1 Introduction
2 Diversity in the entrepreneurial process and context
3 Methodology
3.1 Design
3.2 Data collection
3.3 Data analysis
4 Findings
4.1 Diversity in definitions and measures of entrepreneurship
Definitions | Stage 1: potential entrepreneur | Stage 2: nascent/new entrepreneur | Stage 3: established/consolidated | |
---|---|---|---|---|
[+] Innovation [-] | IE: innovative entrepreneurship | • Incubators that assist young technological small- (fewer than 50 employees) and medium-sized enterprises (up to 250 employees) in initial stages– Case study (Abetti 2004) • New technological organisations incubated—case study (Karlsson et al. 2005) • Percentage of self-employed that have created knowledge-based innovative firms—OECD, Global Competitive Index (Acs et al. 2009; Szabo and Herman 2014) • Comparing: self-employment rate (Knightian sense) vs. innovative (patents granted by the country of origin)—panel data (El-Harbi and Anderson 2010) • New technological ventures created by corporate or independent entrepreneurs—case study (Zahra and Nambisan 2012*) • Young companies (less than three years old) mostly involved in the product-market fit phase – Case study (Wallin et al. 2016*) | • Independent and established firms with at least 20 employees and company groups in technological sectors—comparisons per country and institution (Davidsson and Henrekson 2002) • From small/young firms to the old/significant firms involved in the IT sector—panel data (Johansson 2004) • Established technological firms in different sectors—case study (Cooper and Park 2008) • Well-established innovative firms (Zahra and Nambisan 2012*) • Companies over 3 years old enrolled in the scaling phase—case study (Wallin et al. 2016*) | |
AE: academic entrepreneurship | • Recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities based on one’s research and intention to launch university spin-off—case study (Hannibal et al. 2016*) | • Academic scientists involved in the commercialisation of activities via university spin-offs—ethnography, panel data (Pilegaard et al. 2010; González-Pernía et al. 2013; Beraza-Garmendia and Rodríguez-Castellanos 2015; Rodríguez-Gulías et al. 2016) • Nascent university spin-off ventures during the earliest phase of the entrepreneurial process—case study (Rasmussen and Borch 2010; Hannibal et al. 2016*) • Technology-based ventures that started within the university incubator in the last 3 years—case study (Patton 2014) | ||
GE: graduate entrepreneurship | • The trigger is the moment when the students start thinking seriously about setting up a business and devoting time/resources (Degeorge and Fayolle 2011) • Entrepreneurial proficiency in school learners—mixed methods (Meintjes et al. 2015) | |||
ODE: owner demographic entrepreneurship | • Any self-supporting activities for rural women across the entrepreneurial process—case study (Mair and Marti 2007*) • Individuals who expect to set up a venture in a deprived community in the future—Mixed methods (Williams and Huggins 2013*) | • New ventures listed in a rural area of the country directory—case study (Atherton and Hannon 2006) • Any self-supporting activities by rural women across the entrepreneurial process—case study (Mair and Marti 2007*) • Opportunities faced by women business owners during the creation of their business—case study (Guzmán and Rodríguez 2008*) • Individuals who are creating a venture in a deprived community—mixed methods (Williams and Huggins 2013*) • New start-up rate of companies in the social service sector or tourism sector—case study (Gawel and Toikko 2014; Schiopu et al. 2015) • Rate of business ownership by highly educated and skilled black community—US Census (Bates 2015) | • Any self-supporting activities of rural women-owned firms across the entrepreneurial process—case study (Mair and Marti 2007)* • Opportunities faced by women business owners during the development of their business—case study (Guzmán and Rodríguez 2008*) • Micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) owned by a woman who employs fewer than 75 employees—survey (Kairiza et al. 2017) • Active entrepreneurs of small firms who are first-/second-generation immigrants—mixed methods (Rusinovic 2008) • Owners operating small businesses in ethnic communities (fewer than 50 employees)—multiple case study (Wang and Altinay 2010) • Manufacturing senior firms owned by a woman whose initial investment is less than 10 million Indian rupees – Census (Coad and Pawan Tamvada 2012) • Small firms run by people living in a deprived area – Mixed methods (Williams and Huggins 2013*) • Small firms run by immigrants registered in the Chambers of Commerce – Panel data (Falavigna et al. 2017) | |
EN: general entrepreneurship | • Individuals who intend to pursue an entrepreneurial career—survey (Rotefoss and Kolvereid 2005) • Individuals ready to develop an entrepreneurial activity—GEM intentions (Shakhovskaya and Akimova 2013*) • Entrepreneurship as the exploitation of opportunities—discourse analysis (Heinonen and Hytti 2016) | • Business owner when starting their business—survey (Bitzenis and Nito 2005) • Incumbent, young, and viable start-ups with fewer than 100 employees in the manufacturing and service industries—survey (Lutz et al. 2010; Edoho 2015*) • New firm entry rates in the solar energy industry—panel data (Meek et al. 2010; García-Posada and Mora-Sanguinetti 2015*) • Percentage of the adult population (18–64 years old) involved an entrepreneurial activity less than 42 months old—GEM TEA (Pinillos and Reyes 2011; Shakhovskaya and Akimova 2013*) • The time required for an entrepreneur to start up a business (ranges from 7 to 72 days)—panel data (Misra et al. 2014) • New business activity – Survey (McEwan 2015) | • Established small- and medium-sized entrepreneurship—panel data (Bateman 2000; Jabani Mambula 2004; Kang and Heshmati 2008; Puffer et al. 2010; Canton et al. 2013; Zhang 2015; Edoho 2015*; Hassink et al. 2016; Gupta 2016; Elston et al. 2016) • Business owners of firms more than 42 months old—GEM established ventures (Aidis et al. 2008; Shakhovskaya and Akimova 2013*) • Established exporter firms from emerging economies—probit (LiPuma et al. 2013) • Entry and exit rates for corporate ventures—SABI (García-Posada and Mora-Sanguinetti 2015*) • High-growth firm (HGF) defined as an employment increment of 10% over the last 3 years—panel data (Krasniqi and Desai 2016) | |
SE: self-employment | • Latent entrepreneurship such as preferring to be self-employed—Flash Eurobarometer (Gohmann 2012) | • Self-employment as a measure of metropolitan entrepreneurship—US Census (Coomes et al. 2013) |
4.1.1 Operationalisation of potential entrepreneurship
4.1.2 Operationalisation of nascent/new entrepreneurship
4.1.3 Operationalisation of established entrepreneurship
4.2 Environmental drivers/barriers faced by potential entrepreneurs
Economies | Environmental conditions | |
---|---|---|
Positive effect | Negative effect | |
Developed economies | Policies EN: Preferential procurement policies implemented by the government to support entrepreneurship Support programs EN: Greater emphasis on the identification of opportunities, and not only on exploitation Professional support GE: Displacing networking events are drivers of actual behaviour towards a start-up, but interact with perceptions Higher education AE: University capabilities facilitating the venture-formation process: (1) creating new paths of action, (2) balancing both academic and commercial interests, and (3) integrating new resources Labour market EN: Increase in unemployment leads more people to consider entrepreneurship Market dynamism EN: A strong local industrial specialisation increases potential entrepreneurship | Support programs ODE: Support programs in deprived areas may effectively discourage entrepreneurship, or at least be ineffective (due to the perceptions of beneficiaries) Financial support ODE: Limited funding and traditionally restricted access to specific markets are barriers that deter black entrepreneurship |
Developing economies | Professional support GE: Specific training on problem recognition and problem solving ODE: Collaborative platforms by social entrepreneurs Individual capacity GE: Individual traits | Policies EN: Inefficient/unstable policies/legislation, with frequent legal and tax changes Higher education GE: Lack of or ineffective entrepreneurship education in society and in universities Market dynamism ODE: Lack of market-supporting institutions GE: Transitional socioeconomic context Culture EN: Lack of entrepreneurial culture ODE: The low reputation of entrepreneurs, an informal activity, and sociocultural norms that impede participation in market-based activities |
Multiple countries | Market dynamism SE: Economic freedom increases the preference to be self-employed, and higher corruption increases the preference to be self-employed | Market dynamism SE: Higher corruption decreases the preference to be self-employed |
4.2.1 Developed economies
4.2.2 Developing economies
4.2.3 Multi-country studies
4.3 Environmental drivers/barriers faced by nascent/new entrepreneurs
Economies | Environmental conditions | |
---|---|---|
Positive effect | Negative effect | |
Developed economies | Policies ODE: Legislative changes AE: Policies for promoting academic entrepreneurship Support programs ODE, EN: Government intervention via incubators or support assistance from public agencies IE: Programs for fostering technology entrepreneurship Higher education AE, GE: University capabilities EN: Entrepreneurship training Professional infrastructures ODE: Incubation strategies AE, IE: Collaboration engagement, advisors/mentors R&D AE, IE: Technology transfer offices outside the university to commercialise scientific knowledge, both in the form of licencing and firm creation Market dynamics IE: Conditions of scalability for ambitious entrepreneurs IE: Participation in the business ecosystem Culture AE: Existing institutional structures to legitimise and facilitate spin-off activity Personal capacity IE: Experiences and personal characteristics | Policies EN: The judicial (in)efficacy for new entrepreneurs but not for corporate entrepreneurs, industrial specialisation policies GE: Government rules and regulations for graduate entrepreneurs Support programs ODE: Entrepreneurship support for new entrepreneurs in deprived communities Financial support EN: Significant barriers: access to capital Market dynamic IE: Perception of barriers by ambitious entrepreneurs EN: Access to distribution channels, effects of macroeconomic crises or uncertainty, munificence R&D EN: Product differentiation, R&D, and advertising Culture EN: Social norms or wealth inequalities affecting new entrepreneurs ODE: A discriminatory environment, such as a critical barrier that limits owner demographic entrepreneurs in the USA IE: Individual perceptions and constraints |
Developing economies | Policies EN: Changes in taxation procedures EN: Misalignments between policies and programs ODE: Inconsistent/uncertain state policy, weak legislation, inefficient state administration Financial support ODE: Risk capital, lack of financial resources EN: Exorbitant interest rates EN: Weak legislative basis for venturing investment Market dynamics ODE: Weakness of institutions that support the market could be the primary barrier for rural entrepreneurs Social EN, ODE: Corruption, the entrepreneur’s social reputation, and motivation for the liquidation of businesses | |
Multiple countries | Policies EN: Start-up procedures, taxation, interest rates Support programs ODE, EN: Incubation programs Market dynamics IE: Business freedom and corruption increase innovative entrepreneurs SE: Freedom for foreign investment Culture EN: A supportive national culture Higher education AE: University support programs for spin-offs R&D IE: Knowledge spillover | Policies EN: Bureaucracy in registration procedures Financial support IE: Risk capital, lack of funds ODE: Discrimination in accessing bank credit Professional support EN: Institutional pressures Market dynamics SE: Business freedom and corruption decreases self-employment Culture ODE: Discrimination against minority groups R&D IE: Lack of public/private R&D investment |
4.3.1 Developed economies
4.3.2 Developing economies
4.3.3 Multi-country studies
4.4 Environmental drivers/barriers faced by established/consolidated entrepreneurs
Economies | Environmental conditions | |
---|---|---|
Positive effect | Negative effect | |
Developed economies | Policies ODE, EN, IE: Efficacy of judicial system Supporting programs IE: Intervention via incubators and accelerators ODE: Incentives for wealth accumulation and venture capital Financial support IE, EN: Public/private funds (venture capital), credit guarantee Networks IE: Networks for high-technology firms ODE: Family and co-ethnic networks EN: Press and media attention Market dynamics IE: The active role of innovative entrepreneurs in the ecosystem IE: Corporate actions instead of cooperative actions | Policies IE: Public centralisation: tax policy, labour policy SE: Increment of income taxes and labour taxation Supporting programs ODE: Ineffective support programs in deprived regions Financial support ODE, EN: Information asymmetry between bank and firms Networks ODE: Family and co-ethnic networks Labour market SE, IE: Wages, taxes, security conditions |
Developing economies | Networks ODE: Creation of platforms of participation and collaboration between entrepreneurs in rural areas NE: Family networks Financial support EN: Access to informal capital (personal savings, families, friends) for entrepreneurs of small firms Market dynamics EN: Entrepreneurial orientation EN: Competitive intensity | Financial support ODE: No inclusion in the financial markets EN: Exorbitant interest rates, biased funding assistance of public institutions, lack of credit Policies EN: Lack of/inappropriate/weak policies for growth, taxation Supporting programs EN: Inadequate training opportunities EN: Inappropriate support programs Market dynamics EN: Large competitors, difficulties in obtaining materials, foreign currency restrictions, the declining purchasing power of consumers, low-trust environment Culture EN, ODE: Lack of legitimation, low social reputation, corruption, sociocultural norms |
Multiple countries | Policies EN: High-quality institutions that facilitate exportation EN: Suitable interventionism/transparency EN: Creation of agencies, financial bodies with regulatory functions that make up the “local state development” EN: An improvement in the court system Financial support EN, IE: Transparency of the financial markets, access to funds, informal sources of funding Support programs EN, IE: Incubator organisations in new emerging markets for both entrepreneurs and innovative entrepreneurs Networks EN: Informal/business networks, active participation of high-growth firms with government Market dynamics EN: Export regulations | Policies EN: Inappropriate regulation of property rights and an inefficient judicial system Support programs EN: Weak business centre networks Financial support ODE: Limited access to credit by minority groups EN: The asymmetry between bank and firms IE: Centralised public and financial sector Culture ODE: The glass ceiling and discrimination against women entrepreneurs Market dynamics EN: Corruption and opportunistic behaviour in the market ODE: Weakness of institutions that support market |
4.4.1 Developed economies
4.4.2 Developing economies
4.4.3 Multi-country studies
5 Discussion and future directions
5.1 Discussion
Potential entrepreneurship | ||||||||||||
Environmental conditions | Non-Schumpeterian | Schumpeterian | ||||||||||
Developing (India, Russia) | Developed (Norway, Finland, UK) | Developing (Romania, South Africa) | Developed (USA, France, Denmark, Ireland) | |||||||||
SE | ODE | EN | SE | ODE | EN | GE | AE | IE | GE | AE | IE | |
Policy | − | − | + | |||||||||
Programs | − | + | ||||||||||
Financial support | − | + | ||||||||||
Culture | − | − | ± | − | ||||||||
Professional support | + | + | ||||||||||
Infrastructures | + | + | ||||||||||
Higher education | − | + | ||||||||||
Labour market | + | |||||||||||
Networks | + | + | ||||||||||
Market dynamics | − | ± | + | − | + | |||||||
R&D | ||||||||||||
Individual capabilities | + | |||||||||||
Nascent/new entrepreneurship | ||||||||||||
Environmental conditions | Non-Schumpeterian | Schumpeterian | ||||||||||
Developing (Albania, Russia, African countries) | Developed (Finland, Netherlands, Spain, UK, USA, OECD) | Developing | Developed (Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Spain, UK, USA) | |||||||||
SE | ODE | EN | SE | ODE | EN | GE | AE | IE | GE | AE | IE | |
Policy | − | − | ± | ± | − | − | ||||||
Programs | − | − | ± | − | + | |||||||
Financial support | − | − | − | − | ||||||||
Culture | − | ± | ± | − | ± | + | − | |||||
Professional support | + | + | − | + | + | |||||||
Infrastructures | + | + | + | |||||||||
Higher education | + | + | + | |||||||||
Labour market | − | |||||||||||
Networks | + | + | ||||||||||
Market dynamics | − | − | ± | − | ± | |||||||
R&D | − | + | ± | |||||||||
Individual capabilities | + | |||||||||||
Established entrepreneurship | ||||||||||||
Environmental conditions | Non-Schumpeterian | Schumpeterian | ||||||||||
Developing (India, China, Nigeria, Russia, Zimbabwe, western/central Europe, transition economies) | Developed (Italy, Korea, Netherlands Spain, USA, UK, European countries) | Developing | Developed (Canada, Finland, Sweden, Italy, UK, USA) | |||||||||
SE | ODE | EN | SE | ODE | EN | GE | AE | IE | GE | AE | IE | |
Policy | ± | − | + | + | ± | |||||||
Programs | ± | − | − | + | ||||||||
Financial support | − | ± | − | ± | ± | |||||||
Culture | − | − | − | |||||||||
Professional support | ||||||||||||
Infrastructures | + | + | ||||||||||
Higher education | ||||||||||||
Labour market | − | − | ||||||||||
Networks | + | ± | − | + | + | |||||||
Market dynamics | − | ± | + | |||||||||
R&D | ||||||||||||
Individual capabilities |