9/19/2011 7:58:50 AM By
In studying entrepreneurship, one typically has to make a choice of orientations – to study through the business, to study through the household, or to study through an intermediary (like a venture capital fund). Most of the time, I deal with data that comes from the business, like with the Kauffman Firm Survey
, but this week I will be offering three posts on recent data updates that have been looking at entrepreneurship through household surveys. Household surveys as a mechanism for studying entrepreneurship commonly measure self-employment as a means of quantifying individual-level entrepreneurial activities. Self-employment is convenient, although not typically ideal, in that it is somewhat internationally comparable and in most official statistics have included self-employment response options for years. Each household surveys I will focus on this week is extending beyond self-employment to offer new and different means of looking at entrepreneurship, still using household frames.
While I have blogged on the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finance before (see summary of 2007
and 2010 changes
), I haven’t touched upon their efforts to create a panel of households. While I am sure the Fed has had the idea to do a household panel before (panel data is more helpful to many scholars/analysis), it is amazing what an impetus like the Crisis can do to take a concept and turn it into a reality. Their panel data will consist of 2 points in time as their 2007 respondents were resurveyed in 2009. To date, the Fed has only released a summary paper analyzing the 2007 SCF panel
. In this paper the Fed highlights the important role than changes in business equity, along with values of homes and stock, appear to have on driving household wealth.
The Fed has only done a portion of what could be done in looking into these topics with such rich data. But good news - they know this! From my conversations with the Fed, it appears they are likely to release a public-use data file for the panel data at some point in late 2011 or early 2012. This should be a very interesting file for researchers interested in examining financing activities during this Crisis period and quite unique among data available.
Additionally, I wanted to blog on this anticipated data opportunity as it fits well with a recent call for funding issued by the National Bureau of Economic Research. To my knowledge no other forthcoming data set presents such a ready-made opportunity for studying household financing with a details on business equity included that has a longitudinal component.
NBER Household Finance Working Group
Call for Research Proposals 2011
The Household Finance (HF) Working Group at the National Bureau of Economic Research aims to advance understanding of household financial behavior and to provide a firm foundation for related policy discussions. The working group defines household finance broadly, to include the many financial decisions made by households, including the financial functions of payments, saving and investing/portfolio-choice, borrowing/credit, and risk management, as well as related decisions by businesses and government.
In addition to sponsoring conferences that bring together the various researchers working on household finance, the working group seeks to promote new research in the field, especially by young researchers. To this end, through a generous grant from the Sloan Foundation, we can provide four to five research grants, of $10,000-$20,000 each, directly supporting household finance projects. These grants can be applied only to non-salary costs (e.g., travel, data, research assistants, etc). Applications are especially welcome from untenured faculty members and advanced doctoral students, and for projects that would eventually generate public data that could also be used by other researchers.
Applicants should submit: a research proposal not to exceed 2 pages; a 1-page itemized budget (e.g., travel, data, etc), with brief justification as appropriate; and their curriculum vitae. These
components should be complied into a single pdf file and emailed to Denis Healy at firstname.lastname@example.org, with "HF research grant" in the subject line.
In cases where a substantial part of a grant goes towards data collection or production, grantees will be encouraged to make the resulting data publicly available to the extent possible, e.g., without violating confidentiality agreements, and to briefly discuss this possibility in the proposal.
Applications from doctoral students should be accompanied by a one-page letter of recommendation from a senior researcher who is knowledgeable about the project (and ideally, but not necessarily, an NBER affiliate). This letter can be emailed separately to the above address, again with "HF research grant" in the subject line (or the letter writer can submit the entire proposal in one email).
The application deadline is October 17, 2011. Applicants will be notified by early December.
Grantees will be required to deliver a preliminary working paper by August 15, 2012, and should be prepared to present the resulting research at a subsequent working group meeting (in Fall 2012 or later), if selected by the conference organizers. A complete working paper will be due by December 1, 2012.
4/29/2011 5:13:58 AM By
The National Establishment Time-Series (NETS) Database
, a longitudinal database of linked Dun & Bradstreet records, is one of the standout data sources to emerge in the last half decade for the study of entrepreneurship (and businesses, more generally). As an early proponent of the potential of this data, I wanted to offer some commentary now that comes from grantees that have used the NETS data for different purposes such as matching to other data sets, surveys, or just aggregate examinations of firm dynamics. Every data set has its advantages and disadvantages, NETS is no anomaly in this regard, but one of the unique things about my role is that I get to see some of these trends and connect experiences. These comments emerged as the result of an email inquiry I had made to those listed here for a potential new project. I found the comments so valuable I decided they should be published as blog post so that others could see them. All the commentators were allowed to review and modify their comments before posting. I would encourage others who have experiences that can help to hone the use of NETS and hopefully drive improvements to its core to add them as comments to this post.
“The strengths of the NETS are its historical address information, descriptive data (industry, incorporation codes, and CEO and ownership demographics) and survival measures. These traits seem sufficient to conduct event history analysis using quasi-experimental methods.
If your focus is on other types of performance such as growth, then I'm not convinced this is the best dataset. I found in my research that employment and sales figures in the NETS are often estimates and not actual observations of the levels of these measures. It presents a problem when you are dealing with small firms because you lose variation since so many of these small firms appear to reach stability over short periods of time. I'm still using the data for this purpose but I take the results to be more speculative than definitive.
Also, the lack of information on other attributes of organizations (i.e. invested capital, costs, revenue streams, and the education and experience of CEOs) makes it hard to account for unobservable differences that may be the underlying cause of performance when evaluating a policy outcome. There are statistical methods to address these issues but these also open the door to skepticism and criticism.
I'm working on ways to improve on the value of the NETS by merging it with other datasets to add richer data to what I already use. Depending on the types of firms being studied, one may improve on the types of controls that can be accounted for and on the type of performance being evaluated.”
“I agree with Alejandro that NETS is not the best data to see changes in firm level outcomes. In our work we found that the information on sales and credit scores are actually the best of their outcomes variables, and are updated reasonably well. But especially employment variable are very sticky in NETS and do not seem well covered in NETS.
One of the best data set that you could use is probably LBD data at Census, but this data is difficult to access since you need to apply for access.”
“I am less skeptical of the employment measures than Alejandro and Antoinette, although it depends how you are using the data. At the individual establishment level there is clearly a lot of stickiness. But when you are averaging across many establishments (like in our EZ paper
) this doesn't really matter. I think that if you are matching based on geographic location the NETS are very useful although the geocoded information that comes provided with the data might need to be re-geocoded.”
See select other posts dealing with NETS: Comparing Business Registers
; youreconomy.org Updated
9/7/2010 3:00:00 PM By
I am really pleased to announce that the Kauffman Foundation has awarded a grant to Ohio State University to extend data collected in the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79)
. The NLSY79 is among the most widely used surveys in the social sciences, with a constituency that spans public health, social work, psychology, sociology, demography, economics, geography, financial planning, and public policy. The NLSY79 began in 1979 with a nationally representative sample of 12,686 individuals born in 1957-64. These individuals were surveyed annually from 1979 to 1994 and biennially from 1994 onward. Almost 8,000 respondents—80% of the eligible sample, given that some respondents died or were intentionally dropped—participated in the latest round. Most respondents have been followed from full-time schooling through the first decades of their work lives, and have reported detailed information on virtually every employer encountered along the way. As a result, the NLSY79 is a preeminent data source for researchers and policy makers seeking to understand school-to-work transitions, patterns of employment and nonemployment, job and occupational mobility, wage growth, gender and race differences in labor market outcomes, and much more. Self-employment is among the topics for which the NLSY79 has been widely used, given that respondents identify the “class” of worker (government; private, for-profit company; non-profit organization; self-employed; or working in family business) for every job reported.
Longitudinal surveys are not changed without a great deal of debate and consideration and yet the NLSY79 has reacted to the groundswell of desire among researchers for more data on entrepreneurship to add an entire module on business ownership to its 24th round of collection. Most importantly, NLSY79 is going beyond just asking about business ownership in the prior 2-year period, which is their typical practice for most topics, and gathering data on all business ownership experiences over the previous several decades. What I have described to this point the staff overseeing the NLSY79 has been able to squeeze out of their existing contract to administer the survey on behalf of Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Kauffman funding will support two additional activities designed to increase the usefulness of the data:
Task 1: the full linking of the retrospectively-collected data across the many rounds of collection to all relevant previously-collected data
Task 2: a follow-up question in 2012 to clarify any discrepancies in the responses of respondents over time.
Retrospective collection is very difficult. Based on cases that have already been completed in 2010, OSU projects that (i) about 1,500 respondents (20% of the sample) will report business ownership in the 2010 module; (ii) roughly 1,100 non-current businesses will be reported by these respondents; and (iii) as many as 700 of these non-current businesses will merit follow-up questions to confirm linkages with previously-reported jobs. Correcting the data administratively and proactively will jump start research in this area and eliminate gray areas of responses that otherwise would be thrown out.
No other major longitudinal population surveys are underway in the U.S. which could be considered real alternatives to this type of collection. While I have for many years tried to get some updates going to the PSID
design, I am not aware of any current or prospective efforts at PSID to expand their collection of entrepreneurship data.
While work is underway at OSU on this collection, the actual data from 2010 won’t be available until 2011. Additionally, the clarifications on responses will not be available until 2013. Thus, we are pleased to make this announcement and hope that it will start to get the research community excited about using these data when available. If you would like to be notified about the data’s release, please add a comment to this blog posting. For now that is our best way of keeping track of interested potential researchers.
6/16/2010 12:53:00 PM By
June 16, 2010 update
The European Commission has released a new survey on internationalization of European small businesses which provides new insights into what types of international activities businesses are undertaking.
August 17, 2009 original post
Entrepreneurs have complex and not well understood ties to the global community. In Europe this issue has received more attention than here in the U.S., largely because the importance of cross-border interactions to growth, even within Europe. Indeed, this week I reviewed and provided comments on a survey and draft study from EIM for the European Commission on internationalization. I'll post on that when it is finalized and information public, but in the meantime, it got me looking for data which is available to look at international aspects of entrepreneurship. I can't say that I found a lot but I am grateful to Brian Headd of the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, for several of these resources. Know of something else? Shoot me an email.
NFIB 2004 Survey on International Trade
Survey of Business Owners
- The 2007 Survey of Business Owners by the Census Bureau has questions but data isn't available yet. Note that I think this data will be much more interesting now that this survey also added a question on immigrant status of the entrepreneur. Read the questionnaire. Information is available on the percent of firms that have exports (goods and services) as at least 10 percent of their sales.
- Some information from the 2002 survey has been published. Read more detailed report.
International Trade Association, Department of Commerce
Kauffman Firm Survey
- Beginning in year four, we asked the following question. What percent of [NAME BUSINESS]’s total sales were to individuals, businesses, or governments outside of the United States? Get overview statistics from this question.
Panel Study on Entrepreneurial Dynamics
- I've never seen this data used but in theory they include the following question in at least the first wave: Within the first two to three years of operation, what percent of your customers do you expect to be...) international – that is, they normally reside outside the US?
And lastly, in international commerce, Brad Jenson
seems to be a leading U.S. figure. Brian referenced him and I've heard others in Census and government reference Brad although I have never talked with him. For actual studies and better insight on international trade, you can try Brad Jenson.
6/10/2010 9:00:00 AM By
The 2010 Kauffman Interagency Forum on Entrepreneurship and Innovation Data
(on June 4) brought together more than 50 representatives from the federal statistical community, academia, and other interested parties to talk about upcoming changes to ways in which the federal statistical agencies will be collecting data. The level of interaction among the agencies at the Forum and real interest in overall improvements was heartening to see. We were privileged to be the conveners of this conversation but clearly the hard work of making progress on entrepreneurship and innovation measurement is underway at the agency level. The Forum was mostly meant for in-person conversations and interaction but the agencies presenting did consent for us to post their PowerPoints for those interested. Below are the presentations and a couple of highlights from my perspective of their work.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (QCEW PPT
and NLSY PPT
- BLS plans to release a new series of tables on age and survival of the establishment (and firm, I believe) in August 2010 as a part of the Business Employment Dynamics series. This will add to the flood of new data becoming available on cohorts of firms and should prove interesting to compare with the Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics.
- Birth and Death counts, without suppressions, by detailed industry and county are in the works. The concept of county-level business data without suppression is something which should excite a lot of local researchers and economic development agencies as most county-level data has to be aggregated to a level which is frustrating for looking at specific industries.
- The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth is collecting data on their 1979 cohort related to activities in business ownership and patenting. While not available for another two years it should be rich data for researchers.
Census Bureau (PPT
- Updates are underway to the Business Dynamics Statistics that will bring it up to the end of 2008 and likely produce more useful tables for following cohorts of firms over time at the state level.
- Synthetic microdata will be available through the Cornell RDC in the fall for the Longitudinal Business Database. This will be interesting to watch as synthetic microdata isn't actual data but rather a data set which has been built off of real data but with crucial changes to aspects of the data to ensure confidentiality of individual responses. I think the consensus on synthetic microdata is still out but its definitely one of the emerging solutions to providing microdata access to government data in an era of increasing confidentiality concerns with putting public-use microdata files on the Internet.
- I am really excited to see that the integration of characteristics of business owners into the business data is finally on the agenda in an ongoing manner. There is so much potential for new useful public products here like women in high-tech businesses or high-growth minority businesses. Many policy interventions are aimed at underrepresented minority groups in entrepreneurship and this has the potential to finally allow for tracking of changes in this arena annually, not just every five years, which is currently the most up-to-date data available matching business and ownership characteristics.
Federal Reserve Board (PPT
- The Federal Reserve didn't have huge updates for the room but did talk about their impromptu panel of households from the 2007 Survey of Consumer Finance who were contacted in 2009 again. Specific questions were included relating to the changes in business ownership among the panel which will help to inform some aspects of our understanding about the impact of the financial crisis on business-owning households.
National Science Foundation (PPT
- Anyone following NSF's innovation surveys over the last decade knows that this is a time of huge payoff for them. After much review, planning, and pain, the new Business R&D and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) is finally available to the public. And while the current releases are on 2008 collections, improvements made in 2009 look very positive are likely to provide even more meaningful information.
- Quite a bit of the discussion came around what to do on measuring technology commercialization in the university space. NSF indicated a new report should be coming out soon from an external group with recommendations for them on that topic. I'll be following up with that and adding more commentary then.
- The Microbusiness Innovation Survey is very early in development but still promises to be the most exciting possible change underway in the next few years in our understanding of innovation in the U.S. NSF is showing real leadership in taking on this survey and considering what topics are most appropriate to get innovation activities in very small businesses. More expert meetings and user groups are planned for this fall into 2010.
Patent and Trademark Office(PPT
- Did you know that the Patent and Trademark Office now has a chief economist? Well, Stuart Graham, the first occupant of this seat, is really taking the lead in improving the data the PTO makes available from their work.
- The PTO has recently done a bulk upload of information to Google and has plans for many future transfers of patent and trademark data.
- The PTO is also actively looking at what other agencies would make sense to partner in matching PTO data into more traditional statistical agency products. The PTO isn't really a statistical office (at least yet) so I think they are smart to look at partnerships that could produce really meaningful new information.
5/18/2010 8:00:00 AM By
A lot of times I find out about new data sources through working papers or conference presentations. In this case, Ben Hallen
at the University of Maryland and Rory McDonald
have a working paper on super angel investors which uses a new database – CrunchBase – and Ben seemed enthusiastic on the data, so I thought I’d take more of a look. Incidentally, also keep an eye out for the updated version of this paper as it was really interesting but for now the paper is not posted online and interested scholars should contact the scholars directly.
, which advertises itself as the “free tech company database,” is a great concept and one that can only become more powerful as more users see it and use it. It’s essentially technology company data collected via wiki. Here were the overview stats as of 5/14/2010:
Companies - 39,866
People - 54,684
Financial Organizations - 4,705
Service Providers - 2,305
Funding Rounds - 14,944
Acquisitions - 2,996
While many researchers will have concerns about data gathered using a bottom-up process, I suspect the data is actually much more accurate than we would expect. Now, this isn’t to say that the data should be taken as is shown because even CrunchBase acknowledges the following on their FAQ web page
You do not know if the data is accurate. As multiple people edit CrunchBase profiles of companies, financial organizations and people, some mistakes might be added. Information might also be out of date. If you notice anything that needs changing you can go ahead and edit the page.
Most large data sets (even government data) have a significant amount of error at the individual firm level which, if random, washes itself out as the data gets aggregated up. Now, the true test of CrunchBase as a research tool will be to see if they close the cycle with researchers providing data and receiving updates back. In my experience, scholars are great at taking data, complaining about, and spending tons of time cleaning it but rarely actually do many scholars go to the next step of showing data producers where there were errors or things that could be improved. I hope for CrunchBase’s sake that this paradigm begins to change.
In any case, for those looking at technology companies CrunchBase definitely seems worth a further exploration. I hope that those of you who have explored this data further than I have will offer comments related to how good or bad CrunchBase is at curating the data to allow for longitudinal analysis.
5/7/2010 12:18:10 PM By
We have released 2008 data for the Kauffman Firm Survey panel of new businesses (public-use data
and NORC Data Enclave confidential version
). Covering the fifth year of operations, this data will provide new insights into how the recession has impacted young businesses in the U.S. We will be releasing an overview report on the data next week.
I wanted to point out one area of inquiry that we added to the questionnaire in 2008
that I am anxious for people to examine - investments in intangible assets. Specifically, we added the following series of questions:
- F19b. Investments in intangible assets are expenditures expected to produce long-term benefits for businesses. I'm going to read you some types of intangible assets. When thinking about each category, please consider the cost of in-house activities in these areas including the time of the business owner(s), as well as services or license fees from outside providers. Did [NAME BUSINESS] have expenditures in [ITEM] in calendar year 2008?
a. The design of new and improved products and services
b. Investments in software or databases?
c. Brand development such as advertising or marketing?
d. Organizational development such as company formation expenses or
e. Worker training?
f. Any other intangible asset investments? (SPECIFY)
- F19c. Thinking about all the intangible asset expenditures [LIST IF NECESSARY] you just told me about, please estimate [NAME BUSINESS]'s total expenses on intangible assets for calendar year 2008.
And the initial summary findings from 2008 on this topic are:
- Half of firms made investments in intangible assets in 2008, compared with just 14 percent of firms investing in research and development (R&D). Intangible asset spending averaged $28,000 in 2008, while average R&D spending was more than $54,000. High-tech firms are much more likely to have patents, copyrights, or trademarks. R&D investment and investment in intangible assets also were much higher for high-tech firms than for non-tech firms in 2008.
If you are interested in reading more about the conceptualization behind these questions or other international work in this area, there is a working paper presented at the American Economic Association
available and I believe future iterations of it are planned. In 2009
we will repeat the questions used here and expand the expenses question so that it is asked about each subcomponent reportedly used by the firm. Understanding further what sorts of investments businesses are making in what they perceive to be long-term payoffs is an important contribution to the more accurate measurement innovation so I can't wait to see what researchers make of this information!
I want to give a big thanks to the Kauffman Firm Survey team for their continued outstanding work on this eight-year effort. Alicia Robb continues to show tremendous leadership as principal investigator and Dave Des Roches at Mathematica runs a tight ship in collecting the data. The fact that he and his team have been able to maintain an above 80 percent response rate in the fifth year of the panel is amazing. Tim Mulcahy and team at NORC have a great product in the Data Enclave. We are really excited to have Juan Carlos Suarez Serrato helping out as a part-time research assistant and John Mueller and Chris Crawford helping to develop the KFS Data Wiki (more on that in the next few weeks).
4/26/2010 2:18:04 PM By
The University of Michigan has released the fourth wave of data for the Panel Study on Entrepreneurial Dynamics 2
, which is following 1,214 nascent entrepreneurs working on starting a business in the United States during 2005. The Codebook
contains basic distributions of how the nascent entrepreneurs responded in the aggregate to questions in the baseline and first three follow-ups. The PSED is useful for examining the start-up process across a nationally-representative set of industries and variety of topics. The data are publicly available for download at no cost and without registration.
Incidentally, I will be participating in a workshop along with the principal investigators on the PSED at the 2010 Academy of Management meetings (information below).
Business Creation Panel Studies: The 2010 International Update
Entrepreneurial Panels Update
Scheduled: Friday, Aug 6 2010 4:00PM - 7:00PM at Le Palais Des Congres in 511F
Chair: Paul D Reynolds; George Mason U.;
Presenter: Per Davidsson; Queensland U. of Technology;
Presenter: Teresa Virginia Menzies; Brock U.;
Presenter: Yuli Zhang; Nankai U.;
Presenter: Vyacheslav Dombrovsky; Stockholm School of Economics, Riga;
Presenter: Jolanda Hessels; EIM / Erasmus School of Economics;
Presenter: Gry Agnete Alsos; Nordland Research Institute;
Presenter: Mikael J Samuelsson; Stockholm School of Economics;
Presenter: Richard Curtin; U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor;
Discussant: Howard Aldrich; U. of North Carolina;
Discussant: David Audretsch; Indiana U., Bloomington;
Discussant: Mahesh P Bhave; Alliant International U.;
Presenter: Rolf Sternberg; U. of Hannover;
Presenter: E.J. Reedy; Kauffman Foundation;
Understanding the origins of new businesses, the firm creation process, has been dramatically affected by the implementation of longitudinal studies of the start-up process (Davidsson, 2006). National projects in nine countries share the same research protocol and a conscious effort has been made to harmonize many details of these projects. The teams in all countries continue to make progress either in collecting additional follow-up data—as in Australia, China, Germany, Latvia, Netherlands, Sweden and the second U.S. project [PSED II]—or completing additional analysis and assessments of the existing data sets—as in Canada, Norway, and the original Netherlands, Sweden and U.S. projects [PSED I]. The Kauffman Firm Survey [KFS], designed to provide tracking of post firm birth ventures is harmonized with U.S. PSED II. This workshop will provide an update of the developments over the past year among these complementary projects, providing a guide to those teams in additional countries that may wish to implement their own panel studies. Following commentaries on the contributions of these projects to understanding business creation and unexplored opportunities, there will be an opportunity for an open discussion of future directions for this research paradigm.
3/30/2010 3:00:00 PM By
Changes to the questionnaire for the fifth follow-up of the Kauffman Firm Survey (KFS)
have been finalized following an open solicitation for suggestions, as well as expert feedback and vetting. The KFS, our eight-year panel survey on new businesses started in 2004, will gather data in 2010 (on the 2009 activities of the businesses), and will be available to the research community in the spring 2011.
Most of the changes this year are attempts to gather additional details on innovation activities of the businesses in the panel. Suggestions in this arena came from colleagues in Germany at ZEW who are collecting data on German start-ups as part of the KfW/ZEW Start-up Panel, scholars looking at user innovation, and also scholars studying competitive advantage. Also in the area of innovation, we are expanding the question we asked last year on investments in intangible assets to disaggregate firm-level investments by type.
Besides innovation, we have added several questions in the finance area. Given the recent financial crisis and subsequent changing terms of credit for many small businesses, we are trying to get information on collateral required for loans as well as attempts to seek equity investments. We already have data on attempts to seek debt investments. These are questions I wish we'd been asking before the current crisis but hindsight is always more clear.
This will likely be the last time we make changes to the Kauffman Firm Survey questionnaire since there are only two additional years of collection left. We were very pleased to receive so many quality suggestions from scholars this year.
1/5/2010 9:00:00 AM By
I am not at the American Economic Association (AEA) meeting
this year as I recently became a father and am not going to be traveling for a while but that doesn't mean there aren't some really exciting sessions/papers being presented related to new advances in measuring innovation and entrepreneurship. Ken Jarboe at the Athena Alliance did a great post
on some of the papers focusing on intangible assets so I'll simply defer to Ken on that topic, but there are some other data papers worth a review:
Michael R. Darby (University of California-Los Angeles & NBER)
Lynne G. Zucker (University of California-Los Angeles & NBER)
John E. Jankowski (National Science Foundation)
Lynda Carlson (National Science Foundation)
Peter Gibson (U.S. Census Bureau)
Richard Hough (U.S. Census Bureau)
Ronald Lee (U.S. Census Bureau)
Brandon Shackelford (Twin Ravens Consulting)
Raymond Wolfe (National Science Foundation)
Jonathan Haskel (Imperial College Business School)
Alicia Robb (Beacon Economics)
John Haltiwanger (University of Maryland)
There are a couple of other great sessions on the agenda which don't have papers listed which I am trying to gather more info on, like one on measuring broadband impact, so I'll hopefully be able to post more in the coming week. For those at the AEA meeting who I've missed, hope it's going great!
Developing better data is part of Kauffman's long-term strategy for advancing better research and policy on entrepreneurship and innovation. Data Maven is place you can connect with new data developments, provide us feedback on possible new projects, and contribute to the community seeking to improve entrepreneurship and innovation measurement.
E.J. Reedy is a manager in Research and Policy at the Kauffman Foundation. Learn more ...