Young Innovative Companies and Access to Subsidies

Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)


Young innovative companies (YICs) are becoming increasingly prominent in the debate on industrial policy because of their role as drivers of industry and the economy. The aim of this research was to determine which variables associated with the entrepreneur and the creation of YICs enable access to public entrepreneurship policies. This analysis compared Mas-Tur and Simón-Moya’s (2015) results (obtained using regression analysis) with results yielded by Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Using the QCA methodology, we identified causal configurations that lead companies to receive subsidies, or conversely, that lead companies not to receive subsidies. We thus observed differences in findings obtained using these two techniques.


Qualitative Comparative Analysis Subsidies Young innovative companies 


  1. Aghion, P. (2011). Some thoughts on industrial policy and growth. In O. Falck, C. Gollier, & L. Woesmann (Eds.), Industrial policy for national champions (pp. 13–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
  3. Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2011). Do public research organisations own most patents invented by their staff? Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2008). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as an approach. In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Jonathan, L. (2008). Global entrepreneurship report 2008: Executive report. Retrieved from
  6. Braunerhjelm, P. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: interdependencies, irregularities and regularities. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Flack, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 161–213). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Cuervo, Á., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory and perspective: Introduction. In Á. Cuervo, D. Ribeiro, & S. Roig (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory and perspective (pp. 1–20). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. El Harbi, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2010). Institutions and the shaping of different forms of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3), 436–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using QCA in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwald, B., & Stiglitz, J. (2006). Helping infant economies grow: Foundations of trade policies for developing companies. American Economic Review, 96(2), 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ho, Y., & Wong, P. (2007). Financing, regulatory costs and entrepreneurial propensity. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holcombe, R. G. (1998). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 1(2), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelley, D. J., Bosma, N., & Amoros, J. E. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM): Executive report. Retrieved from
  17. Kerr, W., & Nanda, R. (2011). Financing constraints and entrepreneurship. In D. Audretsch, O. Falck, & S. Heblich (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 88–103). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Kirzner, I. M. (2011). Between useful and useless innovation: the entrepreneurial role. In D. B. Audretsch, O. Flack, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 12–16). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Krueger, A., & Tuncer, B. (1982). An empirical test of the infant industry argument. American Economic Review, 72(5), 1142–1152.Google Scholar
  20. Legewie, N. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3). Retrieved from
  21. Leibenstein, H. (1968). Entrepreneurship and development. American Economic Review, 58(2), 72–83.Google Scholar
  22. Mas-Tur, A., & Ribeiro Soriano, D. (2014). The level of innovation among young innovative companies: The impacts of knowledge-intensive services use, firm characteristics and the entrepreneur attributes. Service Business, 8(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mas-Tur, A., & Simón-Moya, V. (2015). Young innovative companies (YICs) and entrepreneurship policy [Special Issue]. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1432–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mas-Verdú, F., Baviera-Puig, A., & Martinez-Gomez, V. (2009). Entrepreneurship policy and targets: The case of a low absorptive capacity region. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ordanini, A., & Maglio, P. P. (2009). Market orientation, internal process, and external network: A qualitative comparative analysis of key decisional alternatives in the new service development. Decision Sciences, 40(3), 601–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pellegrino, G., Piva, M., & Vivarelli, M. (2011). How do young innovative companies innovate? In D. B. Audretsch, O. Flack, S. Heblich, & A. Lederer (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 403–420). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  27. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (2006). The core competence of the corporation. In D. Hahn & B. Taylor (Eds.), Strategische Unternehmungsplanung—Strategische Unternehmungsführung: Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen (pp. 275–292). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  29. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ragin, C. C. (Ed.). (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2014). fs/QCA: Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Version 2.5 [Computer software]. Irvine, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2001). GEM Global entrepreneurship report [Summary report]. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Schneider, C., & Veugelers, R. (2010). On young highly innovative companies: Why they matter and how (not) to policy support them. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Piscatawy, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  36. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  37. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  38. Sternberg, R., & Wennekers, S. (2005). Determinants and effects of new business creation using global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Praag, C. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Veugelers, R. (2012). Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating? Research Policy, 41(10), 1770–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Woodside, A. G. (2012). Proposing a new logic for data analysis in marketing and consumer behavior: Case study research of large-N survey data for estimating algorithms that accurately profile X (extremely high-use) consumers. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 22(4), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woodside, A. G., & Zhang, M. (2013). Cultural diversity and marketing transactions: Are market integration, large community size, and world religions necessary for fairness in ephemeral exchanges? Psychology & Marketing, 30(3), 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESIC Business and Marketing SchoolEdificio de la PrensaSevillaSpain
  2. 2.Valencia International UniversityValènciaSpain
  3. 3.University of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations