2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11187-021-00468-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Italian Start Up Act: a microeconometric program evaluation

Abstract: This paper analyzes the impact of the Italian Start Up Act which entered into force in October 2012. This public policy provides a unique bundle of benefits, such as tax incentives, public loan guarantees, and a more flexible labor law, for firms registered as “innovative startups” in Italy. This legislation has been implemented by the Italian government to increase innovativeness of small and young enterprises by facilitating access to (external) capital and (high-skilled) labor. Consequently, the goal of our… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result confirms the strength of the Italian startup ecosystem. This was reinforced by the Start-Up Act (Law 221/2012), which eased access to equity and debt capital for both incubated and non-incubated startups (Lukeš et al ., 2019; Biancalani et al ., 2022). The managerial performances of business incubators clearly vary between these two countries, which highlights the need to assess the effectiveness of business incubation in under-researched regions such as Romania.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This result confirms the strength of the Italian startup ecosystem. This was reinforced by the Start-Up Act (Law 221/2012), which eased access to equity and debt capital for both incubated and non-incubated startups (Lukeš et al ., 2019; Biancalani et al ., 2022). The managerial performances of business incubators clearly vary between these two countries, which highlights the need to assess the effectiveness of business incubation in under-researched regions such as Romania.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To compare the findings to more traditional approaches, we also conduct analysis with a more standard difference in difference estimator that has been widely employed in numerous recent publications in SBEJ (Amamou et al, 2022 ; Bailey, 2017 ; Biancalani et al, 2022 ; Liu et al, 2019 ; Dosi et al, 2012 ; Lewis, 2017 ) that show various specifications and empirical strategies of this approach. There seems to be no consensus on which strategies are preferred, with scholars trading increasingly restrictive assumptions with solutions to various issues, such as heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation.…”
Section: Empirical Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We primarily follow the empirical strategy adopted in the recent study by Biancalani et al ( 2022 ), who also offer a more detailed explanation of the methodology behind the estimator. Our difference in difference estimator thus departs from the standard specification in that the treatment variable is equal to 1 for firms receiving SBRR and only during years when they actually receive SBRR and 0 otherwise in models (1) to (4).…”
Section: Empirical Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relevant research conducted in various countries and settings (e.g. Mueller, 2023a;Biancalani et al, 2022;Busu et al, 2021;Caliendo and T€ ubbicke, 2021;Audretsch et al, 2020;Goetz et al, 2010;Ayoub et al, 2017;Butler et al, 2016) offers valuable information to decision-makers regarding the range of options available. Most evaluations of startup support measures, however, focus on examining whether a particular measure under investigation generates effects or not.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%