magazinelogo

Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Science

ISSN Online: 2576-0548 ISSN Print: 2576-0556 CODEN: JHASAY
Frequency: monthly Email: jhass@hillpublisher.com
Total View: 5493235 Downloads: 1659485 Citations: 313 (From Dimensions)
ArticleOpen Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2025.01.027

Betting on the Horse or the Jockey in the Public Fund? The Contingent Effects of Experts’ Experience

Lun Li

Business School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.

*Corresponding author: Lun Li

Published: February 25,2025

Abstract

The mechanisms through which public funding allocates resources to innovative ventures—specifically, whether governments prioritize the “jockey” (the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial team) or the “horse” (the technology or idea)—remain underexplored. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the determinants of public funding decisions through the lens of institutional funding logic, utilizing logit models on a dataset of 5,569 observations from InnoFund Beijing. The findings reveal that the technology merit exerts approximately twice the influence of team capability in predicting a venture’s likelihood of securing public funds. This suggests that, in the context of public funding, the “horse” (technology) is prioritized over the “jockey” (team). Furthermore, the study uncovers significant anchoring biases in expert evaluations. Specifically, evaluators with prior research and development (R&D) experience tend to undervalue the importance of technology merit, while those with business expertise place less emphasis on team capability. By resolving the “horse vs. jockey” puzzle in public funding, this research deepens the understanding of institutional funding logic and contributes novel insights to policy design by highlighting how institutional priorities and evaluator biases shape resource allocation in emerging contexts.

Keywords

Innovative entrepreneurship; technology merit; team capability; public fund; experts’ experience

References

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Alperovych, Y., Huebner, G., & Lobet, F. (2015). How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm’s efficiency? Evidence from Belgium. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 508-525.

Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 1373-1390.

Baron, R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Science, 52, 1331-1344.

Beggs, A., & Graddy, K. (2009). Anchoring effects: Evidence from art auctions. American Economic Review, 99, 1027-1039.

Bertoni, F., & Tykvová, T. (2015). Does governmental venture capital spur invention and innovation? Evidence from young European biotech companies. Research Policy, 44, 925-935.

Boeing, P. (2016). The allocation and effectiveness of China’s R&D subsidies—Evidence from listed firms. Research Policy, 45, 1774-1789.

Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation. Research Policy, 45, 442-457.

Carroll, R. J. (2017). Transformation and weighting in regression. Routledge.

Cobb, J. A., Wry, T., & Zhao, E. Y. (2016). Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 2103-2131.

Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2016). Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 10-24.

Corrado, C. A., & Hulten, C. R. (2010). How do you measure a “technological revolution”? American Economic Review, 100, 99-104.

Criscuolo, P., Dahlander, L., Grohsjean, T., & Salter, A. (2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 433-460.

Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2017). The problems with and promise of entrepreneurial finance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 357-370.

Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45, 797-815.

Ecken, P., & Pibernik, R. (2016). Hit or miss: What leads experts to take advice for long-term judgments? Management Science, 62, 2002-2021.

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. Psychological Science, 17, 311-318.

Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy, 41, 1697-1702.

Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2008). Venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams: Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 459-483.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions.

Gruber, M., Kim, S. M., & Brinckmann, J. (2015). What is an attractive business opportunity? An empirical study of opportunity evaluation decisions by technologists, managers, and entrepreneurs. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 205-225.

Guerini, M., & Quas, A. (2016). Governmental venture capital in Europe: Screening and certification. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 175-195.

Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2012). Who Creates Jobs? Small versus Large versus Young. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 347-361.

Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., Kulick, R. B., & Miranda, J. (2016). High Growth Young Firms: Contribution to Job, Output and Productivity Growth (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2866566). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Net-work.

Harrison, R. T., & Mason, C. M. (2017). Backing the horse or the jockey? Due diligence, agency costs, information and the evaluation of risk by business angel investors. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 15, 269-290.

Hart, O. (1995). Firms, contracts, and financial structure. Clarendon Press.

Henke, C. R. (2022). Social science for what?: Battles over public funding for the “other sciences” at the national science foundation by mark solovey. American Journal of Sociology, 127, 1411-1413.

Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 331-343.

Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2015). The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1053-1081.

Jourdan, J., & Kivleniece, I. (2016). Too much of a good thing? The dual effect of public sponsorship on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 55-77.

Kapoor, R., & Furr, N. R. (2015). Complementarities and competition: Unpacking the drivers of entrants’ technology choices in the solar photovoltaic industry. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 416-436.

Kolympiris, C., Kalaitzandonakes, N., & Miller, D. (2014). Public funds and local biotechnology firm creation. Research Policy, 43, 121-137.

Lerner, J. (2010). The future of public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital. Small Business Economics, 35, 255-264.

Liu, T., Mao, Y., & Tian, X. (2017). The role of human capital: Evidence from patent generation. Kelley School of Business Research Paper.

Lo, J. Y., & Li, H. (2018). In the eyes of the beholder: The effect of participant diversity on perceived merits of collaborative innovations. Research Policy, 47, 1229-1242.

Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015). Decision making and uncertainty: The role of heuristics and experience in assessing a politically hazardous environment. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1554-1578.

Mitchell, J. R., Shepherd, D. A., & Sharfman, M. P. (2011). Erratic strategic decisions: When and why managers are inconsistent in strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 683-704.

Mitteness, C., Baucus, M. S., & Sudek, R. (2012). Horse vs. Jockey? How stage of funding process and industry experience affect the evaluations of angel investors. Venture Capital, 14, 241-267.

Mitteness, C., Sudek, R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Angel investor characteristics that determine whether perceived passion leads to higher evaluations of funding potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 592-606.

Mollick, E., & Nanda, R. (2016). Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Science, 62, 1533-1553.

Murnieks, C. Y., Haynie, J. M., Wiltbank, R. E., & Harting, T. (2011). ‘I like how you think’: Similarity as an interaction bias in the investor-entrepreneur dyad. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1533-1561.

Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150.

Oehmichen, J., Schrapp, S., & Wolff, M. (2017). Who needs experts most? Board industry expertise and strategic change-a contingency perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 645-656.

Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60, 596-633.

Patel, P. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2021). In the eye of the beholder? The returns to beauty and IQ for the self‐employed. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 15, 487-525.

Rathje, J. M., & Katila, R. (2018). Outcomes from institutional interactions: Does government funding help firm innova-tion? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018, 14701.

Shepherd, D. A., Zacharakis, A., & Baron, R. A. (2003). VCs’ decision processes: Evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 381-401.

Sitruk, J., Grodal, S., Suarez, F., & Dibiaggio, L. (2025). Emotional brightness and crowdfunding performance. Research Policy, 54, 105094.

Svetek, M., & Drnovšek, M. (2022). The jockey on the horse: What makes a winning ride in the eyes of early-stage investors? Small Enterprise Research, 29, 165-189.

Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 16-41.

Tata, A., & Niedworok, A. (2018). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? An empirical study of how entrepreneurs, managers, and investors evaluate business opportunities at the earliest stages. Venture Capital, 1-34.

Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643-660.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

Wang, Y., Li, J., & Furman, J. L. (2017). Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China’s Innofund program. Research Policy, 46, 1142-1161.

Wang, Y., Siegel, J., & Li, J. (2024). Who captures the state? Evidence from irregular awards in a public innovation grant program. Strategic Management Journal, 45, 2420-2458.

Zelner, B. A. (2009). Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1335-1348.

Zhou, J., Li, J., Jiao, H., Qiu, H., & Liu, Z. (2020). The more funding the better? The moderating role of knowledge stock on the effects of different government-funded research projects on firm innovation in Chinese cultural and creative industries. Technovation, 92-93, 102059.

Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Bavato, D., Tasselli, S., & Wu, J. (2019). Understanding the receiving side of creativity: A multi-disciplinary review and implications for management research. Journal of Management, 45, 2570-2595.


How to cite this paper

Betting on the Horse or the Jockey in the Public Fund? The Contingent Effects of Experts’ Experience

How to cite this paper: Lun Li. (2025) Betting on the Horse or the Jockey in the Public Fund? The Contingent Effects of Experts’ Experience. Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Science9(1), 189-203.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2025.01.027