Speech
Financing SME Innovation in Australia -
Challenges and Opportunities
Brad Jones[*]
Assistant Governor (Financial System)
COSBOA National Small Business Summit
Sydney - 4 April 2024
Introduction
Small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) are in many ways the backbone of the Australian economy. At the Reserve
Bank, the importance of SMEs has long been reflected in our analytical research agenda and our liaison program.
Indeed, last July the RBA hosted its annual small business financing roundtable event for the 31st time, while our
liaison program - which includes active year-round engagement with SMEs spanning the breadth of the country
- is now into its 24th year.
There are different ways through which to view the contribution that SMEs make to our economy and society.
The first (and most familiar) is through their central role in the daily life of our communities. Of the 2.6 million
businesses in Australia, 97 per cent are characterised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as 'small' firms
(comprised of less than 20 employees), with a further 2 per cent of firms classified as 'medium-sized' (between
20 and 200 employees).[1] SMEs are widely represented across the sectors of the Australian economy. A
particularly notable contribution they make is through the labour market, where SMEs account for two-thirds of
private sector employment. They also comprise just under 60 per cent of company profits. More than this, SMEs
are integral to the social fabric of our communities - whether it be sponsoring the local kids sporting team,
community theatre production or charity event. Nowhere is this more true than in regional Australia, where many
SMEs are family-run businesses that provide goods and services in areas where larger firms are less active.[2] And
who doesn't have a favourite weekend 'local'?
Another way in which to view the contribution of SMEs to our collective wellbeing is narrower but no less
important - they are potential engines of innovation and dynamism in the Australian economy. SMEs can
introduce competitive tension to established markets that are typically dominated by larger incumbents, driving
them to be more efficient in the process. And in generating or diffusing new ideas and better ways of doing
things, they can create new markets for goods and services and facilitate the reallocation of capital and labour to
more productive use. This creative energy can be of sufficient scale to directly impact our living standards. But
unleashing this creative energy first requires access to financing on reasonable terms. And for a long time, this
has been easier said than done.
It is this innovation role for SMEs - one that has historically received less attention - that I will focus on today.
More concretely, I will begin by setting out some tangible markers of the ways in which a cohort of SMEs,
particularly those seeking to compete in global markets, are helping to fuel innovation in the Australian
economy. I will then discuss some of the longstanding financing challenges experienced by SMEs, particularly
those seeking funding for innovation-based investments that have a large 'intangibles' component and a long
and uncertain payoff. I will conclude by casting a light on the evolving role that the Australian financial system is
playing in supporting innovation among smaller entrepreneurial firms.
The punchline here is two fold. First, SMEs have become increasingly important participants in the innovation
ecosystem in Australia, particularly in professional, scientific and technical services. In some respects, they appear
to be taking over the 'innovation baton' from large firms, including in early-stage investment in research &
development and intellectual property rights. Second, while the Australian financial system and policy settings
have interacted to lend more support to innovation-focussed SMEs over the past decade, there is more to be
done if the next generation of innovative Australian firms are to have the wind at their back.
The contribution of SMEs to innovation in Australia
Why should we care about innovation, and the role of SMEs in it? One reason is that innovation is a feedstock for
productivity, which in turn drives national living standards. But as the Productivity Commission has noted,
Australia's productivity performance in the 2010s was the worst in six decades, and the picture has yet to improve
in the current decade. If there is a blessing in disguise here, it is that these outcomes have ignited a renewed
sense of urgency about how we turn this around. And as we will come to see, some SMEs have a large and
growing role to play.
For our purposes today, I will generally refer to innovation as the development and application of ideas and
technologies that improve the quality of goods and services, or that make their production more efficient.[3] This
encompasses not only the generation of entirely new products and processes, but also the rapid adaptation and
diffusion of other cutting-edge ideas and processes across the economy. Innovation is closely tied to the
concepts of 'creative destruction' and 'economic dynamism', which can find expression in the entry of new firms,
the downsizing (or exit) of less efficient firms, and workers moving from lower to higher productivity firms where
wages are higher.
On first impression, a discussion of SMEs in this context might seem a bit out of step with today's international
focus on large, winner-take-all 'superstar' firms - think BigTech. Here we see a growing share of sales
concentrated in a handful of large dynamic firms, whose high mark-ups allow them to generate abnormal profits.
This is no accident. Favourable 'unit economics' in parts of the technology and data services industry mean that
each additional unit of sales, generated from around the world, costs little to produce and so flows straight
through to the bottom line. A related theme is that powerful network effects and high barriers to entry ('walled
gardens') can further entrench market dominance of large incumbents, where free cash flow is recycled back into
ever-growing innovation budgets, supporting the development of even more highly valued goods and services
and thus increases in profitability. This is the context for rising concerns from competition regulators around
the world.
But while the concept of innovation might have become, in the public imagination at least, more closely tied to
the largest global firms, part of what I want to discuss today is a less covered story - and that is, the pulse of
innovative intent that is running through parts of the Australian SME ecosystem. This pulse might be less visible
than the latest edition of the iPhone, but it is happening nonetheless.
Consider, for instance, spending on research and development (R&D), which is an integral feature of any
economy with innovative aspirations, including where firms seek to compete in global markets.[4] SMEs now
spend around 25 per cent more on R&D than large firms in Australia, the largest differential in decades. The SME
share of R&D spending in Australia oscillated between 30 and 40 per cent for many years; today that figure stands
at 55 per cent (Graph 1). All of the real decline in national R&D spending over the past 10-15 years can be
attributed to large firms, which was initially concentrated in the mining industry before broadening in scope to
the non-mining sector. While real R&D spending by large firms has retreated to levels observed in the mid-2000s,
for SMEs it has more than doubled over the same period and increased as a share of GDP. Today the biggest
contribution to R&D spending in Australia comes from SMEs in professional, scientific and technical (PST)
services, comprising 26 per cent of the national total; large firms in this sector comprise 8 per cent of the
national total.
Graph 1
R&D Expenditure
Share of total*
% %
Large
60 60
40 40
SMEs
20 20
0 0
1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022
*
SMEs are businesses with less than 200 employees; large businesses
are those with 200+. Data are biennial after 2012.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
While just over half of surveyed Australian SMEs are likely to be innovating at any one time, compared with
around 70 per cent of large firms, the intensity of innovation is much higher for the SMEs that are innovating. Put
bluntly, these SMEs are more likely to be throwing the kitchen sink at innovation. Beyond R&D, this includes by
investing in intangible assets such as intellectual property (IP) rights.[5] Similarly, among firms that are active in
innovation, the effects on income tend to be far more consequential for SMEs than larger firms that typically have
more diversified revenue sources (Graph 2).
Graph 2
Impact of Innovation on Income
Share of innovating businesses, by size*
% %
Share of income
from innovations:
25-50%
10.0 10.0
>50%
7.5 7.5
5.0 5.0
2.5 2.5
0.0 0.0
SMEs Large
*
SMEs are businesses with less than 200 employees; large businesses
are those with 200+.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
In the United States, recent research has pointed to a trend of declining in-house R&D spending by large
established firms. This has occurred alongside the repurposing of innovation budgets to fund buyouts of smaller
firms that are better placed to commercialise the best-of-breed ideas from their interactions with the university
system.[6] Some preliminary research at the RBA has also identified that Australian firms with IP assets are
disproportionately likely to be the focus of the buyout decisions of large established firms, over a period where
the direct R&D spending by large Australian firms has contracted.[7] This is not to suggest that large Australian
firms no longer have an interest in innovation, only that it may be taking a different (acquisition-based) form to
the past. I will return to this later.
The Australian economy, like most others, tends to be an importer of 'new-to-world' innovations rather than a
large-scale producer like the United States. But in the case of firms that are engaged in innovation in Australia,
SMEs are almost twice as likely to have introduced new-to-world innovations compared with large firms
(Graph 3). These types of innovations are harder to produce and so are typically riskier to finance. But they are
also likely to generate large positive externalities for the economy and society. Australian SMEs that sell into
global markets and that collaborate on innovation, particularly in the manufacturing and PST sectors, are among
the most likely to innovate.[8]
Graph 3
New-to-world Innovations
Share of innovation-active businesses, by size, 2019-2021*
% %
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
SMEs Large
*
Novelty of the most significant innovation introduced by a business.
SMEs are businesses with less than 200 employees; large businesses
are those with 200+.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
Patents and trademarks can be important markers of innovation, and the IP rights conferred by holding them can
be highly valuable intangible assets. As IP Australia has noted, patents and trademarks can provide vital tools for
entrepreneurship and the creation of high-growth businesses.[9] Labour productivity in Australia is around
30 per cent higher in the median patent-holding business compared with the median business without
patents.[10] SMEs now hold almost all patents and trademarks filed by residents in Australia (Graph 4).[11] Perhaps
more interesting is that, as with R&D spending, there has been a significant relative shift in the holding of IP rights
between SMEs and large firms: over recent years the number of patent-holding SMEs has increased at a rate five
times faster than the increase in the number of SMEs in the economy - a pattern not apparent among large
firms.[12] Australian SMEs that file for patents, trade marks and design rights are more than twice as likely to
achieve high turnover growth than their peers with no recent filings. This broadly aligns with the experience in
the United States where the holding of IP rights has been shown to substantially increase investors' estimates of
the value of a start-up enterprise.[13]
Graph 4
Australian Firms
Holding Trade Marks and Patents
Share of domestic holders, annual average, 2010-2020*
Trade marks
Patents
0 20 40 60 80 %
Small Medium Large
*
Small businesses have less than 20 employees, medium 20-199, large 200+.
Sources: IP Australia; RBA.
It has been well documented internationally, and more recently in Australia, that economic dynamism supports
productivity-enhancing resource reallocation in the economy.[14] This can be seen in wage and productivity
differences across firms (which promotes job switching) and in business entry and exit patterns. For Australian
firms of all sizes, there is a positive wage differential between firms that hold IP rights (such as patents) compared
with those that do not. But the differential is especially pronounced for smaller firms (Graph 5). Over the past two
decades, firm entry and exit rates have generally declined in Australia, though the entry rate for small firms has
tracked sideways over the most recent decade (Graph 6). It is possible that lower transition rates (from smaller to
larger firms) and acquisition activity may have contributed to some of the sustained decline in entry rates for
medium-sized and large firms, but it is an area our researchers are looking into.
Graph 5
Difference in Median Wages
for Firms with and without Patents
By firm size*
% %
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Small** Medium Large
*
Small businesses have less than 20 employees, medium 20-199,
large 200+.
**
Results for small businesses are an average of the results for
businesses with 0-4 employees and 1-19 employees.
Sources: IP Australia; RBA.
Graph 6
Business Entry and Exit Rates
By size, annual*
% %
Small Medium Large
15 15
Entry rate
10 10
Exit rate
5 5
0 0
2013 2023 2013 2023 2013 2023
*
Small businesses have 1-19 employees (non-employing entites are
excluded), medium 20-199, large 200+.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
The longstanding challenge of SME innovation financing
The investment environment for firms is shaped by a number of factors, with the financial system and policy
settings key among them. As internally generated free cash flow is often in short supply for SMEs, particularly
younger firms, access to external financing can make all the difference. At the RBA, we've consistently heard this
message through our liaison program. It also accords with surveys of Australian businesses indicating that a lack
of financing is a key barrier to innovation for small firms (Graph 7).[15]
Graph 7
Firms Reporting Access
to Finance as a Barrier to Innovation
Share of innovation-active businesses, by size, 2019-2021*
% %
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Small Medium Large
*
Small businesses have less than 20 employees, medium 20-199,
large 200+.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
There are a number of factors at work here, some of which apply to SMEs in general, while others relate more
specifically to SMEs that are active in innovation-based investment.
The highest order problem is that small firms are riskier propositions for suppliers of capital. Survival rates bear
this out - whether new or established, small firms are more likely to go out of business in any given year than
their larger counterparts (Graph 8). Particularly low survival rates among young small firms are consistent with the
'up or out' stage of their development, where they are experimenting and succeeding, or failing and exiting -
they either crash through or crash.
Graph 8
Business Survival Rates
By firm size
% %
New businesses* All businesses**
100 100
Large
90 90
Medium
80 80
70 70
Small
60 60
Sole traders
50 50
and partnerships***
40 40
2021 2023 2019 2021 2023
*
Firms commencing operation in 2019/20. Small businesses have 1-19
employees (non-employing separate line), medium 20-199, large 200+.
**
Firms operating at end-June 2019.
***
Non-employing businesses.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
While bank loans to SMEs comprise half of all business lending in Australia, many SMEs report experiencing tight
financial conditions in the form of credit-rationing and/or high borrowing costs. This is partly linked to
riskweights that are relatively higher for SME lending, reflecting banks' risk modelling where SME loans are expected
to be around twice as likely to fall into arrears as large firms (Graph 9). And loans to SMEs almost always require
collateralisation, unlike those to large firms.
Graph 9
Business Lending Default
Probabilities and Lending Rates
% %
Default probabilities* Variable lending rate**
SMEs
Small business
2.4 6
1.2 3
Large business
0.0 0
2012 2017 2022 2021 2024
*
Average estimate from internal ratings-based models. On-balance
sheet exposures of major banks. SME is the SME retail and SME
corporate categories in APRA's capital framework; large business is
the corporate category.
**
Average variable rate on outstanding loans. Business size based
on turnover and exposure.
Sources: APRA; RBA.
Prospective lenders and investors also tend to be more circumspect in financing SMEs for any number of reasons,
including that: there is a lack of scale in financing smaller entities; their revenues are often more volatile; and
informational asymmetries are more acute compared with larger firms where more information on their finances
is publicly available.[16]
And if many SMEs feel as though they are kicking into the wind when it comes to access to financing, those
winds can blow stronger still for SMEs seeking debt funding to support their innovation priorities. There are at
least two reasons for this.
One issue is that innovation-based assets are often largely (or exclusively) intangible, and therefore are not of a
standardised form that most traditional lenders prefer. Given that almost all SME lending is secured, and
residential property has an outsized role in collateralising the loans of small businesses, access to
innovationbased debt financing is not straightforward. This is particularly the case for younger entrepreneurs struggling to
get onto the housing ladder.[17] We also hear through our liaison program that even if small business owners do
hold residential property, some are understandably reluctant to post it as collateral given the stress involved; and,
if they do, they are more likely to be more risk averse in their business investment decisions when their family
home is on the line.[18]
Survey data suggest that banks are much less likely to finance the innovation-based investments of SMEs
compared with large firms (Graph 10). SMEs are therefore more likely than large firms to fund innovation-based
investments from family and friends, and non-bank institutions like venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE)
funds who are better placed to bear such risk. I should note here that this pattern has not been unique to
Australia, but rather has been widespread across advanced economies and is one of the factors supporting the
growth of technology-focused VC funds and PE funds focused on early-stage funding rounds.[19]
Graph 10
Sources of Innovation Financing
Share of innovation-active businesses, by size, 2019-2021*
% %
SMEs
Large
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Existing Banks Family & Finance VC/PE
firms funds
owners friends**
*
SMEs are businesses with less than 200 employees; large businesses
are those with 200+.
**
Large business funding from family and friends not published.
Sources: ABS; RBA.
Another funding issue that is felt acutely by innovation-focused SMEs is navigating the 'valley of death' - the long
lead time between converting greenfield research ideas into commercially viable propositions, during which
time firms can burn through their initial funding. This valley can appear prohibitively deep and wide for
many lenders.
Overcoming the financing impediments to SME innovation
While funding challenges will likely remain a fact of life for many SMEs, private and public capital is now being
mobilised in Australia in ways that are beginning to ease some longstanding constraints on innovation financing,
at least for some firms.[20]
One of the most material developments has been the emergence of an institutional-grade domestic VC industry
that, over the past decade, has channelled long-term equity capital into some of Australia's more innovative and
scalable businesses. This capital can support small firms that are loss-making during an intensive period of
ideation and prototype development. The past decade has marked a 'third wave' for the domestic VC industry,
after nascent upswings in the late 1990s and just prior to the global financial crisis were followed by industry
shakeouts. Investment in the Australian VC industry (as a share of GDP) is now in the range of peer economies,
though still considerable distance behind the United States and Israel. Over the past decade, assets under
management in Australian VC funds have grown from $2.5 billion to $20 billion; their share of institutionally
managed private capital in Australia has doubled; and the number of VC deals written each year has increased
significantly (Graph 11). This is despite a challenging period for SME technology valuations over the past two
years as interest rates have risen. This capital is in search of the far right tail of the distribution of young small firm
returns, where a minority of enterprises can break out with innovations that can be readily scaled into global
markets, more than making up for losses incurred on those that don't make it (Graph 12).
Graph 11
Australian Venture Capital
Annual
no.
Assets under Share of Number of
management* institutional deals***
private capital** (RHS)
($b, LHS)
(%, LHS)
20 300
10 150
0 0
2015 2023 2015 2023 2015 2022
*
2023 observation only includes data up to June.
**
Institutionally managed private capital. 2023 observation only includes
data up to June.
***
Data up to December 2022.
Sources: Prequin; RBA.
Graph 12
Annual Revenue Growth Distribution*
Percentile ranking, by firm type**
% %
Far right tail
100 100
75 75
50 50
Young
small
25 25
Old
large
0 0
-25 -25
25th Median 75th 95th
*
Year-ended revenue. Results based on ATO tax data in BLADE from
2004-2023. Only includes companies with revenue greater than
$75,000.
**
Small companies have less than 20 employees and are less than 10
years old; large companies have 200+ employees and are older than
10 years.
Sources: ABS (BLADE); RBA.
At the same time, there are limits to what the private domestic VC industry alone can achieve in supporting
innovation in Australia. In any given year only a small fraction of innovating firms that seek VC funding actually
obtain it, the average deal size has clustered in the range of $10-20 million over recent years (which may be too
large or too small for some firms), and the sectoral focus of VC funding is more narrowly skewed vis-à-vis other
traditional SME funders (toward software, information technology applications in financial and health services,
and manufacturing). This sectoral skew in investment is broadly consistent with the sectoral skew in R&D
spending.
Over the past decade or so, government has also had an important role - direct and indirect - in easing
constraints on innovation funding through long-term equity and cash flow support. Tax benefits for fund
managers and investors have been made available through three different VC programs supported by the
Australian Government, and in 2017, CSIRO Australia founded the Main Sequence VC fund to serve as an
incubator for scientific entrepreneurial talent (particularly in 'deep tech') in Australia. SMEs that are further along
the commercialisation journey might be eligible for funding from the Australian Business Growth Fund, which
was established just prior to the pandemic to provide both long-term growth capital and strategic advisory
services for expanding SMEs. A range of government-backed initiatives have also been introduced over recent
years to support SME cash flows more generally, including by shrinking the payment times for SME invoices.
Arguably the most valued and direct source of cash flow support for innovating SMEs has been the R&D tax
credit, which has been in effect for just over a decade. Indeed, recent analysis has found that the ability of
Australian SME firms to compete in export markets is linked to their incentives to innovate through R&D.[21]
Debt market financing is available to innovating SMEs, though those that are cash flow positive (through the
'death valley curve') typically have more options. VC debt funds have sprung up in recent times, with expertise in
valuing intangible assets and extending 'growth credit' aimed at lengthening the runways for SMEs so they can
get through to the next funding round. More generally, the difference in variable rates between SME loans and
large firm loans has compressed in recent years,[22] and it is possible that reductions to bank capital requirements
for SME loans, which became effective from January 2023, contribute to slightly more accommodative financing
conditions for SMEs. Similarly, over time, the comprehensive credit reporting and open banking regimes might
help in reducing informational asymmetries that can make it difficult for startups to access debt financing. The
Australian Business Securitisation Fund, which was established prior to the pandemic and invests in
securitisations that are backed by SME loans issued by small banks and non-bank lenders, is also aimed at easing
financing constraints for SMEs in general (though only a small number of investments have been made so far).
And non-traditional lenders, including technology and payment companies, are using transactions data to
rapidly identify and make unsecured credit available to SMEs using their own balance sheets. However, these
direct lenders comprise a very small share of the small business financing pie and, like most lenders, don't target
innovating firms per se.[23]
It is worth highlighting that it is not just increased access to capital that can support innovation-focused
entrepreneurs - access to networks and forums for providing strategic advice are becoming commonplace.
There is growing recognition across the community of former company founders, experienced private VC
investors and managers of public-private growth funds that strategic advisory support - both formal and
informal - also has a key role to play.
Conclusion
Our national living standards will turn in part on the propensity of firms to generate and rapidly integrate
innovative practices into their operations. It has been troubling therefore to observe that our aggregate
productivity outcomes have been lagging for a considerable time. We should also be under no illusions that
financing constraints for many SMEs remain substantial. And they can be even bigger for SMEs that are trying to
innovate aggressively, with little in the way of tangible collateral to pledge as security for financing, and where it
can take years to generate positive cash flow on the back of investments in greenfield ideas and untried
technologies. These types of investments are not for the faint of heart.
But in recent years there have been signs, including in R&D spending and IP rights, to suggest that the
contribution of SMEs to the innovation economy has been rising. A cohort of Australian SMEs are innovating
intensively, including those with ambitions to compete on the global stage. And, as in the United States, it is
possible that a division of labour is beginning to emerge in the Australian innovation ecosystem, where large
firms increasingly look to acquire and scale up the innovative ideas and practices first developed by more nimble,
IP-rich smaller firms. Time will tell here. But if we do follow the pattern in the United States where many large
firms are looking to innovate through acquisitions of dynamic SMEs rather than through in-house R&D, then it
will place even further importance on our SME sector as an engine of innovation in Australia. Either way, we also
need large firms playing their part in the innovation and productivity challenges facing the country. We need
both engines firing.
Of course, it is not feasible to expect anything like a majority of SMEs to operate on the global innovation frontier
- most understandably have more modest, local ambitions. But given the overwhelming majority of firms in
Australia are SMEs, it would only take only a small increase in the share of these businesses to successfully
innovate to have a material impact on the Australian economy. It is therefore in our collective interest for the
financial system and policy settings to interact in ways that continue to support innovative Australian
entrepreneurs. If history is any guide, the positive externalities could entail benefits to the Australian economy
and society extending well beyond just the firms producing them.
Endnotes
[1] In APRA's lending data, for the largest reporting entities a business is classified as small or medium if it has an annual turnover of
less than $75 million; within this, a business is considered small if it has an exposure to the reporting lending entity of less than
$1.5 million.
[2] Just over 30 per cent of small businesses are located outside of greater capital city areas, compared with around one-quarter of
large businesses. See Chan P, A Chinnery and P Wallis (2023), 'Recent Developments in Small Business Finance and Economic
Conditions,' RBA Bulletin, September.
[3] Alternatively, the OECD's Oslo Manual refers to innovation as 'a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof)
that differs significantly from the unit's previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users
(product) or brought into use by the unit (process)'.
[4] R&D is an important input variable for both innovation and exporting in Australia; see Zaman M and G Tanewski (2024),
'R&D Investment, Innovation, and Export Performance: An Analysis of SME and Large Firms', Journal of Small Business
Management, January.
[5] For small firms engaged in innovation, this finds expression in a wider set of investment activities than just R&D. See AlphaBeta
(2020), 'Australian Business Investment in Innovation: Levels, Trends and Drivers', January.
[6] See Arora A, S Belenzon, L Cioaca, L Sheer and H Zhang (2023), 'The Effect of Public Science on Corporate R&D', NBER Working
Paper No 31899, and the references therein.
[7] See Hambur J (2024), 'IP Mergers in Australia' (forthcoming); Competition Review Taskforce (2023), 'Tracking Mergers in Australia
Using Working Flows', Treasury.
[8] Majeed O and R Breunig (2021), 'Determinants of Innovation Novelty: Evidence from Australian Administrative Data', Tax and
Transfer Policy Institute Working Paper No 15/2021, ANY Crawford School of Public Policy, Canberra; Zaman and Tanewski, n 4.
[9] IP Australia (2023), 'Australian Intellectual Property Report 2022', Australian Government.
[10] IP Australia, n 9.
[11] It should be noted, however, that the majority of patents in Australia are filed by non-residents.
[12] Over the same period, the number of large firms has been increasing, while the number of patent-holding large firms has
remained relatively stable. This large relative shift could be partly attributed to a decline in the rate at which patent-holding
SMEs scale into large firms, and/or an increasing division of innovative labour within the innovation system. See
DobsonKeeffe B and M Falk (2024), 'The Structural Change in Patenting Behaviour in Australia', IP Australia Analytical Note (forthcoming).
[13] IP Australia (2023), 'IP and the Economy: Key Impacts', Australian Government; Hsu DH and RH Ziedonis (2013), 'Resources as
Dual Sources of Advantage', Strategic Management Journal, January; Block JH, G De Vries, JH Schumann and P Sandner (2014),
'Trademarks and Venture Capital Valuation', Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (4), July.
[14] See for instance IP Australia, n 13; Hambur J (2023), 'Did Labour Market Concentration Lower Wages Growth Pre-COVID?',
RBA Research Discussion Paper No 2023-02; Hambur J and D Andrews (2023), 'Doing Less, with Less: Capital Misallocation,
Investment and the Productivity Slowdown in Australia', RBA Research Discussion Paper No 2023-03; Buckley J (2023),
'Productivity in Motion: The Role of Job Switching', e61 micro note, November.
[15] See Figure 2.2 in Productivity Commission (2023), '5-year Productivity Inquiry: Innovation for the 98 per cent', Australian
Government.
[16] Productivity Commission (2021), 'Small Business Access to Finance: The Evolving Lending Market', Australian Government.
[17] In the United States, housing market conditions have been shown to play an important role in firm entry and young firm
employment share by affecting wealth, liqu