Abstract
This paper incorporates the process of entrepreneurial finance into an endogenous growth model with horizontal innovation (Romer J Polit Econ 98:S71–S102, 1990; Jones J Polit Econ 103(4):759–784, 1995b). To capture the market frictions existing in the financing of innovation, entrepreneurial finance is described as a process of “search and matching” between entrepreneurs proposing their innovative ventures and capitalists selecting and financing the most valuable projects. We determine the amount of resources devoted to innovation along the balanced growth path. The welfare analysis highlights the sub-optimality of the equilibrium innovative efforts due to search and bargaining frictions. We analyze the role of the policy maker to restore the optimality of investments in innovation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a thorough review of these issues, refer to Hall and Lerner (2010).
Prior to finance, search theory has been extensively used in diverse economics fields, such as labor economics, monetary theory, and the theory of marriage.
According to an empirical study by Kortum and Lerner (2000), one dollar of venture capital generates as much innovation as three dollars of traditional corporate R&D.
Two more technical remarks on (1) are in order. First, the hypothesis of zero knowledge spillovers—that is, the idea that the stock of knowledge \(A\) does not directly affect the rate of innovation—is only made for simplicity. Secondly, while at first glance it may seem odd to admit the necessity of capitalists for innovation and then not to consider capital as an input in the production function of new knowledge, this assumption is only introduced to simplify the analysis and is without loss of generality. We could have assumed a function such as
$$\begin{aligned} \dot{A}=\beta \left( L_{E}\right) ^{a}\cdot \left( L_{F}\right) ^{b}\cdot \left( K\right) ^{1-a-b} \end{aligned}$$Capital would be provided by an otherwise perfect financial market thanks to the “intercession” of capitalists.
Assume for simplicity that each capitalist can enter into one and only one project at a time, and that each entrepreneur needs one and only one capitalist.
The rest of the model follows a standard scale-free endogenous growth model with horizontal innovation. The closest framework is Jones (1995b).
We obtain this by dividing both sides of (2) by \(v_{E}^{0}\) and using the fact that \(\alpha _{E}\) must be constant along the steady state.
Cipollone and Giordani (2013) provide empirical evidence that support the existence of such complementarity in the business angel market. They also study the theoretical implications of this complementarity for the dynamics of the innovation process in a partial equilibrium framework.
We thank a referee for pointing out the issue and suggesting this solution. In particular, we adopt the more general microfoundation provided in the Appendix to Jones (2005).
Note that the strategic complementarity between entrepreneurs and capitalists highlighted above is here reinforced by the additional effect passing through the (now endogenous) profit share, \(\overline{\theta }^{c}\): given that \(d\overline{\theta }^{c}/dl_{F}>0\), an increase in \(l_{F}\) raises the entrepreneurs’ profit share (\(\overline{\theta }^{c}\)) and thus further raises the returns from becoming an entrepreneur. A totally symmetric reasoning applies to the effect of entrepreneurs on capitalists.
Moreover, this bargaining power is not immutable over time but responds to the ups and downs of the market. For instance, Inderst and Muller (2004) provide anecdotal evidence on the 2001 internet bubble: during the peak, as “too much money was chasing too few deals” (Gompers and Lerner 2000), entrepreneurs were able to obtain very good contractual conditions. The successive burst of the bubble, however, brought about “changes in deal terms... all of which [were] designed to enhance returns and the quantum of control enjoyed by nervous investors” (in the words of Joseph Bartlett, as cited by Inderst and Muller (2004), p. 321).
In particular, we divide the first equation by \((\alpha _{E}+1+n\phi +\rho )\) , and the second equation by \(\left( \alpha _{F}+1+n\phi +\rho \right) \).
Here again, the fact that \(d\overline{\theta }^{b}/dl_{F}\) is strictly positive strengthens the strategic complementarity between entrepreneurs and capitalists that we have originally uncovered in system (12).
Differently from the previous ones, this and the following two statements require a few algebraic steps. We omit them however, as they are straightforward applications of differential calculus.
Note that, as it happens in this class of models Jones (1995b), the optimal allocation of employment does not depend on \(\beta \).
More formally, given that economic agents have zero measure in our economy, when making their occupational choice, they perceive their productivity as constant, that is: \(\dot{A}=\overline{\beta }L_{i}\), \(i=E,F\). This \( \overline{\beta }\), capturing the creativity of the marginal agent, is however equal to \(\beta L_{i}^{a-1}L_{-i}^{1-a}\). Hence, \(\overline{\beta }\) is a decreasing function of \(L_{i}\) (stepping on toes effect), and an increasing function of \(L_{-i}\) (easy matching effect).
To obtain the following expression, we have added and subtracted \(n\gamma ( 1-l_{Y}^{W}) /n\gamma l_{Y}^{W}\) from (26).
This statement can be easily proven exploiting the properties of system (27) in the technical appendix. While we obtain \( l_{E}^{W}/l_{F}^{W}=a/\left( 1-a\right) \) from the second and third equation of the system, the value for \(l_{Y}^{W}\) given in (22) (and hence for its complement, \(l_{E}^{W}+l_{F}^{W}\)) is instead obtained from the other three equations, and independently of the ratio \(l_{E}^{W}/l_{F}^{W}\).
References
Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–351
Aghion P, Bond S, Klemm A, Marinescu I (2004) Technology and financial structure: are innovative firms different? J Eur Econ Assoc 2:277–288
Almeida H, Campello M (2004) Financial constraints, asset tangibility, and corporate investment. Rev Financ Stud 20:1429–1460
Antony J, Klarl T, Maussner A (2012) Firm heterogeneity, credit constraints, and endogenous growth. J Econ 105:199–224
Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Bauer C, Rodriguez Mora JV (2012) Equilibrium intermediation and resource allocation with a frictional credit market. University of Munich, Mimeo
Bhattacharya S, Ritter J (1983) Innovation and communication: signalling with partial disclosure. Rev Econ Stud 50:331–346
Boadway R, Secrieru O, Vigneault M (2005) A search model of venture capital, entrepreneurship, and unemployment, working paper, Bank of Canada, pp 05–24
Chiu J, Meh C, Wright R (2013) Innovation and growth with financial, and other, frictions. CQER working paper 13-01
Cipollone A, Giordani P (2013) Animal spirits in entrepreneurial innovation: theory and evidence. LUISS, Mimeo
Cozzi G, Giordani PE (2011) Ambiguity attitude, R&D investments and economic growth. J Evol Econ 21(2):303–319
Diamond PA (1982) Wage determination and efficiency in search equilibrium. Rev Econ Stud 49:217–229
Gompers PA, Lerner J (1999) The venture capital cycle. MIT Press, Cambridge
Gompers PA, Lerner J (2000) Money chasing deals? The impact of fund inflows on private equity valuation. J Financ Econ 55:281–325
Greenwood J, Sanchez JM, Wang C (2010) Financing development: the role of information costs. Am Econ Rev 100(4):1875–1879
Grossman GM, Helpman E (1991a) Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Rev Econ Stud 58:43–61
Grossman GM, Helpman E (1991b) Innovation and growth in the global economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Hall BH, Lerner J (2010) The financing of R&D and innovation. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation. Elsevier, North Holland
Hosios A (1990) On the efficiency of matching and related models of search and unemployment. Rev Econ Stud 57:279–298
Inderst R, Muller H (2004) The effect of capital market characteristics on the value of start-up firms. J Financ Econ 72:319–356
Jones CI (1995a) Time series tests of endogeneous growth models. Q J Econ 110:495–525
Jones CI (1995b) R&D based models of economic growth. J Polit Econ 103(4):759–784
Jones CI (2005) The shape of production functions and the direction of technical change. Q J Econ 120(2):517–549
King RH, Levine R (1993a) Finance, entrepreneurship and growth. J Monet Econ 32:513–542
King RH, Levine R (1993b) Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. Q J Econ 198:717–737
Kortum S, Lerner J (2000) Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. Rand J Econ 31:674–692
Lerner J (2010) Boulevard of broken dreams: why public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed and what to do about it. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Levine R (2005) Finance and growth: theory and evidence. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1. Elsevier, North Holland, pp 865–934
Michelacci C, Suarez J (2004) Business creation and the stock market. Rev Econ Stud 71:459–481
Mortensen DT (1982) Property rights and efficiency in mating, racing and related games. Am Econ Rev 72:968–980
Phelps E (2009) Toward a model of innovation and performance along the lines of Knight, Keynes, Hayek and M. Polanyi. In: Acs Z, Audretsch D, Strom R (eds) Entrepreneurship, growth and public policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pissarides C (1984) Search intensity, job advertising, and efficiency. J Labor Econ 2:128–143
Romer PM (1990) Endogeneous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:S71–S102
Silveira R, Wright R (2007) The venture capital cycle. (Unpublished manuscript)
Silveira R, Wright R (2010) Search and the market for ideas. J Econ Theory 145(4):1550–1573
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: welfare analysis
Appendix: welfare analysis
This problem of dynamic optimization defined at the beginning of Sect. 5 presents three control variables, \(c(t), l_{F},l_{E}\), and two state variables, \(k\) and \(A\). The Hamiltonian writes as
from which we obtain the following 5 conditions:
Working on \(H_{l_{E}}\) and \(H_{l_{F}}\) we immediately obtain that the optimal ratio entrepreneurs/financiers must be \(l_{E}/l_{F}=a/\left( 1-a\right) \).
To find the absolute values of \(l_{E}\) and \(l_{F}\) we now proceed as follows. We know that in steady state it must be \(\dot{c}/c=n\). Taking logs and derivative from the first equation in (27), we then obtain \(\dot{\lambda }_{k}/\lambda _{k}=-\phi n\). On the other hand, dividing \(H_{k}\) by \(\lambda _{k}\) and \(H_{A}\) by \(\lambda _{A}\) we obtain
where we have also exploited the expression for the production function \(y\) stated in one of the problem’s constraints. Solving the first of the two equations in (28) by \(A/k\) and plugging it into the second, we obtain
Knowing that in steady state it is \(\dot{\lambda }_{k}/\lambda _{k}=\dot{ \lambda }_{A}/\lambda _{A}=-\phi n\), we can finally solve the last equation for \(l_{Y}\) in function of all parameters of the model and obtain (22) in the main text. Given that \(1=l_{E}+l_{F}+l_{Y}\), and that \( l_{E}/l_{F}=a/\left( 1-a\right) \), it is easy to characterize the optimal number of entrepreneurs and financiers as given in, respectively, () and (21).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giordani, P.E. Entrepreneurial finance and economic growth. J Econ 115, 153–174 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-014-0411-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-014-0411-7