Dynamics
MAESSCHALCK Marc
Reflexive Governance for Research and Innovative Knowledge
(Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 6)
MASSOTTE Pierre
Ethics in Social Networking and Business 1: Theory, Practice
and Current Recommendations
Ethics in Social Networking and Business 2: The Future and
Changing Paradigms
MASSOTTE Pierre, CORSI Patrick
Smart Decisions in Complex Systems
MEDINA Mercedes, HERRERO Mónica, URGELLÉS Alicia
Current and Emerging Issues in the Audiovisual Industry
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set – Volume 1)
MICHAUD Thomas
Innovation, Between Science and Science Fiction
PELLÉ Sophie
Business, Innovation and Responsibility
(Responsible Research and Innovation Set – Volume 7)
SAVIGNAC Emmanuelle
The Gamification of Work: The Use of Games in the Workplace
SUGAHARA Satoshi, DAIDJ Nabyla, USHIO Sumitaka
Value Creation in Management Accounting and Strategic Management:
An Integrated Approach
(Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set –Volume 2)
UZUNIDIS Dimitri, SAULAIS Pierre
Innovation Engines: Entrepreneurs and Enterprises in a Turbulent World
2016
BARBAROUX Pierre, ATTOUR Amel, SCHENK Eric
Knowledge Management and Innovation
BEN BOUHENI Faten, AMMI Chantal, LEVY Aldo
Banking Governance, Performance And Risk-Taking: Conventional Banks
Vs Islamic Banks
BOUTILLIER Sophie, CARRÉ Denis, LEVRATTO Nadine
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 2)
BOUTILLIER Sophie, UZUNIDIS Dimitri
The Entrepreneur (Smart Innovation Set – Volume 8)
BOUVARD Patricia, SUZANNE Hervé
Collective Intelligence Development in Business
GALLAUD Delphine, LAPERCHE Blandine
Circular Economy, Industrial Ecology and Short Supply Chains
GUERRIER Claudine
Security and Privacy in the Digital Era
MEGHOUAR Hicham
Corporate Takeover Targets
MONINO Jean-Louis, SEDKAOUI Soraya
Big Data, Open Data and Data Development
MOREL Laure, LE ROUX Serge
Fab Labs: Innovative User
PICARD Fabienne, TANGUY Corinne
Innovations and Techno-ecological Transition
2015
CASADELLA Vanessa, LIU Zeting, DIMITRI Uzunidis
Innovation Capabilities and Economic Development in Open Economies
CORSI Patrick, MORIN Dominique
Sequencing Apple’s DNA
CORSI Patrick, NEAU Erwan
Innovation Capability Maturity Model
FAIVRE-TAVIGNOT Bénédicte
Social Business and Base of the Pyramid
GODÉ Cécile
Team Coordination in Extreme Environments
MAILLARD Pierre
Competitive Quality and Innovation
Operationalizing Sustainability
Sustainability Calling
2014
DUBÉ Jean, LEGROS Diègo
Spatial Econometrics Using Microdata
LESCA Humbert, LESCA Nicolas
Strategic Decisions and Weak Signals
2013
HABART-CORLOSQUET Marine, JANSSEN Jacques, MANCA Raimondo
VaR Methodology for Non-Gaussian Finance
2012
DAL PONT Jean-Pierre
Process Engineering and Industrial Management
MAILLARD Pierre
Competitive Quality Strategies
POMEROL Jean-Charles
Decision-Making and Action
SZYLAR Christian
UCITS Handbook
2011
LESCA Nicolas
Environmental Scanning and Sustainable Development
LESCA Nicolas, LESCA Humbert
Weak Signals for Strategic Intelligence: Anticipation Tool for Managers
MERCIER-LAURENT Eunika
Innovation Ecosystems
2010
SZYLAR Christian
Risk Management under UCITS III/IV
2009
COHEN Corine
Business Intelligence
ZANINETTI Jean-Marc
Sustainable Development in the USA
2008
CORSI Patrick, DULIEU Mike
The Marketing of Technology Intensive Products and Services
DZEVER Sam, JAUSSAUD Jacques, ANDREOSSO Bernadette
Evolving Corporate Structures and Cultures in Asia: Impact
of Globalization
2007
AMMI Chantal
Global Consumer Behavior
2006
BOUGHZALA Imed, ERMINE Jean-Louis
Trends in Enterprise Knowledge Management
CORSI Patrick et al.
Innovation Engineering: the Power of Intangible Networks
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.

Venture Capital and The Financing of Innovation-Wiley-Iste (2018) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Venture Capital and The Financing of Innovation-Wiley-Iste (2018) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Venture Capital and The Financing of Innovation-Wiley-Iste (2018) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Venture Capital and the Financing of Innovation

Innovation between Risk and Reward Set

Venture Capital and the

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2020

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019952874

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Chapter 1. Venture Capital, Behavior and

Chapter 2. The Sectoral Dynamics of Venture Capital . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2.1. Knowledge base, high-tech sectors, and venture capital:

Chapter 3. The Three Structures for Interpreting

“Really, what is analyzing, if not choosing and deferring?”

What economists refer to as innovation implies novelty, but it is not

whose capability is not to manage existing structures but, by applying

However, the Schumpeterian dynamic can only be understood if both the

I.1. Venture capital: an original mechanism for financing

financial systems favors marked-based systems and threatens the stability of

I.2. Analysis of the financing chain

In an earlier paper [GUI 08], we defined venture capital as a financing

Markets for technological

A venture capital fund is first and foremost an innovative project

become involved. In addition to these players, scientific, technological and

The second level of intermediation involves projects that are more

This intermediation mechanism creates specific constraints from the point

In the first stage of development, when the company does not

mainly based on love money (Family, Friends and Fools),

This is the first capital contribution made to the company.

Generally, it is at this stage that venture capital in the strict

During the growth phase, growth capital funds are also

Another slightly different definition has been proposed by the OECD

“Venture capital is a subset of private equity (i.e. equity capital

and early stage development phases of a business. Venture

In our opinion, these different definitions refer to constraints on the

Table I.1. Progression of development and investment

Thus, the company’s development is based on types of interventions

I.3. Analysis of the intermediation structure

This structure can be identified by three elements:

“In this context, venture capitalists will tend to professionalize

However, this allegiance structure remains flexible. There are situations

heteronomy) and those defined by the elements of the contracts negotiated

I.4. Justification of venture capital

In addition to representing an original mechanism for financing

Second, venture capital represents only a small fraction of total R&D

Third, venture capital rarely funds fundamental research, with start-ups

Finally, venture capital does not produce developments in isolation,

inextricably linked to the development of this industry4. Finally, the very

I.5. Problem addressed by the book

The fundamental issue addressed in this work is organized around the

“Instrumental knowledge represents the means of production

of new knowledge in relation to existing solutions and to

Instrumental knowledge is held by entrepreneurs, and its purpose is to

network, the increased presence of informal investors, increased testing and

I.6. Overview of the book

The purpose of this book is to analyze the operating mechanisms and

Chapter 3 focuses on macroeconomic and macro-social variables whose

Venture Capital, Behavior and

The venture capital industry is structured on the management of assets

Institutional investors (pension

We have identified three main areas of investigation: interactions