1. Introduction

The term “startup” implies the beginning of something, and its exact definition remains controversial in the scientific literature. Startups are showing strong economic influence around the world, with Microsoft, YouTube and, more recently, artificial intelligence platforms such as Cappasity as prime examples. The Russian startup ecosystem developed in a similar way in the 2000s, creating successful companies such as Yandex and Ozon. Currently, there are about 700 technology startups operating in the country. This study examines startup ecosystems as complex networks of interconnected components that support enterprises from conception to scale, emphasizing the crucial role of systematic government intervention in the development of sustainable innovation ecosystems.

2. Materials and methods

It is often thanks to startups that the world is changing, due to their ability to solve difficult problems and offer promising innovations in relation to problems.

However, the path from an idea to a thriving company also entails certain risks. In most cases, these difficulties are too much for a private entrepreneur. In this regard, it becomes necessary to involve government structures in order to create favorable conditions in this area.

First of all, government measures should be aimed at increasing cooperation between the main participants of startup ecosystems.

Such participants include:

1. Actors are entities that carry out activities aimed at other persons. For example, startups themselves, investors, mentors, and others.
2. Infrastructure elements – facilities that ensure the development and functioning of the spheres. This category includes accelerators, which are programs or companies that help startups grow quickly, coworking spaces, which are workspaces for people who are not involved in joint projects, etc [3, p. 119].

Thus, the strategy of public policy should be aimed at maintaining ecosystems for their natural emergence and scaling.,

Similar to the concept of “startup”, the term “financing mechanism”, which is the key in this work, is characterized by the lack of a clear definition.

The definition presented in economic dictionaries has become most widespread in the scientific literature: “A financing mechanism is an integral part of an economic mechanism, a set of financial incentives, levers, tools, forms and methods of regulating economic processes and relations. The financing mechanism includes, first and foremost, prices, taxes, duties, benefits, fines, sanctions, subsidies, subsidies, interest on bank loans and deposits, discount rates, duties” [4, p. 43].

In economically developed countries, there is a wide range of financial instruments designed to support innovative companies, in particular, startups.

Further, this study translates a systematic analytical approach combining comparative analysis of international cases and the methodology of literature review. For example, the rise of venture capital investment in Israel is closely linked to the government’s Yozma initiative, which was launched in 1993. As part of this program, the government has allocated about $100 million for the formation of the first venture capital funds, and has also introduced a system of tax preferences to attract foreign investors [1, p. 1].

The next area of startup support is the formation of infrastructural elements: technoparks, clusters and innovative scientific and technological centers. As an example, Singapore should be mentioned, where a complex for startups has been created – One-north, combining the Biopolis biomedical park, the Fusionopolis IT park and the Mediapolis media cluster [7, p. 2].

In the UK, the SEIS (Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme) program is effectively functioning, providing tax benefits to individual investors who invest in new companies at the initial financing stage, thereby demonstrating another type of government support – tax incentives.

Estonia’s experience in creating an E-Residency program and a startup visa is recognized as a benchmark in the field of creating a digital business environment for non-residents. The support mechanism for this program is a special visa program [8, p. 513].

Government support impact mechanisms are also being implemented within the Russian Federation, for example through the National Technology Initiative project or the Innovation Assistance Fun [6, p. 6].

The analytical framework uses the principles of systems theory – integrity, interdependence, and adaptability – to evaluate ecosystem performance. Methodological rigor is maintained through multiple data sources and a systematic comparison of financial instruments in different jurisdictions.

3. Results and discussion

The analysis identifies three main vectors of government influence: direct financing mechanisms, infrastructure development, and the regulatory framework. Russian grant programs demonstrate effectiveness, as evidenced, for example, by a 27% increase in AGBIS revenue after receiving a government grant of 20 million rubles [5, p. 3]. Comparison with other countries also shows differences in approaches: while France and Brazil focus on credit financing, the Israeli Yozma program has successfully catalyzed venture capital through government co-investments, in Russia there is limited development of business angel financing (only 1% of total investments in 2020) [9, p. 6].

Infrastructure analysis reveals the growing role of accelerators and incubators as co-owners, not just sponsors. International examples demonstrate the effectiveness of integrated infrastructure approaches. At the same time, new models such as crowdfunding platforms represent innovative approaches to regulation [2, p. 4].

The study reveals significant structural problems in the Russian startup ecosystem. Among them are institutional fragmentation, which creates duplication and complicates navigation for entrepreneurs; regional concentration of resources in Moscow and several large centers, which limits development nationwide. In addition, there is a chronic shortage of labor, despite educational initiatives such as the Digital Economy program.

4. Conclusion

The results confirm that the creation of successful ecosystems requires the joint application of financial, infrastructural and regulatory mechanisms adapted to national conditions. Isolated support measures turn out to be less effective than integrated approaches that cover all components of the ecosystem at the same time.

The future development of the ecosystem depends on the digitalization of interaction between government and business, strengthening regional specialization and strengthening international cooperation within the developing global value chains. The study highlights that systematic, adaptive approaches based on continuous performance monitoring provide the most sustainable results in the development of the startup ecosystem.