I thought this article’s distinction of “high growth” entrepreneurial activities was interesting. This seems to tie in with the Kondratieff Cycle reading in that we need to find somehow to replace the large number of jobs that may be destroyed during the creative destruction process. By focusing the efforts of both the private and public sectors on this high growth entrepreneurship, we may have a more targeted approach to quickly creating a larger number of jobs than we would by focusing on lower growth entrepreneurship. The private sector can organize wealth and funding for these types of ideas and the marketplace can decide which ones are truly “high-growth.” The public sector can then create enabling legislation that ties in with much of the ideas listed in the article for today’s class (R&D, Tech transfer, funding etc.)
Although I would agree with the distinction on high growth entrepreneurship vs those entrepreneurs who want to earn a profit just so they can support a family, I would highlight a number of areas that regulators must recognize before they begin to act to try and help such high growth entrepreneurship. First, regardless of the regulatory changes that are made, we must ensure that such changes are not for the benefit of the high growth entrepreneur and to the disadvantage of those who just want to earn a profit. Our legal and regulatory systems must not place those entrepreneurs who want to earn a solid profit for their family at an economic disadvantage just because of their aspirational goals. Additionally, I would question the level of regulation and government interference that is really even needed in a developed economy like the US. Mr. Case highlights overhauling the immigration system, which is definitely within the realm of government action. Yet, I would caution that we do not want to extend this federal reach to such an extent that government interference becomes more detrimental than helpful for high growth entrepreneurs.