Table 4. Institutional mechanisms and... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4.

Institutional mechanisms and policy implications for technology-based SMEs

Research dimensions	Country cases	Theoretical rationale	Implications
Governance – innovation policies	UK: Breakthrough and scale-up program (coinvestment, market access); India: T-Hub (mentorship, networks); South Korea: Korea start-up center; Japan: Commercialization support program USA and Japan: coordinated R&D funding, commercialization pathways, technology transfer; UK: integration of innovation hubs with governance programs	North (1990) and Scott (2014): institutions reduce uncertainty; Hall and Soskice (2001): institutional complementarity; (Amoroso et al., 2024): targeted high-growth support Borrás and Edquist (2013): instrument choice crucial; Edler and Fagerberg (2017): demand- and supply-side coherence; Zahra et al. (2014): contextualization enhances relevance	Tailored governance initiatives enhance legitimacy, provide funding and skills and facilitate internationalization. Policies should integrate mentorship, finance and innovation ecosystems to maximize scaling outcomes Coordinated instruments foster sustainable growth in technology-intensive sectors Indicators (e.g. export growth, scale-up graduation) should measure impact
Regulations – Taxes	Brazil: “threshold avoidance” due to tax burdens; India: complex compliance, penalties; China: regulatory unpredictability; UK: progressive tax deductions; USA/Japan: uneven tax benefits	Bruton et al. (2010): institutions both enable and constrain; Ojeka (2011), Fuentelsaz et al. (2018, 2019): taxation impacts growth; Blind (2012): regulation affects innovation	Simplified, transparent tax systems promote SME scaling; excessive complexity deters growth. Policy design must balance revenue needs with pro-growth incentives, ensuring predictability and reducing compliance costs

Research dimensions	Country cases	Theoretical rationale	Implications
Governance – innovation policies	UK: Breakthrough and scale-up program (coinvestment, market access); India: T-Hub (mentorship, networks); South Korea: Korea start-up center; Japan: Commercialization support program USA and Japan: coordinated R&D funding, commercialization pathways, technology transfer; UK: integration of innovation hubs with governance programs	North (1990) and Scott (2014): institutions reduce uncertainty; Hall and Soskice (2001): institutional complementarity; (Amoroso et al., 2024): targeted high-growth support Borrás and Edquist (2013): instrument choice crucial; Edler and Fagerberg (2017): demand- and supply-side coherence; Zahra et al. (2014): contextualization enhances relevance	Tailored governance initiatives enhance legitimacy, provide funding and skills and facilitate internationalization. Policies should integrate mentorship, finance and innovation ecosystems to maximize scaling outcomes Coordinated instruments foster sustainable growth in technology-intensive sectors Indicators (e.g. export growth, scale-up graduation) should measure impact
Regulations – Taxes	Brazil: “threshold avoidance” due to tax burdens; India: complex compliance, penalties; China: regulatory unpredictability; UK: progressive tax deductions; USA/Japan: uneven tax benefits	Bruton et al. (2010): institutions both enable and constrain; Ojeka (2011), Fuentelsaz et al. (2018, 2019): taxation impacts growth; Blind (2012): regulation affects innovation	Simplified, transparent tax systems promote SME scaling; excessive complexity deters growth. Policy design must balance revenue needs with pro-growth incentives, ensuring predictability and reducing compliance costs

Source(s): Author’s own work