Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014
Venture capital investment factors: new
institutionalist approach
Gintare Skaiste
Mykolas Romeris University
Department of Banking and Investments
Vilnius, Lithuania
giskaiste@stud.mruni.eu
Abstract Venture capital as the mean of financing is very
important for new and developing companies. So, it is very
important to define the catalysts which determine venture capital
investment. This article analyses the theoretical aspects of
venture capital conception. Also incentives affecting venture
capital investment during different period of time are
systematized. Institutional theory argues that institutions in
general, and culture in particular, shape the actions of firms and
individuals in a number of subtle but substantive ways. This
theory previously has been used to explain a number of
significant and substantive managerial differences found in
different parts of the world. According to new institutionalist
approach, there are four levels of social analysis: embeddedness,
institutional environment, governance, resource allocation and
environment. Each of these levels affect the lower level and
change inside during different period of time.
Keywords- venture capital, venture capital factors, venture
capital investment, new institutionalism
I. INTRODUCTION
Venture capital refers to equity financing of ventures with
high growth potential in the early period of life. Venture capital
is useful to start-ups or small businesses that have limited
access to finance its activities through traditional lending
instruments. Funding of the new or young companies is
considered as risky due to high transaction costs, low return on
investment and a high level of risk. Therefore, these companies
often find it difficult to look for the resources that they need to
start or expand a business. These companies can grow only if
they have access to external sources of financing, especially
private equity and venture capital funding, as the capital market
as a source of financing is usually available only to large
companies. Resulting funding gap was filled by venture capital
investors willing to accept higher risk for a higher than average
returns on invested capital.
Also, the increasing international competition, accelerating
technological change, and changing user needs led to the
creation of innovative companies. Various research studies
have shown a close link between innovation and venture
capital financing. Thus, the creation of companies and led to a
higher risk capital financing.
Venture capital investments promote innovation and
growth. Also, venture capital compared with other sources of
funding, it is proved, that the venture capital portfolio
companies create more jobs and higher added value (Marti,
The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference
http://www.scieconf.com Economy and Business Economics
Balboa, 2001). Therefore, the promotion of venture capital as a
specific business should be one of public policy priorities.
But the level of venture capital investments in different
countries varies considerably. These differences can not always
be explained by changes in macroeconomic variables and
favourable legislation. One of the assumptions - that the
venture capital investment across countries is influenced by
different levels of development of informal institutions (formal
and informal rules, cultural norms, and so on.). Due to the
different levels of development, venture capital investors and
business developers react differently to formal institutions
(organizations) rules.
Venture capital as a financing method is considered to be
very important funding source for start-ups and expanding
businesses, so it is important to assess what factors determine
the risk of capital investment growth. Despite the fact that
venture capital-related research is significant, but in the
analysis of supply and demand based venture capital
investment development models it is not possible to objectively
assess the factors of the other institutional level. So, in order to
identify what are the venture capital factors, determine what is
the nature and the strength of their relationship with venture
capital investment. Also, it is important to evaluate different
institutional levels in which they operate, and different time
periods during which determinants affect investment.
Some researchers (Cumming, MacIntosh, 2003; Schfer,
Leitinger, 2002; Van Sebroeck 2000) identified distinct groups
of factors. Some of them tried to create a complete model of
venture capital impact on investment (Jankauskien, 2009;
Gompers, Lerner, 1998; Pandey 1998; Fried, Hisrich 1994;
Bygrave, Timmons 1985).
Nevertheless, in these models factors are evaluated under
certain restrictive assumptions: rated only macroeconomic
factors, rated only enterprise-level factors other studies is
limited to the traditional approach to venture capital as a
financial instrument to the exclusion of its interdependence
with innovation policy, and so on.
Venture capital groups of factors distinguished in different
researches must be summarized in order to create an optimal
venture capital factor model. Also, the performance of these
factors in different institutional levels must be analyzed.
SECTION
- 85 -
 Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014

II. VENTURE CAPITAL FACTORS the fullness of time, the system is fully interconnected, the
This section identifies the factors that determine the amount author mainly neglects these feedbacks, due to the long-term
of venture capital. To activate the venture capital investment, effects, and weak connection.
the European Commission (2006) encourages the Member
TABLE I. VENTURE CAPITAL FACTORS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES
States to to evaluate any potential private equity and venture
capital investment promotion factors, also to evaluate how they Venture capital factors Sources
can be improved by the tax system and regulatory measures to Macroeconomic stability J.Armour, D.Cumming (2006);
create a favorable environment for venture capital funds to V.Snieka, V.Venckuvien (2011)
invest in start-up, high growth potential companies. So it is Economic potential of the P.A.Gompers, J.Lerner (1999) ;
country A.Volkov (2009); M.Cherif, K.Gazdar
very important to identify significant venture capital factors (2011)
affecting investment. Big market R.J.Black, B.S.Gilson (1998); L.A.Jeng,
P.C.Wells (2000)
Various studies have examined individual venture capital Active and strong stock L.A.Jeng, P.C.Wells (2000); A.Volkov
factors, which affect the development of investment, or their exchange (2009); V.Snieka, V.Venckuvien
groups. In table 1 we can see structured factors, which were (2011)
distinguished in individual studies. Adequate supply of venture A.Plage (2006); V.Snieka,
capital funds V.Venckuvien (2011)
Meanwhile, recent researches identified the following Financial system C.Mayer, K.Schoors, Y.Yafeh (2003)
factors: the impact of the internationalization for venture development level and
capital investment (Aizenman, Kendall 2012, Schertler, orientation
Tykvova 2012, Guler, Guillen, 2010); syndication impact on Legal and administrative V.Jankauskien (2009)
system stability
venture capital industry (Jaaskelainen, 2012, Fritsch 2012, De Legal framework for venture J.Armour, D.Cumming (2006);
Vries, Block, 2011); venture capital and innovation mutual capital and investment A.Volkov (2009)
relationship (Mann, 2012, Colombo et al., 2012; Geronikolaou, activity
Papachristou 2012, Popov, Roosenboom, 2012). Clear rules for participation P.Schofer, R.Leitinger (2002); A.Volkov
in the stock market (2009)
In summary, the venture capital investment is caused not Liberalized institutional D.Kaupelyt, V.Jankauskien (2009)
only by macro-economic but also by micro-economic factors. investors possibilities
This section does not cover all the factors discussed in Attractiveness of the tax Ch.Keuschnigg (2003); J.Armour,
scientific researches, but reflects most frequently distinguished system D.Cumming (2006)
Small businesses creating P.Schofer, R.Leitinger (2002)
venture capital factors. After having analyzed implemented restrictions
surveys, we can distinguish the following three categories of Labour market flexibility L.A.Jeng ir P.C.Wells (2000)
research: individual venture capital factors surveys, when
examined one factor or one particular economic indicator and Qualified and experienced A.Schertler (2003); A.Plage (2006)
venture capital fund
its relationships with venture capital; studies that analyzed managers
several factors relationships with venture capital investments; Effectively functioning P.A.Gompers, J.Lerner (1999)
as well as studies that will structure the venture capital system of research and
investment factors and / or submitted their operating models or development at universities
groups. Intensive business and P.Schofer, R.Leitinger (2002)
scientific institutions co-
III. NEW INSTITUTIONALISM ECONOMIC THEORY ASPECTS operation
Interesting research results P.Schofer, R.Leitinger (2002)
Scientists believe (North, 1990), the institution has a strong and scientific discoveries
impact on beliefs and goals of individuals, groups and Company innovativeness J.Armour, D.Cumming (2006);
organizations. Similarly, the impact of venture capital on A.Volkov (2009); S. Caselli et all
(2009); D.Mann (2012); L.Colombo et
investment development analysing authors (Wright et al., 1992; al. (2012); G.Geronikolaou,
Bruno and Tyebjee 1986, Suchman, 1995) emphasizes that G.Papachristou (2012); A.Popov,
institutions will also have an impact on venture capital fund P.Roosenboom (2012)
activity and formation of the objectives. Other scholars argue Growth orientated business J.Armour, D.Cumming (2006)
that these institutions led venture capitalists behavioral strategy
uniformity (Fried and Hisrich, 1995). Therefore, it is useful to Public policy objectives, J.Armour, D.Cumming (2006);
developing entrepreneurship V.Snieka, V.Venckuvien (2011)
analyze the functioning of formal and informal institutions at and / or innovation culture
different institutional levels and their impact on venture capital Risk-taking and P.Schofer, R.Leitinger (2002);
investments. entrepreneurial tradition A.Metrick (2010)
Internationalization J.Aizenman, J.Kendall (2012);
For the detailed analysis of the system it is important to A.Schertler, T.Tykvova (2012); I.Guler,
distinguish between the different institutional levels where M.F.Guillen (2010)
decisions are needed. O.Williamson (2000) identified four Syndication M.Jaaskelainen (2012); M.Fritsch,
main levels of social analysis, which are presented in Figure 4. D.Schindler (2012); G.De Vries,
J.H.Block (2011)
The solid arrows that connect a higher with a lower level
signify that the higher level imposes constraints on the level
immediately below. The reverse arrows that connect lower The top level is the social embeddedness level. This is
with higher levels are dashed and signal feedback. Although, in where the norms, customs, mores, traditions, etc. are located.

The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION

http://www.scieconf.com Economy and Business Economics - 86 -

Although the L1 level is examined by some historical
institutionalism representatives, generally representatives of
institutionalism accept this level as invariably given.
Institutions at this level change very slowly, but the impact of
this level on the economy is very strong (North, 1991).
According O.Williamson (2000), an identification and
explication of the mechanisms through which informal
institutions arise and are maintained would especially help to
understand the slow change in Level 1 institutions. Scientist
believe that the evolutionary origin of the L1 level institutions
leads to a high level of institutional inertia.
The second level L2 is referred to as the institutional
environment. The structures observed here are partly the
products of evolutionary processes, but design opportunities
are also posed. The transition from the L1 level of informal
constraints, such as sanctions, customs, traditions and
behaviors, at L2 level there are formal rules, such as
constitutions, laws, property rights (North, 1991). This gives
access to the proper adjustment of the efficiency of formal
rules.
Constrained by the decisions taken in the past, the design
instruments at Level L2 include the executive, legislative,
judicial, and bureaucratic functions of government as well as
the distribution of powers across different levels of government
(Williamson, 2000). In the evolution of the L2 level institutions
are possible cuts, which are result of a broad variety of
unforeseen events, such as wars, political Union collapsed,
military coups, the financial crisis, and so on. During such
interruptions arise the opportunities to set the institutional rules
radically reforming them. If such outages in the evolution of
institutions are absent, then the formal rules are developed
consistently and permanently over the decades and centuries.
The third level L3, which is where the institutions of
governance are located. They create the rules of the game.
Therefore, the distributions of power between organizations
and to set the appropriate relationship between them are the
main objectives of the institutions at this level. This process,
according to O.Williamson (2000), takes from one to ten years.
At the fourth level L4 is the distribution of resources and
staff, so the main goal of institutions at this level is to set the
appropriate boundary conditions. At L4 level change process is
permanent and renewable.
Summarizing, it was noticed that the exclusion of
institutional level is significant for further analysis, since in
different levels institutions have different objectives. In
addition, change frequency is different at different institutional
levels. The most inert is L1 engagement level, this is
determined by its evolutionary nature. Also slowly pervious for
change is the L2 institutional environment level. Proper
relation of managing institutions is set at the level of L3, which
changes from one to ten years. At the fourth level L4 is the
distribution of resources and personnel, so the main goal of
institutions is appropriate boundary conditions extraction, and
the process of change is constant.
The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION
http://www.scieconf.com Economy and Business Economics
Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014
IV. MODELING OF VENTURE CAPITAL IMPACT ON THE
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
In order to create an optimal venture capital factor model,
further are summarized venture capital groups of factors
distinguished in different researches. Also, there are analyzed
the performance of these factors in different institutional levels.
Finally, the venture capital factor theoretical model is
presented.
Scientists believe (Kaupelyt, Jankauskien, 2009; Schfer,
Leitinger, 2002; Kortum, Lerner, 1998), that successful venture
capital environment has been crucial for venture capital
investment development of the United States, a country which
is considered a leader in the venture capital investment sector.
According to P.Schofer and R.Leitinger (2002), this venture
capital breakthrough and further success would not be possible
without the adequate economic, legal and social environment.
Similar findings were made by Y.Maeda and T.Johnson
(2004), who distinguished the economic, cultural and legal
aspects, which are critical for the development of venture
capital.
But to understand the success of venture capital (as a
specific business), it is important to consider not only these
three aspects, but also to assess the country's cultural
environment. If the countries form the adequate economic,
legal and / or social environment, but without creating a
favorable risk and innovation culture environment, venture
capital investment development does not work. It is therefore
appropriate in macroeconomic indicators and institutional
environment analysis to distinguish the social involvement,
which includes not only the entrepreneurship and its culture
supporting factors, but also includes such newly distinguished
factors as syndication and internationalization. Scientists
(Schfer, Leitinger, 2002) suggests that the basics of legal and
economic environment can be created quite quickly, but the
changes in social environment and the entrepreneurial spirit
takes a lot more time. These findings were confirmed by
O.Williamson (2000), who distinguished different institutional
levels. Level L1, defining social engagement, is changing over
the centuries and millennia.
To the institutional level of social engagement are
attributable such factor groups as venture capital industry
structure changes and risk tolerance. The formation of these
groups of factors is associated with cultural and religious
aspects, also traditions of the country. Sapienza et al. (1996)
argue that the perception of venture capital, the adoption and in
the society and the historical evolution of the venture capital
market in the country are determining the confidence of
investors.
One of the factors influencing the development of venture
capital markets in different countries is risk-taking and
entrepreneurial tradition. Members of the public (both
entrepreneurs and investors) have to be prepared to take the
risk (Groh et al, 2010), and the failure of companies to a certain
extent, should be socially acceptable.
In terms of the venture capital industry structure changes,
researchers (Aizenman, Kendall, 2012) argues that the
internationalization significantly influence the amount of
- 87 -

venture capital in individual countries, and recently venture
capital flows between countries increase. A.Schertler and
T.Tykvova (2012) claims that such international venture capital
flows partially offset the potential domestic venture capital
supply deficiencies. Meanwhile M.Fritsch and D.Schilder
(2012) believes that syndication solves the regional supply
shortages.
Figure 1 represents the division of venture capital factors
groups by institutional levels, which can describe the operation
of venture capital. This theoretical model visualizes the factors
that are important for the development of venture capital
investment and are determined by venture capital (as a business
type) features.
To L2 level, which defines the institutional environment,
are attributable such venture capital groups as investment
regulation, taxation, business start-up conditions. In L2 level
there are formal rules, such as constitutions, laws and property
rights (Williamson, 2000). According P.Schofer and
R.Leitinger (2002), the countries have consistently generate
business and tax legislation for encouraging entrepreneurship,
ensuring rapid and effective procedures for the establishment
of new businesses, enabling public administration actors see
themselves as support for business and not the bureaucratic
brake. Along with them, big importance for the development of
venture capital has the liberalized opportunities for institutional
investors (Kaupelyt, Jankauskien, 2009). For example, in
countries where regulation allows pension funds to diversify
their investment portfolio and to invest in venture capital, the
statistics show that the long-term assets in the period may give
higher returns (EVCA White Paper, 2001).
According to EVCA (2011) analysis, it can be said that the
attractiveness of the tax system is also an important factor
which has led to the growth of the venture capital investment.
A.P.Groh and others (2010) argues that there are two types of
charges that influence the venture capital activities: directly
involved in the property as taxes on dividends and capital
gains, and influencing the company's activities for example,
income tax rate. Gompers and Lerner (1998) also argue that
capital gains taxes have major influence on the venture capital
business. Djankov et al. (2008) shows that corporate income
tax rate strongly influence the entrepreneurship. Scientists
(Groh et al., 2010) also argue that personal income tax increase
magnifies the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur. Thus,
the difference between personal income tax and corporate
income tax may be an incentive to build a business.
Labour market flexibility is an important factor for the
creation of new companies. A.P.Groh and others (2010)
emphasize that the tight labor market policy adversely affects
the development of the venture capital market. The same
finding is made by Black, Gilson (1998), claiming that the
labour market restrictions affect venture capital activities,
although not as significantly as the stock market liquidity.
Baughn and Neupert (2003) argue that the surplus rules and
procedural requirements, a large number of institutions issuing
operating permits and complex documentation requirements
may significantly limit new enterprises. Lee and Peterson
(2000) point out that the time and money required to meet
these administrative requirements can prevent the development
The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION
http://www.scieconf.com Economy and Business Economics
Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014
of new businesses. Therefore, few restrictions on the
establishment of businesses is one of the factors, important to
the development of venture capital.
In summary, it can be said that to the institutional
environment groups of factors are attributable the following
factors: the legal and administrative system stability, the
attractiveness of the tax system, the legal framework of venture
capital activity and investment shaping, few restrictions for the
creation of new businesses, clear and simple rules for
participation in the stock market, liberalized institutional
investors opportunities and labour market flexibility.
To the L3 level, which defines a governance, are
attributable these venture capital factor groups: economic
development level and financial system development level.
According P.Schofer and R.Leitinger (2002), group of
factors defining the level of economic development consists of
several venture capital factors, one of them - a big enough
market for companies wishing to achieve high sales growth and
profits. This helps the company to secure an adequate return on
investment, given the risks assumed, and is a key prerequisite
for attracting potential investors.
The economic potential of the country is also one of the
most important venture capital factors influencing investment.
P.A.Gompers and J.Lerner (1998) performed the venture
capital industry survey found that for investors appear more
attractive options if the economy is growing rapidly. Scientists
(Groh et al., 2010) note that economic prosperity and
development helps business opportunities, it gives more
accumulated capital investment and higher income potential
business clients in the home market. Similarly, it can be said
that an important factor is the country's macroeconomic
stability, reducing investor risk. A.Romain and B. van
Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2004) found in their study that the
venture capital operation is cyclical and significantly related to
GDP growth.
The level of development of the financial system is caused
by several venture capital factors. A successful economic
system requires the active and strong stock market to give
venture capitalists the opportunity to exit. J.Marti and
M.Balboa (2003) found that the annual volume of investment
funds is closely related to the previous year's market liquidity.
Similar conclusions after doing a study made another scientist
A.Schertler (2003), set that there is a strong correlation
between stock market liquidity and venture capital investments
made in the early stages. Supporting them, G.Chemla (2005)
argues that the venture capital fund management is expensive,
so the individual regions are becoming more attractive to for
investors when it is expected that the number of transactions is
large and the volume control will exceed the costs. Similarly,
scientists (Snieka, Venckuvien, 2011) also distinguish the
importance of adequate supply of venture capital funds.
Thus, to the institutional level of governance are
attributable these in scientific studies mentioned factors: the
country's macro-economic stability, the economic potential of
the country, a large market, active and strong stock market,
financial system development and the orientation, adequate
supply of venture capital funds.
- 88 -

To the fourth L4 institutional level that explains the
resource allocation and employment are attributable these
groups of venture capital factors: intellectual abilities and
technological capabilities.
L1. Embeddedness
Venture capital sector Risk tolerance
structure changes
L2. Institutional environment
Investment Tax system Business
regulation development
conditions
L3. Governance
Macroeconomic Level of development of
factors the financial system
L4. Resource allocation and employment
Technological Intellectual abilities
opportunities
Figure 1. Venture capital investment effects model
According to P.Schofer and R.Leitinger (2002), in order to
ensure appropriate technological options that determine the
success of venture capital environment, the authorities have to
create an attractive environment for researchers, leading to
some interesting research results, and the growing number of
patents. To achieve these goals the intensive business and
academia co-operation is required.
According to A.P.Groh and others (2010), interesting
research results and scientific discoveries are closely related to
the potential venture capital investment. P.A.Gompers and
J.Lerner (1998) show that both: the business and public
expenditure on R & D are significantly related to the venture
capital activity. Thus, venture capital and innovativeness are
closely interrelated.
To ensure the proper development of intellectual
opportunities, which is crucial for establishment of venture
capital firms, an important role, according to Megginson
(2004), plays a culture of scientific research and the effectively
functioning R & D system in the universities.
For social aspect of belonging factors: an efficient system
of research and development at universities, interesting
research results and scientific discoveries, intense business and
scientific institutions cooperation, qualified and experienced
The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference
http://www.scieconf.com
Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014
venture capital fund managers, the investor's active
participation in the management of the portfolio company, the
portfolio company's innovativeness.
Summing up the venture capital investment factors
analysis, it can be said that in order to improve the venture
capital investment in the country, it is important to create a
venture capital development promoting organizational field
consisting of the different institutional levels: social
embeddedness, institutional environment, governance, resource
allocation and employment. In each of these levels operates
different groups of venture capital investment development
factors. The frequency of change for factors operating in
different levels is different.
CONCLUSIONS
Venture capital investment
Institutional and cultural distances are crucial for venture
capital sector development in different countries. Venture
capital incentives from different social institutional levels
changes at different frequency. In this way the differences in
venture capital sector development level can be explained.
So, although changes in embeddedness level are crucial for
venture capital development, it affects venture capital level
during centuries or millenniums. Second institutional level
integrates institutional environment and changes in decades or
centuries. Governance level (third) reflects such venture capital
incentives, as macroeconomic stability, economical potential of
the country, big market, active and strong asset market,
adequate venture capital funds supply, level of financial system
development and changes in 1 to 10 years. The last,
continuously changing level, Resource allocation and
employment, integrates such venture capital incentives, as
qualified and experienced governors of venture capital funds;
active participation of investor in enterprise management,
effective research and development system in universities,
interesting research results and technological discoveries,
intensive cooperation between business and science
institutions, innovativeness of the enterprise.
REFERENCES
[1] Aizenman, J., Kendall, J. (2012) Internationalization of Venture capital.
Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 39 (5): 488-511.
[2] Armour, J., Cumming, D. (2004). The Legal Road To Replicating
Silicon Valley. ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper No.
wp281.
[3] Armour, J., Cumming, D. (2006). The legislative road to Silicon Valley.
Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, Vol. 58(4). 596-635.
[4] Bance, A. (2004). Why and how to invest in private equity. European
Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA).
[5] Bonini, S., Alkan, S. (2006). The makro and political determinants of
venture capital investments around the world.
[6] Bonini, S., Alkan, S. (2012). The political and legal determinants of
venture capital investments around the world. Small Business
Economics, Vol. 39 (Issue 4). 997-1016.
[7] Bruno, A.V., Tyebjee, T.T., 1986. The destinies of rejected venture
capital deals. Sloan Manage. Rev. 27 (2), 4353.
[8] Caselli, S., Gatti, S., Perrini, F. (2009). Are Venture Capitalists a
Catalyst for Innovation? European Financial Management, 15(1). 92-
111.
[9] Cherif, M., Gazdar, K. (2011). What Drives Venture Capital Investments
in Europe? New Results from a Panel data Analysis. Journal of Applied
Business and Economics vol. 12(3). 122-139.
SECTION
Economy and Business Economics - 89 -

[10] Colombo, L., Dawid, H., Kabus, K. (2012). When do thick venture
capital markets foster innovation? An evolutionary analysis. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 22. 79-108.
[11] Cumming, D., (2013). Public Economics Gone Wild: Lessons from
Venture Capital, International Review of Financial Analysis. Accepted
manuscript.
[12] Cumming, D., Li, D. (2013). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and
venture capital in the United States. Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.
23. 345367.
[13] Cumming, D.J., MacIntosh, J.G. (2003). A cross-country comparison of
full and partial venture capital exits. Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.
27(3). 511-548.
[14] De Vries, G., Block, J.H. (2011). Venture capital syndication in times of
economic crisis. Venture capital, Vol. 13 (No. 3). 195213.
[15] Diaconu, M. (2012). Characteristics and drivers of venture capital
investment activity in Romania. Theoretical and Applied Economics,
Vol. XIX. No. 7(572). 111-132.
[16] Duffie, D. (1988). An extension of the Black-Scholes model of security
valuation. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 46(1). 194-204.
[17] Fried, V.H., Hisrich, R.D. (1995). The venture capitalist: a relationship
investor. Calif. Manage. Rev. 37 (2), 101113.
[18] Fritsch, M., Schilder, D. (2012). The Regional Supply of Venture
Capital: Can Syndication Overcome Bottlenecks? Economic geography,
Vol. 88 (1). 59-76.
[19] Geronikolaou, G., Papachristou, G. (2012). Venture capital and
innovation in Europe. Modern economy, vol.3. 454-459.
[20] Gompers, P., Lerner, J. (1998). The Determinants of Corporate Venture
Capital Success: Organizational Structure, Incentives and
Complementarities. Concentrated Corporate Ownership. Chicago Press,
Chicago.
[21] Gompers, P.A., Lerner, J., (1999). What Drives Venture Capital
Fundraising? Social Science Research Network, January.
[22] Groh, A., Liechtenstein, H., Lieser, K. (2010). The European venture
capital and private equity county attractiveness indices. Journal of
corporate finance, Vol. 16, 205-224.
[23] Groh, A., Liechtenstein, H. (2011). Determinants for allocations to
Central Eastern Europe venture capital and private equity limited
partnerships. Venture capital, Vol. 13(2), 175194.
[24] Guler, I., Guillen, M.F. (2010). Home country networks and foreign
expansion: evidence from the venture capital industry. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 53 (2). 390410.
[25] Hsu, D., Kinney, M. (2004). Organizing venture capital: the rise and
demise of American Research and Development Corporation, 1946-
1973. University of Pennsylvania, Working paper N.163, December.
[26] Jaaskelainen, M. (2012). Venture Capital Syndication: Synthesis and
future directions. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14
(4). 444-463.
[27] Jaffee, D., Russell, T. (1976). Imperfect information. uncertainty and
credit rationing. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90. 651-666.
[28] Jankauskien, V. (2009). Rizikos kapitalo sektoriaus pltros veiksni
vertinimo modelis. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas, Vytauto Didiojo
universitetas.
[29] Jeng, L.A., Wells, P.C. (2000). The determinants of venture capital
funding: evidence across countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(3).
241-289.
[30] Jokubauskas, J., Zabotka, A., Alborovien, Z. (2006). Rizikos kapitalo
fond skatinimo investuoti smulkiojo ir vidutinio verslo subjektus
galimybi analiz. Galimybi studija
[31] Kaupelyt, D., Jankauskien, V. (2009). Stimulating Pension Funds
Investments to Venture Capital: Opportunities in European Union
Countries. Europe Integration Studies, No.3.
The 2nd international virtual Scientific Conference SECTION
http://www.scieconf.com Economy and Business Economics
Scientific Conference
June, 9. - 13. 2014
[32] Keuschnigg, Ch. (2003). Taxation and Venture Capital Backed
Entrepreneurship. University of St. Gallen Economics Discussion Paper
No. 17.
[33] Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (1998). Does Venture Capital spur innovation?
NBER Working Paper 6848, Cambridge, MA.
[34] Lerner, J. (1998). Angel Finance and Public Policy - An Overview.
Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 22. 773 783.
[35] Li Y., Vertinsky, I.B., Li, J. (2013). National distances, international
experience, and venture capital investment performance. Journal of
Business Venturing.
[36] Li, Y., Zahra, S.A. (2012). Formal institutions, culture, and venture
capital activity: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Business Venturing,
27. 95-111.
[37] Maeda, Y., Johnson, T. (2004). Private Equity Japan Offers Hope for
Buyout Funds. International Financial Law Review.
[38] Mayer, ., Schoors, K., Yafeh, Y. (2003) Sources of Funds and
Investment Activities of Venture Capital Funds: Evidence from
Germany, Israel, Japan and the UK. National bureau of economic
research. Working paper 9645.
[39] Marti, J., Balboa, M. (2001). Determinants of Private Equity Fundraising
in Western Europe. Working paper.
[40] Mann, D. (2012). Taking venture capital in-house to foster innovation.
Journal of corporate treasury management, vol.4. 339-343.
[41] Metrick, A. (2007). Venture capital and the finance of innovation.
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
[42] North, D.C., (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic
Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York and
Melbourne.
[43] Phalippou, L. (2007). Investing in Private Equity Funds: A Survey.
University of Amsterdam.
[44] Plage, A. (2006). Public Policy for Venture Capital: A comparison of the
United States and Germany. Deutscher Universitats-Verlag.
[45] Popov, A., Roosenboom, P. (2012). Venture capital and patented
innovation: evidence from Europe. Economic Policy, Vol. 27 (71). 447-
482.
[46] Pukas, A. (2008). Rizikos ir privataus kapitalo fond veikl takojani
aplinkos veiksni Lietuvoje vertinimas. Magistro darbas. Kaunas,
Vytauto Didiojo universitetas.
[47] Schertler, A., Tykvova, T. (2012). What lures cross-border venture
capital inflows? Journal of International Money & Finance, Vol. 31 (6).
1777-1799.
[48] Schofer, P., Leitinger, R. (2002). Framework for venture capital in the
accession countries to the European Union. EFMA Research Document.
London.
[49] Snieka, V., Venckuvien, V. (2011). Hybrid Venture Capital Funds in
Lithuania: Motives, Factors and Present State of Development.
Engineering Economics, 22(2). 157-164.
[50] Stiglitz, J., Weiss, A. (1981). Credit Rationing in Markets with
Incomplete Information. American Economic Review, 71. 393-409.
[51] Suchman, M.C., 1995. Localism and globalism in institutional analysis:
the emergence of contractual norms in venture finance. In: Scott, W.R.,
Christensen, S. (Eds.), The Institutional Construction of Organizations,
3966.
[52] Van Sebroeck, H. (2000). The financing of innovation with venture
capital. Federal Planning Bureau. Brussels.
[53] Volkov, A. (2009). Rizikos kapitalo fond investavimo ypatumai
Lietuvoje. Magistro darbas. Vilnius, Mykolo Romerio universitetas
[54] Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking
Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 38, No. 3.
595-613.
[55] Wright M., Thompson S. & Robbie K. (1992). Venture capital and
management-led leveraged buy-outs: A European perspective. Journal of
Business Venturing, 7(1), 47-71.
- 90 -