During Global Entrepreneurship Week 2025, the GEN Policy team is spotlighting international soft-landing pad programs featured in the GEN Atlas, a tool for policymakers, advisors, and opinion leaders to learn about previously implemented policy models, entrepreneurship strategies, and designs of public-sector support programs.
The GEN Atlas Policy Deep Dive explores several examples similar policies introduced in different countries. By drawing out the subtle variations in approach and highlighting innovative ideas, we hope to learn more about the most effective approaches to policy making and offer a roadmap for other policymakers to learn from. Our analysis of startup support policy is built around eight overarching themes:
- Finance: New types of capital for startups and scaleups at the right time
- Education + Skills: Embedding enterprise and entrepreneurship into education and providing (both existing and potential) entrepreneurs with mentoring, training and support
- Market Access: Expanding access to markets for startups domestically and abroad
- Inclusivity + Culture: Ensuring that entrepreneurship is a culturally attractive vocation for all sections of society and in particular that people from disadvantaged groups have an equal opportunity to launch and grow a business
- Regulation: Removing regulatory barriers to innovation and startup success
- Ecosystem + Economic Development: Developing and managing local ecosystems to better support entrepreneurs, startups and scale-ups
- Science, Technology and Innovation: Utilizing the latest advancements in science and technology to improve productivity, boost economic growth and solve societal problems through innovation
- Policy Making: Maintaining a data-driven, effective and coherent policy making process that supports entrepreneurs and ensures public awareness of available programs
Government programs aimed at supporting startups to reach international markets have become a defining feature of national innovation strategies, addressing challenges related to scale-up, market access, capacity building, and global competitiveness. This Atlas Policy Deepdive analyses 13 case studies across Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Middle East, summarizing core features, differences, and lessons in program design.
Supporting startups to expand beyond local markets is widely recognized as essential for building globally competitive innovation ecosystems. With the rapid digitalization and global competition, governments increasingly act to remove barriers to cross-border scaling, facilitate connections, and anchor entire ecosystems with high-growth companies capable of international reach. This deepdive synthesizes international approaches, highlighting what works, distinct models, and persistent gaps.
Program Structure and Delivery Models
Programs typically adopt one of three main models:
- Competitive Grant Schemes (State Trade Expansion Program, UKTI): Funding or reimbursements for eligible export-related activities, such as trade show participation or international marketing.
- Government-Funded Accelerators (German Accelerator, XHub Tokyo, Startup OutReach Brasil, Australian Landing Pads): Structured cohort-based support including mentoring, market immersion, pitch training, and business matchmaking.
- Hybrid Partnership Models (Brazil’s Apex, French Tech, Canadian Technology Accelerator): Strategic alliances between government, local embassies/consulates, innovation agencies, and regional accelerators, blending financial, educational, and diplomatic support.
Core Program Features
Across the case studies, several recurring features distinguish successful government support initiatives:
- Internationalization Pathways: Most programs create structured, multi-stage paths for selected startups—combining virtual training, mentorship, and physical immersion in global hubs (e.g., Startup OutReach Brasil’s three-stage model).
- Selective Cohorts: Programs typically admit limited cohorts, with rigorous selection (often 10–40 companies per cycle) to focus resources and maximize impact. Selection criteria prioritize potential for scale and global fit.
- Institutional Partnerships: Implementation is frequently multi-institutional, leveraging trade agencies, diplomatic missions, accelerators, and ecosystem experts (e.g., Apex-Brasil and partners; France’s network of Tech Capitals and Communities).
- Support Instruments: Common mechanisms include facilitated business matching, market entry training, export promotion subsidies, co-working, legal and financial consulting, international event exposure, and post-mission assistance.
- Branding and Credibility: Programs often confer official certifications or branding—such as J-Startup’s logo, French Tech labels—helping startups gain visibility and trust in new markets.
- Metrics and Impact: All programs collect activity and outcome data—number of clients reached, deals closed, jobs created, and investment mobilized—to demonstrate effectiveness and ecosystem impact, though comprehensive evaluations remain rare.
We can understand the programs to fall into three different categories:
- Tier 3: Landing pads and direct market access. Substantial effort schemes include export finance options, structured programs of regular activity and advice, easy entry points for startups, bespoke introductions, and strong integration between economic attaches and local ecosystems. Physical space in a target market, while common, is not required for the highest rating if other substantial commitments are demonstrated. More cities and higher-ranked ecosystems raise the rating further.
- Tier 2: Tailored advice. These provide some tailored support, such as startup-focused trade delegations and export advice adapted for startups rather than generic assistance.
- Tier 1: Export advice. These offer only generic export advice and require the program to be at least partially publicly funded—not fully private.
Based on the available documentation across the 13 schemes, below is a classification table:
| Scheme Name | Country/Region | Score | Classification & Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Startup OutReach Brasil | Brazil | 3 | Structured, multi-stage program; embassy integration; bespoke matching |
| Canadian Technology Accelerator | Canada | 3 | Open, multi-hub operational base, sector-specific mentoring, export consulting |
| Landing Pads (Austrade) | Australia | 3 | Operational base + high touch mentoring in multiple cities |
| J-Startup | Japan (National) | 3 | Branded, curated cohort, deep official support, business matching |
| X-HUB Tokyo Outbound | Japan (Tokyo) | 3 | Accelerator model, bespoke mentoring, detailed market validation |
| La Mission French Tech | France | 3 | Networked support, strategic programming, global community linkages |
| German Accelerator | Germany | 3 | Dedicated physical presence, curated outreach, strong program design |
| INNOVIT | Italy | 2 | Trade delegations, some tailored startup support |
| UK Trade Program | United Kingdom | 2 | Trade missions, sector exposure, some targeted startup entry points |
| Export Counselling | United States | 1 | Generic export advisory, limited startup focus |
| State Trade Expansion Program | United States | 2 | Tailored advice but generally trade-oriented, some startup focus |
| Apex-Brasil | Brazil | 2 | Delegations, export finance, moderate bespoke support |
| National Tech Dev. Program | Saudi Arabia | 3 | Grants, loans, relocation, talent subsidies, multi-hub |
Country Differences and Innovations
Key differences emerge in:
- Scale and Reach: UKTI and STEP serve thousands annually, while more immersive accelerators like XHub Tokyo or OutReach Brasil serve smaller, focused cohorts each cycle.
- Industry Focus: Some programs (German Accelerator, XHub) tailor offerings by vertical, while others remain sector-neutral for broad reach.
- Geographic Targeting: European models emphasize bilateral support through international embassies or trade offices; Asian and Latin American models partner with local accelerators and provide intensive on-the-ground experiences.
- Measurement and Impact: Many highlight return on investment, number of startups supported, new markets entered, and deals closed. Robust external surveys and impact studies (UKTI, German Accelerator) enhance accountability, though formal evaluations remain scarce in emerging programs.
- In-market Experience: Australia’s Landing Pads and German Accelerator emphasize rapid in-market immersion (90 days), while others focus more on grant-based export support or multi-location international missions.
Impact Evaluation Efforts
Evaluation of impact across the 13 international startup support programs varies in scope, rigor, and transparency, reflecting differing priorities and resource allocation for monitoring and assessment.
- Quantitative Metrics
Most programs track fundamental performance indicators such as the number of participating startups, events held, international partnerships formed, export deals closed, funds raised, and jobs created. For example, the Canadian Technology Accelerator reports measurable outcomes like export growth and investment, while Startup OutReach Brasil monitors startup progress across three stages with quantitative milestones. - Qualitative Assessments
Several programs collect qualitative data through surveys, interviews, and case studies that capture participant satisfaction, ecosystem perception changes, and learning outcomes. La Mission French Tech and J-Startup combine quantitative data with success stories to highlight transformational impact in brand building and ecosystem development. - Use of Cohort and Longitudinal Tracking
Some schemes maintain longitudinal cohorts to trace company trajectories post-program, as seen in J-Startup’s tracking of unicorn creation ambitions and the Canadian Technology Accelerator’s ongoing support networks. However, comprehensive long-term tracking remains the exception rather than the rule. - Independent Evaluation and Impact Validation
Few programs undergo independent third-party evaluations; most rely on internal reporting mechanisms. The Saudi National Technology Development Program notably commissions impact assessments for its funding portfolio, indicating emerging trends towards robust assessment frameworks. - Challenges and Gaps
Common challenges include difficulty isolating program impact from broader ecosystem effects, limited availability of counterfactual data, and timing constraints as international expansion effects on startup growth often manifest over multiple years. Several programs acknowledge these limits and express intentions to strengthen future evaluative rigor. - Policy Learning from Evaluation
Results from limited evaluations inform iterative design improvements such as expanded networking services in X-HUB Tokyo and greater diversity outreach in French Tech Tremplin. However, formalized mechanisms linking evaluation outputs to policy adjustment remain underdeveloped overall.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
- Scalability and Access: More intensive cohort-based models serve fewer startups, though tend to produce deeper engagements and higher business development rates per participant.
- Upfront Capital Barriers: Reimbursement models and matching requirements may exclude early-stage, under-resourced startups most in need of support.
- Data and Measurement: Comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation and robust performance measurement enhance program credibility and resource allocation but remain inconsistent.
- Cultural Adaptation: Programs in Japan and Brazil emphasize the need for startups to adapt mindsets, fluent leadership, and business models for fast-moving global markets, not just technical readiness.
- Ecosystem Engagement: Multi-actor partnerships, leveraging diplomatic networks and technical agencies, appear to increase credibility and market access for participants.
- Post-program Support: Sustained alumni and post-mission support is critical for converting initial international exploration into durable commercial results.
Actionable Insights for Policymakers
- Policymakers should tailor support to both mature and earlier-stage startups, considering direct grants for those unable to front initial costs.
- Expanding the reach of more immersive accelerator models may require hybrid approaches that combine mass access with deep engagement.
- Ongoing measurement and rigorous impact tracking should be prioritized from inception.
- Cultivating multi-country partnerships and embedding technical, cultural, and legal support is critical for successful expansion.
- Alumni networks and post-expansion support should be planned from the program’s outset, enhancing long-term international impact.
Government programs for startup internationalization differ in scale, structure, and delivery, but share a commitment to overcoming key export barriers, leveraging cross-border networks, and driving economic growth through innovation. By analyzing current approaches and their outcomes, other policymakers can design smarter support initiatives to enable startups to globalize, compete, and thrive in international markets.
Explore other international soft-landing programs documented on Atlas here.