INCAS workshop Septembre 16th 2016 When disruption meets gradual institutional change: The case of startup promotion policies in Korea PAULINE DEBANES, PhD CANDIDATE (EHESS)
Background Phd dissertation about the role of the state in times of financialization. Theoretical framework based on: Regulation Theory and Diversity of capitalism (Boyer & Saillard, 2004; Amable, 2005 ; Boyer et al., 2012), Institutional change and policy outcomes (Streeck & Thelen, 2005), Political dynamics (Jessop, 2002 ; Amable & Palombarini, 2009), Main angle: transformation of industrial policies. Today s presentation: startup promotion policies
Puzzle: the case of startup in Korea Institutional side Policy side Korea as coordinated market economie= prone to incremental innovation (Hall & Soskice, 2001) unfavorable institutional setting for startups with rigid labor market, education, weight of large firms (OECD, 2014) Highest R&D expenditures of OECD countries Few success stories of Korean unicorns (>1 bn $): Coupang, Yello Mobile 2013: creative economy agenda with 2 bn $ /year invested in startups What are the institutional transformations behind the recent startup promotion policies?
Research strategy Focus on startup promotion policies to grasp internal state dynamics (// financialization) 50 Interviews of key actors in the field to understand practices & representations but also to investigate power struggle and conflict of interests Chaebols, startup founders, VCs, incubators, state agencies
Outline I. Historical perspective on SMEs and startup policies: 3 periods of institutional building II. Mode of gradual institutional change (empirical evidences)
I. Historical perspective of building institutional infrastructure for SMEs
Historical perspective of building institutional infrastructure for SMEs 3 periods of institutional building developmental period (1960-1980) dot bubble period (1997-2003) creative economy period (>2010)
1. Developmental period (~1960-1990s) During the developmental period: strong support exporting SMEs, manufacturing SMEs(subcontractors of large firms) Credit guarantee Policy loan ICT (~1990s): Increasing support to R&D, technology based loan (KIBO) Institutional legacy from SMEs and ICT support policies
2. Dot bubble period(early 2000s) Financial liberalization post-97: opportunities to get funding for SMEs. Global context of internet bubble and rise of stock markets Government support: Venture certification system (direct allocation of resources to startups and VCs) Venture boom (x7 between 98 and 2000) Peak of IPO on KOSDAQ (~100 during 3 years) Rise of KOSDAQ index
3. Creative Economy period (2013-) One of the main characteristic: accent on indirect funding through VCs and business angels (matching fund program) Large infrastructure building Financialization deepening: regulatory change to accomodate fintech (p2p lending, crowdfunding) and venture capital
3. Creative Economy period Startup campus (54 000 m2) is supposed to host ~200 startups. In 2015, MSIP has injected 367 M $ in this project. Incubation centers in partnership with chaebols. The GCCEI has a 5.3 M $ annual budget.
Gangnam Area
II. Gradual institutional change
Layering as the main mode of change 3 coexisting and competing layers Knock-on effect: through coordination by the new layer but resistance from old layers. These layers are embedded in the power struggle within the state apparatus (competition between ministries) Evidences from fieldwork: Gov t discourse and actors representation Example of the 2 narratives: creative economy // continuity narrative This layering and underlying power struggle lead to institutional contradictions
The «Creative Economy» narrative
The «continuity» narrative Beginning stage (19861997) Booming stage (19982001) Reformation stage (20022004) Resetting stage (2005 ~)
Further research Drivers of this layering: Institutional level: complementarities Political dynamics: conflicts/convergence of interests between the different actors involved) Startup ecosystem emergence as part of financialization process
Thank you pauline.debanes@ehess.fr
Institutional change analysis Mode of institutional change (Streeck & Thelen, 2005) Gradual but significant change 5 modes: conversion, drift, exhaustion, displacement, layering Drivers of institutional change: institutional complementarities and political dynamics. Strong linkages venture capitalists-entrepreneurs Need for a developed financial markets (M&A and IPO) Depressed macroeconomic context: create you own job (//labor market)
R&D expenditures (OECD) R&D expenditures (%GDP) 4.15% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1996 1998 2000 2002 KOR 2004 OECD 2006 CHN JPN 2008 USA 2010 2012
Developmental period 1966 1975 1976 Small and Medium Industry Basic Law SME special designations Promotion Act Korea Credit Guarantee Fund 1978 1979 1989 SME Restructure fund SBC (funding for SMEs) KIBO with the Financial Assistance to new technology business Act
3. Creative Economy period TIPS, matching fund (5 to 9 times) of business angel or incubator investment. In 2015, 18 M de $ were invested by this programe. Incubation centers in partnership with chaebols. The GCCEI has a 5.3 bl $ annual budget. Startup campus (54 000 m2) is supposed to host till 200 startups. In 2015, MSIP has injected 367 M $ in this project.
Boom of startups: second time is a charm The new wave started in 2010 (no proper infrastructure nor ecosystem) 2 success stories: Ticketmonster and Coupang Valorised at 782 M $ on 04/2015, aquired 2 years before for 260 M $ Valorised at 5 Mds $ in june 2015 after a1 Md $ investment by SoftBank.
3. Creative Economy period
Driver of change: institutional complementarity Financial system Labor market More flexibility Some safety net
Evolution of the VC industry 2000 16000 1800 14000 1600 12000 10000 1200 1000 8000 800 6000 600 4000 400 2000 200 0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 VC fund - total (r) 2002 2003 2004 2005 Amount invested (r) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Registred VC firm (l) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Number of companies funded (l) 2015 BILLION WONS NUMBER 1400
Sous performance du KOSDAQ
Youth unemployment Unemployement rate by age group (%) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20-29 Years old 2008 Total 2009 2010 20-24 Years old 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Notes Interpretation in terms of power struggle within the social space: there are some political interests on the old layers and less differentiate support to SMEs (maybe influence of the old layer on the new extension to social startups=continuity of practices with new hegemonic project