“We at GEN always say that we want to invite people to consider entrepreneurship as an option.” — Cecilia Wessinger, Global Entrepreneurship Network
From the third and final (official) day of the Global Entrepreneurship Congress (GEC) in Melbourne, some thoughts and takeaways from another day of enlightening sessions and conversations.
Entrepreneurship As a “Pathway to Peace”
In an outstanding session on “entrepreneurship in conflict settings,” speakers from Iraq and Syria spoke about the promise and power of entrepreneurship in those and other countries. It may sound a bit glib to simply claim entrepreneurship as the best method of post-conflict reconstruction—easier said than done. These speakers were not glib, they were not Pollyanas. Entrepreneurship in Iraq, said Mujahed Waisi, has helped create stability, it has fueled job creation; it has helped with skills development and it has diversified the economy.
Ahmad Sufian Bayram, who has written three books on entrepreneurship among refugees, observed that entrepreneurship is often “not optional” in conflict settings. It is necessary. People may not necessarily call it entrepreneurship—and they’re not setting out to “build a unicorn”—but, to them, starting a business is the only way to survive. Refugee entrepreneurs, he said, are “true hustlers.” Again, however, we shouldn’t be glib about this and just clap our hands at human resilience. Ahmad pointed out that many external efforts can actually “do harm” when trying to help local entrepreneurs. When you have to talk with your cofounders daily to see if you can even meet in person—“is our building still there?”—outside interventions need to be carefully calibrated.
Preposterously Bad Ideas Still Circulate About Entrepreneurship Policy
A forthcoming Startup Fever installment is going to examine what might be called the “You-Can’t-Be-Serious Policy Agenda.” This agenda is populated by ideas that have either been proven wrong already or go so against the grain of what entrepreneurship is about that it’s hard to believe they’re still seriously considered. One of these was alive and well in at least one GEC session: the notion that countries should make it harder to start a business because then only the “right” types of people will attempt entrepreneurship.
Where to even begin with this? It’s an idea that’s been around for a long time. One of the leading entrepreneurship academic textbooks contained it years ago. It lurks in policy circles. A full dismantling of this idea will be done via Startup Fever; suffice it to say here that we simply cannot know what new businesses will or won’t be successful. Why would we try to prejudge who will and won’t—who should and shouldn’t—be an entrepreneur?
Process > Substance
In a terrifically interesting session on “Startup Acts and Regulatory Reform,” three speakers talked about entrepreneurship policy at the local, state, and national levels.
- Jennifer McDonald from Institute for Justice talked about her work with cities to remove (sometimes ridiculous) barriers to business creation and growth.
- Jason Grill from Right to Start discussed that organization’s work with U.S. states to adopted new legislation endowing citizens with a “right to start.”
- Jon Stever from the Innovation for Policy Foundation spoke about their work facilitating grassroots policymaking. Their efforts have resulted in several different Startup Acts adopted across Africa.
It was of course ironic that three Americans (albeit one an Africa-based expat) were invited to discuss Startup Acts when the United States has not adopted one, notwithstanding repeated introductions in Congress. The most interesting takeaway from listening to them was that while the substance of Startup Acts matters, attention must be paid to the process of getting entrepreneurship policy across the finish line. And that process does not end with adoption: the entities (departments, ministries, offices) responsible for implementation may actually oppose what was enacted.
Grill pointed to the area of public procurement, where contracting officers might not be in favor of their established bid and award processes getting disrupted. Stever pointed out that a front-end participatory policymaking process—especially involving direct input of entrepreneurs—can help ensure accountability on the back end of the process when it comes to implementation. Those entrepreneurs (and others) involved in the design and creation of a Startup Act will expect and demand that the reforms are realized.
Research Does Not Meet Policy?
One of the themes of the GEN Research meeting, led by Ted Zoller, was that there is a “paucity of connections” between the research and policy communities regarding entrepreneurship. To those of us who have spent a good deal of our career trying to build those connections, this was discouraging to hear. But it hasn’t been for lack of trying.
Philip Gaskin from the Kauffman Foundation, in remarks about inclusion (or lack thereof), highlighted persistent, and pernicious, gaps in access to capital that fall especially hard on women and people of color. The research on this topic, he said, is “now sufficient.” It’s the “inability of decision makers to accept the research and do something about it” that has held back meaningful action.
Chris Haley, from GEN and Startup Genome, canvassed what is known and not known about the effectiveness of entrepreneurship support programs such as accelerators and incubators. The strength of many research conclusions, he said, is “still not great.” This is mostly because of shortcomings in research design rather than failures of the programs. He acknowledged, however, that there are “mixed results” on many programs.
Ironically, in the conflict entrepreneurship session, Ahmad noted that “overweighting effectiveness versus inclusion” is an approach that can actively cause harm in fragile, post-conflict states. Too often, he said, outside interventions have emphasized the effectiveness of a program, such as an accelerator, rather than the many ways in which it might be helping the community.
Last Word from GEC
One of the most important observations uttered today was from Chad Renando from GEN Australia. Chad led a discussion in the GEN Research meeting of “ecosystem mapping.” We can’t confine our entrepreneurial ecosystem mapping exercises (or our entire approaches to cultivating vibrant ecosystems) to what is directly intended or designed to help entrepreneurs:
- “If we don’t recognize the role of things like child care or housing,” Chad said, “you won’t get the entrepreneurial ecosystem you want even though you may have created 10 accelerator programs.”
Exactly.
Read the full article here
