스타트업의 성장을 위한 해외 주요국의 정책 비교 연구: 생태계 관점을 중심으로

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to analyze policy cases in major overseas countries for the sustainable growth of startups from an ecological perspective and compare the results. In addition, through the results of this comparison and analysis, we seek to derive what the policy characteristics of major overseas countries have on the current status of startups and the ecosystem structure in Korea. By closely examining global policy cases and identifying various policy approaches, we hope that the results and implications of this study will contribute to ongoing efforts to foster a dynamic startup ecosystem for stakeholders who make up the corporate ecosystem, such as entrepreneurs and policy makers. Research design, data, and methodology: The UK, France, and Germany were seen as relatively suitable for comparison with Korea in terms of population and economic size. Additionally, Singapore and Estonia, despite their small domestic market size, exhibited high competitiveness in the growth of startups and the subsequent creation of unicorn companies. The selection of these countries as the subject of research was based on these considerations. Policy cases from each of these countries were explored, focusing on reports from government agencies, and these cases were analyzed based on common standards to derive commonalities and differences. Results: The results of this study can be characterized in three categories. First, concerning the growth of a company, what they have in common is that they are divided into stages according to the growth cycle and focus on customized support needed at that stage. Second, in the cooperation and network category, a common feature is building a collaborative ecosystem through domestic and international partnerships. Additionally, small countries in terms of population and economy emphasize the importance of international cooperation and resource utilization, while large countries tend to emphasize the integration of domestic entrepreneurial capabilities and resources and the synergy effects to strengthen the startup ecosystem. Third, in the institutional environment and infrastructure category, it is characterized by a focus on actively attracting overseas talent and supporting research, as well as ensuring that related support is based on local infrastructure or embedded in the local ecosystem. Implications: The implication of this study is, first of all, that there is a need for the scope of policy support related to the startup ecosystem to be evenly distributed regionally. Additionally, the composition of the network in the startup ecosystem must be accompanied by horizontal changes based on the company’s growth cycle. Furthermore, there is an expansion in the diversity of members participating in the startup ecosystem. This means that emphasizing both quantitative and qualitative diversity can enable startups to promote growth based on inclusivity and creativity while dealing with the risks and challenges of complex business activities to which they are relatively frequently exposed.