Developments in the promotion of informal venture capital in the UK
Abstract
Concern about the equity gap in the UK has existed for more than 60 years. Despite various government measures and institutional responses (e.g. the development of a venture capital industry) an equity gap still persists. Current debate has recognized the role of the informal venture capital market as a source of risk capital for SMEs. Argues that this market is both inefficient and underdeveloped, due largely to information deficiencies which hinder contact between potential investors and entrepreneurs seeking finance. Against this background, identifies the role of business angel networks (BANs) as a key means of stimulating the flow of informational venture capital in the UK. In particular, a government scheme to provide pump‐priming assistance to establish five local BAN demonstration projects is shown to have achieved impressive results. However, with the recent emergence of a number of private sector BANs, the continued role of government is now being questioned. Further demonstrates that public sector BANs, operating on a local scale, are filling a different market niche from that of private sector BANs, which operate predominantly on a national scale. Concludes that the top priority for policy is to ensure that all parts of the UK are served by local BANs. An appropriate way forward might be to build on experimental networking arrangements between local, public sector BANs and national, privately operated BANs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
If the investment infrastructure (venture finance networks) is weak, it may lead to the failure of new technologies or practices, an inability to enter markets, and the premature failure of entrepreneurial firms.
“If the investment infrastructure (venture finance networks) is weak it may lead to the failure of new technologies or practices, an inability to enter markets, and the premature failure of entrepreneurial firms (Harrison and Mason, 1996;Bygrave, 1987;1988).”
From Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence (2004) · cites this paper as Harrison and Mason, 1996
Cites
International perspectives on the supply of informal venture capital
Harrison, R. T., & Mason, C. M. (1992) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/0883-9026(92)90020-r · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x · Cited by 1,747 · see citing works
- Authors
- Harrison, R., & Mason, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Ulster (GB)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Venue
- International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 1996-08-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 6-33
- ISSN
- 1355-2554 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012442380
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 13.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Private Equity and Venture Capital
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Community Development and Social Impact
- Keywords
- informal venture capital, equity gaps, SME financing, risk capital, information asymmetry, government support programs, United Kingdom
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review