Government Intervention in Venture Capital in Canada: Toward Greater Transparency and Accountability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study asesses government venture capital policy in Canada, providing for the first time an overview of policies and how they have evolved over time. The purpose of the study is three-fold: (i) to demonstrate that governments at the federal and provincial levels are extensively involved in venture capital; (ii) to examine the reasons behind this activity and the consequences that flow from the plethora of agencies, programs and tax incentives that have mushroomed over the years; and (iii) to recommend ways in which government might better organize its approach to handling the venture capital file. Undergirding the study is the conviction that getting venture capital policy right is a vital task for all governments that pursue a successful innovation agenda. Improving the quality of venture capital policy will provide a win-win outcome for the wider public, government and even the venture capital industry itself. The breadth and depth of governments’ venture capital initiatives are not fully appreciated by either the general public, the media or legislatures. This inattention stems from the very nature of governments’ approaches to venture capital wherein policy is multi-faceted and relatively hidden from scrutiny, involving as it does, units within Crown corporations, programs managed by private-sector third parties and tax credits for retail investors. The study provides a comprehensive suite of actionable recommendations that, if adopted, will better position Canada to take advantage of the technological revolution that is underway throughout the economy. Those recommendations include: • Taking the steps necessary to improve accountability, transparency and reporting of government activities in the venture capital arena, including a mandated 10-year policy and programs review. Venture capital policy in Canada displays two central characteristics that need to be addressed: there is a certain policy stickiness, with policy tools remaining in place for decades, coupled with policy experimentation, with governments trying various techniques to improve the flow of capital to innovative firms. • Establishing a more robust analytical framework for understanding the dynamics of venture capital by forming a national public-private Venture Capital Research Institute. • Ensuring a better handoff of investments by venture capital funds into the portfolios of private-equity or buyout funds. • Improving the social contract with the venture capital industry by instituting measures to enhance professional development in the industry and by encouraging the industry to adopt international best practices standards for responsible investing. • Developing a formal federal-provincial coordinating mechanism to ensure that governments across the country don’t act at cross-purposes to one another. Finally, the study looks ahead to the emerging public policy challenges facing government venture capital programs as a result of developing trends within and without the industry.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».