The Asymmetric Effects of Public Support Types: An Empirical Study on the Conditions and Performance of Korean Startups
This empirical study analyzes the asymmetric effects of South Korean public support programs on startup performance by comparing companies backed by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups and the Ministry of Science and ICT against non-supported firms, demonstrating that government funding acts as a catalyst for overcoming resource constraints while highlighting the need for sector-specific policy roadmaps based on the timing of performance generation across different core technology fields.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern economy, new companies are the primary engines of growth, constantly reshaping how we live and work. However, these young ventures face a perilous early stage often called the "valley of death," where they possess great ideas but lack the money and market standing to survive. To bridge this gap, governments often step in with support programs, providing funding and resources to help these startups launch. The effectiveness of such aid, however, is not a simple matter of "support equals success." The nature of the support matters just as much as the support itself. Some programs focus on helping companies develop deep, complex technologies that take years to mature, while others aim to get products to market quickly. Understanding how these different types of assistance affect a company's journey is crucial for policymakers who want to ensure their investments actually lead to thriving businesses.
A recent study conducted by researchers in South Korea investigates exactly how different government support programs influence the performance of startups. The researchers focused on a massive national effort where the government planned to invest 3.46 trillion Korean won in 2026 through hundreds of programs run by various ministries. The study zeroed in on two specific government bodies: the Ministry of Science and ICT, which tends to back high-tech, science-heavy projects, and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, which often supports broader commercial and service-oriented ventures. To understand the real-world impact of these different approaches, the team gathered data on 77 companies, dividing them into three groups: those backed by the science ministry, those backed by the small business ministry, and a control group of companies that received no government support at all.
The researchers faced a challenge common in the startup world: many new companies do not yet have long financial histories or steady profits, making it difficult to judge their success using traditional accounting methods. To solve this, they created a comprehensive scoring system that looked at a wide range of factors. Instead of relying on a single number, they evaluated each company based on six different criteria: how much money they raised from investors, how many times they secured funding, how many different investors backed them, their total assets, their revenue, and how much attention they received in the media. By weighing these factors together, they could generate a single score that represented the overall health and momentum of each company, allowing for a fair comparison between the different groups.
The results revealed a clear and distinct pattern in how government support affects business growth. The companies that received no government aid performed significantly worse than those that did, confirming that public funding acts as a vital catalyst for early-stage companies to survive and attract private investment. However, the study also uncovered a surprising asymmetry between the two types of government support. The companies backed by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups showed the strongest overall performance, with the majority of them achieving high scores. These businesses, which were often in fields like culture, digital content, and general information technology, demonstrated rapid growth in revenue and were able to scale up quickly. Their business models allowed them to validate their ideas in the market and generate income in a relatively short time.
In contrast, the companies supported by the Ministry of Science and ICT displayed a different trajectory. While these firms were often working on more complex, deep-tech innovations like biotechnology and advanced materials, their financial results were more mixed. A few of these companies achieved massive success, securing huge investments and becoming standout leaders in their fields. However, as a group, they showed much wider variation in performance, with many struggling to generate immediate revenue. This is not because the support failed, but because the nature of their work requires long, expensive research and development cycles before a product can be sold. The study found that while the science ministry's support was excellent at signaling to investors that a company's technology was viable, it did not produce the same immediate financial returns as the support given to more commercially oriented startups.
Ultimately, the research suggests that there is no single "best" way to support a startup. The type of support that works best depends entirely on the company's specific goals and the industry it operates in. For businesses aiming to bring a new service or product to market quickly, support focused on commercialization and market expansion yields the fastest results. For those developing complex scientific breakthroughs, support that validates their technology and helps them secure long-term research funding is essential, even if the financial payoff takes much longer to appear. The findings provide a clear roadmap for policymakers, indicating that to maximize the success of the startup ecosystem, government programs must be tailored to the specific timing and characteristics of the industries they aim to help.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.