nach oben

Small Business Economics

Erschienen in:

01.08.2009

Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures

verfasst von: Mikael Samuelsson, Per Davidsson

Erschienen in: Small Business Economics | Ausgabe 2/2009

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The central thesis in the article is that the venture creation process is different for innovative versus imitative ventures. This holds up; the pace of the process differs by type of venture as do, in line with theory-based hypotheses, the effects of certain human capital (HC) and social capital (SC) predictors. Importantly, and somewhat unexpectedly, the theoretically derived models using HC, SC, and certain controls are relatively successful explaining progress in the creation process for the minority of innovative ventures, but achieve very limited success for the imitative majority. This may be due to a rationalistic bias in conventional theorizing and suggests that there is need for considerable theoretical development regarding the important phenomenon of new venture creation processes. Another important result is that the building up of instrumental social capital, which we assess comprehensively and as a time variant construct, is important for making progress with both types of ventures, and increasingly, so as the process progresses. This result corroborates with stronger operationalization and more appropriate analysis method what previously published research has only been able to hint at.

Vorheriger Artikel Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?

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

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The embryonic entity around which a new venture evolves is often referred to as ‘the opportunity’ in the extant literature (see, e.g., de Koning 2003; Dimov 2004; Gaglio 1997; Sarasvathy et al. 2003; Shane 2000; Shane and Venkataraman 2000). We here refrain from using that term to denote the emerging entity under study. This is in order to avoid its inherent positive bias as well as any debate as to whether ‘opportunities’ are ‘discovered’ or ‘created’. The entities we refer to are creations of individuals’ minds. They may or may not reflect favorable external conditions, and they may or may not evolve into commercially successful ventures. The labels we here favor for these entities are ‘venture idea’ and ‘(emerging) venture’.

Eligible respondents were also re-interviewed after 24 and 75 months, respectively. However, most of the variation in our dependent variable occurred during the first 18 months. For this reason as well as concerns for the size of the analysable sample, we restrict the analyses in this article to the first four waves of data collection (0, 6, 12, and 18 months).

These stricter criteria applied in arrears to the 622 cases interviewed are as follows. For a minimum, at least two ‘gestation activities’ had to be completed (cf. Reynolds 1997, 2000). Cases were excluded as over qualified (already up and running) if all three of the following were met: (a) money had been invested, and (b) revenues had been received, and (c) the venture was registered as a legal entity. In order to further homogenize the sample, cases that had already completed more than 15 ‘gestation activities’ at the time of the first interview were also excluded (i.e., 50% of the possible maximum number of such behaviors).

The application of statistical significance testing can also be rationalized as follows. One could imagine that a census study exactly like ours had been undertaken instead, applying exactly the same researcher- and respondent-induced criteria for inclusion in the final sample. Our sample should be probabilistically representative for that sub-population of emerging new ventures in Sweden at the time of our study. We hold that making statistical inferences to this no doubt sizeable population is a theoretically and practically relevant exercise.

Formally this is shown by the confidence interval for the difference in coefficient magnitude being 2.65 ± (1.96 × 0.87), i.e., not including the value zero.

While the significance test as performed is not strictly valid because of statistical dependence between the estimates it should be noted that disregarding any requirements for magnitude of the difference the joint probability of a random number generator generating four monotonically increasing numbers in each of two separate series is (1 × 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5) × (1 × 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.5) = 0.016 (<0.05), so the result is statistically significant based also on such a simple run test.

Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1997). A Schumpeterian perspective on growth and competition. In D. Kreps (Ed.), Advances in economics and econometrics, invited lecture to the 7th World Congress of the Econometrics Society.

Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 165–198). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aldrich, H., & Fiol, M. (1994). Fools rush in: The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19/4, 645–670.

Aldrich, H. E., & Kenworthy, A. (1999). The accidental entrepreneur: Cambellian antinomies and organizational foundings. In J. A. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organizational science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 19–33). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. E. (2001). Many are called but few are chosen: an evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4, Summer), 41–56.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.

Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633.

Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors: A conference of the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council (pp. 609–626). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organizations. New York: Norton.

Audretsch, D., & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany. Regional Studies, 28(4), 359–365.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

Bamford, C. H., Dean, T. J., & McDougall, P. P. (1999). An examination of the impact on initial founding conditions and decision upon the performance of new bank start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 253–277.

Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bedeian, A. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1991). Organizations: Theory and design. Chicago: Dryden Press.

Boeker, W. P. (1988). Organizational origins: Entrepreneurial and environmental imprinting at the time of founding. In G. R. Carroll & A. H. Hawley (Eds.), Ecological models of organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press: 241–258.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1996). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1), 75–76.

Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: the entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource-base. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 64–78.

Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring start-up event sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 151–166.

Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 727–746.

Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coleman, J. (1990). Social capital and the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

Cosh, A., Hughes, A., & Wood, E. (1998). Innovation surveys and very small enterprises. Working paper series/ESRC Centre for Business Research, 89, Cambridge.

Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Heeley, M. B. (1999). Pioneers and followers: Competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 175–210.

Dahlqvist, J. (2007). Assessing new economic activity: Process and performance in new ventures. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping.

Davidsson, P. (1989). Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.

Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

Davidsson, P. (2006a). Method challenges and opportunities in the psychological study of entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 287–323). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davidsson, P. (2006b). Nascent entrepreneurship: Empirical studies and developments. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–76.

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

de Koning, A. (2003). Opportunity development: A socio-cognitive perspective. In J. Katz & D. Shepherd (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth. Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (Vol. 6, pp. 265–314). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.

Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 385–410.

Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental Innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422–1433.CrossRef

Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Wiley.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(14), 147–160.

Dimov, D. P. (2004). The individuality of opportunity recognition: A critical review and extension. In J. E. Butler (Ed.), Opportunity identification and entrepreneurial behavior (pp. 135–162). Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Diochon, M., Menzies, M., & Gasse, Y. (2003). Insights into the dynamics of Canadian nascent entrepreneurs’ start-up efforts and the role individual factors play in the process. Paper presented at the 20th Annual CCSBE Conference, Victoria.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 504–530.

Fiet, J. O. (1996). The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8, 419–430.

Fiet, J. O., Piskounov, A., & Patel, P. C. (2005). Still searching (systematically) for entrepreneurial discoveries. Small Business Economics, 25, 489–504.

Foxall, G. R. (1997). Marketing psychology. Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham.

Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 374–384.CrossRef

Freeman, J. (1982). Organizational life cycles and natural selection processes. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 1–32) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gaglio, C. M. (1997). Opportunity identification: Review, critique and suggested research directions. In J. Katz & J. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 139–202). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an Entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Small Business Journal, 12(4), 11–31.

Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004a). Business start-up activities. In W. B. Gartner, K. G. Shaver, N. M. Carter, & P. D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 285–298). Thousand Oakes: Sage.

Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Carter, N. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004b). Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry?. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 421–440.

Gifford, S. (2003). Risk and Uncertainty. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750–783.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–509.

Gustafsson, V. (2004). Entrepreneurial decision-making. Doctoral dissertation. Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School.

Hauknes, J. (1998). Dynamic innovation systems. In M. Boden & I. Miles (Eds.), Innovation and services in the knowledge-based economy. London: Pinter.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.

Henderson, A. D. (1999). Firm strategy and age dependence: A contingent view of the liabilities of newness, adoloescence and obsolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 281–314.

Hodgson, G. M. (1993). Economics and evolution: Bringing life back into economics, Cambridge, UK and Ann Arbor (MI): Polity Press and University of Michigan Press.

Ibarra, H. (1997). Structural alignments, individuals strategies, and managerial actions: elements toward a network theory off getting things done. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Network and organizations, structure, form and actions. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Johannisson, B. (1995). Paradigms and entrepreneurial networks—some methodological challenges. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7, 215–231.

Katz, J., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

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

Kleinknecht, A. (1987). Measuring R&D in small firms: How much are we missing? Journal of Industrial Economics, 136, 253–256.

Kleinknecht, A. (1991). Firm size and innovation. Reply to Scheirer. Small Business Economics, 3, 157–158.

Knight, F. H., (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities. Strategic Management Journal, 13(special summer issue), 111–125.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Liao, J., & Welsch, H. (2003). Exploring the venture creation process: Evidence from tech and non-tech nascent entrepreneurs. In W. D. Bygrave et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2003. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.

Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1988). First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 41–58.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Mises, L. V. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery, Chicago.

Mitchell, R. K., Seawright, K. W., & Morse, E. A. (2000). Cross-cultural cognition and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974–993.

Mosakowski, E. (2002). Overcoming resource disadvantages in entrepreneurial firms: When less is more. In M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, S. M. Camp, & D. L. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 106–126). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Muthén, B. (1991). Analysis of longitudinal data using latent variable models with varying parameters. In L. Collins & J. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change, recent advances, unanswered questions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 1–17.

Muthén, B. O. (2000). Methodological issues in random coefficient growth modeling using a latent variable framework: Applications to the development of heavy drinking. In J. Rose, L. Chassin, C. Presson, & J. Sherman (Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research (pp. 113–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Muthén, B. O., & Curran, P. J. (1997). General longitudinal modelling of individual differences in experimental designs: A latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation. Psychological Methods, 2, 371–402.

Muthén, B. O., & Khoo, S. T. (1998). Longitudinal studies of achievement growth using latent variable modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, Special issue: latent growth curve analysis, 10, 73–101.

Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L., (1998). Analyzing of longitudinal data: Growth modeling using latent variables. Training session arranged by the committee for longitudinal research, the Swedish council for planning and coordination of research (FRN). Stockholm, Sweden, August, 13–18.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

The Oslo Manual; Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: Oslo Manual 1997. (E-book PDF Format. http://oecdpublications.gfinb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/ ISBN: 9264192263.)

Parker, S., & Belghitar, Y. (2006). What happens to nascent entrepreneurs? And econometric analysis of the PSED. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 81–101.

Pavitt, K. (1982). R&D patenting and innovative activities. Research Policy, 11, 33–51.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Reynolds, P. D. (1997). National panel studies of business start-ups: Research program status report and policy implications, working paper presented to the working party on small and medium enterprises ninth session, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Reynolds, P. D. (2000). National panel study of US business start-ups. Background and methodology. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 4, pp. 153–227). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Reynolds, P. D., & Miller, B. (1992). New firm gestation: Conception, birth and implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 405–417.

Robinson, J. (1979). Garegnani on effective demand. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3(2), 179–180.

Romanelli, E., (1989). Environments and strategies of organization start-up: effects on early survival. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 369–387.

Rosen, S. (1983). Economics and entrepreneurs. In J. Ronen (Ed.), Entrepreneurship. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 301–311.

Rotefoss, B., & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Aspiring, nascent and fledgling entrepreneurs: an investigation of the business start-up process. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(2), 109–127.

Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of organizational founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.

Samuelsson, M. (2004). Creating new ventures: A longitudinal investigation of the nascent venturing process. Doctoral dissertation, Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping.

Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: towards a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–288.

Sarasvathy, S., Dew, N., Velamuri, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 141–160). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

Schotter, A. (1981). The economic theory of social institutions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Schultz, T. (1959). Investment in man: An economist’s view. Investment in man: An economist’s view. The Social Service Review, 33(2), 69–75.CrossRef

Schultz, T. W. (1980). Investment in entrepreneurial ability. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 82, 437–448.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1928). The instability of capitalism. The Economic Journal, 38, 361–386.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, London.

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.

Shane, S., & Delmar, F. (2004). Planning for the market: business planning before marketing and the continuation of organizing efforts. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 767–785.

Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. (2003). The individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 161–194). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimension of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Smith, N. R. (1967). The entrepreneur and his firm: The relationship between type of man and type of company. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Stanworth, J., Blythe, S., Granger, B., & Stanworth, C. (1989). Who becomes an entrepreneur? International Small Business Journal, 8, 11–22.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. D. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

Svendsen, G. L. H., & Svendsen, G. T. (2004). The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital: Entrepreneurship, Co-operative Movements and Institutions. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.

Teece, D. J. (1998). The dynamics of industrial capitalism: Perspectives on Alfred Chandler's scale and scope (1990). Journal of Economic Literature, 31 (March 1993). (Reprinted in Patrick O'Brien (Ed.), Critical perspectives on the world economy (London: Routledge, 1997/1998)).

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

Van Gelderen, M., Bosma, N., & Thurik, A. R. (2001). Setting up a business in the Netherlands: who starts, who gives up, who is still trying? In W. D. Bygrave et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2001. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Van Gelderen, M., Thurik, A. R., & Bosma, N. (2005). Success and risk factors in the pre-startup phase. Small Business Economics, 24, 365–380.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press

Witt, U. (1992). Evolution as the theme of a new heterodoxy. Economics, 3–20.

Zahra, S., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: Encouraging dialogue and debate. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 8–10.

Titel: Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures
verfasst von: Mikael Samuelsson
Per Davidsson
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2009
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Small Business Economics / Ausgabe 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0921-898X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0913
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9093-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2009

Internationalisation of technology-oriented firms in Germany and the UK

Absorptive capacity and R&D tax policy: Are in-house and external contract R&D substitutes or complements?

Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy

Scott A. Shane: winner of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research

Defending against rival innovation

Screening item effects in estimating the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs

Premium Partner