Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:06:26.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Institutional Context of Incubation: The Case of Academic Incubators in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2019

V. K. Narayanan  and
Jungyoun (Natalie) Shin
V. K. Narayanan
Affiliation:
Drexel University, USA
Jungyoun (Natalie) Shin*
Affiliation:
Drexel University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jungyoun (Natalie) Shin (jns86@drexel.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce incubators as an organizational form intended to facilitate entrepreneurship. The theorizing and research on incubators have been primarily anchored in market failure perspective and carry over the assumptions about a free market economy, mostly implicitly into the empirical work. This ignores the influence of the institutional context and obscures processes that may come into play in emerging economies like India. Using Scott's model (2008) of institutional context, we argue how the institutional context provides a complementary perspective that may reveal a richer picture of incubator operation in emerging economies. We illustrate this in the case of academic incubators in India.

摘要

我们引入孵化器作为促进创业的一种组织形式。有关孵化器的理论和研究主要基于市场失败的观点，并将自由市场经济的假定隐性地带入实证研究中。这种研究忽视了制度背景的影响，从而掩盖了过程在像印度这样的新兴经济体中的作用。采用Scott（2008）的制度背景模型，我们论证制度情境怎样提供一种补充的观点，揭示了新兴经济体中孵化器运作的更丰富的画面。我们以印度的学术孵化器为例说明这一观点。

Аннотация

Мы определяем инкубаторы как форму организации, которая должна способствовать предпринимательству. Теоретические изыскания и исследования в области инкубаторов были основаны, главным образом, на перспективе несовершенства рынка и, в основном, безоговорочно переносят предположения о свободной рыночной экономике в эмпирические исследования. Таким образом, недостаточное внимание уделяется влиянию институционального контекста, а также процессам, которые могут играть большую роль в странах с развивающейся экономикой, таких как Индия. На основании модели институционального контекста, которую разработал Скотт (2008), мы изучаем, каким образом институциональный контекст предлагает дополнительную перспективу, которая может представить более богатую картину работы инкубаторов в странах с развивающейся экономикой. Мы иллюстрируем это предположение на примере академических инкубаторов в Индии.

Resumen

Introducimos incubadoras como una forma organizacional que busca facilitar el emprendimiento. La teorización y la investigación sobre incubadoras se anclado principalmente en la perspectiva de la falla del mercado y carga suposiciones sobre la economía del libre mercado, principalmente implícita en el trabajo empírico. Esto ignora la influencia del contexto institucional y oscurece los procesos que pueden entrar en juego en economías emergentes como India. Usando el modelo de Scott (2008) de contexto institucional, discutimos cómo el contexto institucional da una perspectiva complementaria que puede revelar una imagen más rica de la operación de incubadora en las economías emergentes. Ilustramos esto en el caso de incubadoras académicas en India.

Keywords

academic incubators in Indiaemerging economyincubationinstitutional context印度的学术孵化器新兴经济体孵化制度背景академические инкубаторы в Индии,развивающаяся экономикаинкубацияинституциональный контекстincubadoras académicas en Indiaeconomía emergenteincubacióncontexto institucional
Type
Special Issue: The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in India
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Special Issue 3: The Innovation and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in India , September 2019 , pp. 563 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Guest Editors Suresh Bhagavatula and Ram Mudambi, and Deputy Editor Johann Peter Murmann

References

REFERENCES

Abetti, P. A. 2004. Government-supported incubators in the Helsinki region, Finland: Infrastructure, results, and best practices. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 19–40.Google Scholar
Aernoudt, R. 2004. Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2): 127–135.Google Scholar
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2007. Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5): 254–267.Google Scholar
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 33–46.Google Scholar
Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. 2013. Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1628–1654.Google Scholar
Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2017. How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7): 1373–1390.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. J., & Quelch, J. A. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. Sloan Management Review, 40(1): 7–21.Google Scholar
Baraldi, E., & Havenvid, M. I. 2016. Identifying new dimensions of business incubation: A multi-level analysis of Karolinska Institute's incubation system. Technovation, 50–51: 53–68.Google Scholar
Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Ramos, A., & Guitar, S. 2012. Revisiting incubation performance: How incubator typology affects results. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(5): 888–902.Google Scholar
Baron, R. A. 2006. Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs ‘connect the dots’ to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1): 104–119.Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., & Schramm, C. J. 2009. Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. 2008. Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1): 20–28.Google Scholar
Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. 2016. Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What do we know and what do we still need to know? Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3): 292–315.Google Scholar
Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. 2005. The networked business incubator–leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 265–290.Google Scholar
Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. 2009. Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2008 executive report. Babson Park, MA: Global Entrepreneurship Research Consortium.Google Scholar
Bouw, B. 2017. India 2020: 5 sectors driving the country's growth. [Cited 23 March 2018]. Available from URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oppenheimerfunds/2017/05/31/india-2020-5-sectors-driving-the-countrys-growth/#433319a92faeGoogle Scholar
Bruno, A. V., & Tyebjee, T. T. 1982. The environment for entrepreneurship. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 2(4): 288–315.Google Scholar
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H. L. 2010. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3): 421–440.Google Scholar
Bulsara, H. P, Gandhi, S., & Porey, P. D. 2009. Techno-innovation to techno-entrepreneurship through technology business incubation in India: An exploratory study. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovations and Entrepreneurship, 3(1): 55–77.Google Scholar
Chandra, A., & Fealey, T. 2009. Business incubation in the United States, China and Brazil: A comparison of role of government, incubator funding and financial services. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13(SI): 67–86.Google Scholar
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. 2002. How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7): 1103–1122.Google Scholar
Cornelius, B., & Bhabra-Remedios, R. 2003. Cracks in the egg: improving performance measures in business incubator research. 16th Annual Conference of Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand. Australia: University of Ballarat.Google Scholar
Damaraju, N. L., Barney, J. B., & Dess, G. G. 2017. When do favorable bankruptcy laws help entrepreneurial activity: The moderating effect of culture and environmental munificence? Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Dayasindhu, N. 2002. Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: A case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22(9): 551–560.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.), The new institution in organizational analysis: 63–82. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Djankov, S., & Murrell, P. 2002. Enterprise restructuring in transition: A quantitative survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(3): 739–792.Google Scholar
Dutt, N., Hawn, O., Vidal, E., Chatterji, A., McGahan, A., & Mitchell, W. 2016. How open system intermediaries address institutional failures: The case of business incubators in emerging-market countries. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 818–840.Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M. C., & Almeida, M. 2005. Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4): 411–424.Google Scholar
Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Lu, J., & Wright, M. 2011. Knowledge spillovers through human mobility across national borders: Evidence from Zhongguancun Science Park in China. Research Policy, 40(3): 453–462.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. 2001. The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twentieth-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. 2007. On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness (CAHRS Working Paper #07-05). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J. et al. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033): 1100–1104.Google Scholar
George, G., & Prabhu, G. N. 2000. Developmental financial institutions as catalysts of entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 620–629.Google Scholar
Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. 1998. The nature of diversified business groups: A research design and two case studies. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(1): 35–61.Google Scholar
Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2005. Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33(4): 549–573.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. 2005. Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2): 111–121.Google Scholar
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. 2004a. A real options-driven theory of business incubation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 41–54.Google Scholar
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. 2004b. A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 55–82.Google Scholar
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional entrepreneurship. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 198–217. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Harrison, L. E. 2008. The central liberal truth: How politics can change a culture and save it from itself. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, T. L., & Mudambi, R. 2010. Far from Silicon Valley: How emerging economies are re-shaping our understanding of global entrepreneurship. Journal of International Management, 16(4): 321–327.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, R. M., Zahra, S. A., Hoskisson, R. E., DeGhetto, K., & Sutton, T. 2016. Two-way streets: The role of institutions and technology policy in firms’ corporate entrepreneurship and political strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3): 247–272.Google Scholar
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249–267.Google Scholar
Hu, A. G. 2007. Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1): 76–87.Google Scholar
Huang, Y., & Khanna, T. 2003. Can India overtake China? Foreign Policy, (137): 74–81.Google Scholar
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the Kauffman Foundation. 2012. The Global Innovation Policy Index. [Cited 05 July 2017]. Available from URL: http://www2.itif.org/2012-global-innovation-policy-index.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jamil, F., Ismail, K., Siddique, M., Khan, M. M., Kazi, A. G., & Qureshi, M. I. 2016. Business incubators in Asian developing countries. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(S4): 291–295.Google Scholar
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1): 240–259.Google Scholar
Kant, A. 2017. India @70: India's startup movement is fast gaining momentum, says Amitabh Kant. [Cited 29 March 2018.] Available from URL: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/india-70-indias-startup-movement-is-fast-gaining-momentum-says-amitabh-kant/articleshow/60064959.cms.Google Scholar
Kedia, B. L., Mukherjee, D., & Lahiri, S. 2006. Indian business groups: Evolution and transformation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 559–577.Google Scholar
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2004. Globalization and convergence in corporate governance: Evidence from Infosys and the Indian software industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 484–507.Google Scholar
Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45–74.Google Scholar
Kumar, K. 2009. An Assessment of Business Incubators in Bangalore. In Manimala, M. J., Mitra, J., & Singh, V. (Eds.), Enterprise support systems - An international perspective: 201–214. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lalkaka, R. 2002. Technology business incubators to help build an innovation-based economy. Journal of Change Management, 3(2): 167–176.Google Scholar
Li, Y. 2011. Emotions and new venture judgment in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2): 277–298.Google Scholar
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. 2003. U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9): 1323–1356.Google Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419–435.Google Scholar
Mair, J., Martí, I., & Ventresca, M. J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 819–850.Google Scholar
March, J. G., & Olson, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational bias of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: John-Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. 2016. Technology Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50–51: 1–12.Google Scholar
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University industry technology transfer before and after Bayh-Dole. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Murmann, J. P., & Tushman, M. L. 2001. From the technology cycle to the entrepreneurship dynamic: The social context of entrepreneurial innovation. In Romanelli, E. & Schoonhoven, C. B. (Eds.), The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries: 178–203. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Narayanan, V. K. 2017. Idea labs: Instituting an innovation discovery process capable of sustaining the business. Strategy & Leadership, 45(1): 27–36.Google Scholar
Narayanan, V. K., & Fahey, L. 2006. Institutional evolution as an emerging focus in scenario planning. Futures, 38(8): 972–992.Google Scholar
Nee, V., & Opper, S. 2012. Capitalism from below: Markets and institutional change in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nolan, A. 2003. Public policy on business incubators: An OECD perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1/2): 22–30.Google Scholar
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pandey, A., Aggarwal, A., Devane, R., Kuznetsov, Y. 2004. India's transformation to knowledge-based economy: Evolving role of the Indian diaspora. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Patti, D. M. A., Mudambi, R., Navarra, P., & Baglieri, D. 2016. A tale of soil and seeds: The external environment and entrepreneurial entry. Small Business Economics, 47(4): 955–980.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.Google Scholar
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165–182.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, R. 2012. What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 41–47.Google Scholar
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629–652.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1992. A system of pragmatic idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. 2005. University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3): 305–320.Google Scholar
Roysam, V. 2017. 11 incubators that are shaping social entrepreneurs into powerful change makers. [Cited 11 September 2017.] Available from URL: https://yourstory.com/2017/07/incubators-social-entrerpreneurship/Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2012. The institutional environment of global project organizations. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1–2): 27–35.Google Scholar
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1): 27–48.Google Scholar
Sin, H. 2007. Ethnic-matching in qualitative research: Reversing the gaze on ‘white others' and ‘white’ as ‘other'. Qualitative Research, 7(4): 477–499.Google Scholar
Singhal, A., & Tagore, A. 2002. Big industry before independence: 1860–1950. State, Market & Economy, Centre for Civil Society, 2: 61–69. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. 2007. S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5): 525–544.Google Scholar
Soto, H. D. 2000. The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stoltenberg, C. 2010. Intellectual property. In Narayanan, V. K. & O'Connor, G. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Technology & Innovation Management: 49–56. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tang, M., Baskaran, A., Pancholi, J., & Lu, Y. 2013. Technology business incubators in China and India: A comparative analysis. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 16(2): 33–58.Google Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2014. Rural technology and business incubator: Leveraging the Indian Institute of technology, Madras ecosystem for social enterprises. Paper published by International Development Centre, Canada.Google Scholar
Törngren, S. O., & Ngeh, J. 2018. Reversing the gaze: Methodological reflections from the perspective of racial- and ethnic-minority researchers. Qualitative Research, 18(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaidyanathan, G. 2008. Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3): 285–299.Google Scholar
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. 2016. Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1): 137–147.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 516–531.Google Scholar
Whittington, R. 1996. Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5): 731–735.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2013. Country policy and institutional assessment. [Cited 07 July 2017]. Available from URL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=country-policy-and-institutional-assessmentGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2014. Enterprise surveys. [Cited 07 July 2017]. Available from URL: http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploreeconomies/2014/indiaGoogle Scholar
World Bank. (2014). The Innovation Policy Platform. [Cited 07 July 2017]. Available from URL: https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/indiaGoogle Scholar
World Economic Forum. 2016. The global competiveness report 2016–2017. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Filatotchev, I. 2008. Returnee entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high–technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1): 131–155.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1994. Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3): 283–290.Google Scholar