Skip to main content

Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs

Abstract

In the entrepreneurial economy of today, it is not the multinational firms which are the predominant driver in the creation of new knowledge, but the individual entrepreneur. Correspondingly, new ventures of small size are leading in commercializing new knowledge and transferring it to the market. This economic shift has been reflected by broad entrepreneurship policies, which aim at supporting the individual on the challenge of a high-growth start-up. However, prior experience shows that uniform entrepreneurship policies do not address the individual needs in different countries and ecosystems adequately. In this paper, we study the performance of academic spin-offs that received public funding from the German EXIST Business Start-Up Grant, a support program which aims at increasing the number of innovative start-ups from academia. Using a control group matching approach, we provide evidence that these start-ups are smaller by two full time equivalent employees, generate 1.7 times higher losses and have a nearly three times lower return on capital than science-based entrepreneurial firms with comparable characteristics in the first 5 years after foundation. We interpret these results to be primarily caused by the inferior financial contracting structure of the program compared to private venture capital funding and by the resulting adverse selection and incentive effects on the entrepreneurs. The evidence calls for rethinking public interventions in a national system of entrepreneurship.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The risk capital variable captures informal investment in start-ups and institutional venture capital. The process innovation component measures the use of new technologies by start-ups combined with the Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and Development. The third variable reflects the perception of start-up skills in society and combines it with the level of human capital available for entrepreneurial endeavors.

  2. 2.

    In Germany, the survival rate of start-ups after 6 years is below 60 % on average (acc. to Mannheim Enterprise Panel, see Bersch et al. 2014).

  3. 3.

    On average, EXIST-firms are founded by 2.62 persons. Only 2 % of the firms are founded by one scholar.

  4. 4.

    A firm is defined as innovative if it conducts R&D or introduced a new product or process. Government-funded are those firms which received financial support by a governmental institution (employment office, federal states, councils, KfW, EU, and others.) Both variables come from the Mannheim Start-up Panel.

  5. 5.

    Further restriction criteria for all model variants in the following are: team start-up, incorporation (GmbH or GmbH and Co. KG) and at least one founder with university degree as described in Sect. 5.

  6. 6.

    The observed absolute failure rate of nearly 4 % is rather low but similar to other findings (Djokovic and Souitaris 2008).

  7. 7.

    See the definition in the corresponding notes of Table 2.

  8. 8.

    The first goal of EXIST is the enduring establishment of an entrepreneurial culture in teaching, research and administration at universities (Kulicke 2014).

  9. 9.

    Statistics are taken from the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association.

  10. 10.

    Even when matching EXIST-firms with similar control group firms, EXIST-firms’ probability of receiving VC is significantly higher.

References

  1. Achleitner, A.-K., Engel, N., & Reiner, U. (2013). The performance of venture capital investments: Do investors overreact? Review of Financial Economics, 22(1), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ács, Z. J., Autio, N., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43, 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alperovych, Y., Huebner, G., & Lobet, F. (2015). How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm’s efficiency? Evidence from Belgium. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 508–525.

  6. Armour, J., & Cumming, D. J. (2006). The Legislative Road to Silicon Valley. Oxford Economic Papers, 58, 596–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609–626). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  8. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. American Economic Review, 53(5), 941–973.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bascha, A., & Walz, U. (2006). Financing practices in the German venture capital industry: An empirical assessment. In G. N. Gregoriou, M. Kooli, & R. Kraeussl (Eds.), Venture capital in Europe. Quantitative finance series. Elsevier Professional.

  11. Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of biotechnology startups. Evolutionary approaches to entrepreneurship: Honoring Howard Aldrich, 19(3), 411–436.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Becker, G. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 371–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bersch, J., Gottschalk, S., Mueller, B., & Niefert, N. (2014). The Mannheim Enterprise Panel (MUP) and Firm Statistics for Germany. ZEW Discussion paper no. 14-104, Mannheim.

  14. Bertoni, F., Colombo, M., & Quas, A. (2015). The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 543–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonardo, D., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2011). Valuing university-based firms: The effects of academic affiliation on IPO performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Braennback, M., Carsrud, A. L., & Kiviluoto, N. (2014). Understanding the myth of high growth firms. The theory of the greater fool. SpringerBriefs in Business. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brander, J. A., Du, Q., & Hellmann, T. (2015). The effects of government-sponsored venture capital. International evidence. Review of Finance, 19(2), 571–618.

  18. Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Special issue: 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1084–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2010). On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders’ human capital and venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(6), 610–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarre´s, C. (2013). ‘‘To have and have not’’: Founders’ human capital and university start-up survival. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(4), 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cumming, D. J. (2003). The structure, governance and performance of UK venture capital trusts. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 3(2), 191–217.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cumming, D. J. (2007). Government policy towards entrepreneurial finance: Innovation investment funds. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 193–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cumming, D. J., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Governmental and independent venture capital investments in Europe: A firm-level performance analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.10.016.

  24. Cumming, D. J., & Johan, S. (2009). Pre-seed government venture capital funds. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7, 26–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2014). Venture’s economic impact in Australia. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 25–59.

  26. Cumming, D. J., & Li, D. (2013). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and venture capital in the United States. Journal of Corprorate Finance, 23, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2003). Comparative venture capital governance: Private versus labour sponsored venture capital funds. CESifo working paper 853.

  28. Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2006). Crowding out private equity: Canadian evidence. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 569–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cumming, D. J., & MacIntosh, J. G. (2007). Mutual funds that invest in private equity? An analysis of labour-sponsored investment funds. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31, 445–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Czarnitzki, D., Rammer, C., & Toole, A. (2014). University spin-offs and the “performance premium”. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1699–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dahlstrand, Asa L. (1997). Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms. Research Policy, 26(3), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Davila, A., Foster, G., & Gupta, M. (2003). Venture capital financing and the growth of startup firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 689–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. De Cleyn, S. H., & Braet, J. (2009). The influence of government subsidies and risk capital on survival of university spin-offs: Findings from 16 early stage case studies. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 5(4), 376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Del-Palacio, I., Zhang, X., & Sole, F. (2012). The capital gap for small technology companies: Public venture capital to the rescue? Small Business Economics, 38(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dickel, P., Rasmus, A., Auer, M., & Walter, A. (2009). Effective learning within entrepreneurial networks. In A. Walter & M. Auer (Eds.), Academic Entrepreneurship: Unternehmertum in der Forschung (pp. 95–118). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

  37. Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: A literature review with suggestions for further research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ebersberger, B. (2011). Public funding for innovation and the exit of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21(3), 519–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Egeln, J., Dinges, M., Knie, A., Simon, D., Braun-Thuermann, H., Fryges, H., Gassler, H., Gottschalk, S., Hilbrich, R., Hoewer, D., Mueller, K., Rammer, C., Schmidmayer, J., & Steyer, F. (2010). Evaluation des Existenzgruendungsprogramms EXIST III. ZEW Wirtschaftsanalysen 95, Baden-Baden.

  40. Egeln, J., Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., & Rammer, C. (2009). Performance von akademischen Spinoff-Gründungen in Österreich. AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, 3(4), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, C., & Spielkamp, A. (2003). Spinoff-Gründungen aus der öffentlichen Forschung in Deutschland (Vol. 68). Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag.

  42. Elitzur, R., & Gavious, A. (2003). Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs, ‘angels’, and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. The Creation of Spin-off Firms at Public Research Institutions: Managerial and Policy Implications, 34(7), 1091–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Epure, M., Prior, D., & Serarols, C. (2014). Assessing technology-based spin-offs from university support units. Regional Studies, 50(3), 411–428.

  45. Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., & Kohn, K. (2010). The KfW/ZEW Start-up Panel: Design and Research Potential. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 130(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fryges, H., Gottschalk, S., Licht, G., & Müller, K. (2007). Hightech-Gründungen und Business Angel. Report BMWi, ZEW, Mannheim.

  47. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2004). Venture capital cycle (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Grichnik, D., & Schwaerzel, F. (2005). Chancen und Risiken der Gründungsfinanzierung aus informations-ökonomischer Sicht. In Christoph J. Boerner & D. Grichnik (Eds.), Entrepreneurial finance. Kompendium der Gruendungs- und Wachstumsfinanzierung. Heidelberg: Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Government, venture capital and the growth of European high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Reserach Policy, 43, 1523–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Harmon, B., Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, R., Elder, T., Leuthold, J., Parshall, J., et al. (1997). Mapping the university technology transfer process. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(6), 423–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Heger, D., Fier, A., & Murray, G. (2005). Review essay: Regional venture capital policy: UK and Germany compared. Venture Capital, 7(4), 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(3), 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hood, N. (2000). Public venture capital and economic development: The Scottish experience. Venture Capital, 2(4), 313–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hubbard, R. Glenn (1997). Capital-market imperfections and investment. National Bureau of Economic Research (Working paper series, 5996).

  59. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of university inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s∗∗t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaplan, S. N., & Stromberg, P. (2003). Financial contracting theory meets the real world: An empirical analysis of venture capital contracts. Rev Econ Studies, 70(2), 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Klofsten, M., & Dylan, J.-E. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kulicke, M. (2013). Ergebnisse und Wirkungen des Förderprogramms EXIST-Gründerstipendium—Studie zu Realisierungs- und Überlebensquoten, zu Gründen für die Aufgabe von Gründungsvorhaben und zur ökonomischen Entwicklung der Neugründungen. Bericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitforschung zu “EXIST—Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft”.

  63. Kulicke, M. (2014). 15 Jahre EXIST “Existenzgründungen aus der Wissenschaft”. Entwicklung des Förderprogramms von 1998 bis 2013. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.

  64. Leleux, B., & Surlemont, B. (2003). Public versus private venture capital: Seeding or crowding out? A pan-European analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lerner, J., Schoar, A., & Wongsunwai, W. (2007). Smart institutions, foolish choices: The limited partner performance puzzle. Journal of Finance, 62(2), 731–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lerner, J., & Watson, B. (2008). The public venture capital challenge: The Australian case. Venture Capital, 10(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Li, M. (2013). Using the propensity score method to estimate causal effects—A review and practical guide. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 188–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39(5), 589–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). Employment growth from the small business innovation research program. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lundvall, B.-A. (1999). National business systems and national systems of innovation. International Studies of Management and Organization, 29, 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Manigart, S., Baeyens, K., & Van Hyfte, W. (2002). The survival of venture capital backed companies. Venture Capital, 4(2), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Maula, M., Murray, G., & Jääskeläinen, M. (2007). Public financing of young innovative companies in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Trade and Industry, Edita Publishing [distrib.] (MTI publications, 3/2007).

  74. Mustar, P. (1997). Spin-off enterprises—how French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Mustar, P., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2008). University spin-off firms: Lessons from ten years of experience in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 35(2), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Nelson, R. R. (1959). The economics of invention: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Business, 32(2), 101–127.

  78. Olivares, M., & Wetzel, H. (2014). Competing in the higher education market: Empirical evidence for economies of scale and scope in German higher education institutions. CESifo Economic Studies, 60(4), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2010). Why do university spin-offs attract more venture capitalists? Venture Capital, 12(4), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ortín-Ángel, P., & Vendrell-Herrero, F. (2014). University spin-offs vs. other NTBFs: Total factor productivity differences at outset and evolution. Technovation, 34(2), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Patzelt, H., zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., & Habib, Y. (2009). Portfolio strategies of life science venture capital firms in North America and Europe. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2011). Venture capital, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Review of Economics Statistics, 93(1), 338–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Schumpeter, J. A. (1980). Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie (Vol. 5). Munich: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. New horizons in entrepreneurship.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2001). The venture capitalist-entrepreneur relationship: Control, trust and confidence in co-operative behaviour. Venture Capital, 3(2), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Streletzki, J.-G. (2013). Linking prefunding venture structure and venture capital exit performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(4), 345–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Sunley, P., Klagge, B., Brendt, C., & Ron, M. (2005). Venture capital programmes in the UK and Germany: In what sense regional policies? Regional Studies, 39(2), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How necessary are intermediary organizations in the commercialization of research? European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1365–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Szerb, L., Acs, Z. J., & Autio, E. (2013). Entrepreneurship and policy: The national system of entrepreneurship in the European Union and in its member countries. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 3(1), 9–34.

  95. Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & and Organization, 63(4), 716–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Toole, A., & Turvey, C. (2009). How does initial public financing influence private incentives for follow-on investment in early-stage technologies? Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university-based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Special issue: 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Witt, P., & Hack, A. (2008). Staatliche Gründungsfinanzierung: Stand der Forschung und offene Fragen. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 58(2), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 255–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark R. Ayoub.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Composition of industry sectors covered by the Mannheim Start-up Panel
Table 5 Control variables and comparison of treated and control group before and after rebalancing based on model I

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayoub, M.R., Gottschalk, S. & Müller, B. Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs. J Technol Transf 42, 1100–1124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9476-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic spin-off
  • Economic policy
  • Matching-analysis
  • Technology transfer
  • Venture capital

JEL Classification

  • L26
  • C40