Conclusion

(PitchBook et al. 2020), with exits via the IPO channel on the rise as well (Zero2IPO 2020).

Overall, the causal mechanisms linking incomplete markets to the growth of VC, specifically, and PE, more broadly, are not clear, and the analysis here only offers a very cursory assessment of the potential relationships among them. However, China’s experience shows that institutional obstacles can, in some ways, be turned into advantages. Moreover, it shows that ideal financial structures for VC ecosystem growth may not, in fact, exist. It also shows that rather than imitating VC leaders such as China and the United States, policy makers across different national jurisdictions need to think creatively about financing innovation.

The preceding analysis suggests that capital controls may have played a role in encouraging the proliferation of VC formation. However, the nature of causal linkages is not entirely clear, and the counterfactual, that China would not have seen such impressive growth in VC funding in the absence of capital control, is not entirely straightforward. This is because China’s capital control regime has never been unidirectional or consistent, with periods of liberalization being followed by periods of tightening (Malkin and Li 2019). Moreover, financial repression in China has been matched with a great degree of deregulation, in particular in the fintech and other emerging technology spaces. Ascertaining the appropriate mixture of financial tightening and financial liberalization is far beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, China’s example does show that an emerging market does not need to achieve financial maturity before exploring ways of creating sophisticated funding channels for technology ventures and entrepreneurship. Conclusion This paper has examined the evolution of China’s VC ecosystem and drawn four lessons from China’s experience that could be applied to policy making across countries at different stages of economic development. It has underscored the role of labour migration policies, careful implementation of IP law, the role of government finance, and the role of financial system structure in facilitating the growth of a VC ecosystem. Given China’s relatively restricted and idiosyncratic domestic political economy, the growth of VC may have been sui generis, but the case for learning from China’s experience remains strong.

Some have suggested that a lot of the growth in China’s ICT sector — the part of China’s economy on which its VC ecosystem thrives — has been due to restrictive policies against foreign ICT firms. However, recent research on the subject has cast doubt on this idea (Li 2019). More accurately, China’s experience demonstrates the flexibility and range of policy-making options for countries looking to expand the channels for financing entrepreneurial activity.

Rather, the most discernible restrictive policies employed by policy makers identified in this paper are capital controls. But capital controls were just one of at least several that have helped China to achieve its VC goals. Most notably, China has clearly taken advantage of the global movement of labour, ideas and FDI to facilitate entrepreneurship funding. State funding played an important, but not the leading or defining, role in China’s overall policy mix. This suggests that for some economies, market-oriented, decentralized state funding channels will play an important role in the facilitation of VC formation, while in other cases, state funding may be counterproductive. As with many policy successes in China, the state played an important infrastructural role, but

outcomes were largely decided by market actors.