Search results

Despite their increasing importance in innovation, employment creation and economic growth, there is a dearth of theory-driven research on the financing and capital structure of new technology-based firms (NTBFs).¹ Hogan and Hutson (2005a) advance the High-Technology Pecking Order Hypothesis (HTPOH) to explain the role of equity in the financing of NTBFs in the software product sector. The HTPOH posits that NTBFs exhibit a hierarchical pattern of financing that gives precedence to internal sources, but if external financing is required, equity is preferred to debt. This study investigates the extent to which the genesis of the NTBF affects its financing patterns?

Policymakers have long supported the development of venture capital markets on the basis that venture capital fills a perceived gap in the availability of early stage seed capital funding for new technology-based firms (NTBFs).¹ Support from policymakers, however, has not been matched by academic research on NTBF financing. This is a major concern because NTBF financing is not well understood. The theoretical focus of this chapter is the life cycle or stage model of financing, which has proved the dominate paradigm in the analysis of financing in NTBFs. It is particularly relevant to this study, as the stage model is explicitly endorsed by venture capitalists who structure deals in phases in order to effectively monitor the investee firm's progress (Sahlman, 1990).

The role of the university in the 21st century is rapidly changing, reflecting a growing interest in the commercialisation of university knowledge among scholars and policymakers. University spin-offs (USOs) represent one mechanism for commercialising knowledge that are attracting considerable attention because of their potential to (a) enhance local economic development, (b) assist universities in their major mission of teaching and research and (c) generate high-performance firms (Shane, 2004). Indeed, one study by Bray and Lee (2000), based on a small US sample, found that on average, technology transfer offices earned a higher return from equity stakes in their USOs, even allowing for a 50% failure rate, than from the average licensing agreement.

A broad range of policy evaluations below is begun in Chapter 2 by Kate Johnston, Colette Henry and Simon Gillespie in their evaluation entitled ‘Encouraging Research and Development in Ireland's Biotechnology Enterprises’. This investigation critically evaluates Irish government policy towards biotechnology development over a preceding 10-year period. In Chapter 3, Anthony Ward, Sarah Cooper, Frank Cave and William Lucas examine ‘The Effect of Industrial Experience on Entrepreneurial Intent and Self-Efficacy in UK Engineering Undergraduates’ in a large-scale study that generally produces satisfactory results in terms of raising the profile of entrepreneurship among undergraduates. Deirdre Hunt, in Chapter 4, again focuses on the evolution of strategy in Ireland, this time towards the more general topic of new firm formation with a personal contribution entitled ‘Now You See Them — Now You Don’t: Paradoxes in Enterprise Development Strategy: The Case of the Disappearing Academic Start-Ups’.