CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Reviewing the literature helps us in familiarising the area of study and examining the existing
works done in the area. The researches which have been carried out earlier screen the effect of
enterprising in India as well as other nations.

The past research and literature related to the work is divided into three categories: (1)
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem; (2) Policy frameworks; and (3) Resource- Based Theory. As we
describe in this section, there is already some significant body of knowledge on this subject.
However, many of these works are in the form of journalistic and non-academic books and
reports. Academic literature in the field is still scarce. Also, we did not find many research
efforts targeting specifically at start-ups in Kerala and policy initiatives of the government,
which is the focus of this study.

2.1 ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM

Mohiuddin & Agadi (2020) studied about the start-up ecosystem in India and identified the
major motivators and challenges for the start-ups in India. They identified the benefits received
by the start-ups in Kerala and the elements of start-up support. The main challenges faced by
the entrepreneurs were identified in the study. Hiring qualified employees, taking the product
to the market, complex regulatory environment is some of the major challenges faced by the
start-ups, which need to be addressed for creating a matured ecosystem.

An appropriate mentoring program provided by business incubator helps in enhancing

entrepreneurial learning which can increase the survival rate of companies (Foo & Turner,
2019). In India, the government has invested a lot to nurture the start-up ecosystem.
Universities provide incubation and mentorship support to their students to start a business
(Jain, 2019). In a latest study, L ke , Longo, & Zo ha (2019) posits that the incubator
characteristics has negligible effect on the growth of start-ups, but incubation tenancy shows a
positive effect on sales revenue of incubated start-ups in the long term.

Start-up Genome (2019) in their Global Start-up Ecosystem Report ranked the flourishing
ecosystem all over the world. Silicon Valley topped the list followed by New York city, London
and Beijing. Bengaluru is the only Indian city which has occupied a position in the top 20 in
Global Start-up Ecosystem ranking. According to the report, Bengaluru start-up ecosystem is

18
in Attraction phase with a value of $24 billion whereas the global median is $5 billion. Edtech
and fintech are the growing sub sectors in Bengaluru. It employs 35 per cent of 2.5 million IT
professionals of the country.

In a study conducted by Thomas & KI (2019), on the role of incubators in Kerala, it was
inferred that, the start-up entrepreneurs in Kerala are highly satisfied with the infrastructural
facilities provided by the incubators in Kerala. The start-up entrepreneurs are also satisfied with
the administration and seed fund support provided by the incubators. But they found, the
incubators are less competitive in providing investor connect.

Kalyanasundaram (2018) has identified the factors in which successful start-ups differ from
the failed start-ups. Time to minimum viable product cycle, time for revenue realization,
fo nde complemen a kill e , age of fo nde i h hei domain e pe i e, pe onality
type of founders, attitude towards financial independence and willingness to avail mentorship
at critical stages are the factors in which successful start-ups differ from the failed start-ups.
Creation of industry specific incubators and a single window for coordinating the activities of
all entrepreneurship development institutions can be a way forward for the policymakers to
nurture entrepreneurship (Sanyal & Hisam, 2018).

Mrkajic (2017) in his case study identifies nascent incubation model, which gives prominence
in providing infrastructural facilities, and seed incubation model, which supports the market
reach development of new ventures. Creating different incubation models in an ecosystem
helps the policymakers to nurture the entrepreneurs in weak areas.

Noufal & Ramachandran (2017) in their study E e e e hi De el me a d he

Prospects of Start-up i Ke ala I d ial Ec m : A O e ie has outlined the
prospects of entrepreneurship development in Kerala. The study concluded that the state should
consider a focused approach to nurture entrepreneurship and skill development. Relevant steps
must be taken to promote the competency of the firms so as to increase its productivity.
Research and development must be promoted to satisfy the needs of the economy.

Adhana (2016) analyses the story of Indian start-up hub. Indian start-up ecosystem includes 9
start-ups which were valued at over $1 billion,490 active investors, 80,000 85,000 people
directly employed by start-ups and 110 incubators.

The anal i of he d The S a - p Inno a ion in India done b Ag a al & Mi h a (2016)

shows that online start-ups in India have come a long way since the starting of Internet

19
technology in India. However, its ride in the last decade has been bumpy because of lack of
support from Government, market, and blinded vision of the business aspect. A crucial role in
shaping the path for these start-ups was the entry of accelerators and incubators. However, it
still has a long way to go before it could catch up with its counterparts in other countries. In
the present scenario, the market segment such as online payment gateways, micro financing,
voice recognition, mass reach and mobile ad networks are good for start-ups. Before entering
into any of these segments, it is important for the start-up to have a realistic business plans
along with customer validation. They defined several positive aspects of Indian ecosystem.
They consider market consolidation and client and technology acquisition as the principle
drivers for boom in Merger & Acquisition of Indian start-ups. The investors are getting more
exit opportunities with this boom. Start-ups undertake new approaches to draw in and
retain prime talent. There is a need for directional efforts to help increase supportive
government policies (tax incentives, availability of risk capital, ease of doing business, etc.).
Apart from this, advice services also help the small business in its early stage (Rifai & Yousif,
2016).

Woman entrepreneurship can make a contribution to a better entrepreneurship by granting

diversity in all aspects. Berger & Kuckertz (2016), cond c ed a d on Female
entrepreneurship in start- p eco em o ld ide . The ool ed fo he d i q ali a i e
comparative analysis which identifies the different ecosystem traits that act as the major
supporting factors for female entrepreneurs in the twenty successful start-up ecosystems
globally. The findings suggest that the positive attributes are within the ecosystems, as opposed
to at the national level. The local government can take steps to improve the participation of
females, particularly in start-ups and thereby multiply the number of women entrepreneurs. In
ecosystems with a majority of female entrepreneurs, developing gender-specific public
procedures will be more appropriate. The government can also support by increasing the
approval rates of ideas brought in by the women entrepreneurs. The findings also indicate that
greater gender equality in addition with a beneficial micro environment encourage women
entrepreneurship.
Cukier, Kon & Lyons (2016) identifies the four stages in the evolution of a start-up ecosystem
as nascent, evolving, mature and self-sustainable. The probability for an ecosystem to regress
are rare but the transition from one phase to other may takes years. According to him, an
ecosystem becomes self-sustainable, when there are at least three generation of entrepreneurs

20
who started investing their wealth as angel investors, educational institutions supporting the
entrepreneurial culture and there are start-up events happening almost every day.
Kshethri (2016) pointed out that due to the lack of entrepreneurial education in India, the
co n cce f l companie in e hea il in emplo ee h o gh e en i e aining and
development in firm-specific skills. Most start-ups often are not in positions to do what
established firms do to recruit and train employees. Start-ups need to be prepared with this
reality and plan accordingly.

India will become home to over 10,500 start-ups by 2020, employing over 2,10,000 people,
reveals the NASSCOM (2016) report. It added that there is a 40 per cent increase in the number
of active incubators and accelerators in 2016 with impetus from government and corporates.
O e 30 ne academic inc ba o ha e been e abli hed nde he go e nmen Start-up
India Stand- p India ini ia i e, and ie -II/III cities have established 66 per cent of the new
incubators, it added.

Press Trust of India (2016) in a newspaper report claims that more than 50 start-ups have
graduated from Start-up Village's Physical and Virtual incubation programme and 8 start-ups
from Digital incubation. Sixty start-ups collectively raised funds to the tune of Rs 46.53 crore
during or after the 6-month incubation programme. Since 2012, Start-up Village has supported
nearly 590 physical and virtual incubatees in Kochi.

Sarkar (2016) in his study claims that entrepreneurs provide the energy for the econom
growth. Start-ups need support and encouragement from various perspectives in initial phase
and subsequently the growth phase till establishment on firm footing. Technology based start-
up have a significant importance in India. Start-up India is a collaborative approach for Young
Entrepreneurs & Youth Empowerment.

Unnithan and Ramanadhan (2016) explores in their study that the changes in college
environment and family support are the main precedents for the sudden growth in
en ep ene ial in en ion among Ke ala b ine den . O he fac o a e indi id al
characteristics which includes planned behaviour and risk propensity.

Bala Subrahmanya (2015) concluded that the strength of the ecosystem lies in an increasing
number of start-up entrepreneurs and sources of entrepreneurship, and stronger support systems
for the Emergence and Survival & Stability phases of the start-up life cycle. High quality
business mentors and seed funders in adequate numbers, and in diverse areas will have a
determining influence on the quality of start-ups and their rate of success.

21
Bell-Masterson & Stangler (2015) conducted a research to analyse the economic impact of
high-growth start-ups. Researchers identified start-up characteristics that signal the growth
ambition of founders, including how a firm is named, where it registers, and whether it files
for patents or trademarks, and maps these characteristics to significant growth outcomes. These
start-ups account for as many as 50 percent of new jobs created. It differentiates themselves
from other companies by expanding not just in size but also in number of new locations
creating new opportunities in diverse geographic areas. Start-ups encourage subsequent
employment growth in their related industries. Entrepreneurs are starting firms that could be
high growth, but struggle because the environment is less accommodating.

Kuriakose & Joseph (2015) in their study Nurturing Youth Entrepreneurship to Tackle Youth
Unemployment: A Case Study of Kerala claim that youth entrepreneurship holds a promising
avenue for growth and development especially in the developing countries with a favourable
demographic dividend like India. Innovative ideas need to be nurtured, risk taking to be
encouraged and a favourable environment for sustainable development has to be ushered in.

Ga a Sikka (2015) in hi a icle India The Wo ld Fastest Growing Start-up Eco em

explored that the average valuation of an Indian start-up is $2.3 million as compared to $4.2
million of an American start-up. 43 percent of product/digital organizations are focusing on the
global market and 28 percent continue to be technology hotspots. With a 59 per cent of B2C,
37 per cent of B2B, and 4 per cent of B2C/ B2B start-ups, Indian start-up ecosystem has a lot
of ground to cover in terms of securing funding.

Nikhil, Joy & Santha (2015) analyses that majority of the start-ups operating in Cochin Start
Up village is non-revenue generating units due to poor product market fit and lack of
proper mentoring aid. The majority of the start-ups had high family support. The main
problem faced by Start-ups was return on investment and time, followed by failure to develop
proper product. Mentoring was identified as the third constraint faced by the start-ups, followed
by funding.

Sharifi & Hossein (2015) reported that funding is a major concern for start-ups and small
businesses. It is difficult to raise funds from investors and bankers in the early stages of a
business. If provided, a small investment is made in the initial stages of a business.

According to the report posted in Entrepreneurship and Start-ups Articles by Malviya (2015),
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has also relaxed some rules to facilitate the
flow of funds from the market to the start-ups, considering the importance of role that the Indian

22
start-ups are all set to play in the growth of Indian economy, the amount of income and the
huge number of jobs that can be created by facilitating start-ups.

Based on unique survey data of 457 academic start-ups in Japan and by estimating an ordered
logit model Suzuki & Okamuro (2015) has concluded that the academic start-ups are strongly
oriented toward expanding its business internationally if they have high technological
capabilities, receive public support, are established in locations with a high ratio of exporting
small firms, or are affiliated with a parent university with an excellent level of research.

Aramvalarthanathan (2014) identified the major challenges in the Venture capital ecosystem
in India. The entrepreneurs still rely on angel funding due to the limited availability of venture
capital funds and skewness of venture capital funds to the tech industry. He also opines that
the available VC funds are concentrated to metros and the investment horizon is too short for
a start-up to scale up. Developing a VC ecosystem in the country helps the start-ups in raising
funds. The initiative could bring mentors and other support network to the country which create
a vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country.

Jhunjhunwala, Ghosh & Prashant (2014) concluded in their article, academic incubators are
attractive as they provide the state-of-the-art technological support and personal mentoring and
training services to the budding entrepreneurs. In addition, they provide intellectual support
from the host institution and a network of alumni contacts from the industry which helps a
start-up to reach out to the market faster. But still access to finance is a bottleneck in the Indian
Start-up funding scenario. He suggested that a matching government fund along with the VC
fund can be adopted to meet the funding needs.

Joseph (2014) carried out a Structural equation modeling [SEM] to find out the suitability of
Kerala as an IT industrial hub. According to him the manpower and infrastructure facilities
available in the state are suitable for making the state an attractive IT industrial hub. Similarly,
the efforts being undertaken by the IT promotional agencies in Kerala are effective and in the
proper direction.

University start-up linkages are recently studied considering its importance in the present
scenario. Ratzinger, Greenman & Mosey (2013) identified that the skills received from
university are not completely industry focussed, still university has a greater role in the internet
start-up ecosystem as educators. Other than human capital, social capital plays a significant
role in an internet ecosystem. Network capital, participator capital and community capital were
identified as the main components of a social capital.

23
Education system plays an important role in blooming entrepreneurship culture among
youngsters. Rao & Rao (2013) in their study proposes that the education sector in India is
interdisciplinary. But that is negated by local teachers lack of ability to motivate the students
for start-ups and also to connect theory with business reality.

Suresh & Ramraj (2012) through in-depth interview explored eight factors, comprising the
ecosystem, which influence the decision of an individual to choose the path of entrepreneurship
- Moral, Financial, Technology, Market, Social, Network, Government and Environmental
Support.

There are no hard and fast rules that entrepreneurs can use to swiftly internationalize their
business from formation. Maltby (2012) in his article analyses how business tycoons use social
networks to quickly enter global markets from beginning. The research was done to analyse
the way in which the entrepreneurs (of Dewak S.A., a Colombian start-up founded in 2008)
expanded their business internationally. Social media may be an inexpensive channel to reach
foreign markets for the technology start-ups. Marketers can use social media networks to
increase mutual dependencies with clients and partners who in turn help them to enlarge their
tacit know-how and rapidly adapt it into the products which satisfy customer needs. Customers
can pick out suppliers primarily based on their ability to troubleshoot problems and answer
complaints. Marketing and sales costs can be reduced to some extent via providing answers to
the issues discussed within the on-line forums and blogs.
Ahmad & Hoffmann (2008) identified the major social and economic objectives related to
entrepreneurship as job creation, economic growth and poverty alleviation. Philip (2008) in his
d An En ep ene hip Model fo Ke ala , epo ed ha go e nmen eg la ion a e
curbing the growth of enterprises in Kerala. Lot of compliances in various government
department requires huge time and effort. The entrepreneurs even do not avail the financial
benefits from governmental agencies as the paperwork involved makes them shy to apply. He
suggested that the government agencies must make the regulatory requirements very simple so
that an entrepreneur can concentrate more on his business. The government agencies must also
arrange facilities to help entrepreneurs in acquiring new technology feasibly.

Khan, Mohammad Khan & Nur Alam (2005), carried out a Factor Analysis using Varimax
Rotation showing that the background factors like strong education and training facilities,
desire to achieve, accepting responsibility, hard works, and risk orientation of the entrepreneur
have a bearing on the success of entrepreneurs. In addition to this, the socio-economic factors

24
such as uniform commercial law and limited regulations, corruption, encouragement and
support from society and family, good banking with available credit, social integration, social
status, meaningful democracy, and free trade with limited tariffs, enterprise zone, available
technology, and strong telecommunication and distribution networks are also important for
creating entrepreneurs.

Prema (2003) in he d A d on he effectiveness of entrepreneurial development

programmes for the development of small- cale ind ie in Ke ala info med ha man
entrepreneurs have chosen entrepreneurship as a career of last resort. Entrepreneurship
awareness and development programs must be conducted on a continuous basis. Publicizing
the opportunities available will enthuse the potential entrepreneurs. Follow up of trainees upon
successful completion of program is required to achieve high success rate in business creation
and survival.

The role played by business incubators in promoting entrepreneurship activities of the region
are constantly debated. In a study of 49 incubators by Peters, Rice & Sundararajan (2004), the
author explains the evolution of business incubators from mere provider of office spaces to one
facilitating training, networking and consulting services to start-up entrepreneurs.

Existing research shows that incubators play a significant role in promoting entrepreneurial
ventures and start-ups in particular. Financial aid and support services aimed at business
incubators helps to create an entrepreneurial ecosystem in a region.

2.2 POLICY FRAMEWORKS

Biancalani, Czarnitzki, & Riccaboni (2020) studied the impact of the Italian Start-up Act on
the Equity, Debt and Employment of the start-ups registered as innovative start-ups in Italy.
The government provides tax credit, guarantee for loans, eased the labour laws to support the
start-ups in Italy. It was observed that, the firms registered under the program could raise more
equity and debt and generate more employment opportunities.

Koshy (2019) explained the evolution of entrepreneurship policies in India. The central
government and the state government have launched many schemes to support the
entrepreneurs in India. The government has introduced MUDRA scheme to refinance the
institutions which lend to the entrepreneurs. Even though the schemes have created a better
eco em in he co n , ill man ini ia i e ha en eached he en ep ene in all he
region.

25
The business environment in India are unorganized. Shaikh (2019) suggests the government to
pa ne i h ni e i ie , ind and NGO o c ea e a cond ci e en i onmen fo a -ups
in India. Creation of clear cut and transparent policies helps in reducing the failure rates among
the start-ups.

Islam, Fremeth & Marcus (2018) in their study Sig ali g b ea l age start-ups: US
g e me e ea ch g a a d e e ca i al f di g concludes that those start-ups that
have been awarded grants from federal agencies were 12% more likely to acquire subsequent
Venture Capi al (VC) f nding. In e e ingl , he e ec i onl p e en fo he i mon h
following receipt of a government grant and not for later windows. This suggests start-ups are
likely to use these grants expeditiously in advancing their relationships with VCs and that the
cachet that comes from these awards may decay over time.

The Italian Start-up Survey conducted by Ministry of Economic Development, Italy (2017) has
identified the start-up en ep ene suggestions towards the policy additions in the Italian
Start-up Act. The suggestions were heterogeneous but were classified under seven policy
initiatives. Access to finance, tax incentives, labour law, funding schemes, equity and alternate
finance, red tape and communication are the areas where the entrepreneurs need more
government action.

Sanyal & Hisam (2018) in their study opines that along with lack of funding and rigid
regulations the small business is also facing challenges like lack of infrastructural facilities and
technical knowledge base. Creating business incubators can solve this problem and foster a
vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem in a country. They suggested that government should
collaborate with private institutions to set up supporting infrastructure and create a single
window to bring all entrepreneurship development institutions under one roof. Efforts must be
taken to establish more business incubators to support manufacturing units along with the
service driven businesses.

Davari & Farokhmanesh (2017) in their article Im ac f e e e e hi licie

opportunity to start-up indicated that education and culture, regulation and support actions
(financial and non-financial) has a positive impact on opportunity to start-up. Apart from policy
execution, proper evaluation should be considered to access the efficiency. They also suggested
that the government should think of privatization to generate more opportunities for
entrepreneurs. Support must be given up to four years to avoid bankruptcy.

26
Bala Subrahmanya (2017) examined the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bengaluru and
Hyderabad and noticed that the central government and regional government have played an
important role in the evolution of an ecosystem in both the cities. The evolution of ecosystem
in Bengaluru was a result of the positive response of market forces to economic policies
whereas proactive regional government initiatives followed by market response led to the
evolution of an ecosystem in Hyderabad.
Georgallis & Durand (2017) in their working paper, Achie i g High G h i P lic -
Dependent Industries: Differences between Start-ups and Corporate-Backed Ve e claims
that high growth is positively linked to policy generosity, and negatively linked to policy
discontinuity. Corporate-backed ventures are less affected by policy generosity compared to
entrepreneurial start-ups, and less impacted by policy discontinuity as well.

Italian Ministry of Economic Development (2017) proposed in the Italian Start-up Act certain
policies to support innovative start-ups. The Act allows a start-up to transfer the losses incurred
in the first three years to companies holding 20 per cent of the start-up capi al ha e.
Contamination labs are created in universities to support students to develop innovative
projects. The Act also provides tax incentives for R&D expenses and income received from
the use of Intellectual Property by a start-up.

In the US Start-up Outlook Survey conducted by Silicon Valley Bank (2017), it was observed
that changing the corporate tax structure, increasing access to talents through immigration
policy and improving the education system, simplifying regulations, encouraging global trade,
providing government support for R&D helps in supporting business. It was found that access
to talent followed by healthcare cost, cybersecurity issues, corporate taxes and patent litigation
are some of the common problems faced by start-ups.

Bartlett (2016) has found how government policy fails to drive entrepreneurship in Croatia. He
observed that, subsidies were given to politically well-connected businesses. Providing
financial support to inefficient firms controlled the entry of firms with more potential. The
failure of government to remove bureaucracy and administrative hurdles will not foster entry
of new firms. Follow up must be done to check whether the support is reaching the deserving
people.

Wonglimpiyarat (2016) analysed the government policies introduced in Israel to foster start-
up ecosystem in the country. The government introduced Yozma, TNUFA, NOFAR, HEZNEK
and Magnet programs which offers tax incentives to foreign venture capitalists and R&D

27
support to start-ups. The government also invest in R&D activities through Israel Innovation
Authority. They also made bilateral agreements with US, Europe and UK which provides funds
for R&D expenses. Open innovation is recommended to increase corporate-start-up alliances.

Hyra, Johnston, Hardy & Doughty (2015) in their study recommended that, the government
officials should market the incentives available for entrepreneurs at a public forum. The
business leaders can directly communicate with the government officials which helps in easing
the process of adopting the incentives available. He encouraged to establish a consortium to
create a link between universities and enterprise. This helps in refining the curriculum to
develop entrepreneurial spirit among the students.

Fuerlinger, Fandl, & Funke (2015) analysed that, introducing more chairs of entrepreneurship
in universities play a major role in creating an entrepreneurial spirit among students. Providing
incentives to professors and scientific staff on the basis of their tech transfer activities boost
spin off creation from universities. Proof of concept grants and pre seed funding help start-ups
in the tech transfer process.

Kim, Shin & Lee (2015) in their study argued that, it is necessary to follow up, access and
evaluate the execution and implementation of existing policy provisions rather than creating
new policy ideas. Some experts may argue that recruiting highly educated and experienced
people may propose associated policy recommendations. Excessive use of policy plans and
actions can lead to excess complexity and difficulty in implementation.

Okpa (2015) in his thesis The Impact of Government Policy on the Relationship between
Critical Success Factors and Incubation C ib i has concluded that infrastructure,
financial resources and business support are the critical factors contributing to the success of a
business incubator. Government policy is the catalyse for the success of incubation programs
in a country.

Motoyama & Wiens (2015) in their research informed that, creation of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem is a lengthy process. If the government wishes to create a vibrant ecosystem, the
officials must network with the entrepreneurs both in individual and local level. The incubator
can contact local entrepreneurs to act as voluntary mentor to reduce the financial burden for
start-ups on meeting consultants. Involving local entrepreneurs in the selection team, while
granting funds to the start-ups, as they might be aware of the challenges faced by a small
entrepreneur in a particular locality.

28
Sabarinathan, (2014) in his article The S a e a a Limi ed Pa ne opines that, there are no
evidence of the financial success of the schemes introduced by the government from the late
eighties. The government should monitor and evaluate such initiatives and design the program
to make it easier for government and other investors to exit the program if the progress does
not reach a milestone. There are hardly enough theories in designing a policy initiative to
support entrepreneurship by the state.

Obaji & Olugu (2014) in their study hypothesized that there is a positive relation between
entrepreneurship and economic development and government policy act as moderator in
between. He opines that when there are many businesses in the locality, it provides employment
opportunities to local people residing there. This leads to economic development. The support
programs initiated by the government must be constantly funded as mentioned in the policy
document.

Aleisa, Recker, Liddle & Brown (2013) in he d Start-up Ecosystem: Study of the
Ecosystems around the Wo ld; Foc ing on Silicon Valle , To on o and Mo co gge ed
that a successful ecosystem consists of entrepreneurs, with coding skills and business skills,
sufficient funds, by bringing together investors and entrepreneurs, and eased government
regulations in the form of taxation and funding. Availability of funding in all stages of start-up
life cycle is the similarity among the top start-up ecosystems.
Ljungblad & Björk (2013) in their thesis has proposed an Early Stage Software Start-up
Development Model. The purpose of this model is to identify a scalable business idea. A start-
up should go through 3 stages of the model namely- idea generation, backlog and funnel. The
entrepreneur should first identify the problems or pain points of the potential customers. The
idea to start up can be generated from finding out the unmet needs of the customers. The ideas
must be arranged based on priority in the backlog stage. It then passes through a funnel which
has four stages- namely - Validate problem, validate solution, validate MVP small-scale, and
validate MVP large-scale. After moving through all the stages, the entrepreneur gets a validated
idea for scaling.
Ranga & Etzkowitz (2013) explained triple helix theory with its components, relationship and
functions. The main function of triple helix involves knowledge generation and diffusion. The
knowledge generation can be done through setting up of research institutes in regions where it
is lacking, bringing researchers to the region by setting up of universities, creating new
universities by collaborating existing lead universities, and creating university resources to
support a new industry.

29
Tang et al (2013) has done a comparative analysis on the Technology Business Incubators in
China and India. Their findings report that both the countries have many similarities and
diffe ence be een he TBI . Similarities include objectives, selection criteria for tenants,
funding of new ventures, and basic services provided to the tenants. Both the countries follow
the pattern of TBI operations in many developed economies. The differences include
ownership/legal status of TBI, nature of structure and governance, funding of TBI, value-added
service and specialist services provided by TBIs to the tenants, and duration of incubation for
tenants. In addition, there is a big difference between China and India in terms of number of
TBIs, number of tenants, number of employees of tenants, and revenues generated by tenants.
China is ahead of India in many TBI indicators. India can learn from China in the areas of policy
design, implementation, supervision and evaluation, the convenient one-stop service and public
platform service which helps to reduce the cost of tenants and solve their common problems,
collection and accumulation of nation-wide TBI statistical data which are important for
informed policy making and evaluating the current policies.

Lesakova (2012) in his study has concluded that creation of business incubators helps in
solving social economic issues like creating and retaining a business in a country, wealth
creation, and improving the business environment. Office spaces at comparatively lesser rent
than the market price, educational services and administrative support creates a favourable
environment for business in the initial stage. He further says that success of a business to a
great extend depends on the locally implemented support mechanisms.

Zindiye, Chiliya, & Masocha (2012) in hei a icle The Impac of Go e nmen and o he
Institutions' support on the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in the
Man fac ing Sec o in Ha a e, Zimbab e , anal ed he incen i e p o ided b he
government to support Small and Medium Enterprises. The government provide tax break for
companies subcontracting to SME. The government provide a guarantee fund which act as a
surety when the SME want to borrow from banks.

The main intention of incubated companies is access to finance and low rent for office space
(Radosevic & Myrzakhmet 2009). They suggested the policymakers to give priority for
providing grants to innovative projects, to provide necessary skillset to people who are dealing
with the innovative project and to provide support to IT parks.

Thurik (2009) in his research paper discussed about differences between an entrepreneurship
economy and managed economy. He suggested that the policies adopted in a developing

30
country should combine entrepreneurial model and managed model. In an entrepreneurial
model government act as a facilitator by establishing networks, providing incentives etc. In a
managed economy model the policy decisions are made by national government where as in
an entrepreneurial model, the locus of policymaking is decentralised. The policies should be
formulated specific to a particular region for a successful outcome.

2.3. RESOURCE BASED THEORY

Ahn, Han, & Kang (2019) in their study identified that, the entrepreneurial competence,
managerial and technical competency of the entrepreneur has a significant impact on the
performance of the start-ups. They also identified that providing support services mediates the
effect of entrepreneurial competency on firm performance.

Ahmed (2017) examined the impact of managerial capability on firm performance. He

concluded that investment in the learning and development activities in large organization
results in increased managerial capability which in turn lead to improved performance. But in
the case of small organizations, lack of investment in the learning culture lead to poor
managerial capability which affects the performance of the venture. Although managerial
capability is an intangible resource, it has great impact on the success of an enterprise.

Wolff, & Pett (2006) examined the firm performance using the variables growth and
p ofi abili . The iden ified ha , he fi m i h p od c imp o emen o ien a ion ha mo e
impact on the growth and profitability of a firm. He also found that environmental hostility,
internationalization, and product improvement has a positive effect on the growth and
profitability of a firm.
Rivard, Raymond, & Verreault (2006) analysed the impact of IT support on firm capabilities
as a strategic necessity perspective. He found that IT can be a competitive strategy if it is used
to leverage firm capabilities. IT was found to have direct impact on the firm performance and
profitability. He further suggested that, the criteria to be adopted while purchasing or
developing a system in an enterprise must be to foresee the level to which the system can
support and compliment other assets of the firm.
Halawi, Aronson & McCarthy (2005) analysed how knowledge management can be used as a
competitive advantage for a firm. They identified that the knowledge must be rare, non-
imitable, non- substitutable and valuable to be a competitive advantage. It was concluded that
the knowledge quality, knowledge management infrastructure and properties of the knowledge
are positively related to the competitive advantage of the firm.

31
Galbreath (2005) in his study examined whether intangible or tangible resources are
contributing to the competitive advantage of a firm. He concluded that, the intangible resources
are contributing to the success of a firm. He also suggested that the managers must invest more
time and money in the intangible resources compared to other resources.

Wong, Cheung & Venuvinod (2005) in their study found that well developed the managerial
skill of the founder enhances the performance of a business at the start-up stage. Other than the
managerial skill, personality traits of the founder, innovation introduced in product, process,
service and market, and motivation of the entrepreneur to start a venture has an impact on the
performance of his enterprise.

Kakati (2003) analysed the factors influencing the success of high-tech ventures. Entrepreneur
quality, resource-based capability, competitive strategy, product characteristics, market
characteristics and financial criteria were studied to identify which factor contributed to the
success or failure of an enterprise. It was concluded that entrepreneur quality, resource-based
capability, competitive strategy could determine the performance of a venture. He also
identified that, a business can become successful, if it has the ability to meet the unique
requirements of the customer.

Fahy (2002) identified the resource- based model of sustainable competitive advantage in
global environment. He found that it is difficult for a manager to identify and protect resources
and to manage diverse set of customers in a global context. The role of government here is to
create policies on firm rivalry, factor condition etc., which support the firms to sustain its
competitive advantage

Lee, Lee & Pennings (2001) examined how the internal capabilities and external networks are
impacting the firm performance. It was concluded that financial resources invested during the
development phase, technological capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation has a positive
impact on the performance of a firm. Among the external networks, linkages with the venture
capital company could predict the performance of a firm.

Hooley et al (1999) in his study analysed that marketing capability, operational capability and
tactical capability contribute to the performance of a firm. Following the resource-based view,
he anticipates that these factors can be a sustainable competitive advantage for the firm. He
understands resource- based view as, achieving sustainable competitive advantage through the
possession of key resources, which can add value for customers.

32
Chandler & Hanks (1994) measured the relationship between resource-based capabilities
possessed by a firm and competitive strategies like quality, innovation and cost leadership
adopted by a firm. A significant relationship was observed between quality and innovation with
the perceived resources of a firm. It was also observed that, firms adopted cost leadership
strategy without enough resources to support the strategy. Firms with broad levels of resource-
based capability exhibited enhanced growth in business and performance.

Grant (1991) proposed a framework of resource-based theory of competitive advantage.

According to his practical framework, a firm has to identify the resources possessed and how
it can be utilized in a better manner. The firm should then examine the capabilities and match
it with the available resources. Those activities which could generate profit are identified and
a egie a e fo m la ed o be e e he fi m e o ce in a compe i i e manne . The fi m
should replenish the resources and identify resource gap if any.

2.4 RESEARCH GAP

Kerala start up policy is an initiative of the Kerala Government, intended to build a strong
ecosystem, that are playing a prominent role in boosting economic competitiveness and
promoting regional development. The initiative is expected to change the face of the state
gradually. The literature review shows that, there are a few research studies based on start-up
sector in Kerala. Most of the studies on start-up ecosystem and the government policies to
support start-ups are done outside India. So, there exists a gap in the literature in this area. As
such conducting a study on the reach of policy initiatives of government on start-ups in Kerala
has a wide scope at present. Studies related to the resource-based capability of the firms are
mainly done outside India. Resources possessed by the firms are also an integral part of the
performance of the start-ups. So, there exists a research gap. The proposed study will benefit
the entrepreneurially oriented youngsters and help the policy makers to act up on it.

2.5 CONCLUSION

The above section discusses the available literature in the area of Start-up Ecosystem and the
Policies undertaken by the regional government to support start-ups in the area. This chapter
also discusses about the Resource Based view of firms in India and abroad. But there is not
much literature available on the evolving Start-up Ecosystem in Kerala and the Resource based
capabilities of the firms in Kerala. There exists a research gap in this area. The present study
wishes to contribute to the literature by concentrating on the Government support availed by

33
start-ups in Kerala. The study also wishes to examine the resource-based capability of start-ups
in Kerala.

References:

1. Adhana, D. (2016). Start-UP India, Stand-UP India: India turning into a Start-UP HUB by
Prospering Entrepreneurial Culture. International Journal in Management and Social
Science, 4.
2. Agrawal, K., & Mishra, D. K. (2016). The Start-up Innovation in India. IME Journal, X (1),
33-42.
3. Ahmed, K. A. (2017). The Influence of Development on Managerial Capabilities and
Performance: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 20,
1-12.
4. Ahmad, N., & Hoffmann, A. (2008). A Framework for Addressing and Measuring
Entrepreneurship.
5. Ahn, T. U., Han, D. H., & Kang, T. W. (2019). The Effects of Entrepreneur Competence
Characteristics on Start-Up Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of the Start-Up
Support System. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 14(1),
73-83.
6. Aleisa, E., Recker, J., Liddle, R., & Brown, T. (2013). Start-up Ecosystems. Study of the
Ecosystems Around the World; Focusing on Silicon Valley, Toronto and Moscow, 1-38.
7. Bala Subramanya, M. H. (2015). New Generation Start-ups in India: What Lessons can we
Learn from the Past. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(12), 56-63.
8. Bartlett, W. (2016). The Failure of Government Policies to Drive Entrepreneurial
Performance in Croatia. In Routledge Handbook of Entrepreneurship in Developing
Economies (pp. 119-132). Routledge.
9. Bell-Masterson, J. & Stangler, D. (2015). Measuring an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. SSRN
Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.2580336.
10. Berger, E. S., & Kuckertz, A. (2016). Female Entrepreneurship in Start-up Ecosystems
Worldwide. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5163-5168.
11. Biancalani, F., Czarnitzki, D., & Riccaboni, M. (2020). The Italian Start-up Act: Empirical
Evidence of Policy Effects. FEB Research Report MSI_2002.

34
12. Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market Attractiveness, Resource-Based
Capabilities, Venture Strategies, and Venture Performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 9(4), 331-349.
13. Cukier, D., Kon, F., & Lyons, T. S. (2016, June). Software Start-up Ecosystems Evolution:
The New York City Case Study. In 2016 International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation/IEEE International Technology Management Conference
(ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
14. Davari, A., & Farokhmanesh, T. (2017). Impact of Entrepreneurship Policies on
Opportunity to Start-up. Management Science Letters, 7(9), 431-438.
15. Fahy, J. (2002). A Resource-Based Analysis of Sustainable Competitive Advantage in a
Global Environment. International Business Review, 11(1), 57-77.
16. Foo, H. Y., & Turner, J. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial Learning The Role of University Led
Business Incubators and Mentors in Equipping Graduates with the Necessary Skills Set for
Industry 4.0. Int. J. Educ, 4(30), 283-298.
17. Fuerlinger, G., Fandl, U., & Funke, T. (2015). The Role of the State in the Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem: Insights from Germany. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1-26.
18. Galbreath, J. (2005). Which Resources Matter the Most to Firm Success? An Exploratory
Study of Resource-Based Theory. Technovation, 25(9), 979-987.
19. Georgallis, P. P., & Durand, R. (2017). Achieving High growth in Policy-dependent
Industries: Differences between Start-ups and Corporate-backed Ventures. Long Range
Planning, 50(4), 487-500.
20. Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications
for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135.
21. Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look Before you Leap: Market
Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms. Management Science, 54(9),
1652-1665.
22. Halawi, L. A., Aronson, J. E., & McCarthy, R. V. (2005). Resource-based View of
Knowledge Management for Competitive Advantage. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 3(2), 75.
23. Hooley, G., Fahy, J., Cox, T., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K., & Snoj, B. (1999). Marketing
Capabilities and Firm Performance: A Hierarchical Model. Journal of Market-focused
Management, 4(3), 259-278.

35
24. Hyra, D., Johnston, J., Hardy, B., & Doughty, M. (2015). The Roadmap for the Washington
Region Economic F e: A S a e and Local Le el Economic De elopmen Polic Gap
Analysis. Washington, DC: School of Public Affairs, American University.
25. Islam, M., Fremeth, A., & Marcus, A. (2018). Signaling by Early Stage Start-ups: US
Government Research Grants and Venture Capital Funding. Journal of Business
Venturing, 33(1), 35-51.
26. Jain, T. K. (2019). Policy Initiatives for Start-ups: The India Story. Available at SSRN
3314524.
27. Joseph, J. K. (2014). Structural Equation Modelling [SEM] Regarding the Suitability of
Kerala as an IT Industrial Hub. Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I Issue XVIV.
28. Kakati, M. (2003). Success Criteria in High-Tech New Ventures. Technovation, 23(5), 447-
457.
29. Kalyanasundaram, G. (2018). Why Do Start-ups Fail? A Case Study Based Empirical
Analysis in Bangalore. Asian Journal of Innovation & Policy, 7(1).
30. Khan, E. A., Mohammad Khan, S., & Nur Alam, M. (2005). Factors Affecting the Growth
of Entrepreneurship in Small-scale Business. Business Review, 5(1), 33-37.
31. Kim, H., Shin, D. H., & Lee, D. (2015). A Socio-Technical Analysis of Software Policy in
Korea: Towards a Central Role for Building ICT Ecosystems. Telecommunications
Policy, 39(11), 944-956.
32. Ko h , P. (2019). India En ep ene hip Polic : F e Ta k and Vi ion.
33. Kshetri, N. (2016). Fostering Start-up Ecosystems in India. Asian Research Policy, 7(1), 94-
103.
34. Kuriakose, F., & Joseph, J. (2015). Nurturing Youth Entrepreneurship to Tackle Youth
Unemployment: A Case study of Kerala. Journal of Research Innovation and Management
Science, 1(1).
35. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and
Pe fo mance: A S d on Technolog ba ed Ven e . Strategic Management
Journal, 22(6 7), 615-640.
36. Lesakova, L. (2012). The Role of Business Incubators in Supporting the SME Start-up. Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, 9(3), 85-95.
37. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations
(February 2012). Encyclopedia of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, New York:
Springer.

36
38. L ke , M., Longo, M. C., & Zo ha , J. (2019). Do B ine Inc ba o Reall Enhance
Entrepreneurial Growth? Evidence from a Large Sample of Innovative Italian Start-
ups. Technovation, 82, 25-34.
39. Maltby, T. (2012). Using Social Media to Accelerate the Internationalization of Start-ups
from Inception. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(10).
40. Mathew, S. K., & Johnson, J. An Empirical Study on the Influence of Age and Gender on
the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation of Engineering Students in Kerala State.
41. Mohiuddin, S. K., & Agadi, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for Start-ups: Challenges
and Significance. Studies in Indian Place Names, 40(27), 813-824.
42. Motoyama, Y., & Wiens, J. (2015). Guidelines for Local and State Governments to Promote
Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN 2580321.
43. Mrkajic, B. (2017). Business Incubation Models and Institutionally Void
Environments. Technovation, 68, 44-55.
44. Nikhil, N. K., Joy, V., & Santha, S. (2015). Problems and Prospects of Start-ups in Kerala-
A study with Special Reference to Cochin Start-up Village. International Journal of
Physical and Social Sciences, 5(9), 276-289.
45. Noufal, P., & Ramachandran, K. V. (2017). Entrepreneurship Development and the
Prospects of Start- p in Ke ala Ind ial Econom : An O e ie . International Journal
of Research in Management and Business Studies, 4(2), 13-15.
46. Obaji, N. O., & Olugu, M. U. (2014). The Role of Government Policy in Entrepreneurship
Development. Science Journal of Business and Management, 2(4), 109-115.
47. Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The Role of Incubators in the
Entrepreneurial Process. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 83-91.
48. Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between Vision and Reality: Promoting
Innovation through Technoparks in an Emerging Economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645-656.
49. Ranga, M. Etzkowitz. H. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for
Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society, Industry & Higher
Education, 27(3), 237-262.
50. Rao, M. S., & Rao, A. P. (2013). Promoting entrepreneurship in India.
51. Ratzinger, D., Greenman, A., & Mosey, S. (2013, April). The Role of Universities as
Educators in the UK Internet Start-up Ecosystem: Research Opportunities. In Third Meeting
of Business Creation Experts from Business Incubators and Researchers: EDHEC Business.
Lille.

37
52. Rifai, F., & Yousif, A. S. H. (2016). The Role of Business Incubators in the Success of
Entrepreneur Start-ups: A Field Study in the Jordanian Economy. Asian Journal of Business
and Management Sciences, 4(11), 1-13.
53. Rivard, S., Raymond, L., & Verreault, D. (2006). Resource-Based View and Competitive
Strategy: An Integrated Model of the Contribution of Information Technology to Firm
Performance. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(1), 29-50.
54. Rusu, S., Isac, F., Cureteanu, R., & Csorba, L. (2012). Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneur:
A Review of Literature Concepts. African Journal of Business Management, 6(10), 3570.
55. Sanyal, S., & Hisam, M. W. (2018). The Role of Business Incubators in Creating an
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: A Study of the Sultanate of Oman. Indian Journal of Commerce
and Management Studies, 9(3), 60-77.
56. Sarkar, A. (2016). Start-up India-A New Paradigm for Young Entrepreneurs (A Conceptual
Study). Available at SSRN 2835322.
57. Shaikh, F. F. (2019). Start-Up in India: Prospects, Problems and Plans.
58. Sharifi, O., & Hossein, B. K. (2015). Understanding the Financing Challenges faced by
Start-ups in India. International Journal of Science Technology & Management, 4(1), 264-
272.
59. Subrahmanya, M. B. (2017). Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for Technology
Start-ups in Bangalore and Hyderabad, India. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 7(7).
60. Suresh, J., & Ramraj, R. (2012). Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Case study on the Influence of
Environmental Factors on Entrepreneurial Success. European Journal of Business and
Management, 4(16), 95-101.
61. Suzuki, S., & Okamuro, H. (2015). Determinants of Academic Start-up's Orientation toward
International Business Expansion.
62. Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Drews, C. C. (2015). Understanding Motivations for
Entrepreneurship: A Review of Recent Research Evidence.
63. 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), 33-58.
64. Thoma , J., & KI, G. (2019). The Role of Inc ba ion Cen e in Ke ala Start-up
Ecosystem.

38
65. Thurik, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Policy in Emerging
Economies, WIDER Working Paper Series 012, World Institute for Development Economic
Research (UNU-WIDER).
66. Unni han, D. and Ramanadhan, H.N. (2016). The Ne C ea o in God O n Co n :
Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention among Business Students in Kerala. International
Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 6(4), 221-228.
67. Wolff, J. A., & Pe , T. L. (2006). Small fi m Pe fo mance: Modeling he Role of P od c
and Process Improvements. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268-284.
68. Wong, W. K., Cheung, H. M., & Venuvinod, P. K. (2005). Assessing the Growth Potential
of High-Technology Start-Ups: An Exploratory Study from Hong Kong. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship, 18(4), 453-470.
69. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2016). Government Policies towards Israel's High-tech
Powerhouse. Technovation, 52, 18-27.
70. Zindiye, S., Chiliya, N., & Masocha, R. (2012). The Impact of Government and Other
Institutions' Support on the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in the
Manufacturing Sector in Harare, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Business Management
& Economic Research, 3(6).

Dissertations

1. DR, P. (2003). A Study on the Effectiveness of Entrepreneurial Development Programmes

for the Development of Small-Scale Industries in Kerala.
2. Ljungblad, J., & Björk, J. (2013). Managing Early Stage Software Start-ups-Applying Lean
Start-up Principles in Practice (Master's thesis).
3. Okpa, O. N. (2015). The Impact of Government Policy on the Relationship Between
Critical Success Factors and Incubation Contributions (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia).
4. Philip, M. P. (2008). An Entrepreneurship Model for Kerala.
5. Prasanth, A. P. (2019). Entrepreneurship Development Programmes in Kerala- A
Comparative Study Between MSME Development Institute and Kerala Industrial and
Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited.

39
Books & Reports

1. Aramvalarthanathan, A. (2014). Public Investment in Venture Finance: Case for a State

Sponsored Start-up Fund, India Venture Capital and Private Equity Report 2014 - A Study
of Limited Partners, Technical Report · January 2014 DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2553.4242
2. CBRE Report (2019). India 2030- Exploring the Future.
3. Dana, L.P. 2007. Asian Models of Entrepreneurship: From the Indian Union and the
Kingdom of Nepal to the Japanese Archipelago: Context, Policy & Practice. World
Scientific, ISBN 981-256-878-6, 380 pp
4. I al S a -up Act: Executive Summary (2017) Italian Ministry of Economic
Development
5. Jhunjhunwala, A., Ghosh, T., & Prashant, S. (2014). The Blossoming of Start-up
Ecosystem in India: Funding Challenges and the Role of Academic Incubators, India
Venture Capital and Private Equity Report 2014 - A Study of Limited Partners, Technical
Report · January 2014 DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2553.4242
6. Sabarinathan, G., (2014). The State as a Limited Partner, India Venture Capital and Private
Equity Report 2014 - A Study of Limited Partners, Technical Report · January 2014 DOI:
10.13140/2.1.2553.4242.
7. Start-up Genome (2019). Global Start-up Ecosystem Report.
8. Start-up Genome. (2017). Global Start-up Ecosystem Report.
9. Suryanarayana, M. H., Agrawal, A., & Prabhu, K. S. (2011). Inequality-adjusted Human
Development Inde fo India S a e .

News Paper Reports

1. Mal ia, S. (2015), Indian Start-ups- Boo ing Economic G o h . Entrepreneurship &
Start-ups Articles.
2. Nasscom. (2016) Indian Start-up Ecosystem to Grow 2.2x Times in Next 4 Years: Local
Press Company.
3. P e T of India. (2016), Ke ala' Start-up Village Ranked India' Be Inc ba o .
Business Standards.

Websites

1. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/283391
2. https://www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/Start-up_Survey_2016_-
_presentation.PDF

40
3. https://thenextweb.com/in/2015/07/05/india-the-worlds-fastest-growing-start-up-
ecosystem/
4. https://techstory.in/start-up-india/
5. https://www.slideshare.net/SVBFinancial/uk-start-up-outlook-report-2017

41