From The Economist print edition
The secrets of entrepreneurial success
KING MIDAS wished for everything he touched to turn to gold, which turned out to be a bad idea. His modern equivalents hope that everything they touch will turn to Silicon, which may not be such a good idea either. The world now glories in dozens of would-be Silicon Valleys: Silicon Alley in New York, Silicon Glen in Scotland and even, depressingly, Silicon Roundabout in London.
Siliconitis is the most common example of what is now an almost universal search among policymakers, local as well as central, for the secrets of entrepreneurial success. It is also the most instructive. A few attempts to replicate Silicon Valley, most notably in Israel, have succeeded. But most are embarrassing failures.
The most basic mistake politicians make in trying to foster entrepreneurship is to assume that there is only one model of a successful entrepreneurial cluster. There is no point in trying to create the next Silicon Valley without the Valley’s remarkable resources: two world-class universities, Stanford and Berkeley, and a big financial centre, San Francisco. Instead, would-be emulators should concentrate on their own particular strengths.
In addition to the classic Silicon Valley model, Monitor identifies three other successful entrepreneurial ecologies. One is the anchor-firm model. Alfred Marshall, one of the first economists to write about entrepreneurship, said that successful entrepreneurs are like large trees in a forest, towering over their neighbours and depriving them of light and air. In fact, the big trees usually produce lots of little ones. They spin off subsidiaries, provide experience to employees who then decide to go it alone, and nurture dozens of suppliers.
The research triangle in North Carolina was a successful exponent of the anchor-firm model, recruiting big companies such as IBM, Alcatel and Union Carbide which then either spawned or attracted lots of smaller operators. Hindustan Unilever, a food and personal-care giant, is another, less self-conscious exponent. The firm employs 45,000 women across India to market its goods to 150m consumers in rural areas. These saleswomen not only earn an income, they also learn about products, prices and marketing, sending a ripple of entrepreneurship throughout rural India.
A second, currently topical, model is driven by crisis. People become entrepreneurs when the economy stops supplying jobs. This happened in the San Diego region in the 1990s when the end of the cold war threw hundreds of highly trained military scientists out of work. Local start-ups such as Qualcomm hoovered up the talent and put it to new uses.
A third is the local-hero model in which a local entrepreneur sees an opportunity, starts a business and turns it into a giant. When Earl Bakken founded Medtronic in Minneapolis in 1949, he was creating a local industry as well as a company. Having developed the world’s first heart pacemaker, Medtronic grew into the largest medical-technology company in the world, spawning huge numbers of smaller ones.
Two other things complicate the search for success—the role of chance and the importance of culture. The Indian Institutes of Technology were designed to create technocrats rather than entrepreneurs. It was more a matter of luck than good planning that they were churning out exactly the sort of people that the Indian software industry needed.
David Landes, an influential economic historian, has argued that “if we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes almost all the difference.” You can build as many incubators as you like, but if only 3% of the population want to be entrepreneurs, as in Finland, you will have trouble creating an entrepreneurial economy.
This complicates policymakers’ work, but it does not make it impossible. Culture is not the only factor: economic policies matter too. Overseas Indians and Chinese thrived abroad in the 1950s and 60s even though their cousins were languishing back home. And culture can be changed. The Thatcher government shook Britain out of its anti-business torpor in the 1980s. More recently India and China have become the second and third most entrepreneurial countries in the world, trailing only America, according to Monitor.
What should countries do to improve their chances of getting it right? At the minimum, they need to implement the policies that the World Bank lays down in Doing Business to achieve things like transparency, convenience and rule of law. At best, they should emulate two qualities of some of the world’s most successful entrepreneurial clusters.
The first is a vibrant higher education system. Business is increasingly dependent upon knowledge, particularly technical knowledge. Some 85% of all the high-growth businesses created in America in the past 20 years were launched by college graduates. University research departments have helped to drive innovation in everything from design to entertainment.
The second is openness to outsiders. Emigrés have always been more entrepreneurial than their stay-at-home cousins: the three most entrepreneurial spaces in modern history have been the ones inhabited by the Jewish, Chinese and Indian diasporas. In today’s knowledge economy educated émigrés are at the cutting edge of innovation. They create more firms than regular folk; they circulate ideas, money and skills; they fill skills gaps; and they mix and match knowledge from different parts of the world.
In fact, today’s smart entrepreneurs start global. They search for materials, talent and opportunities the world over and define their competitive environment globally rather than locally. This reflects the fact that entrepreneurs are springing up in every corner of the world, complicating the battlefield still further.
Take EyeView, a quintessentially modern start-up, which was a global citizen from its very first day. The company uses “rich media”—a combination of videos and audios—to teach customers how to use websites. Most of the company’s customers are international, so the videos are produced in many different languages and watched the world over.
The company currently occupies an upper floor of a nondescript building in Tel Aviv, but in its earliest years it lived on three continents. Two of the company’s founders were based in Boston, the third in Sydney and the fourth in Tel Aviv. The company made its first videos in Australia and its first customers were on America’s West Coast.
| |
 | |
Daniel Isenberg, of HBS, points out that today’s entrepreneurs are pioneering a new business model. In the old days globalisation was incremental. Companies first established themselves in their local markets and then expanded abroad slowly, starting in their own regions. Now a number of them span the globe right from the beginning.
Successful entrepreneurs are coming from some surprising places. Bento Koike has built Tecsis, one of the world’s most successful manufacturers of wind-turbine blades, in Brazil, his home country, even though both the company’s raw materials and its customers are in Europe and America and the huge blades are difficult to ship. He has taken out a patent on his innovative packaging technology.
New Zealand, despite its geographical isolation, has turned itself into an entrepreneurial powerhouse, leading the world in the creation of small and medium-sized enterprises, thanks in part to enlightened government policies. It has done particularly well with applying innovation to woollen underwear. Its Icebreaker brand is popular with young, image-conscious outdoor enthusiasts.
Successful entrepreneurs are also forming some surprising cross-border collaborations. Shai Agassi, an Israeli-American businessman based in Palo Alto, California, is promising to upend the car industry by going electric, in alliance with politicians, entrepreneurs and companies in Israel, Denmark, Japan and France. Israel and Denmark are both building networks of recharging stations. Danish entrepreneurs are working on technology that will prolong the life of batteries. Renault and Nissan are building electric cars.
Still, it would be a mistake to conclude from all this that entrepreneurship is killing distance entirely. Many of today’s start-ups have to grapple with logistical problems that used to be the preserve of large companies. Entrepreneurs need to travel the world to check on far-flung operations, organise globe-girdling supply chains and comply with a plethora of legal and regulatory systems.
Talk to any budding entrepreneur and you soon discover, too, that local cultures matter. The more globalised the world becomes, the more people look for comparative advantages that cannot easily be bought or replicated; and the more far-flung their business operations, the more entrepreneurs rely on bonds of trust with their fellow businessmen. One reason why Mr Koike decided to base Tecsis in Brazil was that the country has a thriving aerospace industry and a successful Aeronautical Institute of Technology. The two leading founders of EyeView, Tal Riesenfeld and Oren Harnevo, grew up in the same village in Israel and served in the army at the same time. They decided to concentrate their activities in Israel, rather than remaining scattered all over the world, partly because they thought that they needed to share the same “mindspace”, and partly because they wanted to do something to help their country.
No comments:
Post a Comment