Assignment First



在第一個論點中,作者說他沒有證據表明初創企業創造了巨大的收入和就業機會,這是自相矛盾的說法。他本人也在論文內容中分享了一些成功的例子,但未能再現巨額虧損的例子。次要的不只是比較。他的第二個觀點似乎是合理的,因為擴張確實能帶來大規模利潤,但我認為,並不是所有人都能在已經推出的成功企業中分得一杯羹。因此,利潤永遠不會流向普通大眾(Haltiwanger et al., 1999)。


作者其余的四個關鍵論點在本質上是比較的。他說,擴大舊業務有更大的增長潛力、創造利潤和提供就業機會。他表示,與初創企業相比,成熟企業更具可持續性,更不容易出現風險。他在某種意義上是正確的,但這一論點並不適用於一般公眾和業余愛好者較少的種子資金(Shane, 2008)。



The author starts with a summary of what he feels about this public policy and why he believes it to be bad and have negative economic impact. I find the key points to be relatively weak compared to the title. As they seem very unrealistic at first glance. These eight initial phrases turned my mind as nothing profound was mentioned by author to retain the reader’s attention.
In the first argument, the author says he got no evidence of start-ups generating huge revenue and employment opportunities, which is self-contradictory statement. He himself has shared successful examples in his paper content but failed to reproduce examples of big losses. Minor ones don’t count in just comparison. His second argument seems rational as expansion does generate profits on a large scale but here I feel that not everyone can get access to put a share in successful businesses that have already been launched. Hence, the profits can never trickle down to general public (Haltiwanger et al., 1999).
The third and fourth key point is completely absurd, I must say, and author himself have quoted examples against this in introduction. There is no way to nullify a theory as failure without strong evidence. But author has claimed it in the very beginning of his paper and has failed to provide any strong clue. The examples of huge successful start-ups like Google, SAP, Genetech, EasyJe and Walmart by author are adding no benefit to support his claim (Wellington, 2001).
The rest of the author’s four crucial arguments are comparative in nature. He says that expanding old businesses has more potential to grow, generates profit and provides employment opportunities. He states that the established businesses are more sustainable and less prone to risks as per start-ups. He is true in one sense but this argument doesn’t hold true for general public and amateurs with less seed money (Shane, 2008).
In the next section of Introduction, I find that author fails to do justice to his stance. It is the weakest portion of his paper. He quoted excerpts of world leading politicians from United States and United Kingdom, such as the President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown respectively, and stated at elite world forums about their belief in the power of entrepreneurship. He refuses such strong statements of experts by calling it a “Myth”. The last part of Job opportunity section seems distracted as it focuses more on the perks and incentives of jobs by established firms and lacks in acknowledging the place and worth created for employees by start-ups.