The paradox of social capital in China: venture capitalists and entrepreneurs’ social ties and public listed firms’ technological innovation performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary research on entrepreneurship has showed that social capital can improve the success rate of entrepreneurial activities, but focusing too much on social capital can also divert entrepreneurs’ attention to certain firm activities such as technological innovation. The purpose of this study is to explore such a paradox in order to better understand the impact of social capital on firms’ technological innovation performance in China. The current study explores this paradox with the data from 249 public listed Chinese firms that have received venture capital investment. The results show that both venture capitalists’ social ties and entrepreneurs’ social ties negatively affect these firms’ technological innovation performance, including total patents granted, R&D expenditure, and total factor productivity. In other words, venture capitalists’ social ties as well as entrepreneurs’ social ties actually impede, rather than facilitate their firms’ technological innovation. The results also show that entrepreneurs’ social capital mediates the impact of venture capitalists’ social capital on technological innovation performance. Managerial and policy implications for entrepreneurship research and technological innovation are then discussed for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".