Венчурный капитал для финансирования инновационных проектов в странах БРИКС тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Далал Адель

• Далал Адель
• кандидат наук
• 2022

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Далал Адель

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. VC Investments across Countries

1.1.1. Methodology and Data

1.1.2. Drivers of VC Investments across Countries

1.2. VC Decision-Making Process

1.2.1. Theoretical background

1.2.2. Models of VC Decision-Making Process

1.2.3. VC Decision-Making in Developing Countries

2. META-ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTIONAL DRIVERS OF VC

2.1. Methodology and Data

2.2. Results

2.3. Findings and Discussion

3. VC DECISION-MAKING IN THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

3.1. Methodology and Data

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Institutional Awareness

3.2.2. Decision-Making Agility

3.2.3. VC Decision-Making Process

3.3. Theoretical Framework

3.4. Findings and Discussion

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. LITERATURE REVIEW: SEARCH REQUESTS

APPENDIX 2. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING STUDIES ON VC DRIVERS

APPENDIX 3. META-ANALYSIS: DOCUMENT FLOW DIAGRAM

APPENDIX 4. LIST OF PRIMARY STUDIES USED IN THE META-ANALYSIS

APPENDIX 5. GT DATA SUMMARY

APPENDIX 6. INTERVIEW GUIDELINE

APPENDIX 7. CODING PROCESS

APPENDIX 8. EXAMPLES OF LINE-BY-LINE CODING

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Венчурный капитал для финансирования инновационных проектов в странах БРИКС»

INTRODUCTION

Research problem. The year of 2021 impressed with record figures of venture capital (VC) invested worldwide at 621 billion USD, by far exceeding 294b USD set out in 2020 (CB Insights, 2022). VC market remained strong, feeding off the pandemic momentum of digitalization in consumer field and within B2B value chains. The academic literature stresses the importance of a vibrant VC market. Lerner and Tag (2013) emphasize that the ability of VC investors to overcome information asymmetries and provide capital to innovative business boosts economic growth. Allen (2012) summarizes the positive effect of VC on welfare. Popov and Roosenboom (2013) and Popov (2014) find that VC increases the rate of new business creation.

In line with the global trends, 2021 became another record year for emerging markets (EM), with Brazil, China and India experiencing new highs in VC funding of 9.4b USD, 130.6b USD and 38.5b USD, respectively, and annual growth rates spanning from 50% to 280% across markets (Bain, 2022; Bloomberg, 2022; Statista, 2022). Nevertheless, these figures are far behind the U.S. market that reached its' own all-time high of nearly 330b USD (Pitchbook, 2022a).

BRICS have been on the watchlist of investors for the last decade due to the impressive growth prospects and comparatively low competition in VC. In 2012, the first VC attractiveness index ranked China the highest among 83 emerging markets (and 22nd globally), with South Africa, India, Brazil and Russia ranking 3d, 7th, 10th and 15th, respectively (Groh & Liechtenstein, 2012). Nevertheless, the index shows that driving factors of VC attractiveness are skewed in these markets. They are generally characterized by strong economic potential and growing capital markets (Russia to a lesser extent), however the investor protection and entrepreneurial culture are rather poorly developed. Although over the years, BRICS have grown their VC markets, the challenges of the weak institutional environment remain present. In the first quarter of 2022, Chinese VC and PE raised 1.7b USD, a 90% year on year fall and the lowest amount since 2009 (Financial Times, 2022), as regulators tightened control over the local tech economy. While political environment overshadowed growth prospects in Russia, Securities and Exchange Board of India is expected to introduce stricter IPO norms (Bain, 2022). As a consequence, there are

concerns that the recent growth of VC in EM will not be sustained over the long term, with inflationary environment and monetary tightening putting further pressure on venture valuations (Bain, 2022; Pitchbook, 2022b).

The institutional voids in EM may also explain the impediments to the foreign capital inflow in VC markets. Foreign VC managers do not operate successfully in these markets, forcing international VC firms to hire local teams (e.g., Sequoia, Softbank, Matrix in India and China). Regulatory uncertainties and IPO obstacles for foreign capital halt international investors' long-term VC commitments in China, resulting in 54% fall in PE/VC fundraising in the second half of 2021 (Bain, 2022).

BRICS present an interesting case in VC context, because despite the impressive growth of VC markets, the industry is far from mature. Considering venture investor landscape in BRICS, we can see that the growth is driven by first-time investors (Praxis Global Alliance, 2021). While the average lifespan of VC funds worldwide is of 8 to 12 years (Pitchbook, 2014), the fundraising in BRICS has started quite recently. In China the first wave of active fundraising appeared in 2005-2006, in Russia - 2011-2013, South Africa - 2014-2016, India - 2015-2018, Brazil - 2017-2019.1 At the same time, the exits are shaped by secondary deals, which are transactions of selling the stake in the firm to another fund. For example, secondary deals comprised 33% of exit routes in India in 2021 (EY, 2022). The growth phase of start-ups is stretching and exceeds the life of one fund (Forbes India, 2022). As a result, VCs in BRICS have not yet observed the whole life of a start-up from the first investment to IPO. Also, there is not yet enough data on returns driven by public market valuations, since the exits are dominated by strategic acquisitions and secondary sales (Mustafa, 2019).

This data shows that the VC decision-making practices are quite infant in BRICS. Many firms have not yet experienced the full VC cycle from fund raising to return of capital to investors. Hence, investors cannot learn from past investments when making decisions in emerging markets. As a result, investors are seen to display "spray-and-pray" mentality that may hinder their returns (VCCircle, 2018). The ability of VCs to deliver a sustainable

1 Data by Crunchbase. URL: https://www.crunchbase.com Retrieved on 11.05.2022.

pipeline of exits and provide returns is essential to raise subsequent funds and to ensure the long-term growth of the industry.

Given the heightened importance of the institutional landscape in the development of VC and lack of experience among venture capitalists in emerging markets, it is important to explore VC decision-making in BRICS, in particular, how institutions can impact the process. The findings may promote a stable capital supply, long-term investment growth and maturity of the VC industry in EM and defy current concerns regarding the unsustainability in these markets.

Theoretical gap. In VC research, institutional theory has been a dominant conceptual framework to explain the drivers of VC market growth at a country level (Grilli et al., 2019). The emerging markets hold scholars' attention, since despite the rapid development of VC industries the institutional environment in these countries remains weak. Based on the data from emerging markets, studies show that institutional voids impede the growth of VC, and, therefore, innovations in the country (Bustamante et al., 2021; Dalal & Khoroshunov, 2020; Shojaei et al., 2018). Along with the country level, the research at the organizational level yields differences in the ways VCs make decisions and manage risks in developing markets (Bliss, 1999; Klonowski, 2007; Silva, 2004).

Although multiple studies have established that VCs in EM operate differently from advanced economies (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2006; Bradley & Klein, 2016; Dalal & Khoroshunov, 2020; Grilli et al., 2018; Foo et al., 2020; Zacharakis et al., 2007), theoretical considerations in the field still remain context-free. Applying the agency theory lens, the existing literature suggests the agency problem as the primary factor that shapes VC decision-making process, while the main function of the process is to reduce adverse selection and moral hazard (Bliss, 1999; Fried & Hisrish, 1994; Gompers et al., 2020; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Klonowski, 2007; Silva, 2004). Current theoretical propositions imply an isolated principal-agent relationship in VC decision-making, assuming a stable institutional environment, which is not present in EM (Groh et al., 2021). The interaction of VCs with the environment may impose new functions of their decision-making process, which is not reflected in the current models. The existing studies do not provide a theoretical construct which captures the distinctive characteristics of VC

management observed in EM (Li et al., 2018). Thus, current theoretical considerations cannot explain the role of institutions in VC management and lack explanatory power in the case of emerging markets.

The goal and objectives of the study. The study aims to answer the research question "How does the VC decision-making adapt to the institutional environment?". In order to achieve the goal of the research, the study includes various stages that answer a number of smaller questions, such as:

- What are institutional drivers of VC investments?

- Which theories are employed in VC decision-making research?

- How is the process of VC decision-making defined?

- Do institutional factors affect VC decision-making?

- What is the mechanism of the effect at the organisational level?

Answering these questions results in a theoretical framework of VC decisionmaking in an institutional context, the main finding of the study.

The subject of the study. The subject of the study is the decision-making process at VC funds operating in BRICS countries.

The object of the study. The object of the study are VC management practices for funding innovations in BRICS countries.

The empirical unit of the study. The empirical unit of the study is a venture firm, which invests in innovation projects domiciled in BRICS, while the respondents, VC fund managers, are the sources of information.

Theoretical background and research methodology. The theoretical basis of the dissertation research is formed by the fundamental and applied works of leading domestic and foreign scholars in the area of entrepreneurial finance and innovation management, alternative asset classes and general organizational theory. Theoretical provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research are based on the results of the analysis of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, monographs and dissertations.

To achieve the research goal the mixed method research design is used, which consists of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The first stage is a quantitative study of VC drivers conducted with the meta-analysis techniques. In the meta-analysis, we collect

statistical data from existing papers and calculate the effect sizes of country variables on VC investments. The study follows PRISMA guidelines on meta-analysis (Moher et al., 2009); 30 primary studies that satisfy eligibility criteria are found in Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. The data set yields 840 statistical entries which are collected and analysed using Stata software.

The second stage is a qualitative study which employs grounded theory (GT) approach in order to develop a theoretical framework of VC decision-making in institutional context. Data is triangulated with various data types and sources, including one-hour in-depth interviews, publicly available video interviews and corporate documents. Collected data is transcribed and coded in MAXQDA software, emerging codes are further analysed through theoretical coding until the core categories emerge.

Scientific novelty. The novelty of the research comes in a form of theoretically conceptualizing the role of institutional context in VC decision-making. The results of this study signify the scientific novelty in the areas of entrepreneurial finance and innovations management in four ways.

1. The classification of VC drivers is developed, the mean effect of the country drivers on VC investments is calculated and corrected for heteroskedasticity and publication bias.

2. Theoretical constructs of Institutional Awareness and Decision-Making Agility are formulated, which signify VC management practices in BRICS.

3. The extended model of the VC decision-making process is proposed.

4. A theoretical framework of VC decision-making in an institutional context is developed.

Results of the study submitted to the defense.

The results of the study may be formulated in four points in accordance with the research novelty.

1. The meta-analysis confirms the significant positive effect of institutional variables on country's VC investments, by drawing on data samples from 30 studies. It shows that effect holds after the correction for publication bias and controlling for characteristics of previous studies.

2. Data-grounded categories of Institutional Awareness and Decision-Making Agility present how institutional variables affect VC decision-making. Institutional Awareness illustrates how the effect of institutions is used to generate inputs for VCs decisions. Decision-Making agility shows how VC managers adjust their decision-making in response to the effect of the institutional environment. Decision-Making Agility includes three practices adopted at VC funds to mitigate the adverse effect of weak institutions on investments, Risk Anticipating, Flexibility Ensuring, Environment Supplementing.

3. The proposed model of the VC decision-making process includes non-investment-related phases, such as Creating Fund I and Creating Fund II, which are overlooked in the existing models. The new phases unfold VC management practices of searching for investors, structuring the fund and developing the investment thesis, which are important in VC investment decisions in BRICS.

4. A theoretical framework of VC decision-making in the institutional context conceptualizes the role of country's institutional development in VC investing. It shows the mechanism of the effect of institutional variables on VC investments, which is mediated by Institutional Awareness and mitigated by Decision-Making Agility at each stage of the decision-making process.

Theoretical contributions of the study are presented in four points, following the main results of the conducted research.

First, the meta-analysis calculates the effects of formal and informal institutional variables on VC investments yielded from 30 papers on VC (Dalal, 2022). It allows to confirm the significant effect of country's institutional development on VC investments, despite the discrepancies found in the literature. The results of the quantitative review of previous research fill the gap on the lack of clarity regarding the effect of institutions on country's VC (Grilli et al., 2019). By combining 840 observations, including all institutional variables studied previously and controlling features of research design, data samples and metrics used in primary studies, we overcome the compartmentalization of previous quantitative research and speculative choice of variables in order to obtain a robust effect size of country's VC drivers.

Second, the study introduces a theoretical construct of Decision-Making Agility, which is an integrating process that engages the reflection of adaptive capabilities, available resources and an institutional environment. Decision-Making Agility presents how VC decision-making process is adapted to the ambiguity in BRICS markets. The theoretical construct extends on agency theory and resource-based view that are dominant in the investment research area (Fried & Hisrish, 1994; Hsu et al., 2012; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Makarova & Dalal, 2020; Miloud et al, 2012; Sahlman, 1990), contributes to the behavioural perspective emerging in VC field (El Harbi & Toumia, 2020; Johansson et al., 2019; Zheng, 2022) and brings insights from management decisionmaking and portfolio decision-making to VC context (Intezari & Pauleen, 2018; Kester et al., 2011). The discovery of this construct defies the proposition of the current theory that VC decision-making is made to reduce agency problem (Amit et al., 1998; Gompers et al., 2020; Klonowski, 2007; Monika & Sharma, 2015; Sahlman, 1990; Sievers et al, 2013; Silva, 2004; S0rensen, 2007). Decision-Making Agility illustrates that apart from reducing adverse selection and moral hazard, decision-making of VCs aims to mitigate the adverse effects of the environment.

Third, the study proposes a new model of the VC decision-making process that extends on existing models by including new stages, such as developing VC fund's structure and raising subsequent funds. The existing academic endeavour is focused on the fund's investment process, which we found to be only a part of VC decision-making (Gompers et al., 2020; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Klonowski, 2007; S0rensen, 2007). The existing models of the VC decision-making process focus on stages of principal-agent relationship and are not sufficient to explain the role of the institutional environment. We propose to include non-investment-related phases (Creating Fund I and Creating Fund II) in the VC decision-making process that capture the relationships with the institutional environment, including suppliers of capital (represent financial market institution), regulatory institutions and informal institutions (entrepreneurial culture). While the VC process in previous papers ends with exiting the deal (Gompers et al., 2020; Klonowski, 2007), our study expands this view and examines the raising of subsequent funds, thereby reflecting a multiperiod perspective of the decision-making process and explaining the

maturing of VC firms and, hence, the VC industry. This view combines the previous academic research on the emergence of VC market (Bustamante et al., 2021; Lingelbach, 2013) with VC management studies (Gompers et al., 2020; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Klonowski, 2007; S0rensen, 2007), which has not been done in the area of VC, so far.

Fourth, based on the previous results we build a theoretical framework of VC decision-making in an institutional context. The observed grounded constructs (VC Decision-Making Process, Institutional Awareness, Decision-Making Agility) provide novel insights about patterned relationships (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017) and call for data-stimulated theorizing. We problematize the propositions of the agency theory in explaining the VC decision-making process in EM. Our theoretical framework challenges the assumption of isolated principal-agent relationship in a stable environment by introducing the institutional context. The developed framework of VC decision-making in an institutional context illustrates how institutional variables provide inputs for generating decisions and shape the decision-making of VCs. The result offers a theoretical consideration of VC decision-making that accounts for the institutional context, while existing theory in the field remains context-free (Bliss, 1999; Boocock & Woods, 1997; Fried & Hisrich, 1994; Gompers et al. 2020; Hall, 1989; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Klonowski, 2007; Silva, 2004; S0rensen, 2007; Tyebjee & Bruno, 1985; Wells, 1974).

Moreover, studies examining the combined effect of formal and informal institutions are rare. Only recently, a few studies have started taking into account the joint effects of formal and informal institutions on VC markets (Bustamante et al., 2021; Grilli et al., 2018; Li & Zahra, 2012). The literature shows that there is a growing need to theorize and improve our understanding of these combined effects (Eesley et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2009; Stenholm et al., 2013), which this study attempts to do.

Additionally, the study provides several methodological contributions. It analyses BRICS countries, which are usually combined according to their institutional development, however the state of VC markets across these countries is very disperse. By applying a constant comparative approach in a grounded theory analysis, we investigate the heterogeneity of venture markets in these countries. Contrasting their institutional environments allows us to get further insights on the context and generalize the concept of

VC decision-making. The case of BRICS is particularly interesting because multiple studies have argued that the VC market in EM is different from the developed countries (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2006; Bradley & Klein, 2016; Foo et al., 2020; Grilli et al., 2018; Zacharakis et al., 2007). The study focuses on the period of up to the year 2022, enabling to capture recent practices. The extant literature, such as studies on the emergence of VC in Russia (Klonowski, 2007; Lingelbach, 2013), covers the period of up to 2010 and provides results on the past stages of the venture capital development. As VC sector is evolving and maturing, previous findings may not adequately reflect the current state of VC management practices.

Finally, this research provides a methodological contribution by combining the meta-analysis on the VC drivers and the GT analysis of the VC decision-making process. It merges two approaches employed in the area, quantitative cross-country regression analysis and qualitative analysis of VC at the organisational level. Thus, the developed research design enables to bring a macro context of an institutional development to organisational and individual levels of making decisions by VC managers, thereby providing a comprehensive multifaceted view to the venture investing.

Practical contributions of the study. The implications of this study are significant as they add greater understanding of the complex nature of decision-making. Using the developed framework of the VC decision-making in an institutional context, governments can develop a targeted policy to eliminate current institutional impediments and foster VC market growth.

Because theorizing in this study is triggered by practice (analysed with GT), it reveals "paradoxes and problems of practical value to managers" (Shepherd & Suddaby, 2017, p. 63). For managers, this framework defines specific capabilities critical for the successful operation of VCs in weak institutional environments. The proposed construct of Decision-Making Agility may be employed by VC managers as a multidimensional practice that deals with uncertainty exacerbated by undeveloped institutions. The theoretical framework unfolds specific activities VCs may undertake in order to mute the adverse affect of weak institutions and matches them to the relevant stage of the VC decision-making process. Thus, it provides recommendations to VC senior staff for

operating in EM that can be integrated in the firm without any previous experience of venture investing in BRICS. The results of the study contribute to the understanding of VC management in EM and, thus, make BRICS more attractive to foreign venture firms. Moreover, using our multiperiod decision-making process VC firms can enhance the chances of their survival and, as a consequence, foster the maturing of a country's VC industry.

Approbation of the study results. The findings of the study were presented in a number of scientific conferences and seminars, as listed below:

- Meta-Analysis of Economic Research Network Colloquium (22-23.10.2021, University of Piraeus, Athens, Greece). Presentation "Meta-analysis of determinants of venture capital activity".

- 20th Annual Conference of the European Academy of Management (4-6.12.2020, online). Presentation "Determinants of venture capital investments across countries: Meta-analysis".

- III International Science Conference SER 2020 (17-19.09.2020, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research, Podgorica, Montenegro). Presentation "The evaluation of efficiency of corporate inversions"

- PhD Workshop "Financial Markets and Corporate Strategies" (17.04.2021, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia). Presentation "Determinants of venture capital investments across countries: Meta-analysis".

- 11th EURAM Early Career Colloquium (9-11.03.2020, Huddersfield Business School, Huddersfield, UK). Presentation "Venture capital for funding innovation projects in BRICS countries".

The study is funded by RFBR, project number 19-310-90085.

Publications. The results of the dissertation research are presented in three papers, two of which are published in academic journals indexed in Scopus, and one study can be found in a journal included in the list of eligible journals provided by Higher School of Economics. The combined size of publications is 3.54 printed sheets, while the author's contribution is 2.61 printed sheets.

A. Publications in journals indexed in Scopus:

1. Dalal, A. (2022). Meta-Analysis of Determinants of Venture Capital Activity. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100108 - 1.49 p.s. (Q2, 2021, SJR2)

2. Makarova, V. A., Dalal A. (2020). Change in a Stakeholder Utility Function During Crisis. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 16(4), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2020.16-4.2 - 1.04 p.s. (Q2, 2020, SJR3)

B. Publications in journals included in the list of eligible journals provided by Higher School of Economics:

1. Dalal, A., Khoroshunov, A. (2020). Venture Capital Market in China and Japan: A Comparative Study. Asia and Africa Today, 3, 34-41. https://doi.org/10.31857/S032150750008729-3 - 1.01 p.s.

Structure of the study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and eight appendices. The total size of the dissertation is 147 pages. The thesis presents 30 tables and 2 figures. The list of references includes 172 titles, of which 169 are in English.

The first chapter of the paper presents a systematic review of the literature and a comparative analysis of country-specific factors of VC market activity. Based on the analysis of the literature, a classification of VC drivers is proposed. Next, the literature on the decision-making process in the VC is analysed; the theoretical background in the area is presented; a comparative analysis of decision-making models is carried out and the features of VC decision-making in developing countries are formulated.

The second chapter of the work is devoted to a quantitative study of institutional drivers of VC, which employs meta-analysis methods. The effect sizes of country specific drivers are calculated. A meta-regression analysis is conducted, which provides statistical data on the reasons for the disparity in the results of previous studies. The main conclusions

2 Data by Scimago Journal & Country Rank. URL:

https://www.stimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=2n00857389&tip=sid&dean=0 Retrieved on 01.06.2022.

3 Data by Scimago Journal & Country Rank. URL:

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100854712&tip=sid&clean=0 Retrieved on 01.06.2022.

are given and the role of the meta-analysis findings in the construction of a theoretical model is determined.

The third chapter of the dissertation presents the grounded theory (GT) analysis of the VC decision-making process. The processes of data collection and coding are described, the characteristics and justification of the choice of empirical objects are given. The intermediate results of the study are formulated, such as the model of VC decision-making process and the theoretical constructs of Institutional Awareness and Decision-Making Agility. Using the intermediate results, a theoretical model of VC decision-making in the institutional context is built

In the conclusion, the main findings of the work are summarised; theoretical contributions and practical implications of the results are formulated; limitations of the study are addressed and avenues for the future research are proposed.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Далал Адель

CONCLUSION

The study investigates the role of institutions in VC and conceptualises VC decisionmaking in emerging markets. The developed theoretical framework of VC decisionmaking in institutional context challenges the proposition of the current theory that the decision-making is shaped solely by the principal-agent relationship (Amit et al., 1998; Gompers et al, 2020; Klonowski, 2007; Monika & Sharma, 2015; Sahlman, 1990; Sievers et al., 2013; Silva, 2004; S0rensen, 2007). The framework also defies the assumption of a stable environment, by introducing institutional context in the model. As a result, the framework shows that apart from the objective to reduce agency problem highlighted by previous theoretical considerations, VC decision-making takes a function of mitigating the effect of weak institutions. The arguments are also empirically illustrated by data-grounded constructs of Institutional Awareness and Decision-Making Agility.

This study contributes to the literature, first, by showing how the observed country-level effect of institutional variables on VC investments is transitioned at the organizational level of a venture firm, and second, by providing the institutional context to the decision-making theory in VC. Thus, the research answers the questions of country-level and firmlevel studies and provides a comprehensive view to the role of institutions in VC. Up to date, only a few studies consider a role of institutions in VC decision-making (Bliss, 1999; Klonowski, 2007; Li et al., 2018; Silva, 2004), although they do not theoretically conceptualise the observed results. Disregarding the importance of institutional context may lead to the limited understanding of investment and management practices in VC market. The theoretical framework offers a more nuanced view to the effect of institutions in VC context, it disentangles associated mechanism that could explain the maturing of VC markets in different countries.

The research is conducted in two stages, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, in order to achieve the goal of developing the framework of VC decision-making in institutional context. The study yields several important results that contribute to the theoretical considerations in the area of entrepreneurial finance and offer practical implications for involved parties.

First, this study provides an extensive analysis of country determinants of the VC market activity. It covers all VC drivers that have been analysed before and systematises the empirical evidence on the determinants of VC investment by conducting a meta-analysis (Dalal, 2022). The meta-analysis draws from the combined samples of 30 studies and calculates the unbiased effect sizes of institutional variables. It shows the positive effect of the formal and informal institutions, technological opportunities and macroeconomic variables on the volume of VC investments in a country, thereby providing a clarity on the VC drivers across countries, that has not been obtained in the research area, so far. The analysis also yields some unexpected results, such as no difference between developed and developing regions and among VC types in the effect of institutions, despite the suggestion of heterogeneity among VC investors in the previous literature (Drover et al., 2017; Grilli et al., 2019; Manigart & Wright, 2013). It highlights the effect of institutional environment regardless the type or geography of investor. Furthermore, the findings empirically confirm the dependence of VC industry on economic cycle and data quality issues in developing countries, suggested in VC field (Drover et al., 2017).

Second, this study proposes a new evidence-based construct of Decision-Making Agility, which is an integrating process that engages the reflection of adaptive capabilities, available resources and an institutional environment. Decision-Making Agility brings together an institutional perspective with a specific management practice of decision-making at organizational and individual levels, thereby providing a unified practical understanding of an institutional context in VC decision-making. Moreover, the theoretical construct of Decision-Making Agility and its' components confirm and expand on recent developments including the integration of emotions and cognition in making decisions (El Harbi & Toumia, 2020; Franke et al., 2006; Johansson et al., 2019; Klein, 2016; Li & Yang, 2022; Zheng, 2022). When considering the wide range of factors affecting business world and a lack of established institutions, the decisions that are made based on available information are characterized as being too limited (Intezari & Pauleen, 2018).

Third, we extend the model of the VC decision-making process that before has been limited to investment-related decisions. While existing theory investigates the process starting from the deal origination (Bliss, 1999; Boocock & Woods, 1997; Fried & Hisrich,

1994; Gompers et al. 2020; Hall, 1989; Kaplan & Stromberg, 2001; Klonowski, 2007; Silva, 2004; S0rensen, 2007; Tyebjee & Bruno, 1985; Wells, 1974), we believe it is crucial to examine non-investment stages, such as searching for investors, creating a fund's structure and developing an investment thesis. The GT analysis of venture capitalists' practices in BRICS helps go beyond the existing knowledge on the VC decision-making process by exploring institutional context. Findings show that the decisions made at non-investment-related stages shape the investment choices and determine the success of VC funds, which has not been formally reflected in the previous models.

Fourth, this study conceptualises the relationship between institutional variables and VC investments. The existing understanding has been limited to the evidence on the statistical association between these variables. The presented framework of VC decision-making in institutional context shows how the effect of institutions is transmitted at an organizational level of VC funds. It formally links the institutional theory and decision-making by conceptualising and mapping the considerations that go into the making decisions by venture investors. The developed theoretical framework challenges the assumptions of the current theory on the isolated principal-agent relationship in a stable environment as the main factor the shapes the process (Amit et al., 1998; Gompers et al., 2020; Klonowski, 2007; Monika & Sharma, 2015; Sahlman, 1990; Sievers et al., 2013; Silva, 2004; S0rensen, 2007).

The results extend the understanding of practices implemented by venture funds. The findings provide an evidential support for and are consistent with other studies on institutional barriers in VC markets. Nevertheless, the research goes beyond the existing statistical evidence on the effect of institutions on VC investments and offers an integrative understanding that encapsulates the multi-dimensionality and complexity of VC decisionmaking in BRICS countries.

The implications of this study are important for policy makers and VC managers. Policymakers should draw more attention to the factors that are found to be significant in VC investments. Without the strong formal and informal institutions, government funding offered to VC firms may be ineffective. Shojaei et al. (2018) argue that government's role should change from "establishment of government-sponsored VC funds" to "enforcement

of institutional reforms that lead to an appropriate framework for VC investment". Government innovation policies should focus not only on direct antecedents of VC but also enhance government quality, reduce trade restrictions, and grow financial markets. In BRICS, we found that weak informal institutions lead to the lack of viable entrepreneurial initiatives suitable for investment. Shaping of informal institutions should be considered by policymakers as a mean to foster national VC markets and encourage foreign capital inflow.

The study is especially relevant in emerging markets that, despite the recent records in raising capital for venture financing, face problems in establishing mature VC industry and promoting sustainable long-term growth (Bain, 2022; Pitchbook, 2022b). The multi-period model of VC decision-making process shows that the maturity of VC markets is stimulated by the ability of VC firms to raise subsequent funds as a remedy for their survival. Additionally, the model extends on learning curve propositions in VC (Zacharakis & Shepherd, 2005) by suggesting that VC partners with the previous experience of managing venture funds in EM can better adapt to the challenges of the weak institutions in the following funds. Thus, government policy should focus not only on attracting venture investors, as it leads to short-term results, but must ensure the survivability of existing VC firms.

For practitioners, the framework of VC decision-making in institutional context presents recommendations of management practices. The study sets out the stages of the decision-making process, which may help formalize the firm-specific process for newly created funds. Furthermore, it lists the activities that VCs may include in the decisionmaking process that can mitigate the ambiguity of the environment. Decision-Making Agility defines the list of capabilities that VC managers may introduce in their practices; capabilities are combined in categories of Risk Anticipating, Flexibility Ensuring and Environment Supplementing. The framework matches the activities to the relevant stages of the decision-making process. We suggest to routinely include the proposed practices in decision-making in VC funds in order to reduce the adverse effect of institutional voids. Given that VC in BRICS is driven by first-time investors (Praxis Global Alliance, 2021), the findings of this study may accelerate the learning process in VC firms. Due to the

infancy of VC markets in EM, investors are unexperienced in investing in EM. The proposed theoretical framework can substitute years of empirical observations in the market.

For foreign VC firms, the construct of Decision-Making Agility defines the role that VC managers should be ready to take, including building infrastructure and educating, if they want to enter VC markets in BRICS. Newly hired members and senior staff of VC firms may benefit from having a formal set of decision-making practices within their firm.

The application of the research findings can foster the growth of VC markets in BRICS in several ways. First, policymakers may develop a more targeted approach towards innovation promotion that accounts for the institutional context, rather than adopting government policies of developed countries that proved to be inefficient. Second, the findings may expedite the learning process of VC managers that is, otherwise, obtained through years of experience and associated costs. Unexperienced VC managers in BRICS may reach a more efficient decision-making process, starting in the first fund. Third, the understanding of the VC market in EM may incentivise international VC firms to enter these markets and increase the supply of capital. The increasing internationalization of VC calls for investors' attention towards institutional characteristics across countries. Legal framework and cultural distance may increase the severity of the agency problem and costs for venture capitalists. Decision-making should be altered according to macroeconomic conditions and institutional variables of a region, in which the portfolio company is domiciled.

The findings of this article should interest academics. Meta-analysis shows that it is important to control for the time period as VC is cyclical and may vary across different sample periods. Given the inconsistency of VC definitions, international data sources are preferrable.

Although this study has achieved its' objectives and provides important theoretical contributions, the limitations of the research design should be taken into account. A methodological limitation of the meta-analysis is that it can only correct the estimates provided by researchers. If all estimates are biased, then the meta-result will be biased as well. Furthermore, the effect of macroeconomic conditions is not one-sided. While GDP

is one of the drivers of VC, venture market fosters business creation and welfare (Allen, 2012; Popov & Roosenboom, 2013; Popov, 2014). The methodology used by the articles in this study may not capture the underlying causal relationships. Another concern is the limited number of studies, especially those considering informal institutions and developing countries.

The GT approach used in this study applies the recursive cycle of inductive and deductive processes to theory building. In the GT analysis, first phases of data collection and analysis are devoted to produce a new theory from the sample inductively. In following phases, we collect more data to test the emergent theory, as in deductive theory testing. Nevertheless, given the qualitative and grounded nature of this research, we cannot establish the causality. Additionally, the developed core categories are limited to the set of BRICS countries. For this reason, they represent theoretical constructs rather than theoretical concepts, as they are dependent on a population (Markus, 2008). This study explores the distinguishable characteristics of VC decision-making process in countries with weak institutional environment.

Based on the obtained results, we wish to highlight several venues for future research. The number of studies on different VC drivers remains uneven for informal institutions, which are overlooked. Currently, there is a lack of proxies for cultural attitudes, which are particularly important for international investments (Devigne et al., 2018) and may be important for shaping VC policy (Grilli et al., 2019). Future research should focus on this matter, as informal institutions present significant effects in the metaregression. The articles that use data from developing countries have appeared quite recently in VC discussion, much more research is needed to study processes in developing context (Drover et al., 2017). Among the reasons are the low quality of data and immature VC markets in those regions. Replicating studies on different databases is suggested in previous literature reviews (e.g., Tykvova, 2018) as a mean to verify obtained results. The meta-analysis may be replicated with an enriched database in the future.

Moreover, a longitudinal case study may be conducted either on a macro- or microlevel. Macrolevel may involve the study of the affect of institutional variables on VC decision-making throughout the maturing of VC market. Since the study captures different

levels of VC markets maturity across countries, the question of how the relationship between institutions and VC decision-making changes throughout the time is not answered. Another macrolevel topic may be related to VC policy across countries as a change of institutional context for VC decision-making.

Longitudinal microlevel study may be necessary to test the developed decision-making process, as longitudinal data analysis of a VC fund's life can capture all stages of the proposed decision-making process and provide more insights on the construct of Decision-Making Agility. More quantitative studies are necessary to test the propositions of the theoretical framework in different countries.

This research, with its limitations, is an endeavour towards broadening both scholarly and practical perspectives on the VC decision-making. The developed theoretical framework offers a simple view of the puzzling phenomenon of the institutional environment in VC. The study provides a data-grounded conceptualisation of VC decision-making in an institutional context, thus adding understanding of the role of institutions in management practices. The theoretically supported and practically driven findings of this study may be a contribution to financing and managing innovations in emerging markets.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Далал Адель, 2022 год

REFERENCES

1. Aggarwal, R., & Goodell, J.W. (2014). Cross-National Differences in Access to Finance: Influence of Culture and Institutional Environments. Research in International Business and Finance, 31, 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2013.09.004

2. Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. (2006). Venture Capital in Emerging Economies: Networks and Institutional Change. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(2), 299-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00122.x

3. Ahlvik, C. A. (2016). Institutional Awareness - Examining Agency in Institutional Theory. Academy of Management Annual Proceedings, 2016(1), 299320. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.16038abstract

4. Akerlof, G. (1970). The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431

5. Allen, F. (2012). Trends in Financial Innovation and Their Welfare Impact: An Overview. European Financial Management, 18(4), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036x.2012.00658.x

6. Amit, R., Brander, J., & Zott, C. (1998). Why Do Venture Capital Firms Exist? Theory and Canadian Evidence. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 441466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00061-X

7. Armour, J., & Cumming, D. (2006). The Legislative Road to Silicon Valley. Oxford Economic Papers, 58(4), 596-635. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpl007

8. Arundale, K. (2020). Syndication and Cross-Border Collaboration by Venture Capital Firms in Europe and the USA: A Comparative Study. Venture Capital, 22(4), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2020.1847414

9. Astakhov, A., Havranek, T., & Novak, H. (2019). Firm Size and Stock Returns: A Quantitative Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(5), 1463-1492. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12335

10. Bain. (2022). India Venture Capital Report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.bain.com/insights/india-venture-capital-report-2022/ on 11 May 2022.

11. Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J., & Wright, M. (2011). The Future of Resource-Based Theory Revitalization or Decline? Journal of Management, 3 7(5), 1299-1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206310391805

12. Bergemann, D., & Hege, U. (1998). Venture Capital Financing, Moral Hazard, and Learning. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(6-8), 703-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(98)00017-X

13. Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE.

14. Black, B., & Gilson, R. (1998). Venture Capital and the Structure of Capital Markets: Banks Versus Stock Markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(3), 243277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00045-7

15. Bliss, R. (1999). A Venture Capital Model for Transitioning Economies: The Case of Poland. Venture Capital, 1(3), 241-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/136910699295884

16. Bloomberg. (2022). China Venture Capital Funding Hits Record $131b Despite Crackdown. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-09/china-venture-funding-hits-record-131-billion-despite-crackdown on 11 May 2022.

17. Bonini, S., & Alkan, S. (2012). The Political and Legal Determinants of Venture Capital Investments Around the World. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 997-1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9323-x

18. Boocock, G., & Woods, M. (1997). The Evaluation Criteria Used by Venture Capitalists: Evidence from a UK Venture Fund. International Small Business Journal, 16(1), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242697161003

19. Bottazzi, L., Da Rin, M., & Hellman, T. (2016). The Importance of Trust for Investment: Evidence from Venture Capital. Review of Financial Studies, 29(9), 2283-2318. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw023

20. Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007). Grounded Theory in Historical Perspective: An Epistemological Account. In Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.), The

SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 31-57). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n1

21. Bradley, S. W., & Klein, P. (2016). Institutions, Economic Freedom, and Entrepreneurship: The Contribution of Management Scholarship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30, 211-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0137

22. Bruton, G.D., & Ahlstrom, D. (2003). An Institutional View of China's Venture Capital Industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 233-259. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40262808 on 20 March 2020.

23. Bustamante, C.V., Mingo, S., & Matusik, S. F. (2021). Institutions and Venture Capital Market Creation: The Case of An Emerging Market. Journal of Business Research, 127, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusres.2021.01.008

24. CB Insights. (2022). State of Venture 2021 Report. Retrieved from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/venture-trends-2021 on 11 May 2022.

25. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/constructing-grounded-theory/book235960 on 6 April 2022.

26. Charmaz, K. (2012). The Power and Potential of Grounded Theory. Medical Sociology Online, 6, 2-15. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Power-and-Potential-of-Grounded-Theory-Charmaz/93d28c60474e31cedd4464c5b24ae0af2efbc090 on 6 April 2022.

27. Cherif, M., & Gazdar, K. (2011). What Drives Venture Capital Investments in Europe? New Results from A Panel Data Analysis. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 12(3), 122-139. Retrieved from http://m.www.nabusinesspress.com/JABE/CherifWeb.pdf on 1 March 2020.

28. Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded Theory Research: A Design Framework for Novice Researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927

29. Cumming, D.J. (2005). Capital Structure in Venture Finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 550-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjcorpfin.2004.02.004

30. Cumming, D. (2011). Public Policy and Creation of Active Venture Capital Markets. Venture Capital, 13(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2010.492989

31. Cumming, D. (2014). Public Economics Gone Wild: Lessons from Venture Capital. International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/jMa.2013.10.005

32. Cumming, D., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2016). "Cleantech" Venture Capital Around the World. International Review of Financial Analysis, 44(C), 8697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .irfa.2016.01.015

33. Cumming, D., & Knill, A. (2012). Disclosure, Venture Capital and Entrepreneurial Spawning. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 563-590. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1572652

34. Cumming, D., Schmidt, D., & Walz, U. (2010). Legality and Venture Capital Governance Around the World. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusvent.2008.07.001

35. Cumming, D., & Vismara, S. (2017). De-Segmenting Research in Entrepreneurial Finance. Venture Capital, 19(1-2), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2016.1225910

36. Cumming, D., & Zhang, M. (2019). Angel Investors Around the World. Journal of Business Studies, 50, 692-719. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0178-0

37. Dalal, A. (2022). Meta-Analysis of Determinants of Venture Capital Activity. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100108

38. Dalal, A., & Khoroshunov, O. (2020). Rynok venchurnogo kapitala v Kitaye i Yaponii: Sravnitel'niy analiz [Venture Capital Market in China and Japan: A Comparative Study]. Asia and Africa Today, 3, 34-41. https://doi.org/10.31857/S032150750008729-3

39. Da Rin, M., Hellman, T., & Puri, M.L. (2013). A Survey of Venture Capital Research. In Constantinides, G., Harris, M., & Stulz, R. (Eds.), Handbook of the

Economics of Finance, Part A, 2nd ed. (pp. 573-648). Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-44-453594-8.00008-2

40. Devigne, D., Manigart, S., Vanacker, T., & Mulier, K. (2018). Venture Capital Internationalization: Synthesis and Future Research Directions. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(5), 1414-1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12276

41. Dokunina, A. (2022). Korporativniy venchuring kak klyuchevoy drayver innovatsionnogo potentsiala [Corporate Venture Capital as a Key Driver of Innovation Potential]. Ekonomika, Predprinimatel'stvo i Pravo, 12(3), 1051-1064. https://doi.org/10.18334/epp.12.3.114315.

42. Donaldson, L., Qiu, J., & Luo, B. N. (2013). For Rigour in Organizational Management Theory Research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01069.x

43. Doucouliagos, H. (2011). How Large Is Large? Preliminary and Relative Guidelines for Interpreting Partial Correlations in Economics. Economics Series 2011/5, Deakin University, Faculty of Business and Law, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance. Retrieved from https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/408576/2011_5.pdf on 6 April 2020.

44. Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T.D. (2013). Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition and Selectivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 316-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00706.x

45. Drover, W., Busenitz, L., Matusik, S., Townsend, D., Anglin, A., & Dushnitsky, G. (2017). A Review and Road Map of Entrepreneurial Equity Financing Research: Venture Capital, Corporate Venture Capital, Angel Investment, Crowdfunding, and Accelerators. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1820-1853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317690584

46. Eesley, C. E., Eberhart, R. N., Skousen, B. R., & Cheng, J. L. (2018). Institutions and Entrepreneurial Activity: The Interactive Influence of Misaligned Formal and Informal Institutions. Strategy Science, 3, 393-407. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2018.0060

47. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-50. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

48. Eisenhardt, K.M., & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

49. El Harbi, S., & Toumia, O. (2020). The Status Quo and the Investment Decisions. Managerial Finance, 46(9), 1183-1197. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-11-2019-0571

50. EY (2022). PE/VC Agenda. India Trend Book 2022. Retrieved from https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_in/news/2022/03/ey-pe-vc-india-trend-book-2022.pdf on 16 May 2022.

51. Farag, H., Hommel, U., Witt, P., & Wright, M. (2004). Contracting, Monitoring, and Exiting Venture Investments in Transitioning Economies: A Comparative Analysis of Eastern European and German Markets. Venture Capital, 6, 257-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369106042000258490

52. Félix, E., Pires, C., & Gulamhussen, M. (2013). The Determinants of Venture Capital in Europe - Evidence Across Countries. Journal of Financial Services Research, 44(3), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-012-0146-y

53. Financial Times (2022). China Early-Stage Fundraising Slides to Lowest Level Since 2009. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/7e5528f3-e1d2-4f00-9bc8-a1d703b66175 on 16 May 2022.

54. Foo, M.W., Vissa, B., & Wu, B. (2020). Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14, 289-301. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1363

55. Forbes India (2022). Finally, PE and VC Firms Are Selling Assets to Each Other at Record High Numbers. Retrieved from https://www.forbesindia.com/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/finally-pe-and-vc-firms-are-selling-assets-to-each-other-at-record-high-numbers/71615/1 on 16 May 2022.

56. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2006). What You Are Is What You Like - Similarity Biases in Venture Capitalists' Evaluations of Start-Up Teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 802-826. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusvent.2005.07.001

57. Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R.D. (1994). Toward a Model of Venture Capital Investment Decision Making. Financial Management, 23(3), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3665619

58. Fu, K. (2020). Analysis on the Influence of Tencent's Business Model Innovation on Business performance. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/msie-19.2020.3

59. Galotti, K. M. (2002). Making Decisions That Matter: How People Face Important Life Choices. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-01957-000 on 10 April 2022.

60. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. & Hamilton, A.L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1),15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

61. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.

62. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

63. Glass, G. (1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003

64. Goffin, K., Ahlström, P., Bianchi, M., & Richtner, A. (2019). Perspective: State-of-the-Art: The Quality of Case Study Research in Innovation Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(5), 586-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12492

65. Goldstone, J.A. (1989). The Rationality of Revolution: A Comment on Lindenberg. Rationality and Society, 1(2), 285-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463189001002008

66. Gompers, P.A. (1995). Optimal Investment, Monitoring, and the Staging of Venture Capital. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1461-1489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2329323

67. Gompers, P.A. (2007). Venture Capital. In Eckbo, E. (Ed.), Handbook of Corporate Finance, 1st ed. (pp. 481-527). Elsevier, Amsterdam.

68. Gompers, P.A., & Lerner, J. (2001). The Venture Capital Revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.2.145

69. Gompers, P.A., Lerner, J., Blair, M. M., & Hellman, T. (1998). What Drives Venture Capital Fundraising? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1998, 149-204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534802

70. Gompers, P. A., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S. N., & Strebulaev, I. A. (2020). How Do Venture Capitalists Make Decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 135(1), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjfineco.2019.06.011

71. Grilli, L., Mrkajic, B. & Latifi, G. (2018). Venture Capital in Europe: Social Capital, Formal Institutions and Mediation Effects. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0007-7

72. Grilli, L., Latifi, G., & Mrkajic, B. (2019). Institutional Determinants of Venture Capital Activity: An Empirically Driven Literature Review and A Research Agenda. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(4), 1094-1122. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12319

73. Groh, A.P. & Liechtenstein, H. (2012). Assessing Country Attractiveness in the Venture Capital and Private Equity Landscape in Emerging Markets. In Klonowski D. Private Equity in Emerging Markets (pp. 31-46). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137309433

74. Groh, A.P., Liechtenstein, H., Lieser, K. & Biesinger, M. (2021). The Venture Capital and Private Equity Country Attractiveness Index. Retrieved from https://blog.iese.edu/vcpeindex/downloads/ on 11 May 2022.

75. Groh, A.P. & Wallmeroth, J. (2016). Determinants of Venture Capital Investments in Emerging Markets. Emerging Markets Review, 29, 104-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2016.08.020

76. Hadi, A. (1992). Identifying Multiple Outliers in Multivariate Data. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 54(3), 761-771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1992.tb01449.x

77. Hahn, D., Minola, T., Vismara, S., & de Stasio, V. (2019). Financing Innovation: Challenges, Opportunities, and Trends. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 15(3-4), 328-367. https://doi.org/10.1561/03000000851

78. Hain, D., Johan, S. & Wang, D. (2016). Determinants of Cross-Border Venture Capital Investments in Emerging and Developed Economies: The Effects of Relational and Institutional Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 743-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2772-4

79. Hall, H. J. (1989). Venture Capital Decision Making and the Entrepreneur: An Exploratory Investigation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Athens, Georgia. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/cb2b9f925b43b2c1ce0f6da7e269659b/17pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y on 12 April 2022.

80. Havranek, T., Stanley, T., Doucouliagos, H., Bom, P., Geyer-Klingeberg, J., Iwasaki, I., Reed, W., & Rost, K. (2020). Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analysis in Economics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(3), 469-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12363

81. Hazarika, S., Nahata, R., & Tandon, K. (2009). Success in Global Venture Capital Investing: Do Institutional and Cultural Differences Matter? SSRN Electronic Journal, 646(06), 312-373. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1431265

82. Hellman, T. (1998). The Allocation of Control Rights in VC Contracts. Rand Journal of Economics, 29, 57-76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555816

83. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. California, CA: SAGE Publications.

84. Hsu, D., Haynie, J. M., Simmons, S. A., & McKelvie, A. (2014). What Matters, Matters Differently: A Conjoint Analysis of The Decision Policies of Angel and Venture Capital Investors. Venture Capital, 16(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2013.825527

85. Intezari, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2018). Conceptualizing Wise Management Decision-Making: A Grounded Theory Approach. Decision Sciences, 49, 335-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12267

86. Irsova, Z., & Havranek, T. (2013). Determinants of Horizontal Spillovers from FDI: Evidence from A Large Meta-Analysis. World Development, 42(C), 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/) .worlddev.2012.07.001

87. Jeng, L., & Wells, P. (2000). The Determinants of Venture Capital Funding: Evidence Across Countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(3), 241-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-1199(00)00003-1

88. Johansson, J., Malmström, M., Wincent, J., & Parida, V. (2019). How Individual Cognitions Overshadow Regulations and Group Norms: A Study of Government Venture Capital Decisions. Small Business Economics, 56, 857-876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00273-3

89. Kaplan, S. N., & Sensoy, B.A. (2015). Private Equity Performance: A Survey. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7(1), 597-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-111914-041858

90. Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. (2001). Venture Capitalists as Principals: Contracting, Screening, and Monitoring. American Economic Review, 91(2), 426430. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.9L2.426

91. Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. (2003). Financial Contracting Theory Meets the Real World: An Empirical Analysis of Venture Capital Contracts. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(2), 281-315. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648635 on 11 May 2022.

92. Kato, A. (2021). A Literature Review of Venture Capital Financing and Growth of SMEs In Emerging Economies and An Agenda for Future Research. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 27(1), 1-17. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/a-literature-review-of-venture-capital-financing-and-growth-of-smes-in-emerging-economies-and-an-agenda-for-future-research-10162.html on 15 February 2022.

93. Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E., & Lauche, K. (2011). Exploring Portfolio Decision-Making Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 641661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00832.x

94. Khoury, T.A., Junkunc, M., & Mingo, S. (2015). Navigating Political Hazard Risks and Legal System Quality: Venture Capital Investments in Latin America. Journal of Management, 41, 808-840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312453737

95. Klein, G. (2016). Trying to Make Rational Decisions While Employing Intuitive Reasoning: A Look at the Due-Diligence Process Using the Dual-System Reasoning Model. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 20(3-4), 214-234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2016.077962

96. Klonowski, D. (2007). The Venture Capital Investment Process in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(4), 361-382. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468800710824518

97. KPMG Enterprise. (2020). Venture Pulse: Q3'20 Report. Retrieved from https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/campaigns/2020/10/venture-pulse-q3.html on 25 October 2020.

98. Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed - And What To Do About It. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.

99. Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2005). Does Legal Enforcement Affect Financial Transactions? The Contractual Channel in Private Equity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(1), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553053327443

100. Lerner, J., & Tag, J. (2013). Institutions and Venture Capital. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 153-182. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts050

101. Li, H., Wu, X., Ye, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2018). Venture Capitalists' Value-Enhancing Activities under Weak Protection of Law. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 50(July 2017), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2017.12.006

102. Li, Y., Vertinsky, I. & Li, J. (2014). National Distances, International Experience, and Venture Capital Investment Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 471-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusvent.2013.08.002

103. Li, Y. & Zahra, S.A. (2012). Formal Institutions, Culture, and Venture Capital Activity: A Cross-Country Analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusvent.2010.06.003

104. Li, S., & Yang, H. (2022). Research on the Relationship Between Venture Capitalists' Trust in Entrepreneur and Their Investment Behaviors. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 12(2), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2020-0151

105. Lingelbach, D. (2013). Paradise Postponed? Venture Capital Emergence in Russia. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 9(1/2), 204-225. https://doi.org/10.1108/17422041311300001.

106. Lingelbach, D. (2015). Developing Venture Capital When Institutions Change. Venture Capital, 17(4), 327-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2015.1055060

107. Makarova, V. A., & Dalal A. (2020). Change in Stakeholder Utility Function During Crisis. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 16(4), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2020.16-4.2

108. Mäkelä, M. M., & Maula, M. V. J. (2005). Cross-Border Venture Capital and New Venture Internationalization: An Isomorphism Perspective. Venture Capital, 7(3), 227-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060500258877

109. Manigart, S., & Wright, M. (2013). Venture Capital Investors and Portfolio Firms. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(4-5), 365-570. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000040

110. Markus, K. A. (2008). Constructs, Concepts and the Worlds of Possibility: Connecting the Measurement, Manipulation, and Meaning of Variables. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 6(1-2), 54-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366360802035513

111. Marti J., & Balboa M. (2006). Self-regulation in European Venture Capital and Private Equity Markets. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 6(4-5), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2006.010373

112. Masiak, C., Fisch, C., & Block, J. H. (2020). In Which Regions Do Governmental, Independent, and Corporate Venture Capital Firms Invest? An Empirical Investigation across 402 German Regions. In Moritz, A., Block, J. H., Golla, S., & A. Werner (Eds.), Contemporary Developments in Entrepreneurial Finance (pp. 201-227). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17612-9_8

113. Mills, J., Birks, M., & Hoare, K.J. (2014). Grounded Theory. In Mills, J., & Birks, M. (Eds.), Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide (pp. 107-121). London: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473920163

114. Miloud, T., Aspelund, A., & Cabrol, M. (2012). Startup Valuation by Venture Capitalists: An Empirical Study. Venture Capital, 14(2-3), 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2012.667907

115. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & The ' ore~t, A. (1976). The Structure Of "Unstructured" Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246275. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392045

116. Metrick, A., & Yasuda, A. (2011). Venture Capital and Other Private Equity: A Survey. European Financial Management, 17(4), 619-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-036X.2011.00606.x

117. Moghaddam, A. (2006). Coding Issues in Grounded Theory. Issues in Educational Research, 16(1), 53-61. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/moghaddam.html on 6 April 2022

118. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ, 339(b2535). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

119. Monika, & Sharma, A. K. (2015). Venture Capitalists' Investment Decision Criteria for New Ventures: A Review. Procedía - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 465-470. https://doi.org/10.1016lj.sbspro.2015.03.195

120. Mustafa, M. (2019). Overview of Venture Capital Landscape in India. The Journal of Private Equity, 32(1), 63-89. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26864451

121. Mustafa, M., & Mazhar, S. S. (2020). Determinants of Venture Capital Investment in India: A Time Series Analysis. The Review of Finance and Banking, 12(1), 19-30. http://doi.org/10.24818/rfb.20.12.01.02

122. Nahata, R., Hazarika, S., & Tandon, K. (2014). Success in Global Venture Capital Investing: Do Institutional and Cultural Differences Matter? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(4), 1039-1070. https://doi.org/10.1017/S022109014000568

123. Ning Y., Xu G., & Long Z. (2019). What Drives the Venture Capital Investments in China? Chinese Management Studies, 13(5), 574-602. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-07-2017-0193

124. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

125. Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.43479264

126. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 711-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/259350

127. Pitchbook. (2014). The Venture Capital Lifecycle. Retrieved from https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/the-venture-capital-lifecycle on 16 May 2022.

128. Pitchbook. (2022a). Q4 2021 Pitchbook-NVCA Venture Monitor. Retrieved from https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/2021 -record-year-us-venture-capital-six-charts on 11 May 2022.

129. Pitchbook. (2022b). How Inflation, Monetary Tightening and Volatility Are Impacting PE and VC. Retrieved from https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/inflation-Federal-Reserve-rates-private-market-valuations on 16 May 2022.

130. Popov, A. (2014). Venture Capital and Industry Structure: Evidence form Local US Markets. Review of Finance, European Finance Association, 18(3), 10591096. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rof/rft018 on 6 July 2020.

131. Popov, A., & Roosenboom, P. (2013). Venture Capital and New Business Creation. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(12), 4695-4710. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj .jbankfin.2013.08.010

132. Praxis Global Alliance. (2021). India Investments Pulse Report 2021. Retrieved from https://www.praxisga.com/reports-and-publications/financial-investors-group/report-india-investments-pulse-2021 on 16 May 2022.

133. Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2014). Contextual Positioning: Using Documents as Extant Data in Grounded Theory Research. SAGE Open, 4(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014552425

134. Rogova, E., Tkachenko, E., & Fiyaksel, E. (2011). Venchurniy menedzhment [Venture Management]. Moscow, Russia: HSE Publishing House. Retrieved from

https://ibooks.ru/bookshelf/29643/reading on 10 April 2022.

135. Romain, A., & van Pottelsberghe, B. (2004). The Determinants of Venture Capital: A Panel Data Analysis of 16 OECD Countries. Centre Emile Bernheim, Research Institute in Management Science Working Paper Series, 04-015(1). Retrieved from https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/8633/1/aro-0012.pdf on 1 March 2020.

136. Sahlman, W. (1990). The Structure and Governance of Venture-capital Organizations. Journal of Financial Economics, 27(2), 473-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(90)90065-8

137. Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

138. Salehizadeh, M. (2005). Venture Capital Investments in Emerging Economies: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 253-69. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1084946705000203

139. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41760530 on 20 March 2022.

140. Sargon, B., & Katircioglu, S. (2019). The Role of Innovation in Venture Capital: Empirical Evidence from European Union and EFTA Countries. Applied

Economics Letters, 26(4), 335-340.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2018.1470310

141. Schertler, A. (2003). Driving Forces of Venture Capital Investments in Europe: A Dynamic Panel Data Analysis. Kiel Working Paper, 1172. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bit- stream/10419/17695/1/kap1172.pdf on 5 March 2020.

142. Schraagen, J.M., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R.R. (2008). The Macrocognition Framework of Naturalistic Decision Making. In Schraagen, J.M., Militello, L.G., Ormerod, T., & Lipshitz, R. (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making and Macrocognition (pp. 3-25). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

143. Shepherd, D. A., & Suddaby, R. (2017). Theory Building: A Review and Integration. Journal of Management, 43(1), 59-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316647102

144. Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). The Use of Anthropomorphizing as a Tool for Generating Organizational Theories. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 97-142. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1011510

145. Shojaei, S., Motavaseli, M., Bitaab, A., Chitsazan, H., & Elyasi, G.M. (2018). Institutional Barriers to Venture Capital Financing: An Explorative Study for the Case of Iran. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 10(3), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-01 -2018-0001

146. Sievers, S., Mokwa, C. F., & Keienburg, G. (2013). The Relevance of Financial versus Non-Financial Information for the Valuation of Venture Capital-Backed Firms. European Accounting Review, 22(3), 467-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.741051

147. Silva, J. (2004). Venture Capitalists' Decision-Making in Small Equity Markets: A Case Study Using Participant Observation. Venture Capital, 6(2-3), 125145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691060410001675974

148. S0rensen, M. (2007). How Smart Is Smart Money? A Two-Sided Matching Model of Venture Capital. Journal of Finance, 62(6), 2725-2762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01291.x

149. Stanley, T.D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2012). Meta-Regression Analysis in Economics and Business. Routledge, Oxford.

150. Stanley, T.D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2015). Neither Fixed nor Random: Weighted Least Squares Meta-Analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34(13), 2116-2127. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6481

151. Statista. (2022). Brazil: Venture Capital Investment Value 2015-2021. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/879278/value-venture-capital-investment-brazil/ on 11 May 2022.

152. Stenholm, P., Acs, Z., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring Country-Level Institutional Arrangements on the Rate and Type of Entrepreneurial Activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 176-193. https://doi. org/ 10.1016/j .jbusvent.2011.11.002

153. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

154. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence- informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.

155. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference Dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956

156. Tyebjee, T., & Bruno, A. (1985). The Entrepreneurs' Search for Capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(85)90007-2

157. Tykvova, T. (2007). What Do Economists Tell Us About Venture Capital Contracts? Journal of Economic Surveys, 21(1), 65-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00272.x

158. Tykvova, T. (2017). When and Why Do Venture-Capital-Backed Companies Obtain Venture Lending? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(3), 1049-1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109017000242

159. Tykvova, T. (2018). Venture Capital and Private Equity Financing: An Overview of Recent Literature and An Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Business Economics, 88(3-4), 325-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0874-4

160. Van Dijk, E., Schrevel, L., van Stormbroek-Burgers, R., & Blomme, R. J. (2014). How to Create an Effective Venture Capitalist-Entrepreneur Relationship: An Entrepreneur's Perspective. SAGE Open, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014553602

161. VCCircle. (2018). News Corp VCCircle India Limited Partners Summit 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpqBtxADi2A&list=PLi6ft5_qR_0f4mUWaS WVzoLnEQxG2iymS&index=3 on 23 March 2022.

162. Veciana, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The Institutional Approach to Entrepreneurship Research. Introduction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0081-4

163. Wallmeroth, J., Wirtz, P., & Groh, A. P. (2018). Venture Capital, Angel Financing, and Crowdfunding of Entrepreneurial Ventures: A Literature Review. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 1-129. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000066

164. Wells, W. A. (1974). Venture Capital Decision Making. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/7412d8179907c0f4679192935b0ec34d/Lpdf ?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y on 12 April 2022.

165. Werth, O., Cardona, D.R., Nowatschin, J., Werner, M., Guhr, N., & Breitner, M.H. (2019). Challenges of the Financial Industry - An Analysis of Critical Success Factors for Fintechs. Paper presented at the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2019. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Challenges-of-the-Financial-Industry-An-Analysis-of-Werth-

Cardona/3c97133fc80c23e3c45446433b671683f8420e2e on 15 February 2022.

166. Wessendorf, C. P., Schneider, J., Gresch, M. A., & Terzidis, O. (2020). What Matters Most in Technology Venture Valuation? Importance and Impact of Non-Financial Determinants for Early-Stage Venture Valuation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 12(5), 490-521. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2020.111536

167. Wiencke, E. (2017). Value Contributions of The Venture Capitalist in Mexico: Building an Exit for The Investment. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 12(3), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242017000300003

168. Zacharakis, A. L., & Meyer, G. D. (1998). A Lack of Insight: Do Venture Capitalists Really Understand Their Own Decision Process? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00004-9

169. Zacharakis, A. L., McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2007). Venture Capitalists' Decision Policies Across Three Countries: An Institutional Theory Perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 691-708. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400291

170. Zacharakis, A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). A Non-Additive Decision-Aid For Venture Capitalists' Investment Decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 162(3), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.10.028

171. Zheng, T. (2022). How Does Long-Term Orientation Influence the Investments of Venture Capitals? Evidence from The Organizational Level. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785643

172. Zigraiova, D., & Havranek, T. (2016). Bank Competition and Financial Stability: Much Ado About Nothing? Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(5), 944-981. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12131