Chrissie Hynde
: Don't Get Me Wrong: I Won't Stand For Cruelty to Geese
Charles Moore
: Margaret Thatcher's First Visit to Washington of the Reagan Presidency
Natalie Bennett
: Jobs You Can Build a Life On: The British Economy Isn't Delivering
Seth Freedman
: We Don't Need No Regulation
Lorenzo Belenguer
: Chelsea Flower Show - It's an Explosion!
The government has come under quite a bit of flack recently after expanding its startup loans scheme from 18 to 24-year-olds up to the age of 30. The expansion of the scheme is a clear signal of the government's ineptitude to secure enough applications for the original 18-24-age band.
Lord Young, the "godfather of the startup loans", stated that the scheme would help tens of thousands of young businesses. However, in the last six months, since the new scheme was launched, only 600 businesses have applied and succeeded in receiving a loan (out of a total of 3,000 applications).
The problem with the scheme is that it's micro-economic thinking at its worst. "Let's seed out £2,500 to thousands of young entrepreneurs, blindly throw mentors at them, and pray that one of them becomes the next Steve Jobs".
In order to create a new entrepreneurial society, you need to think big, macroeconomics. Create the right entrepreneurial infrastructure and environment. There's a reason so many Harvard graduates go on to found successful tech and finance companies - the investment, funding, contacts, networking, education and mentoring is already there.
Google's Tech Campus in London is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. It provides free wi-fi and workspace to young entrepreneurs in the heart of London. This is in addition to weekly mentor programs, networking events, speaker series and more. It creates the fast paced, technology driven, dynamic environment, which envelopes young entrepreneurs and developers.
You can't just simply hand a £2,500 cheque to a start-up business to someone in the Midlands, after graduating with a degree in Geography, throw them a mentor plus £500 worth of vouchers and expect business to bloom. It's already too late in the game for that. Besides, where is that money actually going to go? £500 per month for an office, £500 for marketing, £500 for an accountant to file their incorporation documents, £1,000 for a website and hosting.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastic idea if the government wants to fund tens of thousands of businesses, see who performs the best in a 30-day trial period, and then choose the leading candidate. This would be great reality TV. But aghast, that's not how real business is done. Real businesses require hard work, planning, execution, and the incubation of great ideas.
It's nice that the government want to look "cool and edgy" with their new startup loans website, and accepting applications for the scheme primarily by "liking" their Facebook Page, but you only have to look at the official startup loans kit website with it's out of date information (it still clearly says 18-24 year-olds weeks after the scheme was expanded to 30 year-olds), to see how well the whole thing is being run.
This is what leads to my conclusion. £2,500 may be the perfect amount to start a small car wash or cleaning service nation, but its not enough to jump start a new breed of technology-driven entrepreneurs who are already facing an average debt of more than £50,000 after leaving University. Lord Young may see startup loans as a means of helping the 1 million young and unemployed people, but you can't just assume every has an entrepreneur inside them.
What's the proverbial saying? "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a life time". Maybe the government should take note - £2,500 for a startup business is basically just a fish. It's about time we start teaching them how to fish.
For more information about Adam and his views, visit his website and blog: Investing.co.uk.
Follow Adam Grunwerg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/affiliatefyi
Any business person can become a mentor (I have a friend who was thinking about it). It's not as if Lord Sugar or James Caan is the typical mentor and it's no guarantee for success.
If you take a look at the EU's Action Plan for Entrepreneurship (including endorsement of mechanisms for University-driven business creation) than it takes a much more realistic and macro view on inspiring entrepreneurs. For instance, how hard would it be for the Government to create free wifi and office space in major cities for young businesses and subsidise basic things, or even offer greater capital gains allowances, VAT exemption and reduce tax for startups?
I would be worried allowing some of the schemes advisors to mentor my puppy, never mind a start-up.
Adam makes a good point that not everyone SHOULD jump into a start-up, you have to be a strange, driven beast to make it as an "entrepreneur".
We advice Governments across the planet on building sustainable ecosystems and often find that those who accept Govt handouts often do NOT make it as entrepreneurs as they come with so many strings attached. The very act of thinking this is a good deal precludes you from success.
It is too early to say if this is a "good deal" but something has to be done about quality control of the mentors.
Not all mentors are created equal and some are plain dangerous.
However, I disagree with Dan Martin's comment as this certainly does reflect business support policy at its worst.
Encouraging young people to take on debt at start up is reckess. And yes, unfortunately the safeguard for the loan is meant to be the input of mentors - 15,000 of which have received half a day of training on the Government's Get Mentoring initiative - and hey presto, just add milk and you have a mentor to go with your £2,500.
There are countless examples of praiseworthy business support initiatives - but this will never be one of them.
I'm also sure that the mentors are not recommending that business owners spend £500 on an accountant or £1,000 on a website. You can get both for a lot less as I'm sure you know.
I've been a strong critic of government schemes in the past but I think this is a good one.
It's much easier to criticise initiatives that come out of Whitehall than it is to praise them as this post shows.