Systemic Conditions for Dynamic Entrepreneurship 2017 Latin America: advances and setbacks in perspective Hugo Kantis · Juan Federico · Sabrina Ibarra García
About the Authors
Hugo Kantis He holds a PhD in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona- Växjö University, Sweden) and a BA in Economics and Business Administration (UBA). Director of Prodem. He has over 15 years of experience designing, advising and evaluating institutional programs and policies to promote entrepreneurship in the region. Member of the Editorial Board of several journals such as Venture Capital and Journal of Small Business Management. Professor and Director of the Master in Industrial Economics and Development with emphasis on SMEs at Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. Director of Dinámica Emprendedora, the Newsletter of Prodem and author of diverse books and articles on the subject. In 2016 he received the Startup Nations Award for Groundbreaking Policy Thinking from the Global Entrepreneurship Network.
Juan Federico PhD in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management of the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Master Degree in Industrial Economics and Development with emphasis on SMEs (UNGS) and BA in Economics (UNS). He has been working at Prodem since the beginning as a Researcher and Lecturer. He is the author of several articles, books and book chapters about new ventures in Latin America, young firms and entrepreneurship policies. He has also participated as a consultant for several projects, both national and international, on these topics.
Sabrina Ibarra García BA in Economics (UBA) with a Master Degree in Industrial Economics and Development with emphasis on SMEs (UNGS). Researcher and Lecturer of the Prodem Team since 2008. She has collaborated on several research and consultancy projects in quantitative data processing and analysis. Her main research interests are the determinants of dynamic new ventures in Latin America, the elaboration of composite indicators of entrepreneurship and quantitative research methods.
.2
page 6
01 conceptual framework
page 9
02 general overview
page 12
03 latin america 2017
page 15
page 19
page 22
page 25
page 41
page 49
04 entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants 05 factors affecting the opportunity space for new dynamic enterprises 06 factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic start-ups 07 icsed-prodem by country 08 news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem 09 conclusions
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the members of the Prodem Panel of Key Actors in Latin American Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. The information they have provided was very relevant for the elaboration of the “News…” section.
» Javier Albuja (Ecuador) » Rose Mary Almeida López (Brazil) » Verónica Natalia Almeida Suárez (Ecuador) » Nadyuska Neelikiva Amador Ramos (Panama) » Claudio Barahona (Chile) » Jaime Barahona (El Salvador) » Rocío del Carmen Barahona Tobar (El Salvador) » Allan Boruchowicz (Costa Rica) » David Bullón (Costa Rica) » Oscar Bustamante (Argentina) » Marissa Caballero (Panama) » Carola Capra (Bolivia) » Álvaro Castillo (Ecuador) » Fernando Catalano (Bolivia) » Marcial Adolfo Chaverri Rojas (Costa Rica) » José Checo (Dominican Republic) » Alejandro Augusto Contreras (Argentina) » Vicente Dávila (Venezuela) » Marcela Escobar (Colombia) » Elvia Zulena Escobedo Chinchilla (Guatemala) » María Irene Esquivel (Argentina) » Federico Fernández (Venezuela) » Marco Antonio Fernández (Bolivia) » Téo Ferraz Benjamín (Brazil) » Eugenia Ferreto (Costa Rica) » Ingrid Figueroa (Central America) » Liliana Gallegos (Colombia) » Adrián García (Costa Rica) » Pablo García (Dominican Republic) » Germán Gatti (Argentina) » Raúl González (Bolivia) » Adriana Heredia (Cuba) » Ricardo Hoyos Giraldo (Colombia) » Zuheydee Michelle Hurley Carrillo (Panama) » Sara Goldberg (Uruguay) » Verónica Alexandra Juna Cabrera (Ecuador) » Héctor Kappes (Chile)
» Daniel Knobelsdorf (Venezuela) » Catherine Krauss (Uruguay) » Francisco Lima (El Salvador) » Andrea Malaquin de Castro (Uruguay) » Francisco Javier Molina Jara (Chile) » Yesenia Jazmín Martínez Martínez (Panama) » Diego Nuñez (Chile) » Edwin Ojeda (Venezuela) » Jairo Alonso Orozco Triana (Colombia) » Sergio Ortiz Valdés (Mexico) » José Ramón Padilla (Panama) » Felipe Pastor (Ecuador) » Orlando Pérez Richiez (Dominican Republic) » Rita Picado (Costa Rica) » Amalia Quirici (Uruguay) » Juana Ramírez Bustos (Mexico) » Michael Jacobo Reyes (Dominican Republic) » María Amparo Reyes de Portillo (El Salvador) » Walther Ríos (Guatemala) » Antonio Ríos-Ramírez (Mexico) » Aramis Rodriguez (Venezuela) » Alfredo Roldán (Colombia) » Víctor Sanchez (Panama) » Marc Segura (Mexico) » Ana Lilian Serrano Rovira (El Salvador) » Ixis Taymes (Panama) » Ramón Tejeiro (El Salvador) » Enrique Topolansky (Uruguay) » Xinia Isabel Varela Sojo (Costa Rica) » Germán Ventura (El Salvador) » Rebeca Vidal (Venezuela) » Itzel Villa Salinas (Mexico) » Gonzalo Villarán (Peru) » Karen Weimberger (Peru) » Angel Wilmore (Dominican Republic) » Milceades Wilmore (Dominican Republic)
.4
prologue hugo kantis Director of Prodem
The systemic conditions for dynamic entrepreneurship are not static. That is why monitoring these conditions is a task that should be sustained over time. In this context, Prodem has assumed the commitment of creating an annual report containing the main information of the ICSEd-Prodem and its dimensions, which includes the ranking of countries. We are convinced of the importance of having this information to make decisions and promote entrepreneurship. On this occasion, the 2017 report includes an updated picture as well as an overview on progress compared to five years ago. At first, the ICSEd-Prodem seems to indicate that, after a five-year period, we are at the same place as we were at the beginning. However, this result is misleading given that, in general, countries have made many advances in some dimensions and have had setbacks in others, as the title of the report suggests. Clearly, this is not the same as saying we have not made any progress at all. Even so, it is unsettling to verify that progress made in some areas is offset by retrogression in others given that, from a systemic perspective, it is quite important to move towards a more balanced development of the different systemic conditions for dynamic entrepreneurship. As in previous years, the report also includes the section News from today that may impact tomorrow’s Index. We believe that, in this way, we can offer a complementary look on any piece of news. Even when, on the one hand, such news does not imply a major aggregate effect as to “move the ammeter� of the ICSEd-Prodem, on the other hand, it does start to outline some trends of interest that, in some cases, may have an impact in the long run. Therefore, along with the most robust view of the index, we include this news. Lastly, a distinctive aspect of this report is that we have wanted to give communication a chiefly visual style by structuring it based on infographs that, along with synthetic captions, help capture information and key messages quite easily. Once again, we hope that the report is useful for all actors from the different ecosystems of the region and we appreciate the collaboration that many of them have had with Prodem, providing information that has made the creation of this report possible.
.5
01
conceptual framework
01 conceptual framework
what do we understand by dynamic entrepreneurship?
Projects and new businesses that have the potential to become competitive SMEs with prospects for further growth after their first years, time at which the greatest mortality rates are registered. They are supported by value propositions based on differentiation, innovation and business opportunities geared toward capitalizing scalable and dynamic economic tendencies. They are usually founded by entrepreneurial teams: » between 25 and 35 years old » having undertaken a university course (complete or incomplete) » from middle-class homes
It is a broader definition than the gazelle’s or high-impact one. It includes them but goes beyond them. It recognizes the complexity and variety of the “fauna” of dynamic entrepreneurship without being tied to rigid definitions. It is also more appropriate for the Latin American context, where it is essential to expand the basis of competitive SMEs with a potential for growth.
.7
01 conceptual framework
dynamic entrepreneurship is a systemic phenomenon 3 conceptual axes organize the
10 dimensions included in the ICSEd-Prodem:
social capital financing
Entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants policies and regulations
Factors affecting the opportunity space for new dynamic enterprises Factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic firms
business structure
Opportunity space
Value proposition
Educational system
sti platform
Entrepreneurial human capital demand conditions
The ICSEd-Prodem... Is based on 41 variables obtained from internationallyrenowned sources
culture
social conditions
It is available to 60 countries, with a special focus on Latin America Source: Own elaboration. To access details on methodology: “http://www.ungs.edu.ar/icsedprodem” \ hwww.ungs.edu.ar/icsedprodem .8
02
general overview
general overview
02
systemic conditions for dynamic entrepreneurship in latin america are positioned in middle to low levels
Western Europe North American
54.21
63
.95
42.22
Eastern Europe
44.37
Asia / Oceania
26.86 Latin American
Chile, the leading country in Latin America, is positioned at mid-table. The region is even further from international leaders.
High Upper middle Middle Lower middle Low
1 Singapure
68.21
21 China
50.63
41 Morocco
33.33
2
66.98
22
Denmark
48.65
42 Mexico
32.99
3 Finland
66.19
23
Czech Republic
47.53
43
Costa Rica
32.97
4 Netherlands
65.48
24 Portugal
46.02
44 Uruguay
32.82
5 Ireland
63.73
25
45.03
45 Colombia
32.53
6 Sweden
62.97
26 Slovenia
44.94
46
South Africa
30.30
7 Germany
62.34
27
Latvia
44.43
47 Indonesia
29.53
8
61.74
28
Thailand
42.89
48 Peru
29.30
9 Canada
60.93
29 Hungary
42.70
49 Egypt
28.79
10 Norway
59.81
30
Italy
41.13
50
26.30
11 Japan
58.18
31
Spain
40.75
51 Iran
26.28
12 Austria
57.49
32 Turkey
39.72
52
Croatia
26.04
13 Australia
57.21
33 Chile
38.88
53
Greece
23.24
14
56.32
34 Russian
36.90
54
El Salvador
22.80
15 France
55.97
35
35.83
55
Dominican Republic 22.75
16 Belgium
55.57
36 India
35.13
56 Bolivia
22.42
17 Israel
55.40
37 Slovak
34.96
57
21.62
18
Korea, Rep.
54.78
38 Brazil
34.42
58 Panama
15.92
19
Hong Kong
54.77
39 Argentina
33.75
59 Venezuela
15.64
54.62
40 Vietnam
33.50
60 Guatemala
14.05
United States
United Kingdom
Switzerland
20 Estonia
Poland
Malaysia
Philippines
Republic Ecuador
.10
general overview
02
open gaps of latin america
������ ���������� �������� ���������
�������� ��� ����������� 80 70 60 50 40
������ �������
��� ��������
30 20 10 0
��������������� ����� �������
���������
������ ����������
�������� ���������� ���������
Deficits in entrepreneurial human capital, the different dimensions associated with the existence of opportunities and factors that help materialize them are all maintained.
Regional Average TOP 3 Average in Latin America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina) TOP 3 Average ICSEd-Prodem (Singapure, United States and Finland) Source: Own elaboration based on ICSEd-Prodem.
.11
03
latin america 2017 *
*
In order to better express the changes registered in each country in the 2017 vs. 2012 comparison, 2017 was recalculated in terms of the maximum and minimum values of 2012 in the normalization of variables. Therefore, they do not match the values of 2017 presented in other sections
03 latin america 2017
news
ICSEd-Prodem Argentina climbs four positions compared to 2016 and returns to the top 3 regional rank. This jump is due to a change in the view of the importance of entrepreneurship in the government's agenda. Without this change, Argentina would continue being ranked 7th. The major challenge is meeting these expectations.
Latin America ranking
Country
ICSEd 2017
International ranking
Change vs. ranking 2016
1
Chile
38,88
33
0
2
Brazil
34,42
38
0
3
Argentina
33,75
39
4
4
Mexico
32,99
42
-1
5
Costa Rica
32,97
43
1
6
Uruguay
32,82
44
-2
7
Colombia
32,53
45
-2
8
Peru
29,30
48
1
9
El Salvador
22,80
54
4
10
Dominican Republica
22,75
55
4
11
Bolivia
22,42
56
-3
12
Ecuador
21,62
57
-2
13
Panama
15,92
58
-2
14
Venezuela
15,64
59
-2
15
Guatemala
14,05
60
0
Despite making slight progress in their respective values of the ICSEdProdem, Uruguay and Colombia abandoned the top 5 regional rank when being replaced by Argentina and, to a lesser extent, Costa Rica.
A slip-up for Bolivia? After having reached the 8th position in 2016, this country falls 3 positions in the 2017 ranking and returns to the position it held in 2014 and 2015. This fall is explained by several setbacks verified in demand conditions, access to financing and entrepreneurial policies.
The Dominican Republic and El Salvador stand out in Central America. Due to certain advances in entrepreneurial human capital and access to financing, these countries climb four steps and draw closer to mid-table.
.13
03 latin america 2017
ICSEd-Prodem news
page 2
Five years later: mostly at the same place In most Latin American countries, the value of the ICSEd-Prodem does not significantly change with respect to 2012. Evolution of the value of the ICSEd-Prodem between 2012 and 2017 Significant/moderate rise
Guatemala Dominican Rep.
Slight rise
Costa Rica Colombia
Stable
Chile
Slight fall
Peru Significant/moderate fall
Bolivia Argentina Uruguay El Salvador Brazil
Source: Own elaboration based
Mexico Ecuador
on ICSEd-Prodem.
Venezuela Panama -70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Nonetheless, this relative stability hides important advances and setbacks, which end up neutralized in the aggregate. Some examples are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Peru, Uruguay and, to a lesser extent, Chile. Chile
Dimensions of regression
Dimensions of advancement
Brazil Argentina Mexico Costa Rica Uruguay Colombia Peru El Salvador
Dominican Rep. Bolivia Ecuador Panama Venezuela Guatemala 10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
.14
04
entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants *
*
In order to better express the changes registered in each country in the 2017 vs. 2012 comparison, 2017 was recalculated in terms of the maximum and minimum values of 2012 in the normalization of variables. Therefore, they do not match the values of 2017 presented in other sections
04 entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants
entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants: a pending matter In 10 out of the 15 Latin American countries, the entrepreneurial human capital is a quite relevant weakness (less than 30 points).
Between 2012 and 2017, the entrepreneurial human capital indicator average was relatively constant and low.
2017
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
entrepreneurial human capital: main advances and setbacks Should Mexico have the same entrepreneurial human capital values as the average regional leaders, it would hold the 2nd place in the ranking.
Some countries show important improvements since 2012 to date: Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica among those that lead the ranking; Bolivia and the Dominican Republic among those that are quite behind. On the other hand, Uruguay, Mexico, Ecuador and Panama stressed their weaknesses in this dimension, falling back not just with respect to the 2016 ranking but also to the one from 2012. Should Uruguay have an entrepreneurial human capital value that was similar to the average regional leaders, it would climb up to 4th place.
Brazil also fell back with respect to 2012, consequence of a setback that began in 2015 and continues at present.
.16
1
Evolution 2012-2017
04 2017
Uruguay
40.32
Argentina
38.94
Chile
34.92
Mexico
34.22
Venezuela
34.17
Panama
34.13
Perú
33.01
Dominican Republic
31.26
Ecuador
31.10
Costa Rica
30.37
Brasil
29.31
El Salvador
29.25
Guatemala
26.18
Colombia
25.06
Bolivia
24.84 -5%
0%
Significant/moderate rise
2
2012 Colombia Mexico Argentina Peru Costa Rica Ecuador Guatemala Venezuela Uruguay El Salvador Chile Bolivia Dominican Republic Panama
5%
10%
15%
20%
social conditions The evolution was positive, but there are doubts about its sustainability over time and its future impact on the expansion of social bases for the emergence of dynamic entrepreneurs. Several countries significantly improve their values. However, none of them passes the 40-point barrier to stop being a weakness.
25%
Slight rise
Slight fall
Stable
Significant/moderate fall
2015
entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants
is the entrepreneurial human capital outlook expected to change?
Source: Own elaboration based on ICSEd-Prodem.
2017
making progress and sustaining advances in entrepreneurial education: a difficult task Up to date, 11 out of the 15 Latin American countries show retrogression. Panama, Uruguay and Colombia are the ones having the most difficult time. In all three cases, the decline began near 2015 after three years of growth. Mexico, Peru, El Salvador and, to a lesser extent, Brazil also follow this trend. Have the initiatives that promptly helped make progress somehow run out? Note: the size of circles is proportional to the value of the variable for each country in each year. Source: Own elaboration based on ICSEd-Prodem.
Brazil
.17
04
3
2012
2015
entrepreneurial human capital and its determinants
culture: the social status of entrepreneurs has been declining. 2017
100 80 60 40 20
la ue ez
ay gu ru
U
ub Re p
an D
om
in
ic
Ve n
lic
u Pe r
co
am a Pa n
ex i M
m al a
do r
ua te G
al va
or ad
El S
Ec u
hi C
il Br az
ia Bo liv
le Co lo m bi a Co st a Ri ca
A
rg e
nt
in
a
0
Source: Own elaboration based on ICSEd-Prodem.
In 8 out of the 15 Latin American countries, the social valuation of entrepreneurs among the adult population declines. In Mexico, Argentina and El Salvador this situation is more pronounced, followed by Ecuador and Peru, to a lesser extent. What are the reasons for this decline?
In some countries such as Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Peru, the media coverage for entrepreneurial cases is also low, yet without such a marked tendency.
so... is there room for optimism? Yes, but only insofar as a long-term commitment is assumed with the entrepreneurial education and efforts to promote entrepreneurial culture among people are reinforced, which will require a greater understanding of the reasons behind the verified setback.
.18
05
factors affecting the opportunity space for new dynamic enterprises *
*
In order to better express the changes registered in each country in the 2017 vs. 2012 comparison, 2017 was recalculated in terms of the maximum and minimum values of 2012 in the normalization of variables. Therefore, they do not match the values of 2017 presented in other sections
1
factors affecting the opportunity space for new dynamic enterprises
05
opportunity space: deepened weaknesses.
demand conditions: new scenarios, new challenges.
Bolivia Dominican Republic Guatemala
The demand conditions of almost all countries are deteriorated. Bolivia and the Dominican Republic are the exceptions, although they still do not record significant growths.
Mexico El Salvador Panama Peru Costa Rica Chile Colombia Uruguay Ecuador Argentina Brazil Venezuela -140% -120% -100% -80% Significant/moderate rise
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
-20%
Slight rise
Slight fall
Stable
Significant/moderate fall
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Uruguay are the countries that most fell with respect to 2012, mainly due to the decline in economic activity. These are warning signs that show an increasingly challenging environment.
2 business structure: 13 out of 15 countries experience setbacks:
Dominican Republic Ecuador Uruguay Mexico
Peru, Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina record major productivity losses. In addition, the industry’s technological level falls in Panama, Costa Rica and Venezuela.
Guatemala Chile El Salvador Colombia Peru Bolivia Brazil Argentina Costa Rica Venezuela Panama -50% Significant/moderate rise
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
Slight rise
Slight fall
Stable
Significant/moderate fall
.20
05 factors affecting the opportunity space for new dynamic enterprises
3 sti platform: advances, yet still insufficient
Peru Venezuela Guatemala Ecuador
Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela make progress with respect to 2012. However, this dimension continues being the one with the lowest score in all countries.
Colombia Mexico Bolivia Chile Brazil Argentina Uruguay Costa Rica El Salvador Panama Dominican Republic -70%
-60%
Significant/moderate rise
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Slight rise
Slight fall
Stable
Significant/moderate fall
30%
The greatest falls take place in Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama and the Dominican Republic. On the basis of very different initial situations, these countries have displayed setbacks in the number of researchers, R & D spending, both public and private.
a challenging scenario for entrepreneurs A narrower space for opportunities poses major challenges for entrepreneurs and the ecosystem’s institutions, especially governments themselves.
.21
06
factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic start-ups *
*
In order to better express the changes registered in each country in the 2017 vs. 2012 comparison, 2017 was recalculated in terms of the maximum and minimum values of 2012 in the normalization of variables. Therefore, they do not match the values of 2017 presented in other sections
factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic start-ups
1
06
factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic firms
Brazil Argentina Mexico Panama
social capital: every man for himself?
Uruguay Chile Peru
Interpersonal trust falls back with respect to 2012 in 10 out of the 15 Latin American countries.
El Salvador Guatemala Costa Rica Colombia Venezuela
This result deteriorates the foundation to build social capital and contact networks.
Dominican Republic Bolivia Ecuador -70%
-60%
SigniďŹ cant/moderate rise
2
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Slight rise
Slight fall
Stable
SigniďŹ cant/moderate fall
financing: good news within a precautionary context 2012
2015
2017
70 60 50 40 30 20 10
a tin
la
rg en A
a
ez ue
Ri c
Ve n
Co s
ta
ad or lv
Sa El
m
al
a
r do G
ua te
ua
lic ub
Re p
D om
in
ic
an
Ec
ia liv Bo
bi a om
ay Co l
gu
u ru U
Pe r
a am Pa n
Br az il
le C hi
M ex i
co
0
Source: Own elaboration based on ICSEd-Prodem.
70
.23
06
policies and regulation: six of one and half a dozen of the other
factors which can foster or inhibit the development of dynamic start-ups
3
Half of the countries experience significant growths in this dimension with respect to 2012, while the other half shows setbacks.
The regulatory environment remains virtually unchanged. Only Costa Rica, Brazil and the Dominican Republic show advances in regulations during this period. Furthermore, there is a need to complement advances in regulations to create businesses with an alleviation of tax pressure or requirements on new ventures.
!
In most countries, the perception that entrepreneurial policies are a priority within the government’s (national and local) agenda has decreased.
In Costa Rica, El Salvador, Chile and Ecuador, the increase in the support from the rest of the ecosystem makes the final result positive, compensating for the fall in the perception that it is a priority for governments.
how to proceed? Public policy initiatives and programs must evolve towards long-term strategies for the development of ecosystems. Thus, it is important to include them as a priority in the government’s agendas and budgets and “dialogue” with policies in other key areas, e.g. education, energy, health, tax, etc. Otherwise, there is a risk of these efforts simply becoming a “fad.”
.24
07
icsed-prodem by country
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
20.047
-2.3
41.446.246
33.8
39º
3º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Argentina
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Argentina
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
4º
60
Social conditions
2º
50
Education 1º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
11º
Demand conditions
9º
20
STI Platform
2º
10
Business structure
6º
Social capital
1º
0
Financing 14º Policies and regulations
4º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Argentina
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
70
2017
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.26
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
7.218
4.10
10.671.200
22.4
56º
11º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Bolivia
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Bolivia
�������� ��� �����������
100
�������� ���������
90 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
70
Entrepreneurial human capital
6º
60
Social conditions
15º
50
Education 4º Cultural conditions
2º
Demand conditions
8º
STI Platform
11º
Business structure
14º
Social capital
11º
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30 20 10 0
Financing 8º Policies and regulations
14º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Bolivia
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.27
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
15.242
-3.60
200.361.925
34.4
38º
2º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Brazil
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Brazil
�������� ��� �����������
100
�������� ���������
90 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
70
Entrepreneurial human capital
10º
60
Social conditions
12º
50
Education 8º Cultural conditions
3º
Demand conditions
12º
STI Platform
1º
Business structure
4º
Social capital
4º
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30 20 10 0
Financing 2º Policies and regulations
11º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Brazil
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.28
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
24.113
1.56
17.619.708
38.9
33º
1º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Chile
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Chile
�������� ��� �����������
100
�������� ���������
90 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
70
Entrepreneurial human capital
2º
60
Social conditions
3º
50
Education 5º Cultural conditions
6º
Demand conditions
3º
STI Platform
3º
Business structure
3º
Social capital
5º
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30 20 10 0
Financing 3º Policies and regulations
1º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Chile
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.29
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
14.130
1.96
48.321.405
32.5
45º
7º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Colombia
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Colombia
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
1º
60
Social conditions
13º
50
Education 6º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
5º
Demand conditions
6º
20
STI Platform
8º
10
Business structure
7º
Social capital
13º
0
Financing 7º Policies and regulations
3º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Colombia
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.30
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
16.436
4.33
4.872.166
33.0
43º
5º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Costa Rica
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Costa Rica
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
3º
60
Social conditions
10º
50
Education 3º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
1º
Demand conditions
10º
20
STI Platform
6º
10
Business structure
2º
Social capital
7º
0
Financing 11º Policies and regulations
7º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Costa Rica
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.31
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
11.109
-2.17
15.737.878
21.6
57º
12º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Ecuador
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Ecuador
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
13º
60
Social conditions
9º
50
Education 15º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
8º
Demand conditions
14º
20
STI Platform
9º
10
Business structure
12º
Social capital
14º
0
Financing 10º Policies and regulations
8º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Ecuador
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.32
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
8.176
2.4
6.340.454
22.8
54º
9º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
El Salvador
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in El Salvador
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
7º
60
Social conditions
11º
50
Education 13º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
12º
Demand conditions
11º
20
STI Platform
12º
10
Business structure
9º
Social capital
6º
0
Financing 12º Policies and regulations
10º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
El Salvador
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.33
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
7.899
3
15.468.203
14
60º
15º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Guatemala
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Guatemala
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
14º
60
Social conditions
14º
50
Education 14º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
13º
Demand conditions
5º
20
STI Platform
15º
10
Business structure
8º
Social capital
15º
0
Financing 13º Policies and regulations
13º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Guatemala
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.34
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
18.938
2.30
122.332.399
33.0
42º
4º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Mexico
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Mexico
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
12º
60
Social conditions
4º
50
Education 7º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
15º
Demand conditions
1º
20
STI Platform
4º
10
Business structure
1º
Social capital
3º
0
Financing 1º Policies and regulations
2º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Mexico
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.35
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
23.024
5.00
3.864.170
15.9
58º
13º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Panama
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Panama
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
15º
60
Social conditions
6º
50
Education 11º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
14º
Demand conditions
4º
20
STI Platform
13º
10
Business structure
15º
Social capital
8º
0
Financing 5º Policies and regulations
12º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Panama
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.36
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
12.903
3.90
30.375.603
29.3
48º
8º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Peru
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Peru
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
5º
60
Social conditions
7º
50
Education 9º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
4º
Demand conditions
2º
20
STI Platform
10º
10
Business structure
11º
Social capital
10º
0
Financing 4º Policies and regulations
9º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Perú
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.37
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
16.049
6.57
10.403.761
22.7
55º
10º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Dominican Republic
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Dominican Republic
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
9º
60
Social conditions
8º
50
Education 10º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
10º
Demand conditions
7º
20
STI Platform
14º
10
Business structure
10º
Social capital
12º
0
Financing 9º Policies and regulations
6º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Dominican Republic
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
������ ����������
���������
Regional benchmark International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.38
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
21.527
1.44
3.407.062
32.8
44º
6º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Uruguay
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Uruguay
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
8º
60
Social conditions
1º
50
Education 12º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
9º
Demand conditions
13º
20
STI Platform
5º
10
Business structure
5º
Social capital
2º
0
Financing 6º Policies and regulations
5º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Uruguay
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.39
GDP per capita PPP (US$)
GDP growth rate
Population
2016/15 (%)
(habitants)
ICSEd - Prodem value
International ranking
Latin American ranking
13.761
-18.00
30.405.207
15.6
59º
14º
07
2017
icsed-prodem by country
Venezuela
������ ����������
The ICSEd-Prodem 10 dimensions in Venezuela
�������� ��� �����������
100 80
Rk LATAM (15 countries)
Position
Entrepreneurial human capital
11º
60
Social conditions
5º
50
Education 2º
�������� ���������
90 70
40
������ �������
��� ��������
30
Cultural conditions
7º
Demand conditions
15º
20
STI Platform
7º
10
Business structure
13º
Social capital
9º
0
Financing 15º Policies and regulations
15º
��������������� ����� �������
���������
Venezuela
The international and regional benchmark refer to the average value of the top 3 countries for each dimension in the overall ranking and in Latin America, respectively.
Regional benchmark
������ ����������
���������
International benchmark
�������� ����������
ICSEd-Prodem 2017 vs 2012 Normalized values (0-100)
2012
2017
70
60
50
Policies and regulations
Financing
Social capital
Business structure
STI Platform
Demand conditions
0
Cultural conditions
10
Education
20
Social conditions
30
Entrepreneurial human capital
40
.40
08
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsedprodem
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
08
there are different factors that can help streamline ecosystems Note: The size of structures is proportional to the number of initiatives reported in each driving force
New initiatives from existing organizations
Governments renewing their support to new initiatives
Large companies supporting entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs helping propel the ecosystem
Regionalization of existing initiatives
External players reaching the region
15 countries have reported the launch of 131 dynamic initiatives since 2015
!
Dominican Republic El Salvador
Panama Bolivia
Peru
Chile Colombia
Ecuador
The information corresponds to the initiatives reported by 60 actors in the “News on Latin American Ecosystems Survey” conducted by Prodem at the beginning of 2017. This was complemented by a search on major websites, identifying news on the launching of initiatives that support dynamic entrepreneurs between 2015 and the first quarter of 2017.
Uruguay
Argentina
Mexico Costa Rica Cuba
Guatemala
.42
the number and activities of the accelerators, co-works and incubators continues rising › Hub Global PUCV (Chile) › iF Valparaíso 3IE (Chile)
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
1
08
new initiatives from existing organizations: key trends
NXTP Labs raised USD 5 million of MIF-IDB and the USD 38.5-million fund makes way to its second level to invest in technological Latin American companies with social impact. The capitalization objective is USD 120 million.
› Open Labs (Chile) › BRAIN Chile (Chile) › Latin American Center for Entrepreneurs (Costa Rica) › Inventoria.led (Costa Rica) › CiEmprender (Costa Rica) › InCUBA.uhhu (Cuba) › INCmty Acceletator (Mexico) › Centro de emprendimiento de Pyhex (Dominican Republic) › Sinergia Tech (Uruguay) › Sinergia Desing (Uruguay) › Zegelab (Peru) › Hub UDEP (Peru) › IncubaUNT Centro de emprendimiento e innovación (Peru)
2
wider fund availability and new investing networks Kaszek Ventures raised USD 200 million in his third fund › Netmentora Chile (Chile) › BRAIN Chile (Chile) › Bancolombia - Linea de Financing “Emprendimiento de alto impacto” (Colombia) › Club de inversores USFQ (Ecuador) › Buen Trip y el Curso internacional de inversión ángel en el Ecuador (Ecuador) › Fondo de inversión de riesgo 593 Capital Partners (Ecuador) › Programa capital emprendedor de AEI (Ecuador) › Fondo de VC DX de Universidad Anáhuac y Duxa Capital (Mexico) › UP4angels de Emprende UP (Peru) › Peruvian Investors Network (PIN) (Peru) › Red de ángeles inversionistas de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru (Peru)
.43
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
1
08
governments renewing their support More and more countries support entrepreneurs through laws and regulations that seek to speed up the formal creation of companies and the development of the financing offer. For example: › Law 27349 fostering Entrepreneurial Capital in Argentina › Law 688-16 on Entrepreneurship in the Dominican Republic › Entrepreneurship Strengthening Law Initiative in Guatemala › Figure of Simplified Joint Stock Company Scheme in Mexico › Bill to regulate FINTECHs in Mexico
2
They also continue backing the implementation of new programs and financing institutions. For example: › Scale Up (CORFO, Chile) › Panamá Emprende Fund and Capital Semilla SENACYT (Panama) › Capital Semilla (ANDE, Uruguay) › Scale Up (Produce, Peru) › Fund for High-Impact Companies (Produce, Peru) › Financing to support Angel Investor Networks Contest (Start-up, Peru) › Cree – Banreservas (Dominican Republic)
3
And backing the creation and strengthening of supporting institutions For example: › ANDE, the National Development Agency that seeks to promote entrepreneurship and territorial competitiveness in Uruguay (Uruguay) › INCUBAR with the Institutional Strengthening Plan that reached 50 incubators (Argentina) › INNOVATE PERU with the Contest for the Strengthening of business incubators that supports 12 projects
4
Also, there are new programs that promote the open innovation and connection between medium- and largesized enterprises and entrepreneurs For example: › Biodiversity challenges (Produce – Peru) › Innovation and entrepreneurship acceleration program, Engineering 2030 (CORFO, Chile) › Mexico challenge (Ministry of Economy, Mexico)
.44
16
2
17
3
18
4
19
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
1
08
there is a higher number of large-sized enterprises that open up to entrepreneurs as part of their open innovation strategies
1 6 14
11 23
5
6
20
21
25
24
29 26
5
27 22
14 20
7
8 21 14
8
23
9
24
14
6
22
30 15
14 2
3 9 14
10
25
11
26
12
27
6
14 16
19
18 6
11
13
28
29
15
30
7
12 13
14
10
14 28
17
14
14
.45
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
08
more ecosystem organizations expand throughout the region
Venture Capital Spa
Ă ngeles AP Acelera AP
.46
From
Destination
Proveniente de ...
Con destino a ...
GET IN THE RING
HOLANDA
BOLIVIA
GET IN THE RING
HOLANDA
COSTA RICA
GET IN THE RING
HOLANDA
REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA
LEAN STARTUP MACHINE
USA
REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA
SEED STAR WORLD
SUIZA
MÉXICO
SEED STAR WORLD
SUIZA
COSTA RICA
SEED STAR WORLD
SUIZA
URUGUAY
ROKK3R LABS
USA
COLOMBIA
MASSCHALLENGE
USA
MÉXICO
INGNITE
USA
CHILE
ANGELS DEN
REINO UNIDO
MÉXICO
BRIDGE BERKELEY
USA
CHILE
SEEDSTARS WORLD
SUIZA
COSTA RICA
SEEDSTARS WORLD
SUIZA
REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA
FBSTART
USA
COLOMBIA
THE GARAGE DIGITAL
USA
MÉXICO
MIT TECHNOLOGY
USA
BOLIVIA
FAB LAB VERITAS
USA
COSTA RICA
MASSCHALLENGE
USA
MÉXICO
FRENCH TECH
FRANCIA
MÉXICO
FOUNDERS INSTITUTE
USA
PANAMÁ
START UP GRIND
USA
REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA
STARTUP NATION
ISRAEL
URUGUAY
500 START UPS
USA
URUGUAY
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
Arrivals Llegadas
08
latin america: an appealing destination for organizations outside the region
.47
08 PECAP (Peruvian Start-up & Seed Capital Association) emerge and ARCAP (Argentine Private Equity, Venture & Seed Capital Association) is re-launched.
news from today that may impact tomorrow’s icsed-prodem
entrepreneurial associations continue to make progress
Guatemala
Costa Rica
The FinTech associations: a growing phenomenon that seeks to enhance the industry and create a regulatory framework that is suited to its operations.
.48
09
conclusions
in short... » During last year, Argentina, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador escalated in the ranking. » During the last five-year period, the majority of the countries have experienced both advances and setbacks in the conditions for entrepreneurship. » For example, improvements in Entrepreneurial Human Capital in five countries are overshadowed by the difficulties seen in other cases on Entrepreneurial Education and Culture. This will have an impact on the emergence of entrepreneurs in the long run. » Some countries were able to make some progress in the STI Platform, but the setbacks verified are more frequent in the Demand Conditions and Business Structure. The current scenario is more challenging and complex to build business opportunities. There is a need for more sophisticated entrepreneurs and stronger networks. » New steps have been taken in Financing but concentrated on a few countries. Unfortunately, they cope with a downward trend in the bases of Social Capital to build contact networks. Access to entrepreneurial capital is not just a matter of money and good projects, especially when the interpersonal trust is weakened. » In half of the countries, governments remain active with initiatives and programs. But this is not the case for the other half. And the widespread perception, with very few exceptions, is that entrepreneurship does not take up a relevant place in the public agenda. » There is good news, as regards the growing number of large-sized enterprises that bet on entrepreneurs, of the regional expansion of some organizations from the ecosystem and of initiatives of extra-regional actors that land in Latin America. » To improve and see a quantum leap in the region’s ecosystems, it is important to further advance and consolidate the good news. But also it is necessary to achieve a systemic development, looking for a balanced growth of the different “pillars.”
to be continued...
.50
To access details on the methodology and download previous reports: www.ungs.edu.ar/icsedprodem
Contรกctanos www.prodem.ungs.edu.ar prodem@ungs.edu.ar @ProDemUNGS Prodem Ungs