Incubators as a Small Business Support in Russia: Contrast of University-Related U.S. Incubators with the Zelenograd Scientific and Technology Park
通过对比美国大学孵化器与俄罗斯泽列诺格勒科技园，分析俄罗斯小企业孵化器的现状与特点，填补了该领域研究空白。
Entrepreneurship in Russia continues to expand. With this expansion has developed an increasing body of knowledge by researchers about many aspects of entrepreneurial behavior within the country. For example, prior research has established the biographical background of entrepreneurs (Ageev, Gratchev, and Hisrich 1995) and their motivational objectives (McCarthy, Puffer, and Simmonds 1993). However, despite this growth in our understanding of some aspects of entrepreneurship in Russia, other areas have received little examination. For example, knowledge about mechanisms in place to encourage entrepreneurship remains rudimentary. This article will fill part of this void by examining the case of a small business incubator in Russia. This article will initially provide an overview of small business incubators in the United States to establish a framework for analysis. The article will then examine the case of one Russian small business incubator. Incubators in the United States The number of incubators in the United States has grown rapidly, expanding from an estimated 40 in the early 1980s to over 400 (Brandt 1991). The sponsorship of these incubators varies among several groups: public entities such as city and state economic development bodies; non-profits begun by groups such as chambers of commerce; university-related and private for-profit sponsored programs. While there are a variety of types of sponsorship, there are commonalities among their activities. These include space which small businesses can lease on flexible terms at reduced rents and shared business services (Kuratko and LaFollette 1987). The services provided through the incubator can vary widely, but commonly include: business assistance with such activities as business/tax/financial planning, export development, and government contracting; facilities services such as reception areas, a library audio visual equipment, and conference rooms; office services such as typing, copying, clerical aid, and a receptionist; and professional counseling on legal, marketing, patent, and accounting issues (Carroll 1986). The incubators of greatest interest here are the approximately 50 incubators in the U.S. which are sponsored by universities. Mian (1994) examined the cases of six such incubators and found that while university incubators share the characteristics of all incubators stated above, they also exhibit some unique features. These can be summarized along three dimensions. The first involves the characteristics of the incubators themselves. The objective of university-related incubators was principally economic development. However, due to their association with universities, these incubators were also frequently seen as a means for technology transfer and the commercialization of university research. Mian also found a heavy involvement of the private sector with the incubators, usually in the form of an advisory board composed of business and community leaders. The typical staff size among the six incubators examined was four employees. The common services offered by the six incubators were shared rental space plus office services and business assistance of the type cited above as utilized in all incubators. The second dimension of the unique characteristics of university-sponsored incubators was the profile of the client firms of the incubator and how the incubator's management interacted with those clients. He found that university-sponsored incubators typically conducted performance reviews of the tenants to ensure that they were performing as planned. However, these reviews were commonly informal and conducted only between the incubator manager and the owner of the tenant firm. The six incubators investigated by Mian also targeted specific industries for their client firms. The most commonly targeted were the software/information technology, biotechnology/medical, and electronics and electrical industries. The principal selection criteria used by all six were that the new businesses be technology-based and have growth potential. …