FSB discussion paper
Federation of Small Businesses
Telephone: 020 7592 8100
Facsimile: 020 7233 7899
email: london.policy@fsb.org.uk
website: www.fsb.org.uk
ENTERPRISE 2050
Getting UK
enterprise policy right
February 2013
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Authors
Professor Francis Greene
Francis Greene is Professor of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at Birmingham Business School,
University of Birmingham. He previously taught at Warwick, Durham and Mannheim universities. He has
done work for the OECD on small business and entrepreneurship policy issues and has been a visiting
researcher with Barclays Bank and with the New Zealand government where he worked on their policies
for supporting fast growth firms. He is also a consulting editor of the International Small Business Journal.
Priyen Patel
Priyen Patel is a Policy Advisor at the Federation of Small Businesses looking at finance and banking policy.
He has written reports on non-bank channels and the FSB’s submission to the Independent Commission on
Banking. He has previously worked for a political party and a bank.
www.fsb.org.uk
Synopsis
This report looks at the evolution of UK enterprise policy, offering a critique of the current landscape.
The report questions whether the 891 different sources of support for small businesses and 18 access to
finance schemes are the best way to organise enterprise initiatives, arguing that there are more effective,
focused approaches that could be followed from elsewhere in the world. Of particular interest is the
Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau bank in Germany (the KfW), in operation since 1948, and the US Small
Business Administration (SBA) that was created in 1953. Both have a clear focus, which is to help small
firms access finance and push firms to export. The paper argues the new Business Bank should look
to these institutions for lessons, take the opportunity to rationalise the unwieldy set of support on offer,
and be the basis for a more fully fledged institution based on the SBA that will act as the anchor
for enterprise policy.
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2: Current provision of UK enterprise support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chapter 3: A brief history of UK enterprise policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Why do governments intervene? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
A brief history of enterprise policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
1930-1979: The era of managed enterprise policy. . . . . . . . . . . .9
1979-1988: Increasing the ‘quantity’ of small businesses . . . . . . . .9
1988-1997: The focus on ‘quality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1997-2010: The ‘balanced’ approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Small Business Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
How eective has intervention been? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 4: Creating an anchor for enterprise policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The principles of good enterprise policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The importance of institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The US Small Business Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Chapter 5: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
www.fsb.org.uk
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
This report is intended to stimulate a debate around enterprise policy. By looking over policy formulation
stretching back to the 1930s, and drawing on extensive academic research, our work underlines that for
too long UK enterprise support for small businesses has lacked focus with numerous small initiatives with
dubious effectiveness, and has been overly complex and too costly. To address these issues and to provide
an anchor to policymaking and delivery of small business policies, it advocates the creation of a UK Small
Business Administration (SBA) to provide that ‘anchor’. Such an institution has been in place in the US since
the 1950s, with considerable success. Other countries have elements of that model in place, Germany’s
state-owned bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) for instance.
The issues and evidence to support the creation of a UK SBA are set out in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. Chapter
2 gives a high level summary of current enterprise support. It shows that there are currently 891 different
sources of support available to small businesses (BIS, 2012a). One evident problem with there being so
many schemes is that support may be being duplicated. Another issue is that the enterprise support is so
complex that the entrepreneur finds it difficult to access what potentially may be valuable public support.
As Chapter 3 shows, these issues are not new. It examines the history of UK enterprise support, revealing that
the design of enterprise policy objectives has shifted from using enterprise support as a tool for addressing
equity (social inclusion) or efficiency (productivity) concerns. It presents evidence to show that UK enterprise
support has been costly, with the most recent estimate suggesting that total annual public sector expenditure
on small firms costing £12 billion (Richard Report, 2008).
In addition Chapter 3 considers the problems inherent in the way the UK has approached the delivery
of enterprise support. It identifies that the delivery of enterprise support has been marked by a series of
weaknesses including: a congested and confusing supply of such provision; high levels of policy initiative
‘churn’; duplication of provision; and a weak evaluation culture. It provides a brief critique of the creation of
the UK’s Small Business Service (SBS) intended to address these weaknesses, and why it failed. This institution
was set up in the early 2000s to act as the lead body in supporting small businesses but abandoned a few
years later for two central reasons:
• The SBS was given responsibility but had very limited ‘power’ across central government; and
• The SBS’s objectives were so broad that it was extremely difficult to correlate its activities with its
given targets.
Chapter 4 compares the UK experience with that of other countries, and especially the United States’ SBA.
Operating for nearly 60 years, the US SBA has consistently focused its efforts on three core activities:
• Access to finance solutions;
• Government procurement; and
• Business advice and assistance.
In conclusion, the report argues that policymakers can and should learn from both the SBA in the US and
from the UK’s failed experiment with the SBS as well as drawing on insights from other models operating
successfully in other countries, including the German KfW bank. It suggests that the UK should consider the
creation of a UK SBA with clear legislative powers so that its goals and targets are achievable. If the policy
is adopted, its ambition needs to be narrow too: a salient lesson from the prior contrasting experience of
both the SBS and the US SBA is the necessity to focus on a core set of enterprise activities. Certainly from
the outset, this report argues that the central focus of a UK SBA should be on improving access to finance for
small businesses and that opportunity may be emerging with the fledgling Business Bank.
2
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Chapter 2:
Current provision of
UK enterprise support
The UK economy, as with all other economies, currently faces significant challenges in dealing with the
‘great recession’ that has occurred since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008 (Fairlie, 2011). This
Government, as with the previous government, has sought to support the financial solvency of the banking
system and promote the vibrancy of its enterprise population (OECD, 2012).
To meet that aim, various mechanisms to support financially constrained small businesses have been
developed either by indirectly encouraging UK banks to lend more to small businesses (the Enterprise
Finance Guarantee, Project Merlin, Business Finance Partnership or the recently announced Funding for
Lending) or by direct attempts to provide access to finance solutions for small businesses either mediated
by the banks or through setting up a Government-backed Business Bank.
The Government has also sought to reconfigure existing support. Following on from the Richard Report
(2008), it has reduced - if only for the English regions - the scope and delivery ambitions of Business
Link down from a ‘cradle to grave’ advice and assistance program to an internet and telephone based
information and signposting service. In addition the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been
replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in the hope that these new business-led organisations will
provide better, more focused, regional provision of support.
Figure 2.1 shows the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ (BIS) enterprise support ‘journey
planner’. This is designed to orientate a business (‘my business’) through its five most common support
needs (exporting, innovating, advice, investment and skills). It suggests that there are 18 main ‘stations’
of support (denoted by the circles) available from BIS. Taken at face value, Figure 2.1 would imply that
UK enterprise support is focused and simple.
www.fsb.org.uk
3
Figure 2.1: Business journey planner
Source: BIS, 2012a
This ‘journey planner’, however, masks the complexity of current government enterprise support. There are
three illustrations of this.
First, as Chapter 3 will highlight, central Government expenditure and activities to support enterprises are
not confined to BIS. In fact, the most recent official estimate of UK enterprise activity and cost (PACEC,
2005) suggests that BIS only accounts for about one-fifth of actual Government expenditure on smaller
businesses with the rest being spread across other Government departments. That would imply Figure 2.1
significantly under-estimates the cost and complexity of UK enterprise support.
Second, Table 2.1 shows central Government’s current access to finance initiatives. In total, it highlights
18 access to finance schemes rather than six sources of investment support (Figure 2.1). This brings to
light two other aspects to small business support:
• There is a great diversity of support available to small businesses. This may be judged important
because small businesses are heterogeneous; and
• It is answer to the perceived need, given the prevailing macro-economic climate and the
acknowledged difficulties that small businesses face in accessing finance, for the Government
to have a greater range of responses to the current barriers facing smaller businesses.
Set against this argument, one drawback with this range of activities is the potential for duplication
of support to small businesses with support providers coming from both the public and private sector
4
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
with attendant ‘crowding out’ effects. A further drawback to these different routes to support is that it
is potentially complex for ‘consumers’ of their services – small firms themselves as well as their various
supporting agents such as accountants and tax planners. Consequently, the support landscape can
become confusing to resource constrained small businesses and their stakeholders
1
.
Table 2.1 Current UK Government access to finance initiatives
Name of Scheme Target Groups Contact point
1 Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS) Businesses and consumers Banks and building societies.
2 Start Up Loans Young people between 18-30 www.startuploans.co.uk
3 Youth Contract Wage Incentives SMEs taking on apprentices Jobcentre Plus
4 AGE Employer Incentive
Small firms taking on their first
apprentice aged 16-24
National Apprenticeship
Service
5 Regional Growth Fund Varying organisations BIS
6 New Enterprise Allowance Unemployed people Jobcentre Plus
7
Technology based SME development
of new products/services
Innovative SMEs Technology Strategy Board
8 Business Finance Partnership
Organisations looking to lend to
businesses
HM Treasury
9
Community Development Finance
Initiatives (CDFI)
Unsuccessful loan applicants from
disadvantaged communities
Via CDFIs
10 Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme
Investors in SMEs with turnover
below £200K
Via HMRC
11 Enterprise Investment Scheme
Most unquoted trading companies
with <250 employees
Via HMRC
12 Venture Capital Trusts SMEs Via HMRC
13 Business Angel Co-Investment Fund
Investment/mentors in
angel syndicates
Via individual funds
14 Enterprise Capital Funds SMEs ECF fund managers
15 UK Innovation Investment Fund (UKIIF) Specialist technology funds Via Fund of Funds managers
16 UK Export Finance products Exporters, particularly SMEs Via UKEF
17 Enterprise Finance Guarantee SMEs with turnover below £41m Banks
18 Growth Accelerator SMEs with high growth potential www.growthaccelerator.com
1 See, for example, the ‘teething’ problems witnessed by the banks and their small business clients when the Enterprise Finance
Guarantee Scheme was expanded in 2010 (House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, 2011).
www.fsb.org.uk
5
As the remainder of the paper aims to demonstrate, these initiatives are in stark contrast to enterprise
support in the US, which uses its SBA as the principal delivery mechanism for supporting small businesses.
Moreover, despite the heterogeneity of small businesses, the US SBA has just four main schemes to
support small businesses (see Chapter 4 for further details). Evidence also suggests that the US has been
able to lend more to small businesses in the current economic climate (FSB, 2012).
The third and final illustration is that although it is difficult to capture the full extent and cost of current
enterprise support across all areas of the public sector, the Government’s own ‘GRANTfinder’ service
identifies 891 support schemes available to small businesses (BIS, 2012b). Figure 2.2 shows the two
main features of this provision:
i. Business support is largely focused on businesses that either want to grow or survive (773
sources of support for ‘growth and sustain’) and start up activities (639) rather than pre-start up
(237) or exiting the business (37); and
ii. Support is most often in terms of expertise and advice (432) or grants (321) rather than loans
(122) or equity (31).
Figure 2.2 Target groups and types of BIS support available through
‘GRANTfinder’
Source: BIS, 2012b
6
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Source: BIS, 2012b
Again, the sheer number and diversity of schemes is likely to pose problems for time-poor small businesses.
The very nature of having many schemes often means decisions are delayed or not made at all. Much of
this is due to the overwhelming level of information and duplication which small firms will not have time
to consider. Such complexity in the support ecosystem is in contrast to the US SBA which offers a limited
menu of advice and assistance (principally through its network of Small Business Development Centers)
to existing entrepreneurs. As Chapter 4 will show, the focus of the US SBA is also on access to finance.
A final observation is the balance of such support may be inappropriate. Greene (2012) identifies
that there is no deficit of individuals coming forward wishing to set up a business in many developed
economies. Indeed, the UK enterprise population has grown more than a quarter in recent years, up
from 3.5 million in 2001 to 4.5 million in 2011 (BIS, 2011). Where the challenge lies is to ensure the
vibrancy and growth of the business population, particularly as businesses with growth ambitions are key
to the UK economy providing jobs and innovation (van Praag and Versloot, 2007).
www.fsb.org.uk
7
Chapter 3:
A brief history of
UK enterprise policy
The previous chapter gave a summary of the current enterprise support environment. This chapter provides
a brief overview of how the UK has arrived at that point through a review of the evolution of UK enterprise
policy since the last century. Figure 3.1 summarises that evolution, showing that surprisingly, in light of
their current importance, small businesses were not a policy focus for much of the last century when
small businesses were seen as “inimical to progress and professionalism” (Boswell, 1973:19) or run by
individuals at the margins of society (Stanworth and Curran, 1973).
It was only in the 1980s when the development of a policy to increase the ‘quantity’ of new UK
businesses came to the fore, and small business came to be recognised for their potential to create jobs
(Birch, 1979) and be a source of productivity gains. Towards the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s,
the emphasis shifted to improving the ‘quality’ of the UK small business stock through targeted initiatives
such as Business Link. By the 2000s, the approach became more ‘balanced’ as policymakers sought to
use enterprise policy both as an instrument of social policy to improve opportunities for disadvantaged
individuals and communities and, at the same time, to improve the productivity of small businesses.
Figure 3.1 The evolution of UK enterprise policy
8
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Why do governments intervene?
Before looking at the history of enterprise policy, it is useful to set out the rationale for government
intervention. Generally, the central rationale for public sector interventions to support private sector
businesses is the presence of market failures – instances where the private sector fails to provide otherwise
desirable goods and services, meaning a role exists for the state to intervene to ensure these goods and
services are provided. Market failures exist in the small business domain for three main reasons:
1. When there is insufficient competition such as evidence of barriers to entry and exit, oligopoly
or monopoly in markets;
2. Where there are information asymmetries between consumers and suppliers, for example,
banks unable to assess the risks of investing in a new technology or business model; and
3. If unpriced positive externalities exist, it means the firm cannot extract all the rents it is due from
its activity. Such externalities take various forms but mean that others can take advantage of
the firm’s activity for free. For example, a new technology in the absence of patent protection.
In these cases, the supply of such goods is below the optimum.
Potential and actual entrepreneurs are likely to face persistent market failures. New entrepreneurs, for
example, may be ignorant of the benefits of starting and running a new business. Enterprise policy may
therefore advantage individuals and particular groups in society such as the young, ethnic minorities and
women by addressing such information asymmetries. Information imperfections may also be experienced
by existing businesses, which limit their potential to survive and prosper. Equally, dynamic businesses
with a growth orientation may experience particular barriers, for example accessing export markets and
training their staff, which may limit their ability to grow successfully.
However, it is not enough to demonstrate that market failures exist: these constitute a necessary but not
sufficient reason for intervention. What also needs to be demonstrated is that overall, the social benefits
of intervention outweigh its social costs. Interventions to meet this test can be grouped as:
• Support to improve access to finance - loan guarantees and venture capital funds for example
• Interventions to improve entrepreneurial awareness and propensity amongst the young -
enterprise in secondary schools, the expansion of tertiary enterprise education
• Interventions to improve social inclusion - supporting the unemployed into business ownership;
hard (financial) and soft (training, mentoring) support for disadvantaged groups and businesses
• Soft support to improve managerial capabilities and capacities in small firms
• Horizontal support (generic tax and infrastructure support to make it easier for businesses to do
business) and sector specific support (support designed to increase the quantity and quality of
businesses in a particular sector)
• Export support - financial support to access overseas markets and trade missions to new markets
• Innovation support - financial support for high-tech businesses whose lack of a track record
makes it difficult for them to access equity or mezzanine finance
www.fsb.org.uk
9
A brief history of enterprise policy
1930-1979: The era of managed enterprise policy
For most of the last century, small businesses were largely ignored by British policymakers with two
notable exceptions. First, following the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the ensuing global depression, the
Macmillan Committee (1931) identified that British small businesses were ill-served by the British banking
system – a situation current politicians will not be unfamiliar with. The Committee called for a rebalancing
of the relationship between banks and their small business customers. Out of this the Industrial and
Commercial Finance Corporation was formed. Second, following the post-war decline in Britain’s small
business population, the Bolton Report (1971) sought to identify why this occurred and was allowed to
happen and what could be done to support small businesses. This led to the creation of the Small Firms
Service in 1973.
There were few other policy initiatives over the period aimed at supporting small businesses (Beesley and
Wilson, 1984). Instead, policymakers were interested, particularly in the post war period, in an industrial
policy that sought to rationalise UK-plc into ever bigger and better corporate entities
2
. This policy of
‘picking winners’ failed. Rather than policymakers focusing on ‘sunrise’ industries, what happened in the
1960s and 1970s was that “it was losers like Rolls Royce, British Leyland and Alfred Herbert who picked
Ministers” (Morris and Stout, 1985: 873).
By the late 1970s, however, an increasing interest was taken in small businesses for a number of reasons.
One was that there was increasing recognition that Keynesian demand-side policies of the 1960s and
1970s had left Britain as the ‘sick man of Europe’. In its place, the rise of supply-side economic theory
and political shifts meant there was an increased belief that supply-side reforms to liberalise product
and factor markets would lead to economic growth (Joseph, 1976). Another factor was the emergence
of unprecedented high levels of unemployment in the 1970s. Policymakers began to realise that small
businesses were potentially central to the economic renewal of the UK, and they were also increasingly
seen as a means to reduce unemployment. Because small businesses then – as now – represented 99
per cent of the total UK enterprise population, the hope was that if small businesses could be persuaded
to employ just one extra worker, the unemployment problems of the 1970s would be eased (Appleyard,
1978).
1979-1988: Increasing the ‘quantity’ of small businesses
Two events in 1979 heralded the shift away from the managed (corporate) policies of the 1960s and
1970s and towards enterprise (small business) policies. The first was the publication of research that
found that small firms – rather than large firms – were net job generators (Birch, 1979). This provided a
rationale for government support of smaller businesses. The second event was the election of the Thatcher
administration that saw the need to rebalance the UK economy towards promoting competition and
enterprising behaviour.
While this administration introduced initiatives such as the ‘first generation’ of Enterprise Zones, the
Business Expansion Scheme (tax relief for investments in new companies) and the introduction of the Small
Firms Loan Guarantee scheme, its main policy aim throughout the 1980s was to increase the uptake of
enterprising activity. Attention therefore focused on lowering the barriers to business entry, promoting the
benefits of entrepreneurship (Fraser and Greene, 2006) and to respond to the persistent unemployment
of the 1980s, encouraging the unemployed to start up their own business.
2 This should not be seen as a particularly British concern. As Audretsch and Thurik (2004) suggest the main aim of European post-
war enterprise policy was to ensure that Europe had more ‘elephants’ (large firms) than the US. Klapper et al (2012) identify that
this led, in France, to policymakers largely ignoring smaller businesses.
10
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
This interest in small business and self-employment led to an increase in the number of policy initiatives:
there were 33 initiatives between 1971-1981 (Beesley and Wilson, 1984) compared to 103 over the
period 1982-1989 (Curran and Blackburn, 1990).
Overall, if judged simply in terms of the aim of increasing the number of UK small businesses, this policy
focus was a success. Programs such as the Enterprise Allowance Scheme (565,700 participants over its
lifetime, 1983-1991) helped lift the UK enterprise population from 2.4 million businesses in 1980 to 3.6
million in 1989 (Greene, 2002).
1988-1997: The focus on ‘quality’
Although new entrants bring productivity benefits (Disney et al, 2003), the UK has perennially suffered
from a ‘long tail’ of under-performing businesses. Since nearly all UK businesses are small businesses,
successive Conservative administrations during this period brought forward a series of policy innovations
to improve the ‘quality’ of the stock of small businesses. Initiatives included governance innovations (re-
aligning the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) as the ‘Department for Enterprise’; the replacement of
the centrally managed Manpower Services Commission with local Training and Enterprise Councils)
3
; and
initiatives to improve managerial practices in smaller businesses (the ‘Consultancy Initiative’; ‘Managing
into the 1990s’).
The principal enterprise policy innovation of this period was the creation of the Business Link network.
Piloted in 1993, the aim of Business Link was to rationalise business support by acting as a ‘one stop
shop’. Its other main role was to focus directly on helping small businesses grow and to support this effort,
a network of ‘personal business advisors’ was created. Its explicit remit was to concentrate on businesses
with between 10 and 200 employees with growth potential.
Overall, from a pure growth point of view it is not clear whether these policy innovations had their
desired goal (Curran, 1993). Barrell et al (2010) identify that GDP growth per annum over the period
1987-1997 was 2.3 per cent. This was higher than France but lower than Germany, Japan and the US.
Moreover, if the aim was to rationalise business support and focus on quality then that aspiration was not
met. The number of dedicated small business policies in fact increased markedly, up from 103 initiatives
over the period 1982-89 to more than 200 initiatives by 1996 (Gavron et al, 2000).
1997-2010: The ‘balanced’ approach
Small business policy continued to evolve under successive Labour administrations during this period.
Some policy innovations remained. For example, despite concerns about the quality of ‘personal business
advisors’ and the crowding out effects of subsidised public assistance to other private sector support
providers (Chambers of Commerce, accountants) (Bennett, 2010), Business Link stayed as a ‘cradle to
grave’ small business support service.
During this period there was a continued focus on encouraging enterprise activities amongst disadvantaged
groups. This included not only helping the unemployed into business through the New Deal initiative
but broadening support through initiatives such as the Phoenix Fund, the development of Community
Development Finance Institutions and the Community Development Venture Fund.
3 Although this review focuses on the broad patterns of UK enterprise policies, there have been differences within the UK. For
example, Brown and Mason (2012) show that there have been similar policy movements in Scotland, although the emphasis
and pace of these has differed from the wider UK changes in the policy environment. Hence, Brown and Mason suggest that the
emphasis of Scottish enterprise policy was on supporting Foreign Direct Investment (1945-1990) before this shifted to increasing
the ‘quantity’ (Scottish Birth Rate Strategy) of new businesses in the 1990s. Since the 2000s, the emphasis has shifted towards
supporting ‘quality’ (high growth starts in the 2000s; high growth firms in the 2010s) businesses.
www.fsb.org.uk
11
Initiatives also continued to focus on reducing the distance between education and enterprise (the Lambert
Report (2003); the Science Enterprise Challenge; and the Davies Report (2002)) as well as initiatives
designed to alleviate the equity gap preventing fast growth businesses accessing angel and venture
capital finance (the UK High Technology Fund; Regional Venture Capital Funds; the Early Growth Fund).
Following on from the evidence provided by endogenous growth theory, a distinct emphasis was placed
on the positive externalities of agglomeration. This was focused at the sub-regional level by the creation
of Regional Development Agencies that was, inter alia, designed to support the development of particular
‘clusters’ of innovative high tech small business activity (Porter and Ketels, 2003).
The Small Business Service
Another significant policy innovation of this period was the creation of the Small Business Service (SBS)
in 2000. As already suggested, insights from the UK’s experience with this failed model is informative to
how future enterprise policy should be built.
The SBS was a dedicated agency within the DTI whose role was “to build an enterprise society in
which businesses of all sizes thrive and achieve their full potential”, “which listens to their needs and
influences all of Government to ‘Think Small First’”, and to provide “more coherent delivery of services
from Government departments, by sharing objectives and working collaboratively at all levels: nationally,
regionally and locally”.
In effect, the SBS’s role was to act as an ‘innovator’, a ‘centre of expertise’ and an ‘engine for change’
between Whitehall policy communities and the delivery of small business support. To achieve this, there
was a focus on seven policy ‘pillars’ and a focus on targets that were evidence-based
4
.
Despite these lofty ambitions, the SBS was short lived. The executive agency status of the SBS ended in
April 2007 with critical reports by the National Audit Office (2006) and the House of Commons Public
Accounts Select Committee (2007). Two main failings were found:
1. It was difficult to correlate its performance against targets; and damningly
2. It was a poor champion of small business across Government.
These frailties, however, need to be contextualised against the increasingly complex and costly nature of
enterprise support. In the first estimates produced anywhere in the world of the cost of enterprise support,
in 2002 a joint DTI-HM Treasury report identified that in 2001, enterprise policy represented an annual
cost of £8 billion. Major costs were the Common Agriculture Policy subsidies (£2.8 billion) and tax
incentives of £2.75 billion (income foregone rather than direct expenditure). This meant direct expenditure
on enterprise support was £2.5 billion. As Bennett (2008) suggests, this equates to about £600 per UK
business or about £2,000 per business (at 2005 levels) for those businesses that employ staff.
A similar analysis by PACEC (2005) for 2003-04 revealed that the overall cost of enterprise support was
£10.3 billion, of which £2.4 billion was agricultural subsidies and £3.6 billion was tax incentives. This
implies that £4.3 billion was spent directly on enterprise policy, roughly equating (again using 2005
figures) to £1,000 per UK businesses or £3,500 per UK employer businesses.
An important feature emerges from this analysis, and why the SBS was doomed to fail: which is that direct
government enterprise spending is widely spread across central Government departments. Although the
DTI, along with the SBS, was the lead department, its actual direct spending on small businesses was
4 The seven policy pillars were: macroeconomic stability; investment; science and innovation; best practice; raising skills and
education levels; modern infrastructure; and creating the right market conditions.
12
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
£696 million (or about 18 per cent of direct enterprise spending). Other major departments were the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (£297 million), the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport (£336 million) and the Department of Work and Pensions/Jobcentre Plus (£331 million). So,
too, was the Learning and Skills Council (£1.7 billion). This wide web of spending departments meant the
SBS – like the DTI – did not have direct control over the majority of enterprise support: it was an exercise
in responsibility without power.
Another now familiar feature also emerges: that enterprise support had become increasing complex
(Curran and Blackburn, 2000) and that an ‘enterprise industry’ had come into being (Lovering, 1999).
While government accounting of the level of enterprise support had become clearer and more transparent
since Gavron et al (2000) estimated that there were over 200 small business support programs in
operation in 1996, this did not stop new schemes coming into being. By 2005 an estimated 267
central government enterprise support services and over 800 small business support schemes were in
operation in three English regions (PACEC, 2005) while a wider estimate suggested that there were
3,000 enterprise support programs available to small businesses in 2006 (NAO, 2006). Given this
complexity, it is difficult to see how the SBS could easily and readily correlate its performance with its
targets. Support had also become more costly. Official estimates suggested enterprise support increased
from £8 to £10 billion while unofficial estimates put the cost at £12 billion with 2,000 separate providers
of public support to smaller businesses (Richard Report, 2008).
www.fsb.org.uk
13
How eective has intervention been?
If market failures persist over time, it would be reasonable to assume a stable set of small business policies
would have been developed. But as this chapter has shown, the UK Government ‘strategy’ for supporting
small firms has shifted over time. These changes are evident in the way the UK Government has chosen
to deliver enterprise policy, and the effectiveness of those interventions. The following now looks in more
detail at those interventions.
Table 3.1 shows the ‘development’ of business advice and consultancy over a 40 year period (1973-
2011). Business support has fluctuated between different managerial points, different delivery managers,
different fee structures and variations in the intensity of advice and assistance.
Table 3.1 Advice and consultancy schemes in the UK, 1973-2011
Main Schemes Period
Point of
management
Administration Delivery Client fees
Intensity of
advice
Small Firms
Service (SFS)
and Business
Development
Service
1973-88
Central and
government
regional
offices
Civil servants
Referral
and market
consultants
Free advice,
subsidised
consultants
Mainly low,
a few high
SFS and
Enterprise
Initiative
1988-93
Central and
government
regional
offices
Civil servants
Referral
and market
consultants
Free advice,
subsidised
consultants
Mainly low,
more high
Business Link
1993-
2005
Local: County
and districts
level
Contracts to
government
agencies,
partner
bodies, and
franchisees
Internal,
Partnership
Brokers
Accreditation
Scheme
(PBAs), and
some referral
Complex mix
of with fee
targets
Targeting
high, also low
RDAs and
Business Link
2005-
2010
Regional and
county level
RDAs, partner
bodies, and
specialist
contractors
Internal, PBAs,
and some
referral
Complex mix
with some
fee targets
Targeting
high, also
low, varied
Local
Enterprise
Partnerships in
England
2010-
Local: City-
region and
county
Local strategy
boards
Partners and
private sector
Existing
supplier fees,
with some
subsidies
Mainly low, a
few high, very
varied
Source: Bennett (2012)
As well as an ever changing delivery models, enterprise support has also been historically overly complex.
This is evident in three main ways.
First, as noted earlier, there is the sheer number of schemes available. Greene et al (2008) charts the
steady accretion of enterprise support in just one area – Teesside – over a 30 year period. Figure 3.1
shows that the delivery of enterprise support in Teesside has varied between start-ups and established
businesses, soft and hard support and local, regional and national providers. More broadly, the Bank
of England identified that, just in terms of access to finance, there were 183 initiatives in 2003, leading
them to report that “it is hard for businesses (and their advisers) to review what is available and find the
best scheme”.
14
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Figure 3.1 Enterprise Support Providers and Initiatives in Teesside (1980-2006)
Source: Greene et al (2008)
A second issue is the sheer churn of initiatives. In general, what can be discerned is that the average
enterprise initiative faces the same fate that befell many Victorian children: some are stillborn, while the
vast majority of them die in infancy or early childhood (Hughes, 2009). Moreover, for those that do
survive through to their teenage years (Enterprise Zones, 1981-1996), they face the prospect of being
abandoned, re-named or ‘re-discovered’ (Enterprise Zones, 2011- onwards).
The third issue is the duplication of enterprise policy. Take, for example, the challenges faced by the
Prince’s Trust. For nearly three decades the Prince’s Trust has provided a package of both soft and hard
support to disadvantaged young people who want to set up their own business. Despite the Prince’s Trust
being seen as a policy ‘success’ (Lord Young, 2012), this has not prevented the current Government from
developing the ‘StartUp Loan’ programme for young people which also offers hard and soft support. This
is not the only competing government scheme. There is the New Enterprise Allowance introduced 2011
(a mix of hard and soft support for the unemployed aged 18 and over). This scheme is itself a successor
to previous iterations of attempts to support young unemployed individuals: the ‘six month offer’ (January
2009-March 2011); self-employment options under the ‘New Deal’ between 1998 and 2011 - New
Deal Young People, New Deal 25+, New Deal 50+; the Business Start up Scheme between1991 and
1995; or the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, which ran between1983 and 1991
5
.
5 There is a similar contrast with Shell LiveWIRE. Shell LiveWIRE was 30 years old in 2012. Since 1982, it has consistently
provided signposting services and awards to young people seeking to set up a new business (Greene and Storey, 2004).
Successive UK Governments have introduced similar services ranging from interventions in tertiary education (Graduate Enterprise
(1982-1996), Enterprise in Higher Education (1987-1996), Science Enterprise Challenge (1999-2004) and other more generic
young people focused services (Enterprise Insight (later rebanded as Enterprise UK) (2004-2011) and a whole host of government
backed specific schemes such as recent ones like ‘Make Your Mark’, ‘Flying Start’ ‘Make Your Mark with a Tenner’).
1980 1982/83 1988/89 1994/95 2006
www.fsb.org.uk
15
Given the degree of initiative churn, and the complexity and duplication of enterprise support, it is
difficult to evaluate the efficacy of enterprise policies. This is because there have been very few robust
evaluations of enterprise policies
6
. Nonetheless, the evidence base suggests that, at best, government
enterprise policy has a patchy record of successfully supporting small businesses. For example, historical
analysis of business advice and consultancy services shows that while usage levels of public enterprise
support increased over the period 1973-2010, satisfaction rates fell over the same period from 95 per
cent (1973-1988) to 79 per cent (2005-2010) (Bennett, 2012).
In addition, there is a dearth of evidence to suggest that supporting start-ups actually produce favourable
outcomes (Shane, 2009). There is, however, strong international evidence to suggest that governments
have proved more successful in supporting growing (Morris and Stevens, 2010) and innovative businesses
(Foreman-Peck, 2010; Lerner, 1999) and in the provision of hard support, particularly through well-
established loan guarantee schemes (Oh et al, 2009; Cowling et al, 2008; Cumming, 2007; Riding
and Haines, 2001).
Overall, what emerges from this review of both current and previous enterprise policies is a ‘patchwork
quilt’, ‘chaos’, ‘labyrinth of initiatives’ or ‘muddle’ (Audit Commission 1999, DTI/HM Treasury 2002,
DTI, 2007) of government initiatives to support small businesses. A major explanation why governments
often feel a need to intervene is when economic conditions or public voices raise areas of concern - the
laudable intention is to ‘do something’. However, policy and its behavioral intentions are not matched
by evidence and the time needed for initiatives to ‘bed in’. As this paper argues, a more vigorous, long
term approach is needed. The supply of such schemes still remains congested, potentially crowding out
private sector provision. Their sheer complexity and variety presents real problems for time constrained
small businesses, making it difficult for them to access and utilise a complex package of government
support, particularly when the ownership of these variety of schemes is spread across different government
departments.
6 In this context, a robust and reliable evaluation is one that either uses a randomised control trial approach or one that uses quasi-
experimental techniques to match treatment and control groups. The most famous example of an RCT approach in enterprise
support is that of Benus (1994) who showed that a Massachusetts programme to support the unemployed into self-employment
was beneficial. Bakhshi et al (2011) also use an RCT approach to evaluate innovation vouchers. Below the gold standard of
RCTs, quasi-experimental evaluation studies have also provided robust evidence (e.g. Meager et al, 2003; Gorg and Strobl
(2006); Mole et al (2008.
16
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Chapter 4:
Creating an anchor
for enterprise policy
To provide greater clarity and coherence to UK enterprise policy, this chapter considers institutional
frameworks and the case for a UK Small Business Administration (SBA) similar to the US model operating
since 1953. As this paper has already shown, UK enterprise support has been marked, not only by
fluctuations to the design of enterprise support, but also that the delivery of enterprise support has been
overly complex and costly. It argues that these frailties could be resolved through the establishment of a
UK SBA ‘anchor’ to bring strategic coherence to UK enterprise support.
If the approach is adopted, a UK SBA needs time to bring strategic coherence to enterprise policy
alongside the requirement for consensus about the long term strategy underlying the UK enterprise support
system. As this paper has suggested, enterprise support needs to be clear that the best way to aid small
businesses is by focusing on a narrow set of activities which has access to finance solutions at its heart.
It is far more than a rearranging of Whitehall ‘deckchairs’.
www.fsb.org.uk
17
The principles of good enterprise policy
Many reports and papers have suggested gold standards for policymakers to follow when designing
enterprise policy. To that extent there is now a refreshing alignment of theoretical thinking from many
governments which encompasses a hard-headed edge to policymaking and a ‘less is more’ approach,
with a maturing understanding of what types of policies are likely to provide greater benefits to both the
taxpayer and small businesses.
Where governments do intervene, experience shows that “structures for government provision, covering
a whole country, with simple and single branding, offer superior management of expectations, simpler
means of quality control and much lower costs of provision” (Bennett, 2012: 206). A further factor is
the greater recognition that enterprise policy is more likely to be effective when it follows a ‘less is more’
approach. One clear message from the UK experience is that “there are too many initiatives for SMEs
and entrepreneurship and what we need is fewer interventions but ones that have much higher impact”
(Blackburn and Shaper, 2012: 2). However, and as this paper has touched upon, there are still too many
examples today where we find political factors and ‘loud voices’ often pushing and pulling policies which
are not evidence based or in fact needed.
Policy intervention also needs to properly target end users. The FSB would urge policymakers to consider
the difference in business size and characteristics within the ‘SME’ sector. The needs for micro firms (those
with below nine staff) will be very different to medium sized firms (those with staff numbers between
50 and 249) in relation finance, advice and internal capability. Communicating with micro and small
businesses is notoriously difficult for government, which is just one reason why long-term policies are more
favourable.
Rather than these short term reactions, policy measures should be designed for the long term and aimed
at correcting market failures, institutional failures and reverse adverse policy settings. Three themes give
a view on how public policy should develop; a longer but practical guide for policymakers is found in
Box 4.1. These are:
1. Where the market does not allocate resources to produce the best overall economic outcome
in a liberal market economy. These can be categorised as anti-competitive behaviours,
missing markets or information problems
2. Through undertaking reforms of fundamental business institutions such as the labour market,
taxation, law and business regulations and regulators with a clear focus on the desired long
term outcomes. Governments often spend time and money continually reforming without
setting-out end objectives thus leading to constant uncertainty
3. Where economic agents – both consumers and producers – systematically make misjudgments,
often due to information asymmetries
These three areas cover the macro environment which all small businesses operate in and can have a
massive impact on the growth rate of the SME sector and the health of a modern economy. Economists
now suggest that the legal system in a modern economy can have a major role in the growth rate of
SMEs (OECD 1994). This can be linked to commercial and intellectual property rights and a redress
mechanism for those who operate outside of the law. All fundamental business institutions such as tax, law
and employment policy have a major impact on small firms and as such, governments have pushed and
pulled these levers all too often, and at times in opposite directions.
18
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Box 4.1 Check list for policymakers
For the purposes of this report, we use standard, internationallyrecognised labour
market definitions used by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
The following provides a guide to policy design drawn from a range of
commentators. It is the ‘check list’ that policymakers should follow when drawing up
new initiatives to support small businesses. If not met, the implication is the proposal
should be dropped.
•Doestheprogramtargettheproblemeectively?
•Doesithaveacceptabletake-up?
•Isittimely?
•Doesitinducenewactivity?
•Arelargetransfersoverseasavoided?
•Doestheprogramhavetherightduration,scaleandtargetgroup?
•IsitadministrativelyecientforGovernment?
•Doesitimposebigcomplianceburdensonrms?
•Isittransparentandaccountable?
•Isitnancedintheleastcostlyway?
•Whataretherisksposedbytheprogramme:
-Strategicbehaviourbyrms?
-UnforeseenliabilitiesforGovernment?
-Adverseinteractionswithotherpolicies?
Source: BIE (1996b), Mortimer (1997), IC (1997e), IC (1997f) and Lattimore (1997)
www.fsb.org.uk
19
The importance of institutions
The UK’s experience with the failed SBS provides a useful counterfactual of where institutional arrangements
are not successful, and where the rhetoric (‘champion of the small business’, ‘thinking small first’) was
set against the cold reality of having an organisation that had responsibility without power. There are
however examples of successful state backed institutions that have operated successfully for many years
to promote small business policies and intervene to address the issues outlines above. Variations between
delivery mechanisms and political oversight are different but all G8 nations apart from the UK have a state
backed institution which supports the financing needs of small businesses. Specific examples include:
•Germany’sKfW, set up in 1948, which aims to provide long term affordable finance to the
Mittlestand. In the year ending 2011, KfW had over €9billion worth of exposure to micro and
start-up German firms. The two main loan products are the KfW Start-Up and KfW Entrepreneur
Loan Programme which together cover most lending requirements; and
•TheJapaneseFinanceCorporation’sSMEunit, which has been in operation since
1999 but existed prior to that through two separate state owned banks (Japan Export-Import
Bank and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund). For the year ending 2011, the SME Unit
has lent over ¥20 trillion to small businesses.
As well as these examples, the US SBA provides the best example from which to learn, both from the
scope of its activity, especially its unwavering focus especially on improving access to finance for small
businesses, and its longevity as an institution that has provided an anchor to the US enterprise policy
framework. This is now looked at in more detail, and the case made for a similar institution to be
implemented in the UK.
20
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
The US Small Business Administration
The SBA’s mission is to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by enabling the establishment and
vitality of small businesses and by assisting in the economic recovery of communities after disasters. Set up
in 1953, with the passing of the Small Business Act, the SBA’s aim then – as now – is to: “aid, counsel,
assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns’’. This highlights an
immediate difference between the SBA and the SBS, which is that the SBS had insufficient teeth to lead
on enterprise support. By comparison, the US SBA had legislative powers from its inception.
By 1954, the SBA was making direct business loans, guaranteeing bank loans to businesses, helping to get
Government procurement contracts for small businesses and helping business owners with management,
and technical assistance and business training.
The initial powers established in 1953 were then given extra scope in 1958 with the Investment Company
Act. This established the Small Business Investment Company Program (SBIC) whose role is to provide
long-term debt and equity investments to high-risk small businesses. Innovative activities were also given
added impetus with the Small Business Innovation Development Act (1982) which saw the creation of
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The other main historical development was the
creation of a network of Small Business Development Centers across the 50 states of the US in 1977
7
.
Tackling excessive federal regulatory burdens and protecting small firms from excessive federal regulatory
enforcement are other important roles played by the SBA. The SBA fulfills these functions through the
offices of Advocacy and the National Ombudsman, again underpinned by legislative powers in the
Regulatory Reform Act 1977. The Office of Advocacy provides an independent voice for small businesses
to advance its views, concerns, and interests before Congress, the federal government, federal courts and
state policymakers. The National Ombudsman receives complaints and comments from small firms and
acts as a “trouble shooter” between small businesses and federal agencies.
The SBA’s portfolio of assistance to US small firms covers three main areas:
1. Access to finance programs:
• 7(a) Loan Program, Capital Access Programs (Surety Bond Program, International Trade
Program), 504 Loans, Microloans, and SBIC loans (see Box 4.2 for more details)
2. Accessing government procurement and contracts:
• The Government Contracting and Business Development (GCBD) program (7(j) Program,
8(a) Program, HUBZone Program, Prime Contract Program, Business Matchmaking,
Subcontracting Program)
3. Business assistance and advice:
• Small Business Development Centers, Women’s Business Ownership, Veteran’s
Business Development`
7 The SBA also plays a significant role in disaster relief. While supporting small businesses is important in the amelioration of
disaster effects, this role is not squarely focused on small businesses. As such, the role of the SBA in disaster relief is not considered
in this report.
www.fsb.org.uk
21
Of these three roles, its primary and consistent focus has been on access to finance issues – the most
important single factor for firms starting up and wanting to grow. This is in comparison to the UK experience
detailed earlier, which highlights the sheer churn of policy initiatives and unnecessary duplication.
Greene and Storey (2010) provide a detailed review of the balance of these activities. They found that
while the SBA did focus on ‘soft’ support (such as advice and assistance) principally through the Small
Business Development Centers, its main role was the provision of ‘hard’ support. Indeed, Craig et al
(2008) identified that in 2004 the SBA’s loan portfolio was worth $60 billion dollars, making “it the
largest single financial backer of small businesses in the United States” (p.118). Largely in response to
recent economic conditions and to support small businesses, this loan portfolio grew to $80 billion by
2011.
In 2010, the SBA spent around $532 million on these programs (Figure 4.1), comparing favourably in
value for money terms against the UK’s total expenditure of around £2.5 billion in 2003/04 noted in
Chapter 2. This funding is split largely between three activities:
• Hard support (financial support to small businesses) of around $204 million (38%);
• Soft support (business advice and assistance) of around $217 million (41%) which is mostly for
existing entrepreneurs through the Small Business Development Center network; and
• Contracting and procurement support of around $112 million (21%).
Indeed, Karen Mills, head of the US SBA, stated in February 2013 that “over the last four years SBA
supported more than $106 billion of lending to more than 193,000 small businesses and entrepreneurs.”
Figure 4.1 US SBA total cost by programme
Source: SBA, 2012: Table 9 – Total cost by program and activity
22
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Greene and Storey (2010) provide another comparison of value for money with the UK. They estimate
that US enterprise support was around $100 per capita less than that of the UK expenditure, suggesting
that part of the reason may be that sheer complexity of UK enterprise support drives up administration
costs. The Richard Report (2008) estimated that these administrative costs represented 34 per cent of
direct enterprise support spending in the UK.
Though the overall impression is favourable, the SBA is not immune from criticism. SBA schemes can be
open to fraud and abuse (DeHaven, 2012). There are also claims – particularly prior to 2008 – that its
loans are a “wasteful, politically-motivated subsidy” (de Rugy, 2006: 3), although these criticisms have
been more muted in the current economic climate.
Default rates on SBA loans have also gone up in the current economic climate, a shift from the historical
position that SBA loans were cost neutral to the taxpayer. US Congress (2011) also noted that there are
signs of a drift by the SBA away from access to finance issues and towards supporting social inclusion
initiatives (soft support). Finally, Greene and Storey (2010) identified a weak evaluation culture with little
robust evidence to indicate that the SBA’s suite of enterprise policies do provide economic returns to the
taxpayer
8
.
Nonetheless, and although these criticisms are important, the sheer longevity of the SBA does mean that
there is a greater likelihood that nascent and actual entrepreneurs will recognise the assistance available.
Equally, protected by legislative powers, the SBA has over a 60 year period followed what appears to
be a stable and coherent suite of enterprise policies, largely focused around the key access to finance
issue. It may be no coincidence that the US has made more finance available to smaller businesses since
2008 (FSB, 2012) and, more generally, outperformed the UK’s GDP growth rate over the last 30 years
(Barrell et al, 2010).
8 Gu et al (2008) outline that very few of the evaluations of US small business programmes actually evaluate these programmes
based on a RCT or a quasi-experimental basis. This means that “few studies are able to identify a causal relationship between
small business assistance programs and business creation and subsequent economic performance of assisted small firms.” (p. 4)
www.fsb.org.uk
23
Box 4.2 US Small Business Administration loan programmes
US Small Business Administration schemes
BanksandotherlendinginstitutionsoeranumberofSBAguaranteedloan
programmestoassistsmallbusinesses.WhileSBAitselfdoesnotmakeloans,it
does guarantee loans made to small businesses by private and other institutions.
How funds may be used
Funds may be used for the following purposes for long term fixed assets:
• Acquisition
• Construction
• Renovation
• Modernisation
• Improvement
• Expansion
7(a) Loan program:
This is the SBA’s primary and most flexible loan programme, with financing
guaranteed for a variety of general business purposes. It is designed for start-
up and existing small businesses, and is delivered through commercial lending
institutions. The major types of 7(a) loans are:
• Express Programs
• Export Loan Programs
• Rural Lender Advantage Program
• Special Purpose Loans Program
CDC/504 Loan program:
This programme provides long-term, fixed-rate financing to acquire fixed assets
(such as property or equipment) for expansion or modernisation. It is designed for
smallbusinessesrequiring“brickandmortar”nancing,andisdeliveredbyCDCs
(CertiedDevelopmentCompanies)—private,non-protcorporationssetupto
contribute to the economic development of their communities.
Microloan program:
This programme provides small (up to $35,000) short-term loans for working
capital or the purchase of inventory, supplies, furniture, fixtures, machinery and/or
equipment. It is designed for small businesses and not-for-profit child-care centres
needing small-scale financing and technical assistance for start-up or expansion,
and is delivered through specially designated intermediary lenders (non-profit
organisations with experience in lending and technical assistance).
International Trade Loan Program:
TheInternationalTradeLoanProgramoersloansforxedassetsandworking
capital to businesses that plan to start or continue exporting or those adversely
aectedbycompetitionfromimportswhichneedtore-tooltobecomemore
competitive. The proceeds of the loan must enable the borrower to be in a better
position to compete. The programme provides the lender with a 90 per cent
guarantee on loans up to $5 million.
Small Business Investment Companies Program (SBIC)
The structure of the programme is unique in that SBICs are privately owned and
managed investment funds, licensed and regulated by SBA, that use their own
capital plus funds borrowed with an SBA guarantee to make equity and debt
investments in qualifying small businesses.
24
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The aim of this paper has been to provoke a long overdue debate over the direction of UK enterprise
policy. This is needed because for too long, UK enterprise support has been characterised by the
confused, complex and congested delivery of such support. What UK enterprise support requires, and
what international evidence suggests, is the development of a long term and coherent approach to how
it supports small businesses anchored by a single institution.
A UK SBA could bring much needed coherence to these problems and provide that anchor. Admittedly,
as the experience of both the Small Business Service and the US’s SBA shows, there are likely to be
challenges. However, if the UK can learn the lessons from both these experiences and learn by evolution
rather than revolution, the hope would be that past mistakes could be avoided and it would provide
over the longer term real direct benefits to UK small businesses. These lessons can be put to good use
straightaway in the design of the Business Bank.
The central objective for such an institution must be to support a varied access to finance market for
small businesses and tackle market failures under one umbrella body. A UK SBA should bring the good
teachings from the US and other nations such as Germany to promote better practice in the UK. Amongst
the key design principles the new institution should follow are:
• Like the US SBA, and crucially, a UK SBA would need legislative powers. One of the lessons
that can be drawn from the UK’s Small Business Service was that it was given responsibility but
not power to lead on enterprise support, making it very difficult for it to achieve its goals and
ultimately led to its closure. A UK SBA, therefore, would need to have a clear role in and across
government and have sufficient powers to execute this role
• It should focus on a narrow set of activities. This should be in helping small businesses access
finance and act as a promoter for new challenger banks and non-bank routes of finance, by
channeling funding through these groups. It should also look at linkages to exporting schemes
which comprise of both funding and advice natured products (both soft and hard support)
• Be target driven and operated by industry specialists at arm’s length from the Government,
thereby limiting political interference in its operation
• Use the existing retail financial system to offer guarantees and direct micro lending to UK
small businesses with a range of needs, but especially to increase the availability of long term
lending that is noticeable by its absence in the UK market. Pricing of such products should
be competitive but applications should be merit judged on longer term objectives such as
employment, innovation and national objectives (such as carbon reduction targets and increased
exporting activity)
www.fsb.org.uk
25
References
Appleyard, B. (1978) ‘Bringing small business to the Boil’, The Times, Monday, 2nd October, p. 16.
Audit Commission 1999. A Life’s Work: Local Authorities, Economic Development and Economic
Regeneration. London: Audit Commission.
Audretsch, D. and Thurik, R. (2004) ‘A Model of the Entrepreneurial Economy’, Discussion Papers on
Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, Max Planck Institute, 1204.
BCC (2012) The Case for a British Business Bank, London: BCC.
BIS (2011) Business population estimates for the UK and regions 2011, October.
BIS (2012a) Business Support Finder http://improve.businesslink.gov.uk/resources/business-support-
finder (accessed 2nd October, 2012).
BIS (2012b) Business Journey Planner, http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/b/
business-support-journey-planner.pdf (accessed 2nd October, 2012).
Bakhshi, H., Edwards, J., Roper, S., Scully, J. and Shaw, D. (2011) Creating Innovation in Small and
Medium-sized Enterprise: Evaluating the short term effects of the Creative Credits Pilot. London: NESTA.
Bank of England (2003) Finance for Small Firms – An Tenth Report, Bank of England: London.
Barrell, R., Holland, D. and Liadze, I. (2010) Accounting for UK economic performance 1973-2009,
NIESR Discussion Paper, http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pubs/searchdetail.php?PublicationID=2684.
Beesley, M.E. and Wilson, P.E.B. (1984) ‘Public Policy and Small Firms in Britain’, in Small Business:
Theory and Policy, Levicki, C. (ed.), London: Croom Helm, 111-126.
Bennett, R. J. (2008) Government SME policy since the 1990s: what have we learnt? Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 375-397.
Bennett, R. J. (2010) Using the Relation Between Business Associations and SMEs as a Policy Tool: From
History to LEPs, ISBE Conference, Sheffield.
Bennett, R. J. (2012) Government Advice Services in SMEs: Some Lessons from British Experience, in
Blackburn, R.A. and Schaper, M.T. (eds.) Government, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Development, 195-
210.
Benus, J. M. (1994) ‘Self-employment Programmes: A New Reemployment Tool’, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 19:2, 73-86.
Birch, D. (1979) The Job Generation Process, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Program on Neighborhood and
Regional Change.
Blackburn, R.A. (2012) Segmenting the SME Market and Implications for Service Provision: A Literature
Review, Research Paper, 09/12, London: ACAS.
Boswell, J. (1973) The Rise and Decline of Small Firms, London: George Allen and Urwin.
Cowling, P., Bates, P., Jagger, N. & Murray, G. (2008) Study of the impact of the Enterprise Investment
Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs) on company performance, HM Revenue & Customs
Research Report 44, London: HMRC.
Craig, B., Jackson, W., & Thomson, J. (2008). Credit market failure intervention: Do government
sponsored small business credit programs enrich poorer areas? Small Business Economics, 30(4), 345-
360.
Cumming, D. (2007) Government policy towards entrepreneurial finance: Innovation investment funds.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 193-235.
26
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Curran (1993) TECs and Small Firms: Can TECs Reach The Small Firms Other Strategies Have Failed To
Reach? Kingston University.
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (1990) ‘Youth and the enterprise culture’, British Journal of Education and
Work, 4:1, 31-45.
Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (2000) ‘Panacea or White Elephant? A critical examination of the
proposed new small business service and response to the DTI consultancy service’, Regional Studies,
34(2): 181-206.
Brown, R and Mason, C. (2012) The Evolution of Enterprise Policy in Scotland, in Blackburn, R.A. and
Schaper, M.T. (eds.) Government, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Development, 17-32.
CBI (2010) SME Council paper Enterprise Policy Framework, London: CBI.
DeHaven, T. (2012) Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Small Business Administration Programs, Cato
Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/waste-fraud-abuse-small-business-
administration-programs.
de Rugy, V. (2006) Why the Small Business Administration’s Loan Programs Should Be Abolished,
Washington: American Enterprise Institute, WP #126.
Department of Trade and Industry/HM Treasury (2002) Cross Cutting Review of Government Services for
Small Business, London: Department of Trade and Industry/HM Treasury.
Department of Trade and Industry 2007. Simplifying Business Support: A Consultation. London:
Department of Trade and Industry.
Daly, M., Campbell, C., Robson, G., and Gallagher, C. (1991) ‘Job Creation 1987-89: The Contributions
of Small and Large Firms’, Employment Gazette, November, 589-596.
Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L. and Olofsson, C. (1998) The extent of overestimation of small firm job
creation - an empirical examination of the regression bias. Small Business Economics, 11(1), 87-100.
Disney, R. Haskel, J and Heden, Y. (2003) ‘Restructuring and Productivity Growth in UK Manufacturing’,
Economic Journal, 113, 666-694.
Doyle, J. and Gallagher, C. (1987) ‘Size Distribution, Growth Potential, and Job-Generation Contribution
of UK Firms’, International Small Business Journal, 6:1, 31-56.
FSB (2012) Alt+ Finance, London: FSB.
Fairlie, W.R. (2011) The Great Recession and Entrepreneurship, Kauffman/ Rand Institute for
Entrepreneurship Public Policy, January, WR-822-E.
Fraser, S. and Greene, F.J. (2006) ‘Are Entrepreneurs Eternal Optimists or do they ‘Get Real’’, Economica,
73: 290, 169-192.
Foreman-Peck, J. (2010) Effectiveness and Efficiency of SME Innovation Policy, ISBE Conference.
Freel, M.S. (2000) ‘Do small innovating firms outperform non-innovators?’, Small Business Economics,
14:3, 195-210.
Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G. and Westall, A. (2000) The Entrepreneurial Society, IPPR:
London.
Gorg, H. & Strobl, E. (2007) ‘Do Government Subsidies Stimulate Training Expenditure? Microeconometric
Evidence from Plant-Level Data’, Southern Economic Journal, 72(4). 860-876.
Greene, F.J. (2002) ‘An Investigation into Enterprise Support For Younger People, 1975-2000,
International Small Business Journal, 20:3, 315-336.
www.fsb.org.uk
27
Greene, F.J. and Storey, D.J., (2004) ‘The Value of Outsider Assistance in Supporting New Venture
Creation by Young People’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16:2, 145-159.
Greene, F.J., Mole, K.F. and Storey, D.J. (2008) Three Decades of Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship,
Economic Regeneration and Public Policy, London: Palgrave.
Greene, F.J. and Storey, D.J. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship and Small Business Policy: Evaluating its Role
and Purpose’, in Coen, D., Grant, W. and Wilson, G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Business and
Government, Oxford: OUP, 600-621.
Greene, F.J. (2012) ‘Should the focus of publicly provided business assistance be on start ups or growth
businesses?’, Ministry of Economic Development Occasional Paper, MED: Wellington: New Zealand.
http://www.med.govt.nz/about-us/publications/publications-by-topic/occasional-papers/2012-
occasional-papers/business-assistance.pdf
Gu, Q., Karoly, L.A. and Zissimopoulos, J. (2008) Small Business Assistance Programs in the United
States: An Analysis of What They Are, How Well They Perform, and How We Can Learn More about
Them, WR-603-EMKF.
House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (2011) Government Assistance to Industry,
Third Report of Session 2010–11, HC 561.
House of Commons Public Accounts Select Committee (2007) Supporting Small Business, Eleventh Report
of Session 2006–07, HC 262.
Hughes, A. (2009) Hunting the Snark: Some reflections on the UK experience of support for the small
business sector, Innovation: management, policy & practice, 11: 114–126.
Joseph, K. (1976) Stranded on the Middle Ground?: Reflections on Circumstances and Policies, London:
Centre for Policy Studies.
Klapper, R., Biga-Diambeidou, M. And Lahti, A.H. (2012) ‘Small Business Support and Enterprise
Promotion: The Case of France’, in Blackburn, R.A. and Schaper, M.T. (eds.) Government, SMEs and En
trepreneurship Development, 131-148.
Lovering, J. (1999) ’Theory led by policy: the inadequacies of the `New Regionalism’ (illustrated from the
case of Wales)’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23, 379-395.
Lattimore, Madge, Martin Mills (1998) Design principles for small business programs and regulations
Lerner, J. (1999) ‘The Government as Venture Capitalist: The Long Run Impact of the SBIR Programme’,
Journal of Business, 72:3, 285-318.
Meager, N., Bates, P. and Cowling, M. (2003) ‘An Evaluation of Business Start-Up Support for Young
People’, National Institute Economic Review, 186, October, 70-83.
Mole, K., Hart, M., Roper, S. and Saal, D. (2008) ‘Differential gains from business link support and
advice: A treatment effects approach’, Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 26(2), 315-
334.
Morris, M. and Stevens P. (2010) ‘Evaluation of a New Zealand business support programme using firm
performance micro-data’, Small Enterprise Research, 17:1, 30-42.
Morris, D. J. and Stout, D. (1985), “Industrial Policy”, in D. J. Morris (ed.), The Economic System in the
UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 851-894.
National Audit Office (NAO) (2006) Supporting Small Business, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor
General, HC 962 Session 2005-2006, 24 May.
28
ENTERPRISE 2050 / Getting UK enterprise policy right
Neumark. D., Wall, B. and Zhang, J. (2008) ‘Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence
for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series’, IZA DP 3888, Forschungsinstitut zur
Zukunft der Arbeit: Bonn.
OECD (2008) Entrepreneurship Review of Denmark, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2012) Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2012, Paris: OECD.
Oh, I., Lee, J. D., Heshmati, A. and Choi, G. G. (2009) ‘Evaluation of credit guarantee policy using
propensity score matching’, Small Business Economics, 33(3), 335-351.
PACEC (2005) Small Business Service Mapping of Government Services for Small Business Final Report,
Cambridge: PACEC.
Porter, M.E. and Ketels, C.H.M. (2003) UK Competitiveness: Moving to the next stage, DTI Economics
Paper No. 3, DTI: London.
Richard Report (2008) Small Business and Government, London: Conservative Party.
Riding, A. L. & Haines, G. (2001) Loan guarantees: Costs of default and benefits to small firms.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(6), 595-612.
SBA (2007) SBA: 50 Years as America’s Small Business Resource.
SBA (2012) FY 2012 Congressional Budget Justification AND FY 2010 Annual Performance Report,
Washington: SBA.
Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy.
Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141-149
Stanworth, M. J. K. and Curran, J. (1973) Management Motivation in the Smaller Business, Aldershot:
Gower.
van Praag, C. M., and Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent
research. Small Business Economics, 29, 351-382.
Voulgaris, F., Papadogonas, T. and Agiomirgianakis, G. (2005) Job creation and job destruction in
Greek manufacturing. Review of Development Economics, 9(2), 289-301.
Wren, C and Storey D.J. (2002) ‘Evaluating the effect of “soft” business support upon small firm
performance’, Oxford Economic Papers, 54, 334-365.
Lord Young (2012) Make business Your business: Supporting the start-up and development of small
business, URN 12/827
KfW 2012 Annual report
© Federation of Small Businesses 2013
Telephone: 020 7592 8100
Facsimile: 020 7233 7899
www.fsb.org.uk
@fsb_hq
facebook.com/federationofsmallbusinesses
This report can be downloaded from the FSB website at
http://www.fsb.org.uk/documents
If you require this document in an alternative format
please email accessability@fsb.org.uk
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). While
every eort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the facts and
data contained in this publication, no responsibility can be accepted
by the FSB for errors or omissions or their consequences. Articles that
appear in the report are written in general terms only. They are not
intended to be a comprehensive statement of the issues raised and
should not be relied upon for any specific purposes. Readers should
seek appropriate professional advice regarding the application to their
specific circumstances of the issues raised in any article.
Published February 2013.