Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motivating Entrepreneurship and Innovative Activity: Analyzing US Policies and Programs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 34))

  • 737 Accesses

Abstract

Government policy has undertaken a number of key initiatives, such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), with the goal of developing the innovative capacity and overall economic performance of the country. These agencies not only help firms innovate where they otherwise would most likely not have, but they also help to address the current and future needs of government agencies for innovative solutions. In order to understand how and why government intervention is needed, the chapter offers an explanation of why R&D and innovation necessitates governmental support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “System Error,” The Economist, 18 September 1993, p. 99

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    The SPRU innovation data are explained in considerable detail in Pavitt et al. (1987), Townsend et al. (1981), Robson and Townsend (1984), and Rothwell (1989).

  4. 4.

    These professionals cite the previous patent only when there is a legitimate reason to cite the previous patent’s intellectual property.

  5. 5.

    This compensation device has the drawback that rising loan rates aggravate moral hazard and adverse selection problems. Thus, the supply curve may bend backwards (Stiglitz and Weiss 1981). However, better information increases the ability to raise loan rates since the bank’s loan offer curver is less likely to bend backwards.

  6. 6.

    See: http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf.

  7. 7.

    See:http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/About%20Us/Electronic%Reading%20Room/Customer%20Service%20Reference%20Guide/Nonimmigrant_Empl.pdf

  8. 8.

    The agencies consist of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce (National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

  9. 9.

    http://www.sbir.gov/faq/sbir#t25n66932

  10. 10.

    National Research Council (US) Committee on Capitalizing on Science, Technology, and Innovation; Wessner CW, editor. SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization: Report of a Symposium. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007. I, Introduction: SBIR and the Phase III Challenge of Commercialization. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11392/

  11. 11.

    National Research Council, An Assessment of the SBIR Program. C. Wessner (ed.), Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2008.

  12. 12.

    See: http://www.sbir.gov/faq/sbir#t25n66932

  13. 13.

    The US Department of Defense also uses the SBIR program to fund firms, awarding more than $10,253 billion between 1983 and 2006.

  14. 14.

    Coordination for all SBIR calls can be found on the US website https://www.fbo.gov/. This website is very similar to its European counterpart: ted.europa.eu/TED/main/HomePage.do All calls can also be found on the respective agency home pages with clear instructions on what a particular agency is currently interested in funding and how to apply.

  15. 15.

    http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirselect2012/solicitation/chapter3.html

  16. 16.

    Unfortunately, no information could be found on how often DoD purchases products from Phase III funded SBIR awardees.

  17. 17.

    Procurement officers may view this mandate as a loss of resources on the particular agency and therefore would be less willing to buy the final product that their agency has been mandated to fund.

  18. 18.

    Adapted from: http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/overview.htm

  19. 19.

    See: http://www.nist.gov/tip/factsheets/upload/tip_at_a_glance_2011.pdf

  20. 20.

    The Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, The Department of Energy, NASA, and Health and Human Services

  21. 21.

    Statement by Birch Bayh, April 13, 1980, on the approval of S. 414 (Bayh-Dole) by the US Senate on a 91-4 vote, cited from AUTM ( 2004 , p. 16), and introductory statement of Birch Bayh, September 13, 1978, cited from the Association of University Technology Managers Report (AUTM) ( 2004 , p. 5)

  22. 22.

    “Innovation’s Golden Goose,” The Economist, 12 December 2002.

  23. 23.

    “Innovation’s Golden Goose,” The Economist, 12 December 2002.

  24. 24.

    Cited in Mowery 2005 D. Mowery, The Bayh-Dole Act and High-technology Entrepreneurship in US Universities: Chicken, Egg, or Something Else? Colloquium on Entrepreneurship Education and Technology Transfer, University of Arizona (2005) (21–22 January). Mowery (2005, p. 64).

References

  • 1993. System error. The Economist.

    Google Scholar 

  • 2002. Innovation’s golden goose. The Economist.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Handbook of entrepreneurship research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), The handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 273–302). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson B. (2005). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1992). Real effects of academic research: Comment. The American Economic Review, 82, 363–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1994). R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 336–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Advanced Technology Program Economic Assessment Office. (2004). Measuring Atp impact: 2004 report on economic progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for" Lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists. Research Policy, 39(5), 583–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh-Dole act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1058–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–626). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Standing on the shoulders of midgets: The US small business innovation research program (Sbir). Small Business Economics, 20(2), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2010). Spurring innovation and job creation: The SBIR program. Testimony to the House of Representatives Committee on Small Business, March 16, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Aldridge, T. (2014). JRC scientific and policy report: The development of US policies directed at stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship (I. Goldberg, F. Biagi, & P. Desruelle, Eds.). Spain: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B., Aldridge, T., Oettl, A. (2006a) The knowledge filter and economic growth: The role of scientist entrepreneurship. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006b). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Stephan, P. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Weigand, J., & Weigand, C. (2002). The impact of the Sbir on creating entrepreneurial behavior. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(1), 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Bozeman, B., Combs, K., Feldman, M., Link, A., Siegel, D., & Wessner, C. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 27(2), 155–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of University Technology Managers. (2004). Recollections: Celebrating the history of AUTM and the legacy of Bayh-Dole. Northbrook, IL: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2003). Technology transfer and the academic department: Who participates and why. In DRUID summer conference (Vol 15, pp. 12–14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L.M., Auerswald, P.E. (2002). Between invention and innovation: An analysis of funding for early stage technology development. Gaithersburg, MD Report to the Advanced Technology Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burghof, H. P. (2000). Credit and information in universal banking. Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), 52(3), 282–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, T. F. (2001). Capital, emerging high-growth firms and public policy: The case against federal intervention. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1991). Firm size versus diversity in the achievement of technological advance. In Innovation and technological change (pp. 183–203). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1992a). The anatomy of industry R&D intensity distributions. The American Economic Review, 82, 773–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. (1992b). The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Levin, R. C., & Mowery, D. C. (1987). Firm size and R&D intensity: A re- examination . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, 99(3), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comanor, W. S. (1967). Market structure, product differentiation, and industrial research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(4), 639–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2011). Commercializing academic research: The quality of faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1403–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, D. W. (1984). Financial intermediation and delegated monitoring. The Review of Economic Studies, 51(3), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. M., & Thomas, A. (1984). Treating progress functions as a managerial opportunity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994a). The geography of innovation. Boston: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994b). Knowledge complementarity and innovation. Small Business Economics, 6(5), 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Kelley M.R. (2000) Reinforcing interactions between the advanced technology program and state technology programs: Volume 2 case studies of state and federal support to high-tech start-up companies. Gaithersburg, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Kelly, M. (2001). Leveraging research and development: Assessing the impact of the U.S. advanced technology program. In C. Wessner (Ed.), The advanced technology program: Assessing outcomes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2002). How states augment the capabilities of technology–pioneering firms. Growth and Change, 33(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2003). Leveraging research and development: Assessing the impact of the us advanced technology program. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (1999). The role of the university: Leveraging talent, not technology. Issues in Science and Technology, 15, 67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. K. (1956). American capitalism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2003). When does funding research by smaller firms bear fruit?: Evidence from the SBIR program. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellman Research Associates. (1976). Indicators of International Trends in Technological Innovation, Washington: Prepared for the National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellman Research Associates. (1982). The relationship between industrial concentration, firm size, and technological innovation. prepared for the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration under award no. SBA-2633-OA-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1126–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H., Hall, B. H., Harhoff, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2002). Post-issue patent "quality control": A comparative study of US patent Re-examinations and European patent oppositions. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harhoff, D. (2006). Can post-grant reviews improve patent system design? A twin study of US and European patents.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. NBER Working Paper, 3301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J.A., Hall, B.H., Griliches Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. (1993). Underinvestment and incompetence as responses to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 24, 248–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, J., Ronde, T., & Wagner, M. (2015). And the winner is – acquired. Entrepreneurship as a contest yielding radical innovations. Research Policy, 44(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. I., & Schwartz, N. L. (1975). Cournot oligopoly with uncertain entry. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(1), 125–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Graddy, E. (1990). The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. (2003). Thinking entrepreneurially: Entrepreneurial cognition. International handbook of entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, E., & Neuberger, D. (2001). Do lending relationships matter?: Evidence from bank survey data in Germany. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45(4), 339–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1996). The Government as venture capitalist: The long-run effects of the Sbir program. National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2002). When bureaucrats meet entrepreneurs: The design of effective public venture capital' programmes. The Economic Journal, 112(477), F73–F84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Cohen, W. M., & Mowery, D. C. (1985). R&D appropriability, opportunity, and market structure: New evidence on some schumpeterian hypotheses. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1987(3), 783–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. The American Economic Review, 81, 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E., Jr. (1993). Making a miracle. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 61, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, C. (1997). Small firms, borrowing constraints, and reputation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 33(1), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1967). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P., & Ghoshal, S. (1999). Markets, firms, and the process of economic development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 390–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D.C. (2005). The bayh-dole act and high-technology entrepreneurship in US universities: Chicken, egg, or something else?.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (1975). Science indicators 1974. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. The Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul A. David, Bronwyn H. Hall, Andrew A. Toole. (1999). Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence. No 7373, NBER Working Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K., Robson, M., & Townsend, J. (1987). The size distribution of innovating firms in the UK: 1945-1983. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35, 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. A., & Rajan, R. G. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. Journal of Finance, 49, 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J.W., Lellock K. L. (1997). Development, commercialization, and diffusion of enabling technologies. 6098 National Institute of Standards and Technology NISTIR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, M., Townsend J. (1984). Users manual for esrc archive file on innovations in Britain since 1945: 1984 update. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1989). Small firms, innovation and industrial change. Small Business Economics, 1(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. L. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1991). Changing perspectives on the firm size problem? In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Innovation and technological change: An international comparison (pp. 24–38). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, & democracy. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2001). Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D.S., & Phan, P.H. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education. Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Wessner, C., Binks, M., & Lockett, A. (2003b). Policies promoting innovation in small firms: Evidence from the US and UK. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 121–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silber & Associates. (1996). Survey of Advanced Technology Program 1990-1992 Awardees: Company Opinion about the ATP and its Early Effects, NIST GCR 97-707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. K., & Alexander, R. D. (1988). Fumbling the future: How xerox invented, then ignored, the first personal computer. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Audretsch, D. B. (2000). The economics of science and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. The American Economic Review, 71(3), 393–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Technology Innovation Program. (2011). Funding innovation for critical national needs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J., Henwood, F., Thomas, G., Pavitt, K., & Wyatt, S. (1981). Innovations in Britain Since 1945. Occasional Paper No. 16. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3, 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (1994). "Sticky Information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. (2000). The effects of government-industry R&D programs on private R&D: The case of the small business innovation research program. The RAND Journal of Economics Spring, 31, 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. (2001). The R&D boondoggle: Why is government subsidizing commercially promising business projects?

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessner, C. W. (2001). The advanced technology program: Assessing outcomes. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessner, C. (2006). Government programs to encourage innovation by startups and SMEs: The role of innovation awards. Tokyo, Japan, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessner, C. (Ed.). (2011). Growing innovation clusters for American prosperity: Summary of a symposium. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, 1315 E. 10th Street, Suite 201, Bloomington, IN, 46805, USA

    Aileen Richardson

  2. University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Aileen Richardson

  3. Indiana University, 1315 E. 10th Street, Suite 201, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    David B. Audretsch & Taylor Aldridge

Authors
  1. Aileen Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Audretsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor Aldridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aileen Richardson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, School of Public & Environmental Affairs, BLOOMINGTON, Indiana, USA

    David B. Audretsch

  2. University of North Carolina at Greensbo, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

    Albert N. Link

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richardson, A., Audretsch, D.B., Aldridge, T. (2016). Motivating Entrepreneurship and Innovative Activity: Analyzing US Policies and Programs. In: Audretsch, D., Link, A. (eds) Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26677-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation