How Government Policy Shapes Business Incubation and Acceleration Systems: Insights from National Policy Frameworks
Submission deadline: 30 September 2026
This special issue aims to advance theory and evidence at the intersection of innovation, government policy, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and venture support organizations, such as business incubators and accelerators. It seeks to move beyond cataloging programs toward identifying mechanisms: how policy architectures influence support organizational forms, resource mobilization, actor coordination, and ecosystem outcomes over time.
Guest editors:
Special issue information:
Business incubators, accelerators, science parks, technology hubs, and other organized innovation spaces have become core instruments of innovation and entrepreneurship policy worldwide. Governments increasingly deploy these mechanisms to accelerate technology commercialization, foster high-growth entrepreneurship, and deliver mission-oriented innovation in domains such as artificial intelligence, climate and energy transition, health and bio- innovation, advanced manufacturing, and deep-tech Incubators and accelerators are no longer peripheral support programs; in many countries, they are positioned as delivery platforms that connect research and technology development to venture formation, investment readiness, market access, and scale.
Yet, despite their rapid proliferation, scholarly understanding of how government policy frameworks shape incubation and acceleration systems remains fragmented. Literature often concentrates on the performance and services of individual incubators or accelerators, or it analyzes a single region or program cycle. Such work is valuable but frequently under-specifies how national policy architectures, such as policy instruments, governance arrangements, strategic missions, and evaluation regimes, configure these organizations as a system. At the same time, policymakers continue to “scale what works” without robust comparative evidence about why similar instruments yield different outcomes across institutional contexts, how systems mature over time, and which governance designs support learning and adaptation.
This Special Issue (SI) of Technovation responds to these gaps by inviting research that treats incubators and accelerators as embedded policy instruments within broader innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem strategies. We seek conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions that explain how government policy architectures shape the design, evolution, specialization, and performance of incubation and acceleration systems across countries. We emphasize multi-level analysis (national–regional–local), cross-national comparison, and methodological rigor. We also encourage papers that bridge micro-level program mechanisms (selection, mentoring, partnerships, follow-on finance) with system-level outcomes (resource flows, scale-up dynamics, inclusion, and regional equity). The SI is especially timely, given three shifts in innovation policy and practice. First, many governments have moved beyond “market failure” rationales toward mission-oriented and transformative agendas, using incubation and acceleration programs to mobilize actors around public purposes (e.g., net-zero transitions, health security, digital sovereignty). Second, incubation models are evolving toward greater specialization (sectoral, deep-tech, and mission-specific programs), platformization (digital and hybrid delivery models), and internationalization (soft-landing networks, global investor access, cross-border partnerships). Third, external shocks and structural changes, including COVID-19, geopolitical realignments, supply-chain disruptions, and technology sovereignty concerns, have tested the resilience and adaptability of incubation and acceleration models, raising questions about strategic autonomy, risk allocation, and public–private coordination. Finally, this SI places special emphasis on emerging and developing economy contexts, where institutional capacity, policy coherence, and ecosystem maturity may differ substantially from high-income settings. Understanding adaptation, constraints, and policy learning in the Global South is essential for theory-building and for evidence-based policy transfer. We are especially interested in papers that:
- Conceptualize incubators and accelerators as components of national or multi-level policy architecture rather than as isolated organizations.
- Explain how governance shapes system coherence, accountability, and learning.
- Clarify how policy choices affect system-level outcomes.
- Improve measurement and evaluation, including credible approaches to additionality, counterfactuals, long-term outcomes, and unintended consequences.
All contributions should offer clear theoretical grounding, high-quality evidence, and actionable implications for policymakers and program designers. Multi-country comparisons, mixed-method approaches, and designs that address endogeneity or selection issues are particularly welcome. Collectively, this special issue invites contributions that move beyond program-level design and evaluation toward system-level theorization of how public policy shapes the structure, incentives, and long-term performance of incubation and acceleration ecosystems.
Manuscript submission information:
Important Dates
- Submission start: 16 March 2026
- Submission deadline: 30 September 2026
- Expected start of publications online: February 2027
- Target Publication: Late 2027
Submission Process and Review
All manuscripts should be submitted via Technovation’s Editorial Manager® and select article type VSI: Policy Frameworks. For inquiries regarding the Special Issue, please contact: Sarfraz Mian at sarfraz.mian@oswego.edu
References:
Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.
Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.
Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2020). Business incubators and accelerators: A co-citation analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(1), 151–176.
Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 787–801.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology Business Incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50–51, 1–12.
Mian, S., Klofsten, M., & Lamine, W. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration: A Global Perspective. Edward Elgar. ISBN # 978-1-78897-477-6.
OECD. (2019). Business incubators and accelerators: The national policy perspective. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2024). Start-up globalization through incubation and acceleration. OECD Publishing.
Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation of accelerators. Technovation, 50–51, 13–24.
Potter, J. (2025). Strengthening Government Policies for Business Incubation: Findings from an OECD International Research Project. Opening Presentation at the Professional Development Workshop, Academy of Management 2025, Copenhagen, July 26.
Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809–832.
Wright, M., Siegel, D., & Mustar, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and public policy. Journal of Management Studies, 54(4), 623–654.
Keywords:
Business incubation; Business acceleration; Innovation policy; Entrepreneurial ecosystems; Government support; Mission-oriented innovation; Technology commercialization; Science parks; Policy evaluation