108this can lead to the public support provider, in effectuating this kind of direct support, in fact transforming into an entrepreneur. Thus, direct advisory services must be limited to services that in practice can be found in existing or potential markets. As discussed in the previous section, a program theory must acknowledge the inherent caveats associated with direct support. Publicly funded support by necessity may come close to tradeable services, and the following shortcomings may arise and must be recognized in a framework for such programs. It is important to address these issues: • Allocate selective resources to avoid the so-called pick-the-winner problem. • Escape the risk of crowding out private companies—so-called displacement

problems. • Prevent rent-seeking, the possibility that entrepreneurs use public support as a

way of earning a living, as a rent-seeking business idea in itself.

As mentioned in the introduction, improved program theories are needed as an important step to enable evaluations that provide feedback, learning, and accountability. Without a theory-driven learning process, the policymaker may fall short in understanding how to better provide selective public innovation support. And without this understanding, policy measures will be based only on faith and wishful thinking, not facts and proven experience. In Umeå, the acting entrepreneur is in focus, as addressed by the Austrian economic paradigm.

References

Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship

and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms,

1994–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1628–1654. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. Ejemo, O. (2019). Does incubation lead to innovation? Evidence from the Swedish incubation

program. Sweden; Growth Analysis. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgement–A new approach to the firm.

Cambridge University Press. Giddens. (2006). Sociology (5th ed.).

109Building Local Innovation Support Systems: Theory and Practice

Growth Analysis. (2015). Do selective industrial polices cause growth? Growth Analysis. Gustafsson, A., Tingvall, P. G., & Halvarsson, D. (2020). Subsidy entrepreneurs: An inquiry into firms seeking public grants. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20(3), 439–478. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review. Hjalmarsson, D. (2017). New companies, entrepreneurs and business ideas in a matching innovation support; in Swedish. Umeå universitets. holdingbolag. Hjalmarsson, D., & Johansson, A. (2003). Public advisory services - theory and practice. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(1), 83–98. Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C.-F. (2007). On the nature of markets and their practices. Marketing Theory, 7(2), 137–162. Lachmann, L. (1986). The market as an economic process. Basil Blackwell. OECD. (2013). Beyond industrial policy. Sölvell, Ö. (2015). Construction of the cluster commons. The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness (pp. 84–101). Oxford University Press. SOU. (1993). Strategi för småföretagsutveckling (Strategy for small firm’s development). Sveriges Offentliga Utredningar (SOU 1993:70). Fritzes. SOU. (2000). Statlig organisation för näringslivsutveckling (Public organisation for industrial development). Sveriges Offentliga Utredningar (SOU 2000:93). Fritzes. SOU. (2020). Innovation som drivkraft (Innovation as a driving force). Sveriges Offentliga Utredningar (SOU 2020:59). Fritzes. Stiglitz, S.J. (2000). Economics of the public sector. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. Rand McNally. Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Transaction Publishers. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. Free Press.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

116Reducing Higher Education Bureaucracy

and Reclaiming the Entrepreneurial

University

Siri Terjesen

Abstract This chapter documents the worrying trend of increased levels of top-down policies that stifle universities’ innovativeness and autonomy. I highlight the bureaucratization of corporations and higher education institutions, and how this sclerosis results in a widespread sapping of individual initiative and innovation. The chapter next reviews regulation and bureaucratization in higher education with a