The Influence of Socio-Economic Institutions on the Risk Recognition of Entre- and Intra-preneurs : Cases of Japan's High Technology Industries

虽然日本人通常被认为是风险厌恶型的，但据报道，越来越多的公司成功地从事高科技创新。为什么？为什么？制度作为人类价值取向的基础，对人类行为的制约具有路径依赖性，但其他制度往往会形成互补机制，降低风险意识，鼓励冒险行为。本研究通过对纳米产业、生物产业、半导体产业的高风险项目的企业家、内部企业家和管理者进行访谈，试图发现风险态度、制度和企业间关系之间的互补机制，并确定管理技术创新的风险治理结构。通过分析受访者的风险态度和企业的组织特征，本研究统计确定了四种互补模式。(1)企业内部控制模式有两个相反的例子：（1a）企业增加家族所有权，且家族所有权比例低 ...更多信息 ─风险业务出售，先稳定业务，然后将剩余资源分配给高科技创新;或（1b）母公司增加其拥有权、控制权和财政支持，让其外部企业专注于高风险业务。这些案件，由于其风险对冲机制，并没有增加受访者的风险意识。(2)研发风险模型促使企业增加研发支出在销售额中的比例，并面临更高的风险。但是，它的结果要么是加快了它们进入市场的速度，要么是使它们意识到技术发展的阶段。因此，他们变得不那么自信，并成功地降低了高风险感。(3)风险投资公司风险模型允许风险投资公司降低公司的财务风险，而他们对短期收益的压力增加了受访者的风险感。(4)IPO模式是企业利用股票市场筹集所需资金的一种方式，这种方式加强了上市公司对风险行为的自我控制。但在现实中，成功实现IPO的公司面临着业绩困难，这也要求它们依赖风险投资公司。因此，IPO公司最终面临着与VC公司模型相似的条件。这些发现似乎表明，前两种模式是有效和高效的，但在现实中，这种情况是相当罕见的，迫使公司依赖风险投资公司。因此，即使是IPO公司，最终也会增加风险感，而不会增加对管理层的应有的自我控制。虽然仍在研究中，前两种模式似乎涉及许多类型的传统企业间关系，促进技术创新。这些发现揭示了日本式技术创新的动力和效率的来源，为企业家、内部企业家、高风险项目管理者、学者和政策制定者提供了重要的启示。少

Although Japanese are often said to be risk averse, an increasing number of companies successfully engaging in high technology innovation have been reported. Why? Institutions, which become the base of human value orientation, restrict human behavior path-dependently, but other institutions often develop complementary mechanisms to reduce a sense of risk and encourage risk-taking behavior. This research tries to find complementary mechanisms among risk attitudes, institutions, and inter-firm relations by interviewing entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs, and managers in high-risk projects in the nano, bio, and semiconductor industries, and to identify a risk governance structure for managing technology innovation.By analyzing interviewees' risk attitudes and companies' organizational characteristics, this research statistically identified four complementary models. (1) The Internal Business Control Model has two opposite examples:(1a) companies increase family ownership and a proportion of low … More -risk business sales, stabilize their operations first, and then allocate surplus resources to high technology innovations; or (1b) parent companies increase their ownership, control and financial support to allow their outside ventures to focus on high-risk businesses. These cases, given their risk hedging mechanisms, do not increase interviewees' sense of risk. (2) The R&D Risk Model pushes companies to increase a proportion of their R&D expenditure in their sales and face a higher level of risk. But it results in either speeding up their reach to the market or making them aware of the stage of technology development. Consequently, they become less over self-confident and successfully reduce a sense of high risk. (3) The Venture Capital (VC) Firm Risk Model allows VC firms to reduce the financial risk of companies, while their pressure for short-term gains increases a sense of risk on the part of interviewees. (4) The IPO Model uses the stock market for companies to raise necessary fund. This practice strengthens the interviewees' self control over risky behavior. But in reality, companies which successfully achieved IPOs rather face performance difficulties, requiring them also to rely on VC firms. Hence, IPO companies end up facing a similar condition as the VC Firm Model. These findings seem to suggest that the first two models are effective and efficient, but in reality such situations are rather rare to find, forcing companies to depend on VC firms. Consequently, even IPO companies end up increasing a sense of risk without increasing due self control over management. Though still under investigation, the first two models seem to involve many types of traditional inter-firm relations which facilitate technology innovation. These findings suggest the sources of dynamics and efficiency in the Japanese type of technology innovation and provide some important insights to entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs, managers in high-risk projects, scholars and policy makers. Less