Report ICSEd-Prodem 2017

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