Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research pp 557–594Cite as

The Impact of Entrepreneurship on Economic Growth

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship ((IHSE,volume 5))

Abstract

The present chapter deals with the consequences of entrepreneurship for macro-economic growth. It consists of eight sections: (1) Introduction; (2) The influence of economic development on entrepreneurship; (3) Types of entrepreneurship and their relation to economic growth; (4) The effects of the choice between entrepreneurship and employment; (5) Entrepreneurship in endogenous growth models; (6) Strands of empirical evidence; (7) The time lag structure; and (8) Conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Audretsch et al. (2004) and Santarelli et al. (2006) for a survey of studies dealing with (violations of) Gibrat’s Law.

  2. 2.

    Other recent overviews of the literature include Audretsch et al. (2006) and Braunerhjelm (2008), focusing on the key role of entrepreneurs (who benefit from knowledge spillovers) in achieving growth. Parker (2009) devotes part of Chapter 11 to a literature survey of entrepreneurship and aggregate growth. In their literature survey of the relative contributions of entrepreneurs, Praag and Versloot (2007) distinguish four measures: employment, innovation, productivity, and individual utility levels. Carree and Thurik (2006) present a collection of seminal articles.

  3. 3.

    See Carree and Klomp (1996) and Davis et al. (1996) for further discussion.

  4. 4.

    This has led to the knowledge spillover theory approaches (Audretsch, 2007; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2008; Audretsch et al., 2006) which are dealt with elsewhere in this Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship can contribute to growth by serving as a mechanism to help knowledge spilling over or to permeate the filter which impedes this spillover. The knowledge spillover theory attributes importance not just to the role of persons but also to that of regional agglomerations of knowledge activities (entrepreneurship capital) which then become the breeding ground of growth.

  5. 5.

    A full account of the relation between entrepreneurship and economic development and whether and why it would be U-shaped is given in Wennekers et al. (2010).

  6. 6.

    Some theoretical models propose to explain the decline of self-employment and of small business presence in general. Lucas (1978) shows how rising real wages may raise the opportunity cost of self-employment relative to the return. Given an underlying “managerial” talent distribution this induces marginal entrepreneurs (in this context, Lucas refers to managers) to become employees. This pushes up the average firm size. Iyigun and Owen (1998) develop a model implying that economic development is associated with a decline in the number of entrepreneurs relative to the total number of employees. They argue that fewer individuals are willing to run the risk associated with becoming an entrepreneur as “safe” professional earnings rise with economic development. See also Schaffner (1993).

  7. 7.

    Other sources showing that the increase in the importance of large businesses has come to a halt in Western countries are Carlsson (1989), Loveman and Sengenberger (1991), Acs and Audretsch (1993), Acs (1996) and Thurik (1999).

  8. 8.

    The US (non-agricultural) self-employment rate was stable at around 10% for many years. However, in the 2003–2007 period the rate went up in countries like France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. See, e.g., the Compendia data in Carree et al. (2007).

  9. 9.

    Brock and Evans (1986) were the first to provide a detailed overview.

  10. 10.

    See Berkowitz and Holland (2001) for the effects of privatization on small enterprise formation in Russia.

  11. 11.

    See also Gartner (1989, 64) who asserts that “The entrepreneur is not a fixed state of existence, rather entrepreneurship is a role that individuals undertake to create organizations” and Schumpeter (1934, 78) who states that “Because being an entrepreneur is not a profession and as a rule not a lasting condition, entrepreneurs do not form a social class in the technical sense as, for example, landowners or capitalists or workmen do.”

  12. 12.

    The terms “self-employed” and “business owners” will be used interchangeably throughout this chapter.

  13. 13.

    Metzger (2006) notes that not every experience can be regarded as an indicator of enhanced human capital. The experience of failure can also be an indicator of entrepreneurial incompetence.

  14. 14.

    Schumpeter’s Theory of Economic Development was published in German in 1911 and in English in 1934.

  15. 15.

    The Knightian entrepreneur has also been interpreted as the “neo-classical entrepreneur” (see, for instance, Shane, 2000). In the neo-classical (equilibrium) framework, entrepreneurship is explained by fundamental attributes of people (like the “taste” for uncertainty).

  16. 16.

    Yu (1998) provides an interesting analysis of the importance of Kirznerian (adaptive) entrepreneurship in explaining Hong Kong’s economic development. He finds that small Hong Kong firms are usually the first groups to get out of a declining sector and move onto new markets. He claims that the diversification of Hong Kong’s economy into the service sector “can be explained consistently by the dynamic operations of adaptive entrepreneurship” (pp. 902–903).

  17. 17.

    Ilmakunnas and Kanniainen (2001) find empirical evidence from OECD countries to support the Knightian view that economic risks shape equilibrium entrepreneurship in an occupational choice model. They find evidence that both “national economic risk” (changes in GDP) and social insurance for labor risks (unemployment compensation), assumed not to be available to the self-employed, negatively impact the self-employment rate.

  18. 18.

    The uncertainty in the return to entrepreneurial ventures is that with probability q an individual achieves an income of λ t , the endogenously determined technology level, times his entrepreneurial capital and with probability 1-q he receives no income. There is no uncertainty assumed in the return to education, being λ t times their professional capital (see Iyigun & Owen, 1999, 220).

  19. 19.

    The model is only concerned with occupational choice, not with the (dis)incentives present in economic “systems” to pursue product or process innovation.

  20. 20.

    See also Braunerhjelm (2008), who discusses how knowledge creation and diffusion can be integrated into existing growth models.

  21. 21.

    It may be argued that Schumpeterian entrepreneurship cannot be modeled using standard assumptions of the neo-classical model such as profit maximization. It is evident that the Aghion and Howitt models fail to do complete justice to Schumpeter’s discussions of the motivations that underlie entrepreneurial behavior.

  22. 22.

    This is an escalation effect: the decrease in the number of firms is due to technological opportunities leading firms to invest in R&D, which is characterized by sunk costs that make entry and incumbency more costly and labor more scarce for production.

  23. 23.

    The idea that entrepreneurial energy as such may not suffice for economic progress is also expressed by Baumol (1990), who stresses the importance of entrepreneurship being led into productive channels.

  24. 24.

    Other examples of the role of entrepreneurship in economic history are given in Wennekers et al. (2002, 2010).

  25. 25.

    Jaffe et al. (2007), in an editorial to a special issue of Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization on academic entrepreneurship, conclude that the “dual engines of growth” being the process of scientific discovery and industrial innovation, appear to reinforce each other in the contribution of research to the process of economic growth.

  26. 26.

    Engelbrecht (1997) also shows that inefficient corporate bureaucracies have had a negative impact on US export competitiveness. Denis and Shome (2005), among others, show that downsizing has had a positive effect on firm financial performance.

  27. 27.

    Carree et al. (2002, 2007) hypothesize a “U-shaped” equilibrium relationship between the rate of business ownership and per capita income but, in fact, find it to be impossible to statistically discriminate between U-shaped “equilibrium” functions and L-shaped functions.

  28. 28.

    In Italy, research and development expenditures are by far the lowest among the largest OECD countries as a percentage of gross national product. This is in line with the idea that when there are too many business owners, the scale advantages in research and development are not utilized. See Cohen and Klepper (1996).

  29. 29.

    The excess growth of small firms in that study is defined as the percentage change in the value-of-shipments accounted for by small firms minus that accounted for by large firms.

  30. 30.

    See Audretsch et al. (2002) for such a framework concerning the determinants of entrepreneurship. See also Wennekers et al. (2002) for more detailed frameworks.

  31. 31.

    Sternberg (1996) documents how the success of a number of different high-technology clusters spanning a number of developed countries is the direct result of enabling policies, such as the provision of venture capital or research support.

  32. 32.

    An example is the French government’s “auto-entrepreneur” stimulus plan that started in January 2009 and has led to tens of thousands of new business startups. See also Audretsch et al. (2007) and European Commission (2000).

References

  • Acs, Z. J. 1992. Small business economics; a global perspective. Challenge, 35, November/December: 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J. 1996. Small firms and economic growth. In P. H. Admiraal (Ed.), Small Business in the Modern Economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. 2006. How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations, winter: 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Armington, C. 2004. Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities, Regional Studies, 38: 911–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1987. Innovation, market structure, and firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69: 567–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., &. Audretsch, D. B. 1990. Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1993. Conclusion. In Z. J. Acs, & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Small Firms and Entrepreneurship; an East–West Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B, & Evans, D. S. 1994. Why does the self-employment rate vary across countries and over time? Discussion Paper No. 871, London: CEPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. A. 2005. Penetrating the “knowledge filter” in regional economies. Annals of Regional Science, 39: 439–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction, Econometrica, 60: 323–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. 1997. A Schumpeterian perspective on growth and competition. In D. M. Kreps, & K. F. Wallis (Eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Vol. 2: 279–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiginger, K., & Tichy, G. 1991. Small firms and the merger mania. Small Business Economics, 3: 83–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. 1995. Innovation and Industry Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. 2000. Entrepreneurship in Germany. In D. L. Sexton, & H. Landström (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. 2007. Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23: 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Carree, M. A., van Stel, A. J., & Thurik, A. R. 2002. Impeded industrial restructuring: The growth penalty. Kyklos, 55: 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. 1996. Creative destruction: Turbulence and economic growth in Germany. In E. Helmstadter & M. Perlman (Eds.). Behavioral Norms, Technological Progress, and Economic Dynamics; Studies in Schumpeterian Economics: (pp. 137–150). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. 2002. Growth regimes over time and space. Regional Studies, 36: 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (Eds). 2007. The Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Klomp, L., Santarelli, E., & Thurik A. R. 2004. Gibrat's Law: Are the services different? Review of Industrial Organization, 24: 301–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. & Keilbach, M. 2008. Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37: 1697–1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. 2006. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. 2000. Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10: 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, A. R. 2001 What is new about the new economy: Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 267–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Verheul, I., Thurik, A. R., & Wennekers, S. (Eds.). 2002. Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policy in a European–US Comparison. Boston and Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. V., & Newman, A. F. 1993. Occupational choice and the process of development. Journal of Political Economy, 101: 274–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. 1968. Entrepreneurship and economic theory. American Economic Review, 58: 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. 1990. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98: 893–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. 1993. Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics; existence and bounds. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, D., & DeJong, D. N. 2005. Entrepreneurship and post-socialist growth. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67: 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, D., & Holland, J. 2001. Does privatization enhance or deter small enterprise formation? Economics Letters, 74: 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G. 2000. Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, 7: 471–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, D. 1987. A time series analysis of self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 95: 445–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P. 2008. Entrepreneurship, knowledge, and economic growth. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 4: 451–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. 1999. Industry structure, entrepreneurship and the macroeconomy: A comparison of Ohio and Sweden, 1975–1995. In Z. J. Acs, B. Carlsson, & C. Karlsson (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Small & Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Macroeconomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A., & Evans, D. S. 1986. The Economics of Small Businesses: Their Role and Regulation in the U.S. Economy. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, W. A., & Evans, D. S. 1989. Small business economics. Small Business Economics, 1: 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, I., & Willard, G. E. 1993. Towards a theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejon, M., & Segarra, A. 1999. Business dynamics and efficiency in industries and regions: The case of Spain. Small Business Economics, 13: 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. 1989. The evolution of manufacturing technology and its impact on industrial structure: an international study. Small Business Economics, 1: 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. 1992. The rise of small business; causes and consequences. In W. J. Adams (Ed.), Singular Europe, Economy and Policy of the European Community After 1992: 145–169. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. 1999. Small business, entrepreneurship, and industrial dynamics. In Z. Acs (Ed.), Are Small Firms Important?: 99–110. Boston and Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A. 2002. Industrial restructuring and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 18: 243–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Klomp, L. 1996. Small business and job creation: a comment. Small Business Economics, 8: 317–322.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., van Stel, A. J., Thurik, A. R., & Wennekers, A. R. M. 2007. The relationship between economic development and business ownership revisited. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19: 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 1998. Small firms and economic growth in Europe. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26(2): 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 1999a. Industrial structure and economic growth. In D. B. Audretsch, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment: 86–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 1999b. The carrying capacity and entry and exit flows in retailing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17: 985–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (Eds.). 2006. The Handbook of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. International Library of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 2008. The lag structure of the impact of business ownership on economic performance in OECD countries. Small Business Economics, 30: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. 1998. Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 1947–1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. Jr. 1990. Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1992. The trade-off between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress. Small Business Economics, 4: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Klepper, S. 1996. A reprise of size and R&D. Economic Journal, 106: 925–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. 1995. Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7: 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. 2006. Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. J., Haltiwanger, J., & Schuh, S. 1996. Small business and job creation: dissecting the myth and reassessing the facts. Small Business Economics, 8: 297–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denis, D. K., & Shome, D. K. 2005. An empirical investigation of corporate asset downsizing. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11: 427–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovations. Journal of Economic Literature, 26: 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. J. 2005. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy, 34: 615–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasson, G. E. 1995. Economic growth through competitive selection. Paper presented at 22nd Annual E.A.R.I.E. Conference 3–6 September, 1995, Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht, J. H. 1997. Corporate bureaucracies and United States competitiveness. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 4: 129–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erken, H., Donselaar, P., & Thurik, A. R. 2009. Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 09-034/4, Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2000. The European Observatory for SME: sixth report, submitted to the Enterprise Directorate General, Luxembourg: KPMG Consulting, EIM Business and Policy Research, and ENSR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiegenbaum, A., & Karnani, A. 1991. Output flexibility – a competitive advantage for small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foelster, S. 2000. Do entrepreneurs create jobs? Small Business Economics, 14: 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Perez, C. 1988. Structural crises of adjustment: business cycles and investment behavior. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freytag, A., & Thurik, R. 2010. Entrepreneurship and Culture. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M. 1997. New firms and regional employment change. Small Business Economics, 9: 437–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M. 2008. How does new business formation affect regional development? Introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics, 30: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. 2004. The effects of new business formation on regional development over time. Regional Studies, 38: 961–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. 2008. The effect of new business formation on regional development over time: The case of Germany, Small Business Economics, 30: 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, W. B. 1989. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13: 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A. 1989. Entry, innovation, & productivity growth. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71: 572–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., & Shleifer, A. 1992. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy, 100: 1126–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. 1994. Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8: 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, M., & Hanvey, E. 1995. Job generation and new and small firms: Some evidence from the late 1980s. Small Business Economics, 7: 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. 1989. In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1: 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. G. 1998. Entrepreneurship and economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 1: 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt, P., & Aghion, P. 1998. Capital accumulation and innovation as complementary factors in long-run growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 3: 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilmakunnas, P., & Kanniainen, V. 2001. Entrepreneurship, economic risks, and risk insurance in the welfare state: results with OECD data 1978–1993. German Economic Review, 2: 195–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, R. P. (Ed.) 1985. Managing the Service Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyigun, M. F., & Owen, A. L. 1999. Entrepreneurs, professionals, and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 4: 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, L. F. 1984. Hierarchic demand and the Engle curve for variety. Review of Economics and Statistics, 66: 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S., & Thursby, M. 2007. Academic science and entrepreneurship: dual engines of growth. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63: 573–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 68: 831–880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. 1993. The diversification of production. Brookings Papers: Microeconomics, 1993: 197–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom, R. E., & Laffont, J. J. 1979. A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy, 87: 719–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff, B. A. 1994. Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff, B. A. 1996. Self-employment and dynamic capitalism. Journal of Labor Research, 17: 627–643.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Klodt, H. 1990. Industrial policy and repressed structural change in West Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 207: 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets, S. 1971. Economic Growth of Nations, Total Output and Production Structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and Belknapp Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lever, M. H. C., & Nieuwenhuijsen, H. R. 1999. The impact of competition on productivity in Dutch manufacturing. In D. B. Audretsch, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment: 111–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Ellis, H., & Bernhardt, D. 2000. Enterprise, inequality and economic development. Review of Economic Studies, 67: 147–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveman, G., & Sengenberger, W. 1991. The re-emergence of small-scale production; an international comparison. Small Business Economics, 3: 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. 1978. On the size distribution of firms. BELL Journal of Economics, 9: 508–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22: 3–42.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, J. 1987. The strategic advantages of new manufacturing technologies for small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, G. 2006. Ingredients of growth accounting: is entrepreneurial experience rich in substance? Paper presented at the 33rd EARIE conference, Amsterdam, 25–27 August 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. 2006. Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university-industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35: 1499–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. 2007. Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28: 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P., van Stel, A., & Storey, D. J. 2008. The effects of new firm formation on regional development over time: The case of Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 30: 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. J. 1996. Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104: 724–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S., Nicolitsas, P., & Dryden, N. 1997. What makes firms perform well? European Economic Review, 41: 783–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 1995. Competition Policy in OECD Countries 1992–1993. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 1998. Fostering Entrepreneurship. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. 2009. The Economics of Entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, B. 2000. Is entrepreneurship always good for growth? CRIEFF Discussion Paper 0024, University of St. Andrews.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretto, P. F. 1998. Technological change, market rivalry, and the evolution of the capitalist engine of growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 3: 53–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretto, P. F. 1999a. Firm size, rivalry and the extent of the market in endogenous technological change. European Economic Review, 43: 1747–1773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretto, P.F. 1999b. Industrial development, technological change, and long-run growth. Journal of Development Economics, 59: 389–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B. D. 1985. The effect of industry deregulation on the small business sector. Business Economics, 20: 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Praag, C.M. van, & Versloot, P. H. 2007. What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29: 351–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prusa, T. J., & Schmitz, J. A. Jr. 1991. Are new firms an important source of innovation? evidence from the software industry. Economics Letters, 35: 339–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. 1999. Creative destruction: source or symptom of economic growth? In Z. J. Acs, B. Carlsson, & C.H. Karlsson (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Macroeconomy: 97–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. 2005. Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24: 205–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, D. K., Pantuosco, L. J., Parker, D. F., & Fuller, B. K. 2000. An empirical assessment of the contribution of small business employment to U.S. state economic performance. Small Business Economics, 15: 293–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. 1986. Increasing return and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94: 1002–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98: 71–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. 1994. The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8: 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. 1983. Innovation and firm size: a case for dynamic complementarity; or, is small really so beautiful? Journal of General Management, 8: 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. 1984. The role of small firms in the emergence of new technologies. OMEGA, 12: 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. 2007. Scientific paradigms, entrepreneurial opportunities and cycles in economic growth. Small Business Economics, 28: 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E., Klomp, L., & Thurik, A. R. 2006. Gibrat’s law: an overview of the empirical literature. In E. Santarelli (Ed.), Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Innovation: the Dynamics of Firms and Industries: 41–73. International Studies in Entrepreneurship. Berlin: Springer Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, J. A. 1993. Rising incomes and the shift from self-employment to firm-based production. Economics Letters, 41: 435–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, B. R., & Crewson, P. E. 1997. Entrepreneurial origins: a longitudinal inquiry. Economic Inquiry, 35: 523–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, J. A. Jr. 1989. Imitation, entrepreneurship, and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 97: 721–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, T. P. 1990. Women’s changing participation in the labor force: A world perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38: 457–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11: 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. 1970. Growth Theory: An Exposition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. 1996. Technology policies and the growth of regions. Small Business Economics, 8: 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. 1997. Gibrat’s legacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurik, A. R. 1996. Small firms, entrepreneurship and economic growth. In P. H. Admiral (Ed.), Small Business in the Modern Economy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurik, A. R. 1999. Entrepreneurship, industrial transformation and growth. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), The Sources of Entrepreneurial Activity: Vol. 11, Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth: 29–65. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurik, A. R. 2009. Entreprenomics: Entrepreneurship, economic growth and policy. In Z. J. Acs, D. B. Audretsch, & R. Strom (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Public Policy: 219–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurik, A. R., Carree, M. A., van Stel, A., & Audretsch, D. B. 2008. Does self-employment reduce unemployment? Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 673–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. 2005. The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24: 311–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, A. R. M., van Stel, A. J., Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. 2010. The relation between entrepreneurship and economic development: is it U-shaped? Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, A. R. M., & Thurik, A. R. 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13: 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, A. R. M., Thurik, A. R., & Uhlaner, L. 2002. Entrepreneurship and its conditions: a macro perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1: 25–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, G. 1996. Urban informal employment and self-employment in developing countries: Theory and evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 44: 289–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T. F. 1998. Adaptive entrepreneurship and the economic development of Hong Kong. World Development, 26: 897–911.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Zoltan Acs, David Audretsch, Bruce Kirchhoff, André van Stel, and Adam Lederer for comments. The present chapter draws on a similar chapter of the first edition of the Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, edited by Zoltan Acs and David Audretsch and published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2003. This chapter is written in cooperation with EIM program research funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Martin A. Carree

  2. Centre for Advanced Small Business Economics at Erasmus University Rotterdam and EIM Business and Policy Research, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands

    A. Roy Thurik

Authors
  1. Martin A. Carree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Roy Thurik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Roy Thurik .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, George Mason University, University Drive, Fairfax, 22030, USA

    Zoltan J. Acs

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, 47405, USA

    David B. Audretsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carree, M.A., Thurik, A.R. (2010). The Impact of Entrepreneurship on Economic Growth. In: Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, vol 5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation