Factors creating favorable conditions for activating innovative entrepreneurship and startups in post-war Ukraine
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(1).2025.09
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2025, Issue #1, pp. 115-131
- 22 Views
-
0 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
As global conflicts and hostilities become more prevalent, it is essential to investigate the conditions necessary for the operation and growth of innovative enterprises considering post-war recovery. The paper aims to determine crucial favorable conditions for activating innovative entrepreneurship and startups in the post-war period in Ukraine. The analysis is based on inductive, qualitative data from 24 interviews with the respondents from Ukraine and the Netherlands (eight scientists, ten startup founders and entrepreneurs, two government officials, and four entrepreneurs) to identify a range of favorable factors by utilizing qualitative analysis. The paper used individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The study identified eight constraining aggregate themes (the consequences of war, policy and regulatory system, market and investment, the ecosystem, passive universities, education and skills, internationalization, and culture) and three enabling aggregate themes (the consequences of war, active universities, and the ecosystem) through the grouping of factors from the second-order code. The most significant constraining factor from aggregate themes “the consequences of war” is brain drain (40.63%). Among the eight constraining aggregate themes, 32.55% identified the policy and regulatory system as the main obstacle due to the absence of an effective strategy, ineffective legislation, passive municipalities, and bureaucracy. Moreover, the lack of funds is a critical issue in addressing the consequences of the war, financing startup projects, and creating favorable conditions. The results emphasize constraining and enabling conditions for activating innovative entrepreneurship and startups. Such results are helpful for policymakers to improve the conditions for startup development by overcoming the immediate identified obstacles.
Acknowledgment
The publication was prepared in the framework of the MSCA4Ukraine postdoctoral fellowship (Oksana Khymych Ref.№ UKR 1233171), which is funded by the European Union that provides support and funding for the Ukrainian researchers displaced by the war, while the Consortium (a consortium comprised of Scholars at Risk Europe hosted at Maynooth University, Ireland (project coordinator), the German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) and the European University Association (EUA)) is a collaborative network of institutions managing and implementing this initiative. The views and opinions expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the European Union or the MSCA4Ukraine Consortium. Neither the European Union, the MSCA4Ukraine Consortium, nor any individual member institutions of the Consortium can be held responsible for these views and opinions. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the colleagues at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for their invaluable support in conducting the research and for fostering an environment conducive to academic excellence and innovation.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)L26, P25, M13, O53
-
References52
-
Tables3
-
Figures7
-
- Figure 1. Stages of qualitative analysis of the research
- Figure 2. Constraining factors that are included in the consequences of war, %
- Figure 3. Constraining conditions for activation of innovative entrepreneurship and startups in post-war Ukraine
- Figure 4. Aggregate themes that are included in the constraining conditions for activation of innovative entrepreneurship and startups, %
- Figure 5. Constraining factors that are included in the aggregate theme “policy and regulatory system”, %
- Figure 6. Passive and active universities in the conditions for startup development in Ukraine, %
- Figure 7. Enabling conditions of innovative entrepreneurship and startups in post-war Ukraine
-
- Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of respondents
- Table A1. An overview of the respondents
- Table A2. Interview guide for the research
-
- Al Falih, A. A. (2020). A comparative analysis of startup entrepreneurship support between the UK and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation, 7(2).
- Aldairany, S., Omar, R., & Quoquab, F. (2018). Systematic review: Entrepreneurship in conflict and post conflict. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 10(2), 361-383.
- Alekseieva, K., Maletych, M., Ptashchenko, O., Baranova, O., & Buryk, Z. (2023). State business support programs in wartime conditions. Economic Review, 68(1s), 231-242.
- Atherton, A. (2012). Cases of startup financing: An analysis of new venture capitalisation structures and patterns. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(1), 28-47.
- Audretsch, D. B., Colombelli, A., Grilli, L., Minola, T., & Rasmussen, E. (2020). Innovative startups and policy initiatives. Research Policy, 49(10), Article 104027.
- Audretsch, D. B., Momtaz, P. P., Motuzenko, H., & Vismara, S. (2023). The economic costs of the Russia-Ukraine war: A synthetic control study of (lost) entrepreneurship. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Ayissi, A. (2020). Three decades of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants in Africa: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. In T. McNamee & M. Muyangwa (Eds.), The State of Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 141-162). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bandura, R., Staguhn, J., & Jensen, B. (2022, October 20). Modernizing Ukraine’s transport and logistics infrastructure. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
- Biney, I. K. (2023). Adult education and entrepreneurship: Getting young adults involved. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), Article 13.
- Colino, A. (2012). Conflict resolution processes, uncertainty, and labour demand: The case of the Basque Country. Journal of Peace Research, 49(5), 661-670.
- Deliana, M., Rahardjo, K., & Afriyanti, T. W. (2019). Influence of business education on entrepreneurial intention with feasibility and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as intervening variables. Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, 20(2), 125-135.
- Djip, V. (2014). Entrepreneurship and SME development in post-conflict societies: The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 3(2), 254-274.
- Dorofeeva, V. (2021). Opportunities for universities to use the German experience in the startup ecosystem development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 689(1), Article 012015.
- Doruk, Ö. T., & Söylemezoğlu, E. (2014). The constraints of innovation in developing countries: Too many barriers to startups? Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 944-949.
- Dove, J. A. (2023). One size fits all? The differential impact of federal regulation on early-stage entrepreneurial activity across US states. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Dutta, N., Sobel, R. S., & Roy, S. (2013). Entrepreneurship and political risk. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 2(2), 130-143.
- Dzhamankulov, B., Du, W., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Technological readiness, innovation, and entrepreneurship: Three key elements of increasing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam. Economic Affairs, 68(si), 749-755.
- Fomishyna, V., Guds, P., Fedorova, N., & Pliushchyk, I. (2023). Entrepreneurial ecosystem of international business in the transition economy: The case of Southern region of Ukraine. Academic Review, (2(59)), 7-24.
- Geibel, R. C., & Manickam, M. (2017). Analysis of startup ecosystems in Germany and the USA. In R. Benlamri & M. Sparer (Eds.), Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy (pp. 639-649). Cham: Springer.
- Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
- Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
- Gradus Research Company. (2023, November). Special survey by Gradus Research for Web Summit.
- Hausmann, R., & Nedelkoska, L. (2018). Welcome home in a crisis: Effects of return migration on the non-migrants’ wages and employment. European Economic Review, 101, 101-132.
- Hnatenko, I., Kuksa, I., Naumenko, I. V., Baldyk, D., & Rubezhanska, V. (2020). Infrastructure of innovation enterprise: Features of formation and regulation in modern market conditions. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, 42(1), 97-104.
- Hryhorian, O. (2023). Study of the military actions as a factor in the regression of innovative development in Ukraine. Technology Audit and Production Reserves, 1(4(69)), 30-35.
- Joseph, J., Katsos, J. E., & Van Buren, H. J. (2023). Entrepreneurship and peacebuilding: A review and synthesis. Business & Society, 62(2), 322-362.
- Kobeissi, N., & Wang, H. (2009). Venture capital and economic growth in local markets. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 1(3), 312-324.
- Lecuna, A., Cohen, B., & Mandakovic, V. (2020). Want more high-growth entrepreneurs? Then control corruption with less ineffective bureaucracy. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(4), 525-546.
- Lee, H. J. (2019). What factors are necessary for sustaining entrepreneurship? Sustainability, 11(11), Article 3022.
- Löfsten, H., Isaksson, A., & Rannikko, H. (2023). Entrepreneurial networks, geographical proximity, and their relationship to firm growth: A study of 241 small high-tech firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 2280-2306.
- Marcon, A., Ribeiro, J. L. D., Olteanu, Y., & Fichter, K. (2024). How the interplay between innovation ecosystems and market contingency factors impacts startup innovation. Technology in Society, 73, Article 102424.
- Mitchell, M. D., & Koopman, C. (2014). Bottling up innovation in craft brewing: A review of the current barriers and challenges. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Naudé, W., Amorós, E., & Brück, T. (2023). State-based conflict and entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence (IZA Discussion Paper No. 15946).
- Neumann, T. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 71, 553-584.
- Oliinyk, V., Mohylnyi, V. V., Vernydub, N. O., & Yatsenko, V. (2019). Tax, financial, and credit stimulation of technology, industrial, and scientific parks as a factor in innovative development in Ukraine. SHS Web of Conferences, 65, Article 07001.
- Polishchuk, Y., Kornyliuk, A., Lavreniuk, V., Horbov, V., Ivashchenko, A., & Tepliuk, M. (2024). Running a business during wartime: Voice of Ukrainian displaced business. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(3), 287-302.
- Pozniak, O. (2023). The situation of forced migrants from Ukraine in Europe after Russian military aggression and the problems of Ukraine’s migration policy in these new conditions. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 12(1), 159-181.
- Saberi, M., & Hamdan, A. (2019). The moderating role of governmental support in the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth: A study on the GCC countries. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 11(2), 200-216.
- Skawińska, E., & Zalewski, R. I. (2020). Success factors of startups in the EU – A comparative study. Sustainability, 12(19), Article 8200.
- Startup Genome. (2024). The Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2024.
- Tatpuje, D. U., Kakade, A., Jadhav, V., & Ganbote, A. (2022). A comparative study on advanced skills of technology and entrepreneurial skills with the awareness and preparedness among rural youths. Entrepreneurship Education, 5(1), 21-35.
- Tomaschuk, І. (2022). Development of entrepreneurship in Ukraine in the conditions of European integration. Green, Blue and Digital Economy Journal, 3(2), 36-48.
- Tripathi, N., Seppänen, P., Boominathan, G., Oivo, M., & Liukkunen, K. (2019). Insights into startup ecosystems through exploration of multi-vocal literature. Information and Software Technology, 105, 56-77.
- Uehling, G. L. (2019). Working through warfare in Ukraine: Rethinking militarization in a Ukrainian theme café. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 22(3), 335-358.
- UNHCR. (2022). Ukraine situation. Global report 2022.
- Ven, H. V. D. (2015). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 467-487.
- Wikiwand. (2023). Global Peace Index.
- World Bank. (2023). Ukraine – Third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA3): February 2022-December 2023 (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
- Yin, R.K. (2009). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Zablodska, I., Rohozian, Y., Sieriebriak, S., Plietnov, M., & Vakhlakova, V. V. (2022). Special mode of economic development of European countries in the post-war period: Legal experience. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 11(57), 162-171.
- Zhuvahina, I. (2022). Strategic priorities of economic reconstruction of the country in the post-war period. Efektyvna Ekonomika, (9).
- Ziakis, C., Vlachopoulou, M., & Petridis, K. (2022). Startup ecosystem (StUpEco): A conceptual framework and empirical research. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1).