innovation

Development finance institutions and private sector innovation

innovation development dfi

Post originally published on IDB’s Sustainable Business blog.

Development finance institutions (DFIs) can play an important role promoting innovation for increased competitiveness and sustained development in their client countries. Properly executed programs and projects can leverage private investment placement, develop local capital markets, improve resource allocation, as well as avoid moral hazard.

As laid out in the document “MDB Principles to Support Private Sector Operations,” endorsed by the heads of multilateral development development banks (MDBs), private sector operations should seek to include: (i) additionality; (ii) crowding-in; (iii) commercial sustainability; (iv) reinforcing – and avoiding distorting – markets; and (v) promoting high standards in governance and conduct. More details can be found here.

With this in mind, there are three types of interventions that work particularly well because of their intrinsic role in crowding-in private investments; providing additionality to high-impact businesses; and planting the seeds for continuous innovation.

1. Catalytic first-loss capital (CFLC)

This form of financing occurs when the financier takes on more risk than other investors by providing concessional equity, debt, grant or guarantees that lower the level of risk for other investors. This form of blended finance has been carried out by select DFIs since the late 1990s and has gained momentum in the past decade, especially with the growing presence of impact investors and large donors working with DFIs. One example is the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which provides concessional funding for large low-carbon energy projects through multilaterals, including the IDB.

CFLC provides credit enhancement and mobilizes more risk-averse sources of capital. It supports innovation by financing projects otherwise difficult to finance and by leveraging complementary investments, typically at a rate of 4 times – often, significantly more. To illustrate this, $6.1 billion is allocated under the CTF for 134 projects and programs, expecting total co-financing of $51 billion from other sources. The approach supports projects of different sizes, from large geothermal plants to social entrepreneurship interventions.

CFLC adds the most value when it is part of a long-term strategy of continuous crowding-in of private investors – such as private equity funds and commercial banks – and phasing-out of the concessional funding. By supporting innovative (and often risky) projects, it generates significant demonstration effects, lessons learned, and promotes market development. Also, the very providers may participate in later rounds, directly benefiting from the initial risk taken. For example, a DFI may offer an early CFLC tranche, and then come back in a few years with a market-priced loan after the project has reached maturity and needs financing for additional growth.

2. Limited partnerships (LP) in select funds

Venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) funds are key players in the creation of high-growth businesses and the dissemination of their innovations. In turn, impact investment funds are strategic supporters of innovations that bring about, not only financial returns, but also social and/or environmental benefits. Impact Assets showcases such funds.

Because these funds are specialized and typically operate locally, they know their markets, technologies, entrepreneurs and clients. They are better suited than DFIs to source deals and manage portfolios. Therefore, DFIs could spur innovation by increasing their presence as investors in these funds, providing technical assistance, coordination and cross-fertilization.

Understandably, DFIs worry about risk exposure and ratings. That said, efficient due diligence and strong diversification across markets, fund sizes and maturity, may well allow for a significant growth in DFI presence in this space within acceptable risks. Also, part of the funding may be mobilized through external donors, minimizing the impact on the DFI’s balance sheet.

3. Strategic support to incubators, accelerators, angels

Besides supporting larger projects and early stage businesses mature enough to receive VC/PE funding and CFLC, DFIs could pollinate the innovation ecosystem by spreading entrepreneurial seeds and fostering a change-making culture. One of the best ways to do this is to support the growth of business incubators and accelerators, as well as those who are most prone to invest in the ideas that come out of this fertile soil: angel investors.

Incubators and accelerators play an important role in the development of startups and their innovations, by providing office space, administrative support, mentorship, networking, access to capital, clients, among other advantages. Companies that are born in these platforms have much higher rates of success than lone-wolves. This type of support is especially important in developing markets, where information asymmetries and inefficiencies are high.

In this space, DFI support would come less in the form of financial resources and more in terms of technical cooperation, dissemination of knowledge and best practices and development of networks and systems. Institutions such as IDB’s Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) and the World Bank’s infoDev work in this space.Finally, from the angel side, DFIs can promote a culture of early stage investing, for example, by supporting the creation of angel groups, business plan competitions with clear objectives, and even by providing matching grants to angel exposures (through donors, if need be).

Innovation is a broad and complex topic and one that should also involve discussions on policy, regulations, education, R&D, and the role of the public sector. That said, as far as private sector interventions go, the three described above, while by no means exhaustive, are bound to bring important progress from the bottom-up.

Andre A. is an economist and entrepreneur.

Advertisements

Modern Times 2.0

Changemaking through the 21st century

I’ve been writing about the role of entrepreneurship in the creation of value and prosperity for many years. This is a natural deduction for me, having spent about half my career working as an economist and the other half starting and running businesses.

In fact, looking back in history, there is enough evidence to support this. The countries that have prospered the most – Netherlands in the XVII-XVIII centuries, nineteenth century England, twentieth century U.S. and, more recently, places like South Korea and Israel – were the ones where people with good ideas had access to capital, under systems that promoted accountability (see here for full discussion).

That said, in today’s world, I’m convinced this vision needs refinement.

Recently, I’ve had the privilege of spending a few hours talking to Bill Drayton, the founder and CEO of Ashoka. Bill enlightened me with his vision of “frame change” and “everyone a changemaker” (EACH) world. During our conversation, it became clear to me that the original model of “entrepreneurship + access to capital” alone is no longer sufficient to promote wealth and prosperity.

In the twenty-first century, the success of people, organizations and countries alike depend on the understanding and implementation of a new framework.

The new model for problem-solving at all levels requires a rupture with the old way of doing things. From the Industrial Revolution through late twentieth century, value was created with efficiency gains, mostly through specialization and repetition. The roles of leadership and innovation were confined to a handful of people, who also benefited disproportionately from the system. The majority of the workforce was limited to dully specialized labor.

As satirized in Charles Chaplin’s “Modern Times” (1936), depicted above, a typical worker would spend most or all of his time doing the same job. Each person would have a defined task, compatible with the education and training received, and would follow orders according to a strict hierarchy. Decisions were made from the top down, by those who controlled information and knowledge.

Nowadays, there is a new game, which is driven by change, not repetition. And everyone wants to be a player.

Information is no longer the privilege of few. Enabling technologies are cheaper and more accessible. Almost anyone, anywhere, has the ability to gather the resources needed to be a changemaker – in their communities, institutions, and country. In this context, the rate of change becomes exponential.

Twenty-first century problems are increasingly being solved by (social) entrepreneurs, who are strategically positioned to come up with the best solutions. People no longer wait passively for others to solve their problems. As the changemaker mantra goes: “everything you change changes everything”, and that’s contagious and unstoppable.

What does this mean for businesses? In such scenario, old structures are doomed. Companies that are not able to adjust will lose relevance and eventually die.

There is no coming back. Institutions must reform and embrace the new world. Leading firms can no longer expect people to work in silos, perform monothematic jobs, take orders at face value, remain detached from the organization’s vision and decision making. Walls must come down.

Teams need to be formed – and dissolved – quickly and seamlessly in order to tackle problems and innovate continuously, under a fluid “team of teams“. This requires embracing a new framework, where every person is offered the resources, networks and tools to become a co-leader in the respective team. Leadership and innovation are no longer the privilege of few, but the responsibility of all.

The EACH framework and the team of teams system reinforce each other and bring the best out of each player.

The new paradigm relies on pro-activeness, empathy and collaboration. Top-down leadership, rigid hierarchies, and aggressive behavior towards others become liabilities. The same values one applies at home, with family and friends, become vital in the work environment. Measures of character and success at work and life are no longer distinguishable. Empathy, teamwork, and leadership become the norm. Those who don’t embrace these values will fall behind.

Make no mistake: changing the way societies think and operate is one of the greatest challenges imaginable.

However, we live in a historical moment. We have the resources to take on this challenge, transforming mindsets and behavior. How exactly? Well, that’s the “seven-billion-people question”. Breaking this code, however, I’m convinced is the key to a more prosperous and peaceful world.

Like Chaplin in the 1930s, Bill Drayton is telling us that there is something fundamentally wrong with our current values and system. And this is no laughing matter.

Andre Averbug is an entrepreneur and economist.

Copycat Businesses Can Be Great

innovation copycat business

Innovation is relative, originality overrated

Innovation is one of the sexiest words in the business vocabulary. However, originality can be overrated, especially when it comes to the opportunity of bringing a proven business concept to a new market. The world is full of examples of copycat business models that were successfully replicated in new countries.

The Chinese watched the successes of Amazon and eBay and launched Alibaba, which today has higher revenues than both U.S. firms combined. Indians followed suit with e-commerce Flipkart. Brazil’s Peixe Urbano, in turn, mirrored itself on e-coupon websites like Groupon and LivingSocial. Pretty much every country or region in the world has its own travel booking website, inspired by Expedia and Travelocity. And on and on we go.

The main benefits of copycat business models

The first benefit of being a copycat is the fact that the business model you are implementing has already been proven elsewhere. Of course, this doesn’t mean it will be a hit in your country, but at the very least you can incorporate several lessons before developing the product and launching the business. The risk therefore is considerably lower than that of an outright innovation, with no benchmarks to fall on. In fact, lessons learned can be applied not only at entry, but also from the moves and mistakes your reference company makes along the way, for it will always be a few years ahead of you. You benefit from the best of both worlds: innovation (at least in your target market) and proof of concept/benchmarking.

Second, pitching the business to investors and potential partners is easier than with other startups. What’s not to understand when you tell someone you want to start “Colombia’s SalesForce” or  “Turkey’s Paypal”? Investors quickly relate to your idea and can tell you if they like it or not. This may seem trivial, but it comes in handy when you are dealing with people who are used to listening to dozens of business ideas every week.

Third, copycats have the privilege to be born with a potential exit strategy already in place. If you are Turkey’s equivalent of Paypal, and market conditions are favorable, you can always approach PayPal for an acquisition or at least a partnership. Of course there’s no guarantee of that happening, and they may decide to compete instead, but the path is clearer than for many startups. In fact, copycats are often approached by their inspirers wanting to expand into new markets through strategic acquisitions.

Challenges with copycat companies

Nevertheless, there are a few particular challenges associated with copycats. Barriers to entry for replicated business models are by definition low and you usually have no IP edge. The innovation doesn’t belong to you and, unless there is some sort of local IP protection (rare), anyone with the same idea and resources can jump in. As an example, after the first couple of crowdfunding websites emerged in Brazil, dozens followed suit, ironically “crowding” the market. The only things that keep you on top are first-mover advantage, fast market-share growth, good marketing and continuing innovation.

Also, adapting the business model to a new market can be tricky. Country and cultural differences have to be taken into consideration. For instance, in certain regions of the world, you can’t really launch a peer-to-peer lending website because charging interest from peers is not considered a socially acceptable practice. Also, trusting strangers in web2.0-type interactions may not be something that the local meme supports (yet).

Macro role of copycatting

At the macro level, copycatting plays an important role in technology transfer, from developed markets to developing ones. New solutions and businesses are internationalized at fast pace and relatively low risk, benefiting the economy by fostering local innovation, creating complementary businesses and generating jobs. It is also one of the best ways for budding entrepreneurs in less mature markets to learn from more experienced ones. A copycat venture is a great first gig for an entrepreneur. And, who knows, we may get to a point where increasingly we shall see Silicon Valley startups copying innovations from Brazil, India and other developing markets.

See also An idea Is Just That. Image: Brad Jonas for Pando.

What’s your favorite copycat business? Leave us a comment!

With Disruptive Innovation, Customer Is Not Always Right

disruptive innovation

Disruptive innovations and customer feedback

A recent study by ChubbyBrain.com listed the top 20 reasons why startups fail. The #1 reason, ahead of funding, product quality, pricing and other popular ones, was “ignoring or not seeking customer feedback”. However, there are two sides to this.

If your company is launching a disruptive technology, or a at least a truly innovative product, and you really believe in it, taking initial customer feedback at face value may not necessarily be the best way to go. A classic example is the walkman. When Sony was building the product in the 1970s it reached out to potential customers to learn what they thought of it. The most common reaction was to say that the walkman was a stupid idea! Who would walk around listening to music, instead of enjoying it while sitting back in the couch? How would you run errands or even jog with “speakers” on your ears, not hearing what’s going on around you? Had Sony been discouraged by this feedback, it would have probably discontinued the project and missed out on this huge hit.

If not a disruptive innovation, follow the rules

Now, if your product, like the vast majority, is not starting a new market or doesn’t require change in attitude or lifestyle, then of course the story is different. You should adapt to your clients as much as possible, not expect them to do so. This sounds intuitive, but many entrepreneurs (including myself in the past) think their product is so great that the problem, really, is with the rest of the world that doesn’t want it the way it is. Distancing yourself from your “baby” and taking client feedback into consideration is fundamental, both in the product development stage and thereafter.

At the end of the day, it is a judgement call. Do you believe so much in what you are doing – and how you are doing it – that you are willing to risk ignoring customer feedback? Are you breaking a paradigm of sorts to expect to be right over the majority of people you are supposed to serve? Only a very small percentage of startups would fall in this category. If you are one of them, you will have an uphill battle to change people’s behaviors; but one that can have a huge payoff.

See also Not All Angel Investors Are From HeavenImage: pocketcalculatorshow.com

What’s your experience with disruptive technologies? Leave us a comment!

An Idea Is Just That – Not Yet An Innovation

Innovation idea new business

Innovation and new ideas

I am frequently approached by people who want to share a new business idea with me. Some are actually good, others, well, you know. Usually the pitch is accompanied by a good amount of mystery and secrecy: “Andre, I’m telling you this because I trust you, but don’t tell anyone; this could be big”. So let me summarize what I tell friends who approach me like that.

Turning an idea (hopefully) into an innovation

First, don’t worry too much about secrecy. Your new idea is likely not as much of an innovation as you think, it has probably come up before in one way or another. And even if it is (almost) that great, you will only be able to go somewhere by sharing it with other people who can give you useful feedback and leads. The chances of someone stealing your idea are probably slimmer than you turning it into a business without sharing it with others. Competent people are busy and know how time consuming and risky it is to start something new.

Second, ask yourself what YOU would bring to the table. Are you business savvy? Have the relevant technical skills? Money to invest? An amazing network in the industry? Lots of time to spare (on top of at least a bit of one of the former)? If you answered “yes” to one or more of the questions, then great, you should move forward. Try to find the people and resources needed to complement your skill-set and hit the road. But if the answers are straight “no’s”, I need to say you should probably let go and try to think of another idea.

To illustrate this, once a friend came to me with a pretty good idea for a mobile app. However, he didn’t know a thing about starting a company or building an app, didn’t have money to invest, didn’t know anyone in the industry, and was not willing to invest a good chunk of his time on it. Seriously? Don’t expect that someone will start a company with you just because you had a decent idea, especially because the idea will evolve/change as the business matures. You need to bring something concrete to the table. Ideas are just ideas… We all have tons of them.

See also Not All Angel Investors Are From HeavenImage: shutterstock.com

Have you ever had a business idea? What did you make of it? Leave us a comment!

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Prosperity

entrepreneurship innovation prosperity economic growth

Entrepreneurship and economic development

What is the common ground between the economic prosperity of the Netherlands in the XVII-XVIII centuries, nineteenth century England, twentieth century U.S. and, more recently, countries such as South Korea, Singapore and Israel? Although the question could be answered from different angles, fundamentally it can be inferred: in their own time, these countries promoted economic systems where resources were efficiently channeled to the most competent entrepreneurs and endeavors.

Canadian economist Reuven Brenner summed it up perfectly: “Prosperity is the result of matching talent with capital and holding both sides accountable”. The “capital” can come from one or more sources: capital markets, government, savings or inheritance. The “talent” may be fostered internally – through education, incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship, development of a risk-taking culture – and/or imported, with the opening of borders to skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants. Finally, “accountability” is constructed through solid institutions (political, economic, regulatory, legal, social) that promote a stable business environment, where contracts are honored and a long-term perspective is installed.

Back in time, on entrepreneurship and prosperity

In the XVII-XVIII centuries, the Netherlands had the most developed capital market in the world. It operated the forefront of financial instruments, both debt and equity, which enabled people and companies with good business ideas to grow their ventures. Therefore, at a time when most societies were divided essentially into castes – with royalty, nobility and aristocracy keeping their wealth generation after generation – the Dutch popularized the access to capital and implemented a socioeconomic system that was (by the time’s standards) more democratic and meritocratic. Moreover, in addition to having effective institutions, it opened its doors to immigrants from diverse backgrounds, welcoming for example Spanish Jews and French Huguenots, who brought innovations from their countries and who, by definition, were mostly entrepreneurs (what is more enterprising than venturing oneself into a new country?)

A century later, England became the engine of the Industrial Revolution within the same logic: capital-talent-institutions. Innovations, both technological (e.g., steam engines) and of process (e.g., revolutionary management techniques) were only possible due to an economic system where risk was properly rewarded and the process of trial and error was stimulated. In the second half of the twentieth century, the United States, in turn, established itself as the major economic superpower based on: capital (Wall Street, Silicon Valley and its angel investors and VC/PE funds, R&D subsidies); talent (Americans and immigrants educated in universities such as Stanford, Harvard and MIT); and institutional climate (pro-business laws, efficient legal system, overall social fabric etc.)

Immigration was especially important in the U.S. As proof, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including giants such as Intel, Google, eBay, Apple and GE. Furthermore, ¾ of patents developed in American universities had the participation of immigrants. It is no wonder that immigration reform is constantly brought up within the debate for promoting American competitiveness and sustained economic growth.

Recently, the most successful cases of economic development were the Asian Tigers. The political, economic and institutional reforms that occurred in these countries, combined with investment in education and the development of capital markets, enabled a flurry of investments and skilled immigration, driving the growth and development of these countries. Another interesting case is Israel, a nation created just over half a century ago, in the middle of the desert, and that thrives due to skilled immigration and education, dynamic access to capital (private and public), a culture conducive to risk taking, and solid institutions.

Traditionally, the quest for prosperity has been driven by top-down policies, often based on unrealistic economic models. Looking at economies through the lenses of “capital-talent-accountability” gives us a clearer view of the issues at hand, from the bottom up. It provides better grounds for understanding the underlying factors that build an economy and allows for more factual and entrepreneurship-friendly policy making.

Andre Averbug is an entrepreneur and economist.

See also An Idea Is Just That – Not Yet An InnovationImage: source unknown (anyone?)

What’s your opinion about the link between entrepreneurship and prosperity? Leave us a comment!