Recently the Georgian government started a campaign for attracting foreign capital to the country. A whole page ad (pictured above) runs on one of the first pages in the print edition of The Economist for already a month. Capital is a necessary requirement for development. But there are few types of it. And one of them is especially important. This is venture capital.
Venture capital comprises financial resources that are invested in startups. Startups, by definition, are small enterprises. They have larger potential for growth, therefore returns, in case of success, are also higher. International experience shows that small, young, innovative firms are major contributors to long-run economic growth. High returns, however, come with high risks: new ventures have higher likelihood of failure.
Starting up a firm is much easier in a familiar environment. Overwhelming statistical evidence demonstrates that startups are localized not only on a country but also on a city/village levels. Similar findings are present with respect to venture capital. And it is quite intuitive: investors need to be well aware of local environment in order to be able to correctly assess risks of the venture project. Due to this reason venture capital rarely crosses sovereign borders.
As ad campaigns are unlikely to attract this vital type of capital from far abroad we should search for alternatives for developing the venture capital industry. This implies active government policies at national and trans-national levels. As European style venture capital experience shows, banks can play large and important role in this process. After all banking sector is the link that channels capital through the economy.
Georgian banking sector has survived current worldwide economic turmoil very well. This is due to strict regulations from the National Bank of Georgia, but also due to very conservative stance the sector takes with respect to the risks. This is apparent from an extremely low share of non-performing loans in the sector. This has clearly benefited the economy during last three years.
However, Georgian bankers’ conservatism will not be successful if they were to engage in risky, but lucrative, venture capital business. Government will need to introduce sharp and effective incentive schemes to motivate banks to go towards needed direction. But, these incentives have to come with correct regulations to minimize the risks of negative spillovers from bank’s venture business to its more conventional activities. Singapore, the country to which the Georgian government is said to be aspiring, is a very good example of effective venture capital incentive-regulation package. Perhaps Georgian government should start looking at Singapore’s experience with respect to the venture capital markets.
One other thing that can be done is to try to develop the industry within the region rather than within the sovereign borders. Evidence suggests that venture capital that crosses sovereign borders is mostly located within the country’s close neighbors. Regional cooperation should be particularly attractive for Georgia as it can compete for large volumes of capital concentrated in oil-rich Azerbaijan or richer and larger Turkey.
Starting up the business is easy in Georgia. But it is not cheep when compared to Georgian per capita income. Therefore, unless there are institutions/people who can pool the resources and take the risks associated to startups, I am afraid Georgia’s growth is going to run out of steam much earlier than one would expect.
Zakaria Babutsidze is an Assistant Professor at the Economics Department of SKEMA Business School and an Economist at the Department of Innovation and Competition of Observatoire Français des Conjonctures Économiques, Sciences Po. Both institutions are located in Sophia Antipolis, France.
He has degrees in economics from Maastricht University (PhD), Central European University (MA) and Tbilisi State University (BA).
Comments
[...] piece has also appeared on the ISET Economist blog. Tagged with: Banking sector • Growth • Venture capital You think [...]
I think the biggest obstacle in this respect is high interest rate on business loans. Getting business loan for a startup is quite difficult and if you still manage to get one, then you must be ready to pay 15-20% interest rate. There are very few industries that have large enough profit margin, that would allow an entrepreneur pay such a high interest rate on capital.
Also I think this is a macro problem rather than micro one. Simple government intervention and "cheap credit" programs cannot work here. The solution would be a change is macroeconomic policy that would facilitate overall decrease in interest rates at all banks. This is important because the effect will be permanent, the entire financial sector will participate in this and there will be competition between banks that will ensure the good quality of the banking services.
"Cheap credit" programs are temporary, more for yielding political dividends, than for a real thing. In such programs you can never eliminate corruption and nepotism. They are inherent.
Giorgi, indeed the high interest rates for start-ups are a problem. In fact, I did not know they existed in Georgia. (They did not when I was in the sector some 8-9 years ago.)
That is exactly why I am stressing the importance of venture capital. This is the way of circumventing the problem of financial constraints using capital (giving up the ownership partially) rather than credit.
A classmate of mine from Israel is a "Non Institutional Venture Capitalist" based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has a degree in computer engineering from the Technion and an MBA from from INSEAD. Both with distinction. This is what he writes on his webpage:
"I invest in internet and mobile startups. I am typically the main early investor and an active board member/chairman. I do my best to support the entrepreneurs I back. Occasionally I also invest in a more typical angel style, ie smaller investments and less active engagement."
I think it is obvious that my Israeli classmate has a unique combination of skills and talents. And it is almost as obvious that these skills and talents - to select and nurture high risk ventures - are lacking in the Georgian banks. This is not to say that these skills cannot be developed over time. Banks do respond to incentives. For example, most recently, four large Georgian banks found it in their interest to create new products for the agricultural sector (and acquire necessary skills). They did so because funding (€40 mln.) and technical assistance was provided by the EBRD, and because the EU was willing to furnish another €4 mln. to reduce the risk of lending to the ag sector through a "first lost coverage" facility.
In the absence of market demand or externally provided incentives (as in the ag sector example above), the banks will continue to do what they know best and what works well.
Another, related question is what kind of start-ups could emerge in Georgia (and generate demand for venture capital). Most observers would probably agree that Georgia is the wrong location for high tech, San Francisco Bay area-type start-ups. I would venture, however, that a field where we might see a breakthrough is design -- fashion, technological or any other. Later tonight I am supposed to meet a famous Italian car designer who has been recently invited to Georgia to start (up) an international school of design. Design is clearly a field where Georgia, with its immense artistic talent and creativity, can be internationally competitive. And I hope that the conservative Georgian banks will be ready for the day when the first design start-ups will be knocking on their doors.
gamarjoba
sad aris tqveni ofisi
gamarjoba
sad aris tqveni ofisi.batono zaqaria tu sheidzleba tqveni tel..
Venture capital can be very profitable if you can handle all the pressure. "
[...] piece has also appeared on the ISET Economist blog. Tagged with: Banking sector • Growth • Venture capital If you [...]