Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • V. K. Narayanan (a1) and Jungyoun (Natalie) Shin (a1)

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.

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。

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.

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.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author: Jungyoun (Natalie) Shin (jns86@drexel.edu)

Footnotes

Hide All

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

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Abetti, P. A. 2004. Government-supported incubators in the Helsinki region, Finland: Infrastructure, results, and best practices. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 1940.
Aernoudt, R. 2004. Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2): 127135.
Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. 2007. Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5): 254267.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1): 3346.
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): 16281654.
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): 13731390.
Arnold, D. J., & Quelch, J. A. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. Sloan Management Review, 40(1): 721.
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: 5368.
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): 888902.
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): 104119.
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.
Bergek, A., & Norrman, C. 2008. Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1): 2028.
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): 292315.
Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. 2005. The networked business incubator–leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 265290.
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.
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/#433319a92fae
Bruno, A. V., & Tyebjee, T. T. 1982. The environment for entrepreneurship. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 2(4): 288315.
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): 421440.
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): 5577.
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): 6786.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. 2002. How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7): 11031122.
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.
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.
Dayasindhu, N. 2002. Embeddedness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: A case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22(9): 551560.
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: 6382. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Djankov, S., & Murrell, P. 2002. Enterprise restructuring in transition: A quantitative survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(3): 739792.
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): 818840.
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): 411424.
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): 453462.
Fligstein, N. 2001. The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twentieth-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
Gelfand, M. J. et al. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033): 11001104.
George, G., & Prabhu, G. N. 2000. Developmental financial institutions as catalysts of entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 620629.
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): 3561.
Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2005. Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33(4): 549573.
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. 2005. Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2): 111121.
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. 2004a. A real options-driven theory of business incubation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 4154.
Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. 2004b. A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1): 5582.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional entrepreneurship. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: 198217. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harrison, L. E. 2008. The central liberal truth: How politics can change a culture and save it from itself. New York: Oxford University Press.
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): 321327.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
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): 247272.
Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 249267.
Hu, A. G. 2007. Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1): 7687.
Huang, Y., & Khanna, T. 2003. Can India overtake China? Foreign Policy, (137): 7481.
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.pdf
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): 291295.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. 2001. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1): 240259.
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.
Kedia, B. L., Mukherjee, D., & Lahiri, S. 2006. Indian business groups: Evolution and transformation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 559577.
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): 484507.
Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 4574.
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: 201214. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Lalkaka, R. 2002. Technology business incubators to help build an innovation-based economy. Journal of Change Management, 3(2): 167176.
Li, Y. 2011. Emotions and new venture judgment in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2): 277298.
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): 13231356.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5): 419435.
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): 819850.
March, J. G., & Olson, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational bias of politics. New York: Free Press.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: John-Wiley and Sons.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. 2016. Technology Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50–51: 112.
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.
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: 178203. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Narayanan, V. K. 2017. Idea labs: Instituting an innovation discovery process capable of sustaining the business. Strategy & Leadership, 45(1): 2736.
Narayanan, V. K., & Fahey, L. 2006. Institutional evolution as an emerging focus in scenario planning. Futures, 38(8): 972992.
Nee, V., & Opper, S. 2012. Capitalism from below: Markets and institutional change in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nolan, A. 2003. Public policy on business incubators: An OECD perspective. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1/2): 2230.
North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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): 955980.
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275296.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. 2005. Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2): 165182.
Ramamurti, R. 2012. What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 4147.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. 2009. Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6): 629652.
Rescher, N. 1992. A system of pragmatic idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. 2005. University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3): 305320.
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/
Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Scott, W. R. 2012. The institutional environment of global project organizations. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1–2): 2735.
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): 2748.
Sin, H. 2007. Ethnic-matching in qualitative research: Reversing the gaze on ‘white others' and ‘white’ as ‘other'. Qualitative Research, 7(4): 477499.
Singhal, A., & Tagore, A. 2002. Big industry before independence: 1860–1950. State, Market & Economy, Centre for Civil Society, 2: 6169. Working Paper.
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): 525544.
Soto, H. D. 2000. The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.
Stoltenberg, C. 2010. Intellectual property. In Narayanan, V. K. & O'Connor, G. C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Technology & Innovation Management: 4956. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
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): 3358.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509533.
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.
Törngren, S. O., & Ngeh, J. 2018. Reversing the gaze: Methodological reflections from the perspective of racial- and ethnic-minority researchers. Qualitative Research, 18(1): 318.
Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vaidyanathan, G. 2008. Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3): 285299.
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): 137147.
Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 516531.
Whittington, R. 1996. Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5): 731735.
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-assessment
World Bank. 2014. Enterprise surveys. [Cited 07 July 2017]. Available from URL: http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploreeconomies/2014/india
World Bank. (2014). The Innovation Policy Platform. [Cited 07 July 2017]. Available from URL: https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/india
World Economic Forum. 2016. The global competiveness report 2016–2017. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
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): 131155.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 15(3): 283290.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed