nach oben

Erschienen in:

2010 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activity: Some Cross-Country Evidence

verfasst von : Christian Bjørnskov, Nicolai Foss

Erschienen in: Entrepreneurship and Culture

Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Societies do not grow and prosper without entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are here defined as those individuals who exercise their ability and willingness to perceive new economic opportunities and to introduce their specific ways of seizing these opportunities into the market in the face of uncertainty (Knight 1921; Wennekers and Thurik 1999 pp. 46–47). They may do so by starting up firms or by instituting changes within established firms. As Baumol (1990) argues, entrepreneurial creativity need not necessarily be socially beneficial;1 still, new products, processes,ways of organizing, etc., all essential aspects of the growth process, are outcomes of entrepreneurship (Schumpeter 1911; Rosenberg 1992; Wennekers and Thurik 1999). Not surprisingly, the history of all rich societies is ripe with entrepreneurs:Julius Caesar’s friend Balbus went to Rome from a far–away province (Spain) and worked his way up through the ranks to become one of the richest people in the Empire, and on his way built both theatres and public baths; Thomas Edison’s inventions both made him one of the most famous people of his age and brought electric light and many other modern appliances to ordinary people; and in more recent years, Bill Gates founded one of the world’s largest personal fortunes by bringing the computer age into people’s homes. Common to these three individuals and countless other less known is entrepreneurial ability and will. Indeed, while culture may vary, it is arguable that the particular characteristics of entrepreneurship are anthropological constants (von Mises 1949; Kirzner 1997; Russell and Rath 2002).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Scenario-Based Scales Measuring Cultural Orientations of Business Owners

Nächstes Kapitel Entrepreneurial Culture and its Effect on the Rate of Nascent Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship may well be unproductive and even destructive. For example, entrepreneurship may be exercised in criminal or rent-seeking activities.

It should be stressed the distinction between “pure” economic policy and institutional design is not always easy to make. In the following, we think of economic policy as a set of factors that can be changed within a shorter time-span, and institutions as a set of factors that are stable in the medium run and only change over longer periods of time. What separates the two concepts is thus their degree of persistence over time.

Although roughly speaking, interest in institutions and growth is still much larger than interest in entrepreneurship; cf. Bianchi and Henrekson 2005.

However, see Audretsch et al. (2002) for some cross-country comparisons and Kreft and Sobel (2005) for cross-state comparisons in a US context.

This includes, but is not limited to, the formation of new business ventures.

Thus, even if by innovating the entrepreneur succeeds in establishing a monopoly that gives rise to indefinite returns, “… the flow of gains to the entrepreneur in her entrepreneurial role must be very temporary” (Baumol 1993: 7).

However, much applied research in small business economics, economic geography, innovation studies, etc. has dealt with how institutions and economic policy influence small-firm formation and the rate of innovation.

It may be argued, however, that welfare systems, by providing a safety system, may make people more prone to take entrepreneurial actions, because they know that if they fail, they need not starve. Thus, what may be called “opportunity entrepreneurship” could conceivable be positively influenced through this mechanism (see Sinn 1995, 1997). Thanks to Niclas Berggren for pointing this out.

For readers who may want to use the GEM database themselves, we use the variables denoted “tea01”, “tea01opp” and “tea01nec” to form our aggregate data.

The inclusion of exchange rate volatility and market capitalization is evidently important, as sound money may simply proxy for the effects of import and export price volatility, and may be a poor proxy for financial depth. However, in the present sample it is only significantly associated with the alternative measure of real exchange rate volatility from World Bank (2006), which only is available 23 observations here. Evidently, sound money picks up a somewhat different aspect of economic policy.

Even though all regressions include the regional dummies, they are generally not individually significant, but only jointly. In other words, these dummies tend to pick up variation that is difficult to interpret. We therefore opt for not presenting them in the tables.

It should be noted that if we instead use actual trade volumes, which can also be obtained from the Penn World Tables, we obtain the same non-result as with the trade index from the Fraser Institute.

It should be noted that our results are robust to including a number of variables that may arguably proxy for similar underlying economic and institutional features mentioned in the literature. These variables include (but are not restricted to) measures of trade volume, discrepancies of domestic price levels from international levels, both absolute price levels and relative prices of capital goods, and alternative institutional measures such as the Freedom House democracy index and the World Bank index on the rigidity of employment rules. We do not report these additional results here but they are available on request from the authors.

The indices on all five areas are composed of sub-indices, but we opt for including only the index that is significant. Moreover, the government size index has been criticized for being composed of particularly disparate elements, which warrants further specific testing (cf. de Haan and Sturm 2000; Sturm et al. 2002). We have also performed tests with, for example, the three constituent sub-indices – labour, credit and business regulations – forming the overall regulation variable. These results are not reported here as they show no association. Hence, the extent of regulations and controls in the labour market seem unassociated with entrepreneurship in this sample even though other studies have argued for a strong correlation (e.g. Kreft and Sobel 2005). In addition, all results in Table 4 also survive being estimated with the robust regression technique although we do not report them due to space constraints.

It is worth mentioning that the regressions with public investment contain many missing observations. If we attempt to substitute the missing observations with data from other sources, we get a negative association between necessity entrepreneurship and public investment, but no relation with opportunity activity.

It should be noted that we have performed a set of additional robustness tests although Table 6 only reports those for which the variables cover almost the entire sample. In particular, sound money also remains significant even if we include the volatility of the real exchange rate or actual inflation data in levels or variance from World Bank (2006). Hence, even if sound money may be the theoretically most worrisome of the five indices, as a referee correctly pointed out to us, the results are robust to including a set of other measures of financial development and related concepts.

We chose not to report these results fully due to space constraints. As noted in the text, the findings are reasonably robust throughout and remain significant in the cases where the variance inflation factor remains below a level of approximately 20. We do, however, note that a full robustness test must await future research with more cross-country information.

The study that is closest to the present work is Kreft and Sobel (2005) who show that across the US states, the level of entrepreneurial activity is significantly associated with economic freedom.

Interested readers can, for example, compare the present results to Henrekson’s (2005) analysis of how the welfare state (in casu: the Swedish welfare state) stifles incentives for entrepreneurship.

While this to some might seem a slightly farfetched possibility, it is worth stressing that Lindbeck et al. (1999) argue theoretically for the risk that welfare states can undermine citizens’ economic norms. Mokyr (2006) makes a similar argument that cultural beliefs played an important role in the Industrial Revolution, which was above anything else an entrepreneurial event.

Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–351CrossRef

Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, R. (2001). Linking entrepreneurship to growth, OECD Science, Technology and Industry (Working Papers, 2001/2), OECD Publishing

Audretsch DB, Thurik R, Verheul I, Wennekers S (2002) Entrepreneurship: determinants and policy in a European-US comparison. Springer, BostonCrossRef

Barro RJ (1991) Economic growth in a cross-section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106:407–443CrossRef

Barzel Y (2005) A theory of the state. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Baumol W (1968) Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review 58:64–71

Baumol W (1990) Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy 98:893–921CrossRef

Baumol W (1993) Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Berggren N (2003) The benefits of economic freedom: a survey. Independent Review 8:193–211

Bianchi M, Henrekson M (2005) Is neoclassical economics still entrepreneurless? Kyklos 58:353–377CrossRef

Blanchflower DG (2000) Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics 7:471–505CrossRef

Blau D (1987) A time-series analysis of self-employment in the United States. Journal of Political Econom 95:445–467CrossRef

Brunetti, A., Kisunko, G., & Weder, G. (1997). Institutional obstacles to doing business: region-by-region results from a worldwide survey of the private sector (Background paper for World Development Report 1997, Policy Research Working Paper 1759). Washington, DC: World Bank

Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature de commerce en general. In H. Higgs (Ed.). London: Macmillan. 1931.

Carree M, van Stel, A, Thurik AR, Wennekers A (2002) Economic development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976–1996. Small Business Economics 19(3):271–290CrossRef

Carlsson F, Lundström S (2002) Economic freedom and growth: decomposing the effects. Public Choice 112:335–344CrossRef

CIA (2006). The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.

De Haan J, Lundström S, Sturm JE (2006) Market-oriented institutions and policies and economic growth: a critical survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 20:157–191CrossRef

Demsetz H (1982) Barriers to entry. American Economic Review 72:47–57

Dixit A (1996) The making of economic policy: a transaction cost perspective. MIT, Cambridge, MA

Ekelund R, Hébert R (1990) A history of economic theory and method. McGraw-Hill, New York

Falvey R, Foster D, Greenaway R (2004) Intellectual property rights and economic growth (GEP Research Paper). Nottingham University, Nottingham

Foss NJ, Klein PG (2005) Entrepreneurship and the economic theory of the firm: any gains from trade? In: Agarwal R, Alvarez SA, Sorenson O (eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship: disciplinary perspectives. Kluwer, Boston, MA

Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Friedman M (1977) Nobel lecture: inflation and unemployment. Journal of Political Economy 85:451–472CrossRef

Glaeser E, La Porta R, Lopez de Silanes F, Shleifer A (2004) Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth 9:271–303CrossRef

Grilo, I., & Thurik R. (2004). Determinants of entrepreneurship in Europe (Discussion Paper #3004). Max Planck Institute for research into economic systems, Group entrepreneurship, growth and public Policy.

Grubel HG (1998) Economic freedom and human welfare: some empirical findings. Cato Journal 18:287–304

Gwartney, J. & Lawson, R. (2005), Economic freedom of the World 2005, available at http://www.freetheworld.com/download.html.

Gwartney J, Lawson R, Holcombe R (1999) Economic freedom and the environment for economic growth. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economic 155(4):643–663

de Haan J, Sturm JE (2000) On the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy 16:215–241CrossRef

Hayek FA (1946) The meaning of competition, in idem (1948), individualism and economic order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Hayek FA (1968) Competition as a discovery procedure, in idem(1978), New studies in economics, politics, philosophy, and the history of Ideas. Routledge, London

Henrekson M (2005) Entrepreneurship: a weak link in the welfare state? Industrial and Corporate Change 14:437–467CrossRef

Henrekson M, Rosenberg N (2001) Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lessons from the US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer 26:207–231CrossRef

Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2002). Penn World Tables, Version 6.1, Center for International Comparisons (CICUP), University of Pennsylvania, October.

Huber PJ (1964) Robust estimation of a location parameter. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 35:73–101CrossRef

Kirzner I (1980) The prime mover of progress. In: Kirzner I, Seldon A (eds) The Entrepreneur in Capitalism and Socialism. Institute of Economic Affairs, London

Kirzner I (1985) Discovery and the capitalist process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Kirzner I (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature 35:60–85

Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainy, and profit. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, Boston, MA

Kreft SF, Sobel RS (2005) Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom. Cato Journal 25:595–616

Lazear, E. M. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Journal of Labour Economics 23:649–680.

Lindbeck A, Nyberg S, Weibull J (1999) Social norms and economic incentives in the welfare state. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:1–35CrossRef

Méon PG, Weill L (2006) Does better governance foster efficiency? An aggregate frontier analysis. Economics of Governance 6:75–90

von Mises L (1949) Human action. William Hodge, London

Mokyr J (2006) Long-term economic growth and the history of technology. In: Aghion P, Durlauf S (eds) Handbook of economic growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

North DC, Summerhill WR, Weingast B (2000) Order, disorder and economic change: Latin America vs. North America. In: de Mesquita BB, Root H (eds) Governing for prosperity. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

Olson M (1982) The rise and decline of nations: economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

Ricketts M (1987) The new industrial economics: an introduction to modern theories of the firm. St. Martin’s Press, New York

Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98:71–102CrossRef

Rosenberg N (1992) Economic experiments. Industrial and Corporate Change 1:181–203CrossRef

Rosenberg N, Birdzell L (1986) How the West grew rich. Basic Books, New York

Russell A, Rath J (2002) Unravelling the rag trade: immigrant entrepreneurship in seven World cities. Berg Publishers, Oxford

Sachs JD, Warner AM (1997) Fundamental sources of long-run growth. American Economic Review 87:184–188

Salerno JT (1993) Mises and Hayek dehomogenized. Review of Austrian Economics 6:113–146CrossRef

Schumpeter JA (1911/1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Harper Perennial, London

Segerstrom PS, Anant TCA, Dinopoulos E (1990) A schumpeterian model of the product life cycle. American Economic Review 80:1077–1091

Sinn HW (1995) A theory of the welfare state. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 97:495–526CrossRef

Sinn HW (1997) The selection principle and market failure in systems competition. Journal of Public Economics 66:247–274CrossRef

Sturm JE, Leertouwer E, de Haan J (2002) Which economic freedoms contribute to growth? A comment. Kyklos 55:403–416CrossRef

Temple J (1999) The new growth evidence. Journal of Economic Literature 37:112–156

UNU, (2006). World income inequality database, v2.0. Helsinki: United Nations University-World Institute for Development Economics Research.

Wacziarg R (2001) Measuring the dynamic gains from trade. World Bank Economic Review 15:393–429CrossRef

Wennekers S, Thurik R (1999) Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics 13:27–55CrossRef

Titel: Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activity: Some Cross-Country Evidence
verfasst von: Christian Bjørnskov
Nicolai Foss
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Buch: Entrepreneurship and Culture
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-87909-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-540-87910-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2010
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87910-7_10