Investments in Runet

  • Aleksandr Rozhkov
  • Margarita ZobninaEmail author
Part of the Societies and Political Orders in Transition book series (SOCPOT)


Over the past 20 years, Runet venture industry has gone a long way from being discrete unsystematic projects to being a well-structured venture market with sector-specialised venture funds, accelerators, vivid business angel community and projects with the global presence. In this chapter, we explore the market evolution, key industry participants and venture market dynamics and structure. This study addresses the following research questions: How does the Russian Internet market perform on important dimensions of new business development such as investors’ activity, regional distribution of investments, availability and amount of venture funding? What is the venture market structure in the Internet and IT sector? What is special about the Russian market? The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the investments in the Russian Internet market with a focus on venture investments. We hope that this study will help researchers back up their research on the development of venture funding and emerging markets, with the data and an insight into the Russian market.


Startup Venture investments Startup development stages Venture market Russia 


  1. Aernoudt, R. (1999). Business angels: Should they fly on their own wings? Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 1(2), 187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthurs, J. D., & Busenitz, L. W. (2003). The boundaries and limitations of agency theory and stewardship theory in the venture capitalist/entrepreneur relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, G., & Margulis, J. (2001). The angel investor’s handbook. Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bergemann, D., & Hege, U. (1998). Venture capital financing, moral hazard, and learning. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(6–8), 703–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, R., Herrmann, B., & Marmer, M. (2011). Startup genome report 01. A new framework for understanding why startups succeed, Technical report. Startup CompassGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernile, G., Cumming, D., & Lyandres, E. (2007). The size of venture capital and private equity fund portfolios. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13(4), 564–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhave, M. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blank, S. (2007). The four steps to the epiphany. Quad/Graphics.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y. (2014). Accelerating startups: The seed accelerator phenomenon. SSRN Journal, 1–16.Google Scholar
  10. Cumming, D. J. (2006). The determinants of venture capital portfolio size: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Business, 79(3), 1083–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dushnitsky, G., & Shaver, J. M. (2009). Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: The paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal, 30(10), 1045–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EY, & RVC. (2014). Issledovanie rossiiskogo i mirovogo venchurnogo rynka za 2007–2013 godu [Research on Russian and global venture market 2007–2013]. Moscow. Retrieved May 08, 2019, from
  13. Gompers, P. A. (1995). Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1461–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Invest Europe, Invest Europe Yearbook. (2016). European private equity activity. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
  15. Kazanjian, R. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new venture. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257–279.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, Y., & Ha, S. (1999). An empirical study on growth stages of Korean high-tech ventures. The Korean Society for Technology Management & Economics, 8(1), 125–153.Google Scholar
  17. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), 77–102.Google Scholar
  18. NVCA (National Venture Capital Association, United States). (2018). PitchBook data. Retrieved March 05, 2019, from
  19. OECD. (2017). Entrepreneurship at a glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved May 08, 2019, from
  20. Pitchbook. (2018). NVCA venture monitor 1Q 2018. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
  21. RAM. (2016). Russian Angel Monitor 2016. Retrieved from
  22. Ray, D. M. (1993). Understanding the entrepreneur: Entrepreneurial attributes, experience and skills. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. RVCA. (2015). Direct and venture investments report. Retrieved from
  24. RVCA, & VIF. (2017). Obzor rynka 2017. Pryamye i venchurnie investitsii v Rossii [Yearbook 2017. Direct and venture investments in Russia]. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from
  25. Wagner, A. (2014). The venture capital lifecycle. Pitchbook. Retrieved May 08, 2019, from
  26. Wry, T., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Contextualizing the categorical imperative: Category linkages, technology focus, and resource acquisition in nanotechnology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zacharakis, A. L., Shepherd, D. A., & Coombs, J. E. (2003). The development of venture-capital-backed internet companies: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zobnina, M. (2015). Startup development, investments, and growth barriers. In Emerging markets and the future of the BRIC nations (p. 111). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University “Higher School of Economics”MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations