This paper explores the role of entrepreneurship education in a modern economy and how the government, academic, and nonprofit sectors in the United States have responded to this growing field. There are several sectors that play important roles in the entrepreneurship education landscape in the United States. Over the past decade, there has been increasing participation of Federal and state governments. This recent trend suggests the field may be increasing in maturity and legitimacy, showing promise for expanding the reach of entrepreneurship education programs. Programs sponsored by nonprofit organizations and private foundations complement government initiatives and display an effective means of leveraging knowledge and resources across the relevant sectors. Thus, new initiatives, whether initiated by government or academia, should learn from the successes of this sector as well as be carefully considered within the context of existent programs and services. Nonetheless, the potentially dynamic environment of the entrepreneurship education field in the United States offers a specific opportunity to leverage the experience in mentorship activities at the post-secondary education to address a possible gap in these activities at the secondary education level.

This study analyzes the establishment of venture companies and the interaction of venture ecosystem components (the core factors of venture ecosystems) with a focus on venture companies, venture capital, and the return market. Government support policies are understood as a catalyst for the venture ecosystem and this study will analyze the implications of government involvement by identifying the role of government policies in the venture ecosystem. According to the results of the empirical analysis with data on confirmed venture businesses by the Small and Medium Business Administration (SMBA), policies that provide direct support to venture companies did not have a significant influence on the establishment of new ventures. However, new investments by venture capital show a statistically significant positive effect and signify that the new investment is an important factor in vitalizing the establishment of new venture businesses and that the economic conditions of the return market have a positive effect. The establishment of venture businesses responds to the changes in real and vertical markets with greater resilience compared to government policies. Given the unique nature of the Korean venture ecosystem that responds to the market with greater resilience than government policies, there must be increased efforts to recover the confidence of the capital markets for venture capital in order to promote improved efficiency.

Science, technology, society and humanities (STSH) fusion research is aimed at creating new research areas and methods that can resolve complicated issues in society that cannot be solved by a single academic discipline. This study identifies initiatives that can promote STSH fusion research in Korea. We review the definition and characteristics of STSH fusion research to analyze the necessity of STSH fusion research with a focus on the structural changes in the S&T environment. The emergence and diffusion of generic technologies, transition to post catch-up innovation mode, and the evolution of policy to the third generation innovation policy are identified as notable changes. This paper briefly reviews the status of fusion research underway and presents initiatives to promote STSH fusion research.

The Korean government's support towards the establishment of leading research hubs at universities began with the initiation of the Science/ Engineering Research Center in 1990. Such efforts to provide support to research organizations have continued for some twenty years in various forms, which implies that building research hubs was critical in acquiring global leadership in research. However, the effect of such research hub nurturing policies has never been properly evaluated, apart from an assessment of their validity. Therefore, this paper analyzes how major programs to form research groups by providing assistance to joint research by researchers at universities are operated, and the characteristics of such programs through comparative analysis with other programs. There are two major focal points in the analysis: the first is the evaluation of the level of differentiation between Research Organization Support Programs (ROP) and other R&D Programs from an efficiency perspective, and the second is an examination of the extent of systematization of research organizations that exist at universities and impact of Research Organization Support Programs on the activities of participating professors from an effectiveness perspective. The result showed that the ROP were no longer only relevant for the formation and maintenance of research groups. Other R&D Programs are growing increasingly larger in scale and conducted over longer periods of time. Thus, the ROP can no longer be differentiated from other programs in research period and size of funding. An analysis on the effect of ROP demonstrated that all activities by participating professors in organizations that were the beneficiaries of group research assistance were more active compared to their counterparts in organizations that received other research support, but there was little difference in the elements of systematization. This implies that the joint research conducted at universities is not systematized and that it is still research based on individual themes but conducted jointly. In addition, it also means that the ROP is failing to effectively lead the systematization of research. In other words, today, university research organizations are not operated as independent, long-term bodies, but are more relevant as a combination of research units of individual professors.