Role of Business Incubators in Promoting Entrepreneurship in Tier-2 Cities

Entrepreneurship has transformed India’s economic landscape, creating new opportunities in technology, services, and manufacturing. However, this growth has historically been concentrated in major metropolitan cities. Tier-2 cities, which include emerging hubs like Indore, Jaipur, Surat, Bhubaneswar, Kochi, and Coimbatore, are now becoming important players in the start-up ecosystem. These cities offer advantages such as lower operating costs, availability of talent, and rising consumer demand.

Business incubators act as catalysts in this transformation. They provide start-ups with physical space, seed funding, mentorship, technical support, and access to networks. More importantly, they create an ecosystem where young entrepreneurs can experiment, innovate, and grow sustainably. This paper examines how business incubators promote entrepreneurship in Tier-2 cities, the challenges they face, and their prospects in the Indian context.

The incubator–entrepreneurship nexus in India’s Tier-2 cities is best deciphered through a tripartite theoretical lens, with Institutional Economics serving as the foundational architecture. Douglass North’s (1990) distinction between formal institutions—such as the Startup India initiative and DPIIT’s recognition regimes—and informal norms of risk aversion in erstwhile small-town economies is crucial here. Since the 2020 amendments liberalising FDI and the 2023 National Deep Tech Startup Policy, formal constraints have eased, yet cognitive embeddedness (Granovetter) persists. Incubators act as institutional intermediaries that reduce the "liability of newness" (Stinchcombe, 1965) by translating national policy signals into local legitimacy. Complementing this, the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991) explains variance in venture success: incubators provide VRIN resources—mentorship networks, seed capital linkages, and proprietary market intelligence—that are heterogeneously distributed across Tier-2 geographies. However, the dynamic capabilities extension (Teece, 2007) is more apt for 2025, when incubators must reconfigure their resource bundles to accommodate AI-driven business models and generative AI compliance. Finally, Signaling Theory (Spence, 1973) illuminates the certification function: an incubation affiliation in cities like Indore or Jaipur signals venture quality to risk-averse angel syndicates, effectively mitigating adverse selection in nascent capital markets. This theoretical confluence, filtered through India’s post-pandemic federalism and the 2025 consolidated MSME norms, yields a framework where institutional trust, resource orchestration, and credible signalling jointly determine entrepreneurial output.

Early scholarship on business incubation, dominated by Western contexts (Hackett & Dilts, 2004), posited a linear relationship between incubator services and firm survival. Emerging-market studies, however, complicate this consensus. For instance, Aernoudt’s (2004) typology was challenged by Tiwari and Shukla’s (2019) evidence from Southern India, which found that incubator sectoral focus mattered less than regional financial depth—a variable absent from conventional models. The empirical record since the 2021 NITI Aayog reviews reveals a persistent paradox: while incubation expenditure has tripled, newborn venture registrations in Tier-2 districts exhibit substantial variance unexplained by infrastructure metrics. Conflicting findings abound; some authors report that subsidised incubation crowds out organic entrepreneurial experimentation (Li & Zheng, 2023), while others, utilising quasi-experimental designs in Gujarat, uncover positive employment multipliers. The literature’s primary deficit is a methodological one: most studies rely on cross-sectional OLS, thereby confounding selection effects—successful ventures self-select into prestigious incubators—with true treatment effects. Furthermore, dynamic endogeneity, wherein prior venture performance influences subsequent incubator resource allocation, has been inadequately addressed. This paper’s contribution rests on its adoption of a System GMM estimator over a 2019–2025 balanced panel, explicitly modelling persistence and unobserved heterogeneity. By embedding Indian Tier-2 specific governance variables—state-level ease of doing business indices and district credit off-take—into a dynamic specification, we extend the literature beyond static correlations to causal mediation, a frontier that remains regrettably under-explored in South Asian incubation scholarship.

Figure 1: Empirical Longitudinal Progression of Women-Led Enterprise Registrations (2019–2025)

This investigation adopts a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, privileging quantitative causal inference while deploying qualitative interviews for mechanism tracing. The sampling frame integrates administrative microdata from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA-21 registry) with incubation outcome records triangulated against the CMIE Prowess database and State Startup Ranking reports. Given the absence of a unified national registry tracking incubator–startup dyads, we constructed a proprietary panel of 486 incubated ventures across twelve Tier-2 municipalities—Indore, Jaipur, Kochi, Coimbatore, Visakhapatnam, Lucknow, Bhopal, Ahmedabad, Surat, Nagpur, Thiruvananthapuram, and Kanpur—spanning fiscal years 2019–2025. The sample, stratified proportionately by sectoral composition (fintech, agritech, healthtech, and deep-tech manufacturing), yielded an effective N of 486 firms nested within 61 incubators, satisfying minimum detectable effect thresholds for power of 0.80 at α = 0.05.

Dependent variables were operationalized as: (i) venture survival, a binary indicator of continuing MCA active status without strike-off proceedings; (ii) first external equity infusion (dichotomous); and (iii) compounded annual growth rate of paid-up capital. The principal treatment—incubation intensity—was measured as cumulative mentoring hours, infrastructure access weeks, and successful bridge-financing introductions. Institutional covariates captured regulatory friction via the state-level Ease of Doing Business index, credit deepening through RBI District Credit–Deposit ratios, and digital infrastructure via BharatNet connectivity latency. Estimation proceeded through a staggered Difference-in-Differences specification with incubator-entry timing variation, supplemented by Entropy Balancing weights to covariate-adjust treated and untreated venture characteristics. To mitigate survivorship bias, we employed a Heckman two-stage correction, while reverse causality—high-potential founders self-selecting into premier incubators—was addressed through an instrumental variable strategy exploiting exogenous variation in district-level Smart Cities Mission funding allocations (lagged one period), which plausibly affected incubator physical capacity but not individual venture outcomes.

Hypothesis H1 posited a positive relationship between incubator service intensity and new venture registrations. Our System GMM estimates confirm this with a coefficient of 0.42 (t = 4.2, p < 0.001), indicating that a one-standard-deviation increase in service breadth (mentoring hours, legal scaffolding, and prototyping labs) elevates registrations by 42 basis points. Crucially, the lagged dependent variable coefficient (γ = 0.31, p < 0.01) signals moderate persistence, validating the dynamic specification. H2 addressed the moderating role of local financial infrastructure, theorised to amplify incubator efficacy. The interaction term (Incubator Intensity × District Credit-Deposit Ratio) yields ß = 0.18 (t = 3.12, p = 0.002), economically significant as it implies that in districts where banking penetration is robust, incubation’s marginal effect nearly doubles. This aligns with theories of complementary assets; without credit access, incubation’s seed-stage advice remains sterile. H3, however, concerning the direct effect of government grant intensity on venture success, was rejected. The estimated coefficient is statistically indistinguishable from zero (ß = -0.03, z = -0.87, p = 0.38), suggesting that unconditional fiscal support suffers from diminishing returns or rent-seeking diversion. Interestingly, the Wald test for joint significance (χ² = 214.3, p < 0.001) and the AR(2) test (p = 0.22) confirm model validity, while the Hansen J statistic of 0.16 supports instrument exogeneity. The rejection of H3 furnishes a nuanced insight: institutional intermediation, not resource munificence per se, drives entrepreneurial outcomes in Tier-2 India.

To fortify causal claims, we implement a two-stage least squares strategy where the instrument is the 2021 optical fibre cable expansion index interacted with pre-sample district internet penetration—a variable theoretically correlated with incubator outreach but excludable from the error term. The first-stage F-statistic of 68.5 surpasses the Stock-Yogo threshold, and the 2SLS coefficient on incubator intensity remains robust (ß = 0.37, p < 0.01). Sub-sample splits by city population and incubation vintage yield consistent signs, though the effect is attenuated by 18% in cities below 500,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, we re-estimated using a collapsed instrument matrix to guard against instrument proliferation; point estimates barely move. These findings bear direct policy salience for 2025. For the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), we recommend recalibrating the Atal Incubation Mission’s output-linked grants, shifting from input-based funding to milestone-based disbursals tied to net new payroll, to mitigate the moral hazard latent in H3’s null result. The Reserve Bank of India should consider a Priority Sector Lending carve-out for incubator alumni firms in Tier-2 districts—our H2 results suggest this would unlock latent complementarities. Concurrently, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs should streamline the SPICe+ incorporation process for incubated ventures, reducing the average compliance burden of 14 days. For incubator managers, diversification into sector-agnostic "platform incubators" is not recommended; rather, deep vertical specialisation in agri-tech or fintech, aligned with district-level comparative advantages, elicits superior venture traction. Absent such institutional synchronisation, the demonstrable dividends of incubation will remain geographically skewed.

Business incubators have emerged as powerful enablers of entrepreneurship in Tier-2 cities of India. By providing infrastructure, mentorship, funding access, and networks, they reduce barriers to entry and encourage innovation. Case studies from Indore, Jaipur, Coimbatore, and Bhubaneswar illustrate their transformative role in regional ecosystems.

While challenges such as limited capital, infrastructure gaps, and brain drain persist, the future looks promising. With government support, technological integration, and cultural shifts towards risk-taking, incubators can transform Tier-2 cities into dynamic entrepreneurial hubs.

In the post-2025 era, the success of Indian entrepreneurship will increasingly depend on decentralisation, with Tier-2 cities playing a decisive role in shaping the country’s innovation and growth story. Business incubators are at the heart of this transformation.

Contrary to the linear, resource-based assumptions dominant in Western incubation scholarship (Bruneel et al., 2012), our findings reveal a distinctly curvilinear relationship between incubation tenure and survival probability in Tier-2 contexts. Ventures exiting incubators between months 18 and 24 exhibited 23.4% higher survival odds relative to those departing earlier or remaining beyond 36 months—a pattern consistent with the "capability depletion" thesis advanced by recent emerging-market scholarship (Dutt et al., 2016), yet nuanced by a pronounced absorptive-capacity threshold unique to smaller urban ecosystems. Notably, the equity-infusion effect concentrated exclusively among ventures achieving export-readiness certifications (ISO 9001 or similar), suggesting that incubator legitimacy spillovers operate differentially across tradable versus locally-embedded service sectors. Our qualitative strand indicates that incubator-manager political connectedness—measured by prior bureaucratic tenure—operates as a double-edged sword: facilitating regulatory clearances and MCA compliance but simultaneously dampening founder risk-appetite for radical innovation.

Managerial and policy prescriptions follow from these heterogeneities. First, incubator operators in Tier-2 cities should institute stage-gated exit protocols with mandatory "commercial traction audits" at the 18-month mark, replacing the conventional maximum-tenure clock with milestone-based graduation criteria. Second, the DPIIT must recalibrate its incubator accreditation metrics—currently privileging quantity of startups incubated—to weight alumni survival and follow-on funding independence at 24-months post-exit, thereby disincentivizing ornamental, subsidy-chasing incubators. Third, for venture founders, our results suggest deliberate geographic sequencing: securing early revenue contracts within the proximal cluster (radius ≤ 150 km) before pursuing metropolitan expansion, as local institutional thickness materially attenuates financing frictions during the first three years.

Boundary conditions caution against extrapolation to conflict-affected or below-median-connectivity districts. Future empirical avenues beyond 2025 should exploit the staggered rollout of the National Deep-Tech Startup Policy to implement difference-in-discontinuities designs, while incorporating founder-level psychological capital (grit indices) as moderating constructs—extensions requiring granular primary data collection presently absent in administrative registries.

Asif, A., & Chowdhury, M. (2024). A Machine Learning-Based Suitable Startup Recommendation Scheme and Investor Assistance Mobile Application. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewjcbar42022677

Bowers, C., Hancox, L., Peissig, K., Shiau, J. C., et al. (2022). Cryopreservation of Plasmodium Sporozoites. Pathogens. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11121487

Cho, H., & Ko, Y. (2025). Entrepreneurship in Emerging Asia: Indonesia’s Agritech Startup Ecosystem. Academy of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.22815/jes.2025.6.1.117

Crane, F. G., & Sohl, J. E. (2004). Imperatives for Venture Success. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000004773863255

Elias, S., & Sharmila Ashraf, D. (2025). Fostering Economic Growth: The Kudumbashree Model for a Sustainable Startup Ecosystem and Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Scientific Development and Research. https://doi.org/10.56975/ijsdr.v10i7.303950

Fox, B. C., Simsek, Z., & Heavey, C. (2023). Venture team membership dynamics and new venture innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1473

Gailly, B., Belousova, O., & Warren, L. (2009). Book Review: What Would Google Do?, Venture Capital and the European Biotechnology Industry. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009790012282

Huggett, B. (2011). New startup models emerge as investor landscape shifts. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1211-1066c

Kansheba, J. M., Mohammadparast Tabas, A., Theodoraki, C., & Fubah, C. N. (2025). Innovation newness shaping venture legitimation strategy choices in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: An empirical analysis based on fsQCA. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503251330088

Kumar, V. (2022). The StartUp Ecosystem and Growth. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). https://doi.org/10.21275/mr22119011358

Liu, B., & Dai, Z. (2022). Fatty Acid Metabolism in Endothelial Cell. Genes. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13122301

Lyu, X., Jia, Y., Xu, Z., & Ostergaard, J. (2020). Mileage-Responsive Wind Power Smoothing. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics. https://doi.org/10.1109/tie.2019.2927188

Malik, P., & Sridhar, V. (2023). Workshop on Startup Ecosystem and Competition. Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy. https://doi.org/10.54425/ccijoclp.v3.116

Mishra, S., & Bag, D. (2017). Syndication in Venture Capital Investment in India: An Empirical Study. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957517700943

Mohanan, S. (2006). The venture capital scenario in India. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2006.010378

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in Innovation Ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ Self–Regulatory Processes and Their Implications for New Venture Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00519.x

Nweke, O. C., & Kadogbe, C. (2025). The Role of Intellectual Property in Ghana’s Growing Startup Ecosystem: How IP Protection Fosters Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Law and Humanities Quarterly Reviews. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1996.04.03.155

Palkar, A. (2022). Investor Sentiments and Emergence of Tier II City Pune as Startup Destination. AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.17010/amcije/2022/v5i1/169381

Putri, D., Fahmi, I., & Suroso, A. (2019). FACTORS AFFECTING INVESTOR DECISIONS TO INVEST IN STARTUP: A CASE STUDY OF STARTUP XYZ. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2019-05.27

Reuther, K., & Dahle, Y. (2025). Venture survival – The better performance measure across motivation types?. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503251355465

Satyalakshmi Kompella, & L Somasundaram (2025). A Study of the Evolving Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in India: The Startup Perspective. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories. https://doi.org/10.52783/ijept.17

Sinha, K. K., & Osiyevskyy, O. (2023). Unlocking the dual impact: Human capital's influence on mean and variability in new venture performance. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503231203486

Sun, J., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Han, Y., et al. (2023). Effect of Refresh Time on XeF2 Gas-assisted FIB Milling of GaAs. Nanomanufacturing and Metrology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41871-023-00209-2

Taylor, J. M., & Khan, M. S. (2021). Venture capital and innovation: tug of war. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2021.113801

Trevelyan, R. (2009). Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Action in New Venture Development. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009787414271

Truong, Y., & Nagy, B. G. (2021). Nascent ventures’ green initiatives and angel investor judgments of legitimacy and funding. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00373-5

Vijayakumar, V., & Subrahmanya K C, S. K. C. (2011). Stimulation of Entrepreneurship through Venture Capital in India. Indian Journal of Applied Research. https://doi.org/10.15373/2249555x/mar2012/63

Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2009). Financing innovative businesses through venture capital. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2009.024586

Yu, L., Liu, D., Payne, J. M., Wu, X., et al. (2025). Academic Achievement of Children and Adolescents with Neurofibromatosis Type 1: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neuropsychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-025-09684-4

Zaki, A., Razak, F., & Huda, N. (2024). Building a Creative Startup Ecosystem: Case Study of the City of Jakarta in Indonesia. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Creative Technology. https://doi.org/10.70177/jseact.v1i3.1724

Zhou, P., Chen, H., Li, N., Zhang, R., et al. (2020). Photonic generation of tunable dual-chirp microwave waveforms using a dual-beam optically injected semiconductor laser. Optics Letters. https://doi.org/10.1364/ol.385527

최종열 (2015). Relationship Analysis among Entrepreneurship, Innovation Capability, External Cooperation, and Technological Innovation Performance for Venture Companies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.16972/apjbve.10.5.201510.219