Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis demonstrates that internal resources influence startup survival in academic incubators, suggesting critical combinations are vital.
Purpose Startups are faced with the problem of high volatility and competition in their early years. Internal resources play a significant role in influencing a new venture’s operation and growth. Although there is an emerging body of literature examining internal resources, research exploring the potential synergies derived from the combined effect of internal resources on new venture survival is still lacking. The study aims to examine how combined resources, including human, financial, and social resources, influence the likelihood of survival of academic incubator startups. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected from founders of 271 startups incubated from 2012 to 2020 at the Institutes of National Importance incubation centres in India, and a binary logistic regression was used to analyse the impact of selected internal resources on incubated startup survival. Findings The analyses reveal that internal resources such as the founders’ age, education, prior work experience, and effective utilisation of social capital positively influence the survival of incubated startups. However, startup financing in the form of formal debt and managerial experience has a negative impact on startup survival. Originality/value There is extant literature on the effects of internal resources on the survival of established organisations and general startups. Nevertheless, despite the growing interest of scholars in academic entrepreneurship and new venture creation, there is a dearth of studies on startups incubated with the aid of academic institutions. The study provides novel evidence on the crucial role of the right combination of critical resources in nurturing a startup’s capabilities and sheds light on how internal resources shape competitive advantages and the overall performance of startups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azeem et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: