Original Research · Arc Shift Ventures
Nordics, Germany, France, the Gulf, Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, ASEAN and China — we pulled every published corridor outcome we could find, in every region we could reach, back toward its source. Same pattern everywhere: independent evaluation is nearly absent, self-reported “success” hides an undefined denominator, and the week works. The conversion happens before the flight out and after the flight home — the stretch nobody owns, on every continent, at every income level.
Four numbers that frame it
the two-year gain in a small firm’s odds of exporting from direct partner-search/matchmaking support vs. market-intelligence-only support. The cleanest evidence that introductions beat information.
Munch & Schaur, AEJ: Economic Policy, 2018 (Danish data) · Grade A
internationalisation programmes, across a 2026 review spanning ~10 countries, has ever had a formal evaluation — and that one measured process quality, not impact. India and China aren’t in the review at all.
OECD, Incubation in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, 2026 (our count) · Grade A
the share of supported teams reaching a registered local entity, in two unrelated national inbound programmes (Korea, Japan), different definitions, different years. Both stop counting at incorporation.
Self-reported figures, our synthesis · EST
revenue and export growth from a Singapore market-entry grant, vs. similar non-recipients, firm/year fixed effects. The counter-evidence: the money and the door-opening measure. The ceremony doesn’t.
MTI Singapore, Economic Survey of Singapore, 3Q2021 · Grade A
The finding
In-week metrics run roughly an order of magnitude ahead of paid outcomes where a same-cohort trail exists (60% “further discussions” vs ~9% paid) — a synthesis, not a survey line. EST A 2026 OECD review of internationalisation programmes across roughly ten countries found the same absence at institutional altitude: one formal evaluation, measuring perception rather than impact.
Where it breaks — and the industry’s own admission
one Asian government’s flagship inbound programme has redesigned itself in five years — latest version explicitly splits a single cohort into a three-phase, ten-month pathway because “conventional programs focus on a single moment of market entry” rather than carrying a startup through one. A neighbouring outbound programme has quietly made its in-person week optional — eight weeks of virtual work now precede one optional week abroad. Neither programme calls this a concession; both are behaving as if the week was never where the value sat.
Programme releases, our count · Grade A (fact)
people on the ground, in almost any corridor we looked at, whose job — with a number attached — is converting a landed startup’s warm meetings into a paid pilot. The desk, the visa pathway and the mentor list are everywhere; the named owner almost never is. And one government’s own published definition already counts a signed MOU as “market traction,” which does the softening on its behalf.
Structural observation across audited programmes · Arc Shift, 2026 · EST
What works
Six numbers that don’t survive a source check
“Trade missions generated tens of billions in new business deals”Debunked by econometrics
Announced-deal values, self-reported by participants at the mission, never audited against realized contracts. Tested against actual bilateral trade with country-pair fixed effects, the real effect was “small, negative, and mainly insignificant.” It counts the press conference, not the purchase order.
“92% of graduated startups continued doing business across Southeast Asia”Definitional & survivorship games, stacked
Denominator is graduates only, drop-outs excluded; “continued doing business” is compatible with sending emails from the home office. No national audit office has ever reviewed this programme, confirmed on two independent search passes.
“More than a quarter of projects achieved substantial business and market traction”The definition is published — and that’s worse
A government footnote defines “traction” to include signed MOUs, joint ventures, and investment received. The denominator also silently switches from startups (600+) to projects (never counted) — the circulating figure can’t be recomputed from the published text.
“226 corporations, 425 visas” vs., elsewhere, “195 corporations, 364 visas”Two incompatible series, live at once
Same flagship inbound programme, neither release dated, both circulate as current. “Corporation established” is administratively verifiable but isn’t revenue, a customer, or survival — the closest thing to an honest funnel in this research still stops at incorporation.
“1,800+ companies, $17B+ raised” — also “500+/$12B,” “1,200+/$16.7B,” “290 completers/$4.9B”The wrong variable, four ways
Alumni fundraising, not market-entry conversion — a startup can raise $50M at home having sold nothing abroad. The programme’s own surfaces disagree four separate ways. No major national accelerator publishes the number that would answer the question: revenue in the target market.
“Targets 500 corporate partnerships and ₹250 crore over three years”A target, already relayed as a result
A 2025 three-year target, already appearing in headline form across multiple outlets without the word “target.” Filed now so the original framing is on record before it resurfaces in 2027 as an achievement.
German, Swedish, Korean, Australian and Indian startups land in my inbox the week after their delegations end — usually with a folder of warm contacts and no owner for what happens next. I mentor at BLOCK71, NUS GRIP and ATUM Ventures, so I also see which landings convert and which quietly stop replying by month three. If you run a delegation, a landing pad or a corridor program anywhere in the world, or you’re about to land, let’s compare notes; especially if your data contradicts this page. Nothing to sell in that call.
Book a diagnostic Connect on LinkedIn →