Abstract
Through synthesizing disparate strands of literature over the period 1992–2016, this chapter identifies past and current research about the institutional context shaping entrepreneurial activity and its effect on economic growth. This conjoint analysis reveals two important research lines in entrepreneurship research, which have been devoted to explore the institutional antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial activity. Our findings try to reveal a broader comprehension of these two separate lines, providing an analysis of the interaction between institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth. The systematic literature review suggests that institutions could be related to economic growth through entrepreneurial activity, which would open new research questions about what institutional factors encourage entrepreneurship rates in order to achieve economic growth. Possible theoretical implications may be discussed not only in terms of the importance of entrepreneurship, such a key element in economic growth, but also in terms of economic development, such a complex process in which entrepreneurial activity, influenced by institutions, is involved.
Another version of this chapter has been published in Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2018). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Business Economics. In Press, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0038-0.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
2.1 Introduction
The analysis of entrepreneurship has drawn the attention of the students, researcher and policy makers, who have observed the phenomenon from totally different social sciences (Blackburn & Kovalainen, 2009; Fried, 2003; Landström, Harirchi, & Åström, 2012; Teixeira, 2011) in terms of cross-national variation in entrepreneurial activity, the explanations behind its development, and its potential affects on economic growth and development (Baumol & Strom, 2007; Carlsson, Acs, Audretsch, & Braunerhjelm, 2009; Terjesen, Hessels, & Li, 2016). On the one hand, it is suggested that part of the explanations is grounded on the country-specific institutional contexts during, in which entrepreneurs make decisions (Aidis, Estrin, & Mickiewicz, 2008; Busenitz, Gómez, & Spencer, 2000; Dana, 1987; Mueller & Thomas, 2001; Reynolds, Camp, Bygrave, Autio, & Hay, 2001; Reynolds, Hay, Bygrave, Camp, & Autio, 2000; Reynolds, Hay, & Camp, 1999 and Urbano & Alvarez, 2014; among others). On the other hand, Wennekers and Thurik (1999) and van Praag and Versloot (2007) have thoroughly analyzed extant literature on how entrepreneurship affects the economic process.
Even though previous works targeted independently on the institutional factors as antecedents of entrepreneurship, and on its potential effects on growth and development, there is a restricted comprehension about the role institutions have in economic process through the influencing of entrepreneurship. For example, Bjørnskov and Foss (2016), Wennekers and Thurik (1999) and van Praag and Versloot (2007) agree that the institutional context has to be specific so as to grasp why the result of entrepreneurship on growth differs across regions and countries. Aidis et al. (2008), Bradley and Klein (2016), Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Li (2010), and Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano, and Urbano (2011), among others, have suggested that institutions are particularly useful in understanding how entrepreneurship is formed and the way it enhances the economy. Though there are a significant number of works exploring how entrepreneurial activity is affected by institutions, Naudé (2011) claims that the understanding of the entire causal chain from institutions to socioeconomic process remains unknown. Audretsch, Bönte, and Keilbach (2008) agree with this, suggesting the requirement to incorporate entrepreneurship into the classical production function to assess its contribution to the economic process. Though Audretsch et al. (2008) notice that entrepreneurship incorporates a positive impact on growth, they recognize that limitations exist in measuring (and instrumenting) entrepreneurial activity, so that a new research in this regard may emerge to provide a different view on this phenomenon. Indeed, Audretsch et al. (2008) that one possible way to overcome this limitation is through institutions, which are required to explain the endowment of entrepreneurship across regions and countries. According to Acs, Desai, and Klapper (2008), this idea may be useful to comprehending how differences entrepreneurship explain differences in growth across countries. Similarly, Audretsch (2012) asserts that to understand the development of entrepreneurship and economic process together could encourage even more the dynamic in both entrepreneurship and the economic field (at micro and macro levels). In this sense, not only is understanding the interaction of these variables, particularly their possible sequence, useful for the policy detabe, but it is also important for spreading our comprehension of these research fields, in which complementarities can emerge.
Our objective, thereby, in this chapter is to identify past and current research about the institutional context shaping entrepreneurial activity and its effect on economic growth. We are particularly interested in exploring extant research on: (a) the institutional factors influencing entrepreneurship; (b) the effects of entrepreneurship on economic growth; and (c) the complete sequence running from institutions to the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth.
Our methodology consisted of selecting articles from those journals listed in the Web of Science (WoS) database. This systematic approach enable us to explore the current literature from 1992 to 2016. Journals with a 5-year impact factor higher than 0.1 according to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for 2015 were considered. The reason why we rely on this criterion is because of certain limitations may exist when impact factos is solely considered, as self-citations may distor the index (Buela-Casal & Zych, 2012; Leydesdorff, 2012; Merigó & Yang, 2017). The WoS has considered 5-year impact factor to control for such issues. Three types of searches were conducted to identify relevant papers. First, we used keywords related to institutions and entrepreneurship. Second, we searched for those papers tackling the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth. Finally, in order to consider the complete sequence, we combined all keywords from institutions to economic growth. In this particular case, 451 articles were found, which are most commonly contained within the second relationship. Different keywords found in the title, abstract, and text of the articles were employed to identify papers focused on the first relationship: “institutions,” “institutional theory,” “institutional economics,” “institutional approach,” “institutional dimensions,” “institutional perspective,” “institutional pillars,” “institutional drivers,” and “institutional economic theory” which were combined with “entrepreneurship capital,” “entrepreneurial activity,” “ownership firms,” “self-employment,” “business ownership,” “entrepreneurship,” “new firm creation,” “new firm formation,” “new business creation,” and “new venture creation.” This initial search allowed us to obtain 5459 articles. To narrow down our selection, different filters were applied (Merigó, Cancino, Coronado, & Urbano, 2016). First, only articles contained within the Web of Science Core Collection only were considered. Second, we filtered for business economics and related research areas; the documents considered were only articles and reviews, which were written in English only. After this process, we obtained 4071 results to be used for this literature review. Similar to other scholars (cf. Aliaga-Isla & Rialp, 2013; Jones et al., 2011), we exluded those articles that were not electronically available. We then read carefully the abstract and the introduction (in some cases were necessary to look for information in the remaining sections of the paper) to assure those best fitting the purpose of the study. Since we follow the North’s (1990) institutional approach, we have excluded those papers explore institutions from the organizational level (cf. DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). After all this, we have ontained 104 articles exploring the first relationship. The same criteria and process were used to collect information for the second relationship, in which the following keywords were used: “entrepreneurship capital,” “entrepreneurial activity,” “ownership firms,” “self-employment,” “business ownership,” “entrepreneurship,” “new firm creation,” “new firm formation,” “new business creation,” and “new venture creation,” which were combined with “economic growth,” “economic development,” “economic performance,” “economic outcome,” “regional growth,” and “regional development.” Our initial search allowed us to retrieve 4457 papers. After conducting a similar depuration, 2684 articles were obtained. In this case, after reading the papers in a similar manner as in the first relationship, we identified 81 articles, which dealt with the impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth.Footnote 1
After this brief introduction, the chapter is structured as follows. In Sect. 2.2, we explain the theoretical lenses, which is helpful for understanding what institutional factors influence entrepreneurship by impriving economic growth. In Sect. 2.3, we analyze the results in terms of the two relationships we are exploring (institutions-entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship-economic growth), also discussing the importance of putting together these relationships. Additionally, we identify in the selected papers relevant authors and journals, theoretical frameworks, and techniques utilized. Finally, Sect. 2.4 is devoted for some final remarks and future research lines.
2.2 Theoretical Framework: Institutional Factors of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
It is still open the debate on what factors may affect the economic growth process (Easterly & Easterly, 2001; Helpman, 2004). Even before the pioneering works by Solow (1956) and Swan (1956), there had existed a need for comprehending the complexity behind growth and development, whose initial factors such as physical, human capital, labor force, among others, enable the comprehension of why there is an economic growth and why differences across countries exist. In addition to these classical factors, the decade of 1980s has served to move forward the debate towards other types of determinants that can be assessed into the classical production function (Aghion & Howitt, 1992; Romer, 1986). For example, after the debate of classical factors, research by North (1990, 2005) served as a theoretical advance on the importance of institutions for economic growth. Accordingly, institutions define the intentionality of individuals in each society towards progress. Given this perspective, a new discussion emerged to understand the importance of institutions in the economic growth process (Rodrik, 2003). For example, Rodrik (2003) explains that institutions are indirectly linked with the aggregated production, in which different factors take place to connect institutions to economic growth. In this sense, it is suggested that the institutional context, apart from influencing the traditional factors (i.e. labor, human capital, and physical capital), it also affects the individual decisions that generate economic dynamics. Authors such as Rodrik (2003) and Hausmann and Rodrik (2003) suggest that additional productive factors such as entrepreneurship and industrial development are highly influenced by the institutional environment, therefore explaining the differences of economic growth across countries.
Particularly within entrepreneurship research, Wennekers and Thurik (1999) have explore the possible connections between business start-up and economic growth. Since then, entrepreneurial activity has been considered as an important element to generate economic growth (Acs, Audretsch, Braunerhjelm, & Carlsson, 2012; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004a; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2008). Audretsch and Keilbach (2004b) concretely assessed whether effectively entrepreneurship as a capital factor affects economic growth. Given their results, a series of evidence was provided to demonstrate that the relationship does exist (Audretsch et al., 2008; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007). Nonetheless, in all of this evidence, they noticed a possible limitation, in which entrepreneurship capital only assumes the institutional context, but no test was performed to empirically explore the influence of institution on this relationship. In this regard, Audretsch et al. (2008) suggest for future research to include new measures of entrepreneurship capital that at the same time allow for the understanding of how different institutions help to draw entrepreneurship that affects economic growth positively. Hence, the institutional approach Footnote 2 provides a broad perspective into comprehending how institutions affect entrepreneurial activity, as well as which institutions are more conducive for entrepreneurship that enhances economic growth (Veciana & Urbano, 2008). From a general point of view, this theoretical framework argues that both the legal and socio-cultural environment explain the individual’s decision to create a new venture (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Berger, 1991; Busenitz et al., 2000; Manolova, Eunni, & Gyoshev, 2008; Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Stephen, Urbano, & Hemmen, 2009; Steyaert & Hjorth, 2006; van Stel, Storey, & Thurik, 2007; among others).
Thus, this chapter uses institutional economics (1990, 2005), as foundations to comprehend the institutional context that affects entrepreneurship (Aidis et al., 2008; Aidis, Estrin, & Mickiewicz, 2012; Bruno, Bytchkova, & Estrin, 2013; Bruton et al., 2010; Busenitz et al., 2000; Thornton et al., 2011; Welter & Smallbone, 2011; among others). By looking through these lenses, institutions are the driving conditions for entrepreneurial activity, distinguishing between formal factors (e.g., procedures and costs to create a business, support mechanisms for new firm creation, etc.) and informal factors (e.g., entrepreneurial culture, attitudes towards entrepreneurship, etc.). On the one hand, North (1990) suggests that former institutions (i.e. property rights, contracts, procedures, political structure, etc.) are related to the reduction of transaction costs, which improve market performance, and the interaction between suppliers and customers. Thus, formal institutions serve to remove market imperfections, assymetries and rigid administrative regulations (Djankov, La Porta, Lopez-De-Salines, & Shleifer, 2002). It is worth noticing that formal institutions tend to change in the short term, as it facilitates (or hinders) individuals making productive decisions, among other things. On the other hand, latter institutions may be defined as belief systems (role models, independence and trust, among others), social norms/culture (community-wide normatives, embeddedness, a socially supportive culture, among others) and cognitive aspects (skills, risk taking and leadership, among others) (North, 2005). These institutions tend to stay for long time, and they exist to reduce uncertainty stemmed from individual and group decisions. In this regard, some productive decisions could be associated, among others, with entrepreneurial choices.
As institutions exist to better address economic growth, authors such as Acemoglu, Gallego, and Robinson (2014), Baumol (1990), and Rodrik (2003) conclude that institutions could be determinant for economic growth in an indirect way rather than through a direct effect. Based on this perspective, we understand institutions as antecedents of entrepreneurship, which is related to the proportion of companies (mostly SMEs) in a region or country and their influence on economic growth, and economic activity diversity (Aparicio, Urbano, & Audretsch, 2016; Sobel, 2008).
The next section provides the results according to the content of each article, which are analyzed under the institutional approach. Further details of our sample are presented in Appendices 1 and 2.
2.3 Results of the Literature Review
2.3.1 Entrepreneurship and Its Institutional Determinants
As it was explained before, 104 articles from the empirical (90), theoretical (10), and introduction special issues (4) literature were identified and selected to explore the association between institutions and entrepreneurship (see the details in Appendix 1). All these articles explicitly deal with hypotheses suggesting that institutions exert an effect on entrepreneurship. Some of these articles find compelling empirical evidence supporting those hypotheses. Therefore, our analysis is based on those results that identify journals, years, authors, theoretical frameworks, and methods utilized to link institutions with entrepreneurship. Moreover, according to the theoretical approach mentioned in the previous section, we examine those articles that use both types of institutions independently or together.
With regards to the authors who have published the most articles dealing with these variables, we found that Urbano has 16 articles, followed by Estrin (7), Mickiewicz (6), Guerrero (5), Stephan (5), Audretsch (4), Desai (4), Pathak (4), Stephan (4), Aidis (3), Alvarez (3), Aparicio (3), Chowdhury (3), De Clercq (3), Sobel (3), Toledano (3), and Uhlaner (3). Overall, 172 authors were found, who, apart from those already mentioned, have one or two articles published in this field.
Regarding the outlets where selected articles were published, we found that Small Business Economics has published the largest number (18.3%), followed by the Journal of Business Venturing (13.5%), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (8.7%), International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (6.7%), and International Small Business Journal and the Journal of Business Research (3.9% each). Additionally, the European Journal of Law and Economics, the Journal of Evolutionary Economics, the Journal of International Business Studies, and the Journal of Small Business Management have 2.9% for each journal. The remaining journals have published one or two articles, representing 1 (21 journals) or 1.9% (7 journals) of the total works analyzed. It is worth noting that those articles hypothesizing that institutions exert an influence on entrepreneurship were published in the period between 2012 and 2016 (see Table 2.1). Also, it is important to highlight that in the period 2007–2011 the number of articles published reaches 33, followed by 54 in 2012–2016, indicating that this relationship is a vibrant and current research field of study by a growing number of academics and policy makers. Here it is important to underline that the International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal devoted a special issue published in December 2008 about the institutional approach to entrepreneurship. Likewise, other journals have paid a lot of attention to this relationship by proposing different special issues. For example, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice published in May 2010 a special issue about institutional theory and entrepreneurship; whereas in April 2011 the International Small Business Journal published a special issue on socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity; the Journal of Business Venturing dedicated a special issue to institutions, entrepreneurs, and community in January 2013; Small Business Economics published a special issue about institutions and entrepreneurship in March 2014, and other articles regarding this relationship in April 2014. The European Journal of Law and Economics was focused on Regulation, firm dynamics and entrepreneurship in August 2015; and the Academy of Management Perspectives dedicated a symposium in August 2016 of institutions, economic freedom and entrepreneurship.
Regarding the theoretical framework utilized by selected papers, we found different approaches (see Table 2.2). As we are interested in institutions from the North’s (1990) perspective, the main framework found in our literature review is the institutional approach (70.2%). This approach follows North’s (1990, 2005) ideas in which formal and informal institutions and their effects on entrepreneurship are considered. However, we also found that other papers using the institutional approach refer to this theoretical perspective through different labels. The difference may exist because of the way of operationalizing each institutional variable (see Table 2.3). For instance, formal institutions are approached through policies, regulations, governmental variables, among others (Aidis et al., 2012; Baughn, Chua, & Neupert, 2006; Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Puky, 2009; Busenitz et al., 2000; Chowdhury, Desai, Audretsch, & Belitski, 2015; Chowdhury, Terjesen, & Audretsch, 2015; Estrin, Korosteleva, & Mickiewicz, 2013a; among others);while informal institutions could be measured as attitudes, values, social norms , religion, among others (Aidis et al., 2008; Estrin & Mickiewicz, 2012; Field, Jayachandran, & Pande, 2010; Levie & Autio, 2008; Meek, Pacheco, & York, 2010; Stephan, Uhlaner, & Stride, 2015; van Hemmen, Alvarez, Peris-Ortiz, & Urbano, 2015; among others). In the same vain of formal institutional (see Table 2.2), other approached such as contract theory (6.1%) offer a framework to comprehend how norms and regulationsare created and what the possible effects are on entrepreneurial activity. In this sense, Anokhin and Schulze (2009), Bruno et al. (2013), Calcagno and Sobel (2014), Klapper, Laeven, and Rajan (2006), Román, Congregado, and Millán (2011), Stephen et al. (2009), and van Stel et al. (2007) have employed this approach to comprehend how entrepreneurial activity can be configured during the initial stage and its subsequent growth. Concerning those antecedents more related with individual characteristics, occupational choice (5.3%) has been used to conduct microeconomic analysis of the decision to become an entrepreneur (Gohmann, 2012; Kanniainen & Vesala, 2005; Malchow-Møller, Markusen, & Skaksen, 2010). Finally, additional theories were also found, which include social capital theory (De Clercq, Danis, & Dakhli, 2010; Estrin, Mickiewicz, & Stephan, 2013b; Hafer & Jones, 2015; Liñán, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011), resource-based view (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Guerrero, Urbano, Cunningham, & Organ, 2014), geographical economics (Freire-Gibb & Nielsen, 2014), a dissatisfaction perspective (Uhlaner & Thurik, 2007), Baumol’s theory of productive and unproductive entrepreneurship (Sobel, 2008), among others. All of these together, which we classified as “others,” represent 18.4% of the total articles in Table 2.2.
The use of these theories defines the strategy to explain why it is important to use a set of variables from institutions (or institutional environment) that affect entrepreneurial activity. In this sense, some scholars have tried to examine different institutional variables in the field of entrepreneurship. As North’s (1990) theory suggests, factors such as contracts, procedures, political structure, and property rights are most commonly focused on reducing transaction costs based on regulations. In this regard, we found articles dealing with regulatory issues (Busenitz et al., 2000; Calcagno & Sobel, 2014; De Clercq et al., 2010; Manolova et al., 2008; Meek et al., 2010; Spencer & Gómez, 2004; Stenholm et al., 2013; Valdez & Richardson, 2013). In a similar line, we found articles looking at procedures that regulate the access to stock markets (Bruton et al., 2009), the financial system (Autio & Fu, 2015; Klapper et al., 2006; Peng et al., 2010), hiring and firing rules and controls (Goltz et al., 2015; Román et al., 2011; van Stel et al., 2007), political structure (specifically corruption) (Chowdhury, Desai, et al., 2015; Chowdhury, Terjesen, & Audretsch, 2015; Estrin, Korosteleva, & Mickiewicz, 2013a), democracy (Bruno et al., 2013), and government size and capability (Autio & Fu, 2015; De Clercq & Dakhli, 2009; Estrin, Korosteleva, & Mickiewicz, 2013). Finally, we found that formal institutions such as property rights are less explored in the literature (Chowdhury, Desai, et al., 2015). In essence, Estrin, Korosteleva, and Mickiewicz (2013a), Estrin, Stephan, and Mickiewicz (2013b), Estrin and Mickiewicz (2011), Klapper et al. (2006), Nyström (2008), and Pathak et al. (2013) have made important endeavors to explain how this type of institution encourages entrepreneurial activity given the idea of warranties to protect goods and services based on knowledge.
Regarding informal institutions, it was followed North’s (2005) emphasis on the importance that belief systems, social norms and culture, and cognitive dimensions bring to individual and groups when making decisions. In terms of belief systems , the proxy most used in our sample is role models, which capture the perception of the respondent on whether he or she knows another entrepreneur through the socialization process. In this regard, it has been proven that role models affect the decision to become entrepreneurs (Aidis et al., 2008; Estrin et al., 2013; Estrin & Mickiewicz, 2012; Urbano et al., 2011; Urbano & Alvarez, 2014); who are also affected welfare and society (Field et al., 2010; Kanniainen & Vesala, 2005; Urbano et al., 2011). Considering social norms and culture, poxies such as control of corruption (Anokhin & Schulze, 2009; Aparicio, Urbano, & Audretsch, 2016) and community-wide normatives (Bruton et al., 2009; Sobel, 2008), among others, were found. Instead, cognitive dimensions such as confidence, motivation, and opportunity perception are utilized by Estrin and Mickiewicz (2012), Hafer and Jones (2015), and Levie and Autio (2008). Thornton et al. (2011) suggest that variables under informal institutions, although they are less dynamic, could have higher effects on entrepreneurship, at least more than contracts, procedures, political structure, and property rights, which are related to formal institutions.
According to Blackburn and Kovalainen (2009) and Blackburn and Smallbone (2008), among others, the empirical evidence about entrepreneurship has grown tremendously in the past decade. This means that different scholars are utilizing different qualitative and quantitative methods to explore antecendents and consequences of entrepreneurship. In this sense, all the previous institutions were tested by a bunch of scholars in models where the dependent variable is entrepreneurship (see Table 2.4 and Appendix 1). Linear regression is the method most used by the authors (19.4%). Additionally, we found that authors are also estimating models with panel data (16.3%), binomial and multinomial techniques (logit and probit) (14.3%), single/multiple case studies and multilevel estimation (8.2%), structural equation models (6.1%), and descriptive statistics and hierarchical linear models (5.1%). We foud only two articles employing instrumental variables (2.0%) to overcome the endogeneity may exist between institutions and entrepreneurship. The rest of the methods presented in Table 2.4 are classified as “others” (15.3%).
2.3.2 Linking Entrepreneurship with Economic Growth
Regarding the second relationship, the number of articles identified was 81, divided by (a) empirical (57), (b) theoretical (16), and (c) introduction to special issues (8). As also mentioned, we considered only those articles dealing with a country’s or region’s GDP (total or per capita), GDP growth, labor productivity, or total-factor productivity (TFP) (van Praag & Versloot, 2007). In this sense, the main hypothesis we identified suggests that entrepreneurship affects positively on economic growth, which is supported by the different empirical studies. We therefore identify salient journals, periods of time, authors, theoretical frameworks, and methods that were focused on the association between entrepreneurship and economic growth. Table 2.5 shows a classification of those empirical and theoretical papers, as well as those introductions to special issues or editorials.
Based on Table 2.5, we find that the link between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been thoroughly analyzed (39 articles), while the relationship between entrepreneurship and sectorial growth reports only three articles. Concerning other approaches, we found that regional economic growth (16) or development (12) has been considered as a dependent variable in few studies that considered entrepreneurship as an explanatory variable. Additionally, six articles were focused on the relationship between entrepreneurship capital and regional economic growth, and five articles are about entrepreneurship capital and national economic growth.
The most salient authors exploring this relationship are Audretsch (16), Acs (7), Keilbach (7), and Urbano (6). Other authors such as Braunerhjelm, Carree, Thurik, and van Stel have five articles; whereas Desai, and Wennekers have four; and Aparicio, Carlsson, Fritsch, Galindo, Guerrero, and Méndez have three. Overall, 108 authors were identified in this relationship. The remaining authors have published one or two papers. It is worth higjlighting that Audretsch has the most articles published in this area, who proposes (alognside Keilbach) the concept of entrepreneurship capital as a new variable in the Solow-Swan model.
With regards to journals that have published studies in this line, we found that Small Business Economics has 32.1% of the articles, followed by Regional Studies (7.4%), then Annals of Regional Science (4.9%), Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Industrial and Corporate Change and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (3.7%). Other journals published one or two articles in this area. It is interesting to note that this relationship was more explored in the period 2012–2017, which indicates that scholars are still providing significant evidence about entrepreneurship and economic growth. Different from the previous topic, entrepreneurial activity and economic growth have been massively explored since early 2000s. For example, Small Business Economics and Regional Studies devoted special issues that gathered results from all over the world (see Table 2.6 and Appendix 2).
Sternberg and Wennekers (2005) organized a special issue devoted to explore the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development. This number served to explore new empirical evidence using several measuresof entrepreneurship. In this case, most of the articles employed Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) datasets (van Stel, Carree, & Thurik, 2005; Wong, Ho, & Autio, 2005). Additionally, Acs and Storey (2004), Fritsch (2008), and Dejardin and Fritsch (2011) were guest editors of special issues that compiled different discussion about the role played by entrepreneurship in the regional development process. Acs and Szerb (2007), Acs et al. (2008), and Naudé (2010) also contributed to this line of research by organizing special issues dealing with the public policy discussion that emerges from the exploration of entrepreneurial activity as an antecedent of economic growth. Thereby, the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been largerly analyzed from different theoretical frameworks and methodologies.
In terms of theoretical frameworks, we find lots of approaches, though the predominant one is neoclassical economic growth theory. This approach identifies those factors that affect economic growth in the short and long run, and tens to be modeling driven. In this case, Minniti and Lévesque (2010) included entrepreneurship behavior in the Solow-Swan growth model comparing innovative and non-innovative entrepreneurs. Other authors such as Aparicio, Urbano, and Audretsch (2016), Audretsch and Keilbach (2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008), Bjørnskov and Foss (2013), González-Pernía and Peña-Legazkue (2015), and Iyigun and Owen (1999) evaluated the influence of entrepreneurship on economic growth by estimating different econometric models on a Solow-Swan bases. Even though this theory is highly used, it does not take entrepreneurship as such into account, as it is assumed in production decisions.
There is though a theory that expliciely takes into account entrepreneurs and their behavior. In this case, Schumpeter (1911) suggests that entrepreneurship encourages an innovation process that affects development. By following these ideas, authors such as Agarwal, Audretsch, and Sarkar (2007), Aubry, Bonnet, and Renou-Maissant (2015), Audretsch and Fritsch (2002), Biondi (2008), Bjørnskov and Foss (2013), Bosma, Stam, and Schutjens (2011), Carree, van Stel, Thurik, and Wennekers (2002, 2007), Low and Isserman (2015), Rocha (2004), Sternberg and Wennekers (2005), van Stel and Carree (2004), van Stel et al. (2005), Wennekers and Thurik (1999), and Wong et al. (2005) suggested hypotheses that relate entrepreneurship not only to economic growth but also to economic development. The utility of this theory enables to consider the role of innovative entrepreneurs in growth and development processes, and to also include, with theoretical support, entrepreneurship variables in growth models.
By including new variables into the economic growth model, Baumol (1993) suggests that further evolutions of the traditional growth view can be achieved. Accordingly, entrepreneurship may be considered an important driver of growth and development. Complementing this idea with previous approaches allowed a growing number of published articles, in which different authors have tested their hypotheses with the most structured theory of growth. In this regard, authors such as Acs and Szerb (2007), Acs et al. (2012), Audretsch and Keilbach (2008), Berkowitz and DeJong (2005), Braunerhjelm, Acs, Audretsch, and Carlsson (2010), Braunerhjelm and Henrekson (2013), Carree and Thurik (2008), Carlsson et al. (2009), Dejardin (2011), Fritsch (2008), Giordani (2015), Gries and Naudé (2010), Guerrero, Cunningham, and Urbano (2015), Hessels and van Stel (2011), Mueller (2007), Noseleit (2013), Stephens and Partridge (2011), Valliere and Peterson (2009), and van Praag and Versloot (2007) provided theoretical discussions and empirical evidence on the link between entrepreneurship and economic growth supported by endogenous growth theory. Nonetheless, authors such as Audretsch and Keilbach (2004b, 2005, 2008), who have used both neoclassical growth theory and endogenous growth theory, claim the importance not only of relating entrepreneurship with economic growth, but also the relevance of the context in which this relationship takes place.
By considering institutions, there are authors suggesting that this inclusion enhances new venture creation such that a positive effect on economic growth is achieved. In this case, these authors used institutional economic theory. For instance, Baumol and Strom (2007) and Naudé (2010) discuss the importance of this theory to advance our understanding about the link between entrepreneurship and economic growth, in which institutions can be key to explain existing differences across regions and countries (Aparicio, Urbano, & Audretsch, 2016). In this regard, Bjørnskov and Foss (2013) included institutions such as regulative institutions directly into the production function. Similarly, Liñán and Fernandez-Serrano (2014) test whether the interaction between culture and entrepreneurshipexplains the growth differences across European countries. These recent articles may suggest that institutional theory is an accurate framework for understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth (see Table 2.7).
We identified not only traditional and non-traditional thinking in terms of theory, but also in terms of the methodology used. In this regard, depending on data (Wooldridge, 2010), scholars use cross section, time series, or panel data, which have different techniques of estimation. Table 2.8 shows the type of data and the technique used by each author(s). Table 2.8 also reports not only traditional econometrics techniques used, but also spatial econometrics and qualitative methods. We encountered that the techniques authors used most often are based on cross section, panel data, and time series datasets, with 17, 19, and 9 articles, respectively. In fact, it is worth noting that some authors focused on the endogeneity between entrepreneurship and economic growth. In this case, authors employed three-stage least-square (3SLS) (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004c, 2008), and instrumental variables (IV) (Stephens & Partridge, 2011) in cross section analysis about regions and countries. Regarding the time series approach, different models were run based autoregressive techniques (AR) (Carree & Thurik, 2008; Johnson & Parker, 1996), least absolute deviations (LAD) (Berkowitz & DeJong, 2005), and two-stage least-square (2SLS) (Berkowitz & DeJong, 2005; Bjørnskov & Foss, 2013) were also found. In addition, models based on dynamic panel data (Dejardin, 2011), 2SLS or 3SLS in panel data (Aparicio, Urbano, & Audretsch, 2016; González-Pernía & Peña-Legazkue, 2015), and random/fixed effects (Aubry et al., 2015; Audretsch et al., 2015; Bosma et al., 2011; Braunerhjelm & Borgman, 2004; van Stel et al., 2005) were identified.
Throughout the empirical assessment and theoretical discussions, some important conclusions were found. For example, it is found that individuals choose to increase either their human capital or their experience through entrepreneurial activity (Iyigun & Owen, 1999). In either way, economic growth is affected positively. Wennekers and Thurik (1999) conducted a literature review on the importance of entrepreneurship not only for economic growth, but also for knowledge acquisition and innovation process. Using self-employment as a different proxy, Blanchflower (2000) found a negative negative effect of entrepreneurship on economic growth. This negative effect can be explained by the fact that self-employed people are pushed to entrepreneurship because of lack of labor opportunities. Carree et al. (2002) provided similar evidence, but in this case, they established the hypothesis that the relationship between these two variables has a U-shaped form. It means that countries with low income levels have high self-employment rates; medium-income countries present low self-employment rates; more developed economies have self-employment rates that are higher than medium-income economies but lower than those of developing economies. Overall, there exist hypotheses about the relationship entrepreneurship and economic growth depending on the stage of each country or region.
Precisely at regional level, we identified another hypothesis, in which it is suggested that entrepreneurship affects regional economic growth. In fact, Audretsch and Fritsch (2002), Audretsch and Keilbach (2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2005) tested this relationship in German regions; Dejardin (2011), González-Pernía and Peña-Legazkue (2015), and Noseleit (2013) used regional data of Belgium, Spain and Sweden, respectively, to show that there is a positive impact of entrepreneurship on regional economic growth. Additionally, Berkowitz and DeJong (2005), Mueller (2007), and Stephens and Partridge (2011) tested this hypothesis in different regions and found similar results. This could suggest that the effects of entrepreneurship are robust and stable at both the national and regional levels. It is important to highlight the abundance of evidence focused on European regions (e.g., Germany, Belgium, Spain, Sweden), as well as Canada and the United States. In this regard, geography matters to explain this relationship and helps make it possible to understand not only economic growth but also economic development. Here, it could be interesting to further explore regional differences in other countries (e.g. developing ones). Other authors such as Acs and Szerb (2007), Carree et al. (2002, 2007), Liñán and Fernandez-Serrano (2014), and van Stel and Carree (2004) have related entrepreneurship to economic development (GDP per capita), in which differences depending on the stage of development are found. We also found that entrepreneurship helps to spread knowledge that positively affects economic growth (Acs et al., 2008, 2012; Agarwal et al., 2007; Audretsch, 2007; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004a, 2008; Noseleit, 2013).
2.3.3 Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth
From the previous section, two results recommend additional analysis. First, among different theoretical works within the field of entrepreneurship (Bruton et al., 2010; Thornton et al., 2011; Veciana & Urbano, 2008; Welter & Smallbone, 2008, 2011; among others) research suggests that the institutional approach has gained importance in the sense that it looks an acceptable framework for understanding the factors that encourage or discourage entrepreneurial engagement across countries and regions. Indeed, on the one hand authors such as Aidis et al. (2008), Chowdhury, Desai, et al. (2015), Chowdhury, Terjesen, and Audretsch (2015), Goltz et al. (2015), and Urbano and Alvarez (2014), among others, have applied expressly the institutional approach (North, 1990, 2005) to know the institutional matrix in which people become entrepreneurs. On the other hand, authors such as Aidis et al. (2012), Bruton et al. (2009), and De Clercq et al. (2010), Gnyawali and Fogel (1994), among others, have implicitly followed the institutional approach. Second, although the connection between entrepreneurship and economic process follows the Schumpeterian theory or endogenous growth theory, some authors have used the institutional approach to grasp the link between these two variables (Baumol & Strom, 2007; Bjørnskov & Foss, 2013; Naudé, 2010). These two facts indicate that, exploiting the same framework, two separate views of entrepreneurship analysis may serve to analyze along such a sequence during which entrepreneurship might play an important role.
North (1990, 2005) asserts that institutions matter for explaining the variations in growth and development across regions and countries. However, we have a tendency to base our analysis on the Acemoglu et al.’s (2014), Baumol’s (1990), Bjørnskov and Foss’ (2016), North and Thomas’ (1973), and Rodrik’s (2003) ideas regarding entrepreneurship as a conduit of institutions to accomplish economic growth and development. In this regard, it is necessary to focus on the role of institutions in entrepreneurship, on the one hand, and the way entrepreneurial activity influenced by institutions plays a key role within the growth process, on the other (Sobel, 2008). The first one was documented utilizing many articles, whose main results indicate that formal and informal institutional factors encourage or discourage entrepreneurial behavior. In fact, informal institutional factors tend to impact higher and more positively on entrepreneurship than formal factors, as Thornton et al. (2011) recommend. The second is additional implicit. Though authors like Amorós, Fernández, and Tapia (2012) and Terjesen and Amorós (2010) relate establishments to the stage of economic development so as to elucidate entrepreneurial activity in emerging economies, they still leave area to keep exploring the differentiated impact of institutions on entrepreneurship and this factor on economic process. A similar analysis is presented by Carree et al. (2002, 2007), who notice that business ownership contains a U-shaped relationship with economic process. However, van Stel et al. (2007) have studied the result of business regulation on nascent and established entrepreneurs, whose choices relating to regulation rely upon the political inheritance and therefore the economic development stage. Some necessary conclusions may be derived from these works: (a) there’s a correlation between establishments and economic development; (b) given the capability and efficiency to implement norms and laws, entrepreneurial activity can increase or decrease; and so (c) entrepreneurship can have a larger impact in some regions and countries than in others.
From another perspective, authors such as Audretsch (2007), Audretsch and Keilbach (2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007), Audretsch et al. (2008), and Urbano and Aparicio (2016) explore the last conclusion implicitly considering that institutions have an effect on the amount of entrepreneurship capital. They notice that effectively this variable impacts positively on the economic process, however at the same time, they claim that additional studies are required to grasp better how entrepreneurship capital is organized regarding the institutional context. Even more, they suggest future analysis that might study entrepreneurship capital, considering the impact of institutions. Hence, institutional factors are often an appropriate framework in which entrepreneurship and economic process act (Audretsch et al., 2008). Some empirical proof is conferred by Bjørnskov and Foss (2013) and Nissan, Martín, and Picazo (2011), who find that legal institutions (procedures or the time to create a new business) have an effect on the economic process. Even so, as Baumol and Strom (2007) and Audretsch and Keilbach (2004a, 2004b) have mentioned, it is vital to grasp how entrepreneurship is organized by taking into consideration culture, beliefs, and social values, among different factors, to get the simplest understanding of the role of entrepreneurship in the economic process. In this sense, institutions and economic growth are connected through entrepreneurship. Hence, those institutions shaping entrepreneurial behavior have an important influence on the expansion and innovation that characterizes every economy. At the same time, institutions (formal and informal) encourage those people with innovative concepts to line up new businesses, and thus contribute to economic process and development.
The previous discussion suggests, therefore, that the two separate views might be analyzed together, which may enhance the understanding of the advanced system concerned in the economic growth process. Thus, as Audretsch and Keilbach (2008) recommend, simultaneity between institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic process is needed. On the one hand, the institutional approach offers a comprehension of the determinant institutional atmosphere in which entrepreneurs make decisions for themselves and also for the entire society, resulting in a growth process. On the other hand, due to interaction and reciprocality involving high complexity, a unidirectional model can cause biased results. Therefore, it is price considering at the same time the impact of the institutional context on entrepreneurial activity, and this variable on economic process. The virtue of this approach is not solely within the correction of the statistical bias. By expressly instrumenting entrepreneurship in a second equation, we are able to analyze how policy may really influence the economic process by generating a lot of entrepreneurial activity.
In order to support our previous ideas, we developed a correspondence analysis that suggests a similar reasoning. These correspondences enable to observe associations and similarities (Hoffman & Franke, 1986), which are explicitly studied and identified in articles dealing with both relationships. For instance, we initially explored whether a statistically significant association between the statistical techniques used in the articles and both relationships presented in the previous section (i.e., institutions-entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship-economic growth) exist. Our findings indicated that the X2 is 34.66 with eight degrees of freedom and is significant at 0.000. Thus, we found that there is a statistical association between the statistical techniques and the focus of each relationship.
Similarly, we analyzed the relationship between the technique and the theoretical framework used. The results show that the X2 is 83.76 with 64 degrees of freedom and is significant at 0.049. Thereby, it is possible to suggest that there is a statistical association between these two categories. Figure 2.1 helps to visualize this relationship as it displays the scatter diagram between the technique and theoretical framework. For each variable on Fig. 2.1, the distances between the category points reflect the relationship between the categories, with similar categories being closer to each other. Additionally, Fig. 2.1 serves to identify that occupational choice, contract theory, and social capital theory are closely associated with the structural equation model and discrete choice model (logit, probit, and so on); institutional theory is related to multiple regression in which simultaneous equations have been used; neo-classical growth theory, endogenous growth theory, and Schumpeterian theory are associated with time series techniques; while development economic theory is related with descriptive and multivariate statistics.
Correspondence analysis about techniques and methods
Finally, our findings also allowed seeing a significant association of 0.000 (X2 is 298.35 with 90 degrees of freedom) between the different dependent and independent variables identified in the empirical papers (see Appendix 1 and Appendix 2). This association shows a clear relationship between different measures of institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth, which suggests that these sorts of variables are highly related. We only found that self-employment and total factor productivity are far from the rest of the variables.
2.4 Conclusions and Future Research
Entrepreneurship research has grown rapidly since its inception (Blackburn & Kovalainen, 2009; Carlsson et al., 2013). Based on our literature review, on the one hand, we identified that some scholars have analyzed the determinants that encourage entrepreneurship. On the other, entrepreneurship research has focused on the effects of new venture formation. The first stream has been studied through psychological, organizational, institutional and economic lenses.Footnote 3 The second stream could be studied using an institutional or economic framework.
In this chapter, therefore, a systematic literature analysis based on an institutional approach was carried out. Using the idea that institutions influence human behavior in order to improve economic growth and development, we explored the papers that have studied how institutions through entrepreneurship affect economic growth. We identified those academic papers within the WoS in the period 1992–2016, placing emphasis on the relationships between institutional factors and entrepreneurial activity, and entrepreneurship and economic growth. Thus, not only is understanding both complex relationships and their possible consequences helpful for advancing and providing new and additional perspectives in these complementary research areas, but it is also helpful for formulating public strategies, particularly focused on reinforcing the sustainable creation of new ventures that effectively enhance economic performance and provide well-being, not only for the entrepreneurial firms but also for the entire society.
With regard to the theoretical frameworks employed in each relationship, we tend to found the predominance of an institutional approach that augmented remarkably throughout the period 2012–2016. Through quantitative and qualitative techniques, the authors conclude that institutions have an effect on entrepreneurship, however, informal establishments have a higher and more positive impact than formal institutions though most of them applied either expressly or implicitly North’s concepts regarding institutions to the sphere of entrepreneurship, some academics have used completely different approaches such as Scott’s (2008), 2014) institutional dimensions or pillars (regulative -in terms of formal institutions-, normative -in terms of informal institutions- and cultural-cognitive -this dimension relates the external world and also the individuals). Related to the impact of entrepreneurial activity on the economic process, we found that neo-classical economic growth theory is employed within the majority of the articles. In the analyzed papers, completely different measures of entrepreneurship and economic growth are utilized, suggesting that generally there is a positive impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. Likewise, authors such as Bjørnskov and Foss (2013) and Nissan et al. (2011) found that institutions conjointly have an effect on economic growth, as North (1990, 2005) highlights. However, the discussion regarding the direct or indirect impact of institutions on economic process was carried out by Acemoglu et al. (2014), Baumol (1990), North and Thomas (1973), Rodrik (2003), who conclude that institutions have an effect on economic growth through endogenous factors, such as entrepreneurship and industrial development . Following this idea, Aparicio, Urbano, and Audretsch (2016), Audretsch and Keilbach (2004a, 2004b), Audretsch et al. (2008), Bjørnskov and Foss (2016) and Baumol and Strom (2007) discuss that it is necessary to grasp how institutions have an effect on entrepreneurial activity, and so make it possible to spot how entrepreneurship and economic process move in different institutional environments (culture, beliefs, social values, etc.). In this sense, though Bjørnskov and Foss (2016) conduct a similar literature analysis, this chapter could be complimentary through the thought that informal institutions are more relevant for explaining entrepreneurial activity and its economic consequences. In addition, as Bjørnskov and Foss (2016) mentioned, entrepreneurial actions need certain conditions. In this regard, our approach suggests the social norms, culture and so on, are the primary factors that enable such conditions.
Therefore, some research queries persist in seeking an understanding of the role of entrepreneurship within the field of economic growth. In this context, an institutional approach may be crucial so as to incorporate institutions as a key variable within the analysis. Then, simultaneous identification is needed to know the dynamic relationship between institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic process in the short and long term. Specially, we identified that property rights (formal institutions) and also the belief systems (informal institutions) ought to be further analyzed, since there is still a scarceness of evidence addressing these kinds of institutions. Among those few authors who have analyzed these institutional factors, Czarnitzki, Doherr, Hussinger, Schliessler, and Toole (2016) claim that studies on property rights are required since the fast explosion of entrepreneurs should be balanced so as to encourage innovative entrepreneurship (as productive entrepreneurship) instead of unproductive entrepreneurship. In terms of informal institutions, Audretsch et al. (2013) and Hoogendoorn et al. (2016) recommend that the belief systems such as religion, are necessary parts for understanding the variations of entrepreneurship across countries, and thus, additional studies are required to supply a broader perspective. Also, the interaction between entrepreneurship and institutions wherever a two-way relationship takes place, requires additional analysis. Institutions form entrepreneurship but at the same time entrepreneurs tend to have an effect on institutions (Elert & Henrekson, 2017). Additionally, we tend to detect that measures of entrepreneurship that were not considered within the current chapter might improve the comprehension concerning the evolution of this research field. For instance, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship, analyzed from the institutional perspective, might serve to review how entrepreneurs among corporations are affected by the institutional atmosphere (Gómez-Haro, Aragón-Correa, & Cordón-Pozo, 2011; Ribeiro-Soriano & Urbano, 2009; Toledano, Urbano, & Bernadich, 2010; Turró, Urbano, & Peris-Ortiz, 2014; Turro, Alvarez, & Urbano, 2016).
Similarly, a future analysis may contemplate the question of how and why the variety in entrepreneurship analysis is especially necessary for economic growth. Some poignant examples of this diversity include: female entrepreneurship (Ahl &Marlow, 2012; Collins & Low, 2010; De Bruin et al., 2007; Minniti & Naudé, 2010), social entrepreneurship (Acs, Boardman, & McNeely, 2013; Nicholls, 2010; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009), immigrant and transnational entrepreneurship (Collins & Low, 2010; Drori et al., 2009; Li et al., 2017), entrepreneurial universities (Guerrero et al., 2015, Guerrero et al., 2016; Wennberg et al., 2011), family business (Chrisman et al., 2010; Cruz et al., 2012; Debicki et al., 2009; Van Gils et al., 2014; Zahra, Hayton, Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2008), green or sustainable entrepreneurship (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Gast et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2013), etc. Because of data limitations and the lack of robust theoretical approaches, this sort of distinction has rarely been created yet within the empirical literature. With respect to economic growth, Blackburn and Ram (2006), Bruton, Ketchen, and Ireland (2013), Carter (2011), and McMullen (2011) discuss the importance of entrepreneurship to elucidate not solely the economic performance, but additionally inclusive growth, well-being, social mobility and therefore the alleviation of poverty. These authors recommend that future analysis directions ought to link entrepreneurial activity to measures beyond the standard gross domestic product, since it is recognized that entrepreneurship brings advantages for the entire society. Consistent with Welter, Baker, Audretsch, and Gartner (2017), there are specific austerity demands regarding the government budget constraints, hindering to activate the economic level of regions and nations, that lead to a reduced inclusive growth outcome. Thus, entrepreneurial diversity might serve as a policy instrument to link those excluded households with economic dynamics. Figure 2.2 summarizes what we have found through the literature analysis and some parts that might be considered by academics in entrepreneurship research so as to push out the extant frontier, framed after all, by the causal chain running from institutions and entrepreneurship to economic process.
Summary and future research lines on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic performance
Figure 2.2, therefore, might serve to depict the growth and development process across regions and countries. In each of these two levels, future research and public policies should consider that local and national differences may exist. In this regard, as identified in this literature analysis, further policy reports and articles are needed. These should address the question on what are the conducive institutions in developing and developed countries such that entrepreneurship leverages the economic development process. Certainly, there are different trends depending on the context in which entrepreneurs make decisions (Beynon et al. 2016). For instances, Bruton et al. (2013) and De Castro, Khavul, and Bruton (2014) discuss the challenge in terms of the unofficial economy confronting developing countries, which, despite such challenges, individuals still decide to become entrepreneurs. In one way or another, this is the labor market structure that shapes the entrepreneurial intentions and decisions, which perhaps represent the best (short-term) solution for those families living in emerging economies (Bruton, Ireland, & Ketchen, 2012). Thus, new insights could tackle the fact that institutions (mainly the formal ones) exert lower influence on entrepreneurial activities formally registered. In this sense, an analysis of informal institutions, encouraging (direct and indirectly) both formal institutions and higher quality of entrepreneurship, is needed.
In the developed country context, the analysis of the causal chain suggests a very important tool to research the recent crises. First, the large migrant flows from developing to developed countries (Bizri, 2017; Collins & Low, 2010); and second, the still unstable economic platform of the US, UK, and Europe (Giotopoulos et al., 2017; Koellinger & Thurik, 2012; Varvarigos & Gil-Moltó, 2016), among alternative sorts of crises, produce opportunities for entrepreneurship scholars to supply compelling proof and a broader dialogue related to the importance of entrepreneurial activity as a policy last resort. Ács, Autio, and Szerb (2014) and Acs et al. (2017) acknowledge that the national system of entrepreneurship may be a new way to comprehend the functioning of the process, leveraged by entrepreneurs who are, at the same time, embedded in a very specific atmosphere. Especially, Ács et al. (2014) have introduced new metrics of entrepreneurial activity and economic development referred to as the global entrepreneurship and development index (GEDI). Measurements advances like this provide ways forward to explore exhaustively institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic development at the individual, regional and country level, facilitating at the same time the creation of long-term policies.
Both conceptual and policy implications could be also derived from this chapter. First, to consider an integrated and complex model including institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth could serve to advance our understanding in the entrepreneurship and economic fields. Additionally, this model enables distinguishing by type of institution (formal, informal, etc.), entrepreneurial activity (necessity, opportunity, etc.) and economic performance (growth, development, etc.). Second, this chapter may be relevant for formulating public and private stragies related to reinforcement of the sustainable creation of new businesses, which are proven to improve the standard of living for not just the entrepreneurs but also the entire society.
Notes
- 1.
It is important to highlight that we only focus on articles dealing with a country’s or region’s gross domestic product (GDP—total or per capita) or GDP growth, as well as labor productivity or total factor productivity (TFP) (van Praag & Versloot, 2007).
- 2.
In this chapter, we use indistinctively institutional approach, institutional perspective, institutional theory, institutional economics and institutional economic theory.
- 3.
Apart from the institutional and economic approaches considered in this article, perspectives that involve psychological (Collins et al., 1964; McClelland, 1961; Krueger, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Shepherd, 2015; among others) and organizational (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Barney, 1991; Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001; Chesbrough, 2003, 2006; Leih & Teece, 2016; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Teece, 2007; among others) approaches are also used in our field of research. However, some studies are starting to consider another level of analysis, just between the organization and the environment; this type of analysis, the entrepreneurship-innovation ecosystems approach, mainly focuses on clusters, business-innovation, or industry (Isenberg, 2010; Mason & Brown, 2014, among others).
References
Acemoglu, D., Gallego, F., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Institutions, human capital and development. The Annual Review of Economics, 6, 875–912.
Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.
Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. F. (2008). What does “entrepreneurship” data really show? Small Business Economics, 31(3), 265–281.
Acs, Z., & Storey, D. (2004). Introduction: Entrepreneurship and economic development. Regional Studies, 38(8), 871–877.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289–300.
Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.
Acs, Z. J., Boardman, M. C., & McNeely, C. L. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 785–796.
Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 109–122.
Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 263–286.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.
Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2012). Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization, 19(5), 543–562.
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672.
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. M. (2012). Size matters: Entrepreneurial entry and government. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 119–139.
Aidis, R., Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Isakova, N. (2007). Female entrepreneurship in transition economies: The case of Lithuania and Ukraine. Feminist Economics, 13(2), 157–183.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
Aldrich, H. E., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 3–23). New York: Ballinger.
Aliaga-Isla, R., & Rialp, A. (2013). Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: Previous findings and ways forward. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9–10), 819–844.
Álvarez, C., Urbano, D., & Amorós, J. E. (2014). GEM research: Achievements and challenges. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 445–465.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2014). Entrepreneurial opportunities and poverty alleviation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 159–184.
Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755–775.
Amorós, J. E., Fernández, C., & Tapia, J. (2012). Quantifying the relationship between entrepreneurship and competitiveness development stages in Latin America. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(3), 249–270.
Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465–476.
Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Audretsch, D. (2016). Institutional factors, opportunity entrepreneurship and economic growth: Panel data evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 45–61.
Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Gómez, D. (2016). The role of innovative entrepreneurship within Colombian business cycle scenarios: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 81, 130–147.
Aubry, M., Bonnet, J., & Renou-Maissant, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle: The “Schumpeter” effect versus the “refugee” effect – a French appraisal based on regional data. The Annals of Regional Science, 54(1), 23–55.
Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764.
Audretsch, D. B. (1997). Technological regimes, industrial demography and the evolution of industrial structures. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 49–82.
Audretsch, D. B. (2007). Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(1), 63–78.
Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Desai, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and economic development in cities. The Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 33–60.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 687–698.
Audretsch, D. B., Bönte, W., & Tamvada, J. P. (2013). Religion, social class, and entrepreneurial choice. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 774–789.
Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (2002). Growth regimes over time and space. Regional Studies, 36(2), 113–124.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004a). Does entrepreneurship capital matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419–429.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004b). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949–959.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004c). Entrepreneurship and regional growth: An evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605–616.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship capital and regional growth. The Annals of Regional Science, 39(3), 457–469.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The localisation of entrepreneurship capital: Evidence from Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 351–365.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705.
Autio, E., & Fu, K. (2015). Economic and political institutions and entry into formal and informal entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 67–94.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.
Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2010). Social capital access and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 76(3), 821–833.
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women’s participation in entrepreneruship: A multicountry study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 687–708.
Bauke, B., Semrau, T., & Han, Z. (2016). Relational trust and new ventures’ performance: The moderating impact of national-level institutional weakness. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1007–1024.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.
Baumol, W. J. (1993). Entrepreneurship, management and the structure of payoffs. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
Baumol, W. J., & Strom, R. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 233–237.
Belitski, M., Chowdhury, F., & Desai, S. (2016). Taxes, corruption, and entry. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 201–216.
Belitski, M., & Desai, S. (2016). Creativity, entrepreneurship and economic development: City-level evidence on creativity spillover of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1354–1376.
Ben Letaifa, S., & Goglio-Primard, K. (2016). How does institutional context shape entrepreneurship conceptualizations? Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5128–5134.
Berger, B. (1991). The culture of entrepreneurship. San Francisco: ICS Press.
Berkowitz, D., & DeJong, D. N. (2005). Entrepreneurship and post-socialist growth. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(1), 25–46.
Beynon, M. J., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2016). Country-based comparison analysis using fsQCA investigating entrepreneurial attitudes and activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1271–1276.
Biondi, Y. (2008). Schumpeter’s economic theory and the dynamic accounting view of the firm: Neglected pages from the Theory of Economic Development. Economy and Society, 37(4), 525–547.
Bizri, R. M. (2017). Refugee-entrepreneurship: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(9–10), 847–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1364787
Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. (2013). How strategic entrepreneurship and the institutional context drive economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(1), 50–69.
Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What do we know and what do we still need to know? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 292–315.
Blackburn, R., & Kovalainen, A. (2009). Researching small firms and entrepreneurship: Past, present and future. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(2), 127–148.
Blackburn, R., & Ram, M. (2006). Fix or fixation? The contributions and limitations of entrepreneurship and small firms to combating social exclusion. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(1), 73–89.
Blackburn, R. A., & Smallbone, D. (2008). Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in the UK: Developments and distinctiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(2), 267–288.
Blanchflower, D. G. (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, 7(5), 471–505.
Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Schutjens, V. (2011). Creative destruction and regional productivity growth: Evidence from the Dutch manufacturing and services industries. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 401–418.
Bradley, S. W., & Klein, P. (2016). Institutions, economic freedom, and entrepreneurship: The contribution of management scholarship. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 211–221.
Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.
Braunerhjelm, P., & Borgman, B. (2004). Geographical concentration, entrepreneurship and regional growth: Evidence from regional data in Sweden, 1975–99. Regional Studies, 38(8), 929–947.
Braunerhjelm, P., Desai, S., & Eklund, J. E. (2015). Regulation, firm dynamics and entrepreneurship. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 1–11.
Braunerhjelm, P., & Henrekson, M. (2013). Entrepreneurship, institutions, and economic dynamism: Lessons from a comparison of the United States and Sweden. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 107–130.
Bruno, R. L., Bytchkova, M., & Estrin, S. (2013). Institutional determinants of new firm entry in Russia: A cross-regional analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(5), 1740–1749.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440.
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Puky, T. (2009). Institutional differences and the development of entrepreneurial ventures: A comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin America and Asia. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 762–778.
Bruton, G. D., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J. (2012). Toward a research agenda on the informal economy. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 1–11.
Bruton, G. D., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 683–689.
Buela-Casal, G., & Zych, I. (2012). What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, 92(2), 281–292.
Busenitz, L. W., Gómez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 994–1003.
Calcagno, P. T., & Sobel, R. S. (2014). Regulatory costs on entrepreneurship and establishment employment size. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 541–559.
Capello, R., & Lenzi, C. (2016). Innovation modes and entrepreneurial behavioral characteristics in regional growth. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 875–893.
Carbonara, E., Santarelli, E., & Tran, H. T. (2016). De jure determinants of new firm formation: How the pillars of constitutions influence entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 139–162.
Carlsson, B., Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.
Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 913–930.
Carmona, M., Congregado, E., Golpe, A. A., & Iglesias, J. (2016). Self-employment and business cycles: Searching for asymmetries in a panel of 23 OECD countries. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(6), 1155–1171.
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(3), 271–290.
Carree, M., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2007). The relationship between economic development and business ownership revisited. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(3), 281–291.
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(1), 101–110.
Carter, S. (2011). The rewards of entrepreneurship: exploring the incomes, wealth, and economic well-being of entrepreneurial households. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 39–55.
Castaño, M. S., Méndez, M. T., & Galindo, M. Á. (2016). The effect of public policies on entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5280–5285.
Castaño-Martínez, M.-S., Méndez-Picazo, M.-T., & Galindo Martín, M. Á. (2015). Policies to promote entrepreneurial activity and economic performance. Management Decision, 53(9), 2073–2087.
Chang, H. J., & Kozul-Wright, R. (1994). Organising development: Comparing the national systems of entrepreneurship in Sweden and South Korea. The Journal of Development Studies, 30(4), 859–891.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 35–41.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chowdhury, F., Desai, S., Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2015). Does corruption matter for international entrepreneurship? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4), 959–980.
Chowdhury, F., Terjesen, S., & Audretsch, D. (2015). Varieties of entrepreneurship: Institutional drivers across entrepreneurial activity and country. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 121–148.
Chrisman, J. J., Kellermanns, F. W., Chan, K. C., & Liano, K. (2010). Intellectual foundations of current research in family business: An identification and review of 25 influential articles. Family Business Review, 23(1), 9–26.
Collins, J., & Low, A. (2010). Asian female immigrant entrepreneurs in small and medium-sized businesses in Australia. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(1), 97–111.
Collins, J. D., McMullen, J. S., & Reutzel, C. R. (2016). Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 981–1006.
Collins, O. F., Moore, D. G., & Unwalla, D. B. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Cruz, C., Justo, R., & De Castro, J. O. (2012). Does family employment enhance MSEs performance?: Integrating socioemotional wealth and family embeddedness perspectives. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 62–76.
Czarnitzki, D., Doherr, T., Hussinger, K., Schliessler, P., & Toole, A. A. (2016). Knowledge creates markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship. European Economic Review, 86, 131–146.
Da Rin, M., Di Giacomo, M., & Sembenelli, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, firm entry, and the taxation of corporate income: Evidence from Europe. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1048–1066.
Dana, L. P. (1987). Evaluating policies promoting entrepreneurship: A cross cultural comparison of enterprises case study: Singapore & Malaysia. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 4(3), 36–41.
Danson, M. W. (1995). New firm formation and regional economic development: An introduction and review of the Scottish experience. Small Business Economics, 7(2), 81–87.
Davidsson, P., Hunter, E., & Klofsten, M. (2006). Institutional forces: The invisible hand that shapes venture ideas? International Small Business Journal, 24(2), 115–131.
Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994). New firm formation and regional development in Sweden. Regional Studies, 28(4), 395–410.
Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2016). Culture and the regulation of entry. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(4), 1055–1083.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2007). Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 323–339.
De Castro, J. O., Khavul, S., & Bruton, G. D. (2014). Shades of grey: How do informal firms navigate between macro and meso institutional environments? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(1), 75–94.
De Clercq, D., & Dakhli, M. (2009). Personal strain and ethical standards of the self-employed. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 477–490.
De Clercq, D., Danis, W. M., & Dakhli, M. (2010). The moderating effect of institutional context on the relationship between associational activity and new business activity in emerging economies. International Business Review, 19(1), 85–101.
de Lange, D. E. (2016). Legitimation strategies for clean technology entrepreneurs facing institutional voids in emerging economies. Journal of International Management, 22(4), 403–415.
Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50–76.
Debicki, B. J., Matherne III, C. F., Kellermanns, F. W., & Chrisman, J. J. (2009). Family business research in the new millennium: An overview of the who, the where, the what, and the why. Family Business Review, 22(2), 151–166.
Dejardin, M. (2011). Linking net entry to regional economic growth. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 443–460.
Dejardin, M., & Fritsch, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial dynamics and regional growth. Small Business Economics, 36(4), 377–382.
Díaz Casero, J. C., Almodóvar González, M., de la Cruz Sánchez Escobedo, M., Coduras Martinez, A., & Hernández Mogollón, R. (2013). Institutional variables, entrepreneurial activity and economic development. Management Decision, 51(2), 281–305.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Salines, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.
Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001–1022.
Dutta, N., & Sobel, R. (2016). Does corruption ever help entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 47(1), 179–199.
Easterly, W., & Easterly, W. R. (2001). The elusive quest for growth: Economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eesley, C. (2016). Institutional barriers to growth: Entrepreneurship, human capital and institutional change. Organization Science, 27(5), 1290–1306.
Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2017). Entrepreneurship and institutions: A bidirectional relationship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 191–263.
Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2011). Institutions and female entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 37(4), 397–415.
Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2012). Shadow economy and entrepreneurial entry. Review of Development Economics, 16(4), 559–578.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479–504.
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013a). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2013b). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479–504.
Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.
Field, E., Jayachandran, S., & Pande, R. (2010). Do traditional institutions constrain female entrepreneurship? A field experiment on business training in India. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 125–129.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.
Freire-Gibb, L. C., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship within urban and rural areas: Creative people and social networks. Regional Studies, 48(1), 139–153.
Fried, V. H. (2003). Defining a forum for entrepreneurship scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 1–11.
Fritsch, M. (2008). How does new business formation affect regional development? Introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 1–14.
García-Posada, M., & Mora-Sanguinetti, J. S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and enforcement institutions: Disaggregated evidence for Spain. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 49–74.
Giordani, P. E. (2015). Entrepreneurial finance and economic growth. Journal of Economics, 115(2), 153–174.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 43–62.
Gohmann, S. F. (2012). Institutions, latent entrepreneurship, and self-employment: An international comparison. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 295–321.
Goltz, S., Buche, M. W., & Pathak, S. (2015). Political empowerment, rule of law, and women’s entry into entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 605–626.
Gómez-Haro, S., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677–1693.
González-Pernía, J. L., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2015). Export-oriented entrepreneurship and regional economic growth. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 505–522.
Gries, T., & Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Small Business Economics, 34(1), 13–29.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 105–131.
Hafer, R. W., & Jones, G. (2015). Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some international evidence. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 283–298.
Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.
Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52.
Hechavarría, D. M. (2016). The impact of culture on national prevalence rates of social and commercial entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1025–1052.
Hechavarria, D. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2009). Cultural norms & business start-ups: The impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 417.
Helpman, E. (2004). The mystery of economic growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hessels, J., & van Stel, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, export orientation, and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 255–268.
Hoffman, D. L., & Franke, G. R. (1986). Correspondence analysis: Graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), 213–227.
Hoogendoorn, B., Rietveld, C. A., & van Stel, A. (2016). Belonging, believing, bonding, and behaving: The relationship between religion and business ownership at the country level. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(3), 519–550.
Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9–10), 917–945.
Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: A network theory. Small Business Economics, 45(1), 103–128.
Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2016). Socio-spatial culture and entrepreneurship: Some theoretical and empirical observations. Economic Geography, 92(3), 269–300.
Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.
Iyigun, M. F., & Owen, A. L. (1999). Entrepreneurs, professionals, and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 4(2), 213–232.
Johnson, P., & Parker, S. (1996). Spatial variations in the determinants and effects of firm births and deaths. Regional Studies, 30(7), 679–688.
Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.
Kanniainen, V., & Vesala, T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and labor market institutions. Economic Modelling, 22(5), 828–847.
Kibler, E., & Kautonen, T. (2016). The moral legitimacy of entrepreneurs: An analysis of early-stage entrepreneurship across 26 countries. International Small Business Journal, 34(1), 34–50.
Kim, B. Y., & Kang, Y. (2014). Social capital and entrepreneurial activity: A pseudo-panel approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 97, 47–60.
King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance, entrepreneurship and growth. Theory and evidence. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 513–542.
Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 302–316.
Klapper, L., Laeven, L., & Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 591–629.
Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.
Krasniqi, B. A., & Desai, S. (2016). Institutional drivers of high-growth firms: Country-level evidence from 26 transition economies. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 1075–1094.
Krasniqi, B. A., & Mustafa, M. (2016). Small firm growth in a post-conflict environment: The role of human capital, institutional quality, and managerial capacities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(4), 1165–1207.
Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–22.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18, 91–104.
Kuckertz, A., Berger, E. S., & Mpeqa, A. (2016). The more the merrier? Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1288–1293.
Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181.
Lechner, M., & Pfeiffer, F. (1993). Planning for self-employment at the beginning of a market economy: Evidence from individual data of East German workers. Small Business Economics, 5(2), 111–128.
Leih, S., & Teece, D. (2016). Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 182–210.
Lerner, M., Brush, C., & Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315–339.
Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2008). A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 235–263.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Alternatives to the journal impact factor: I3 and the top-10% (or top-25%?) of the most-highly cited papers. Scientometrics, 92(2), 355–365.
Li, C., Isidor, R., Dau, L. A., & Kabst, R. (2017). The more the merrier? Immigrant share and entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12277
Lim, D. S., Oh, C. H., & De Clercq, D. (2016). Engagement in entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Interactive effects of individual-level factors and institutional conditions. International Business Review, 25(4), 933–945.
Liñán, F., & Fernandez-Serrano, J. (2014). National culture, entrepreneurship and economic development: Different patterns across the European Union. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 685–701.
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3–4), 187–215.
Low, S. A., & Isserman, A. M. (2015). Where are the innovative entrepreneurs? Identifying innovative industries and measuring innovative entrepreneurship. International Regional Science Review, 38(2), 171–201.
Maimone Ansaldo Patti, D., Mudambi, R., Navarra, P., & Baglieri, D. (2016). A tale of soil and seeds: The external environment and entrepreneurial entry. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 955–980.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.
Malchow-Møller, N., Markusen, J. R., & Skaksen, J. R. (2010). Labour market institutions, learning and self-employment. Small Business Economics, 35(1), 35–52.
Manolova, T. S., Eunni, R. V., & Gyoshev, B. S. (2008). Institutional environments for entrepreneurship: Evidence from emerging economies in Eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 203–218.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Paper prepared for a workshop of the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague, Netherlands, November 7th, 2013.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., & Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, risk-takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 115–135.
McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market-based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185–193.
Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 493–509.
Méndez-Picazo, M.-T., Galindo Martín, M. Á., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2012). Governance, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9–10), 865–867.
Merigó, J. M., Cancino, C. A., Coronado, F., & Urbano, D. (2016). Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scientometrics, 108(2), 559–593.
Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega, 21(1), 71–100.
Minniti, M., & Lévesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial types and economic growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 305–314.
Minniti, M., & Naudé, W. (2010). What do we know about the patterns and determinants of female entrepreneurship across countries? The European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277–293.
Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355–362.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.
Müller, S. (2016). A progress review of entrepreneurship and regional development: What are the remaining gaps? European Planning Studies, 24(6), 1133–1158.
Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: New approaches and insights. Small Business Economics, 34(1), 1–12.
Naudé, W. (2011). Entrepreneurship is not a binding constraint on growth and development in the poorest countries. World Development, 39(1), 33–44.
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633.
Nissan, E., Martín, M. Á. G., & Picazo, M. T. M. (2011). Relationship between organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 311–324.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
North, D. C., & Thomas, R. P. (1973). The rise of the western world: A new economic history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Noseleit, F. (2013). Entrepreneurship, structural change, and economic growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 23(4), 735–766.
Nyström, K. (2008). The institutions of economic freedom and entrepreneurship: Evidence from panel data. Public Choice, 136(3–4), 269–282.
Pathak, S., & Muralidharan, E. (2016). Informal institutions and their comparative influences on social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of in-Group collectivism and interpersonal trust. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 168–188.
Pathak, S., Xavier-Oliveira, E., & Laplume, A. O. (2013). Influence of intellectual property, foreign investment, and technological adoption on technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2090–2101.
Peng, M. W., Yamakawa, Y., & Lee, S.-H. (2010). Bankruptcy laws and entrepreneur- friendliness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 517–530.
Prieger, J. E., Bampoky, C., Blanco, L. R., & Liu, A. (2016). Economic growth and the optimal level of entrepreneurship. World Development, 82, 95–109.
Reynolds, P., Camp, S., Bygrave, W., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2001 executive report. Babson College, London Business School, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M., Bygrave, W. D., Camp, S. M., & Autio, E. (2000). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2000 executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M., & Camp, S. (1999). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 1999 executive report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation.
Rocha, H. O. (2004). Entrepreneurship and development: The role of clusters. Small Business Economics, 23(5), 363–400.
Rodrik, D. (2003). Introduction: What do we learn from country narratives? In D. Rodrik (Ed.), In search of prosperity: Analytic narratives on economic growth (pp. 1–19). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Román, C., Congregado, E., & Millán, J. M. (2011). Dependent self-employment as a way to evade employment protection legislation. Small Business Economics, 37(3), 363–392.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. London: Transaction Books.
Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (Foundations for Organizational Science Series) (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (Foundations for organizational science series) (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shane, S., & Foo, M. D. (1999). New firm survival: Institutional explanations for new franchisor mortality. Management Science, 45(2), 142–159.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Inc..
Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 489–507.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Baron, R. A. (2013). “I care about nature, but…”: Disengaging values in assessing opportunities that cause harm. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1251–1273.
Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641–655.
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.
Spencer, J. W., & Gómez, C. (2004). The relationship among national institutional structures, economic factors, and domestic entrepreneurial activity: A multicountry study. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1098–1107.
Stenholm, P., Acs, Z. J., & Wuebker, R. (2013). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 176–193.
Stephan, U., & Pathak, S. (2016). Beyond cultural values? Cultural leadership ideals and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 505–523.
Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347–1364.
Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308–331.
Stephen, F., Urbano, D., & Hemmen, S. (2009). The responsiveness of entrepreneurs to working time regulations. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 259–276.
Stephens, H. M., & Partridge, M. D. (2011). Do entrepreneurs enhance economic growth in lagging regions? Growth and Change, 42(4), 431–465.
Sternberg, R., & Wennekers, S. (2005). Determinants and effects of new business creation using global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 193–203.
Steyaert, C., & Hjorth, D. (2006). Entrepreneurship as socialchange. A third movements in entrepreneurship book. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.
Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. The Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Teixeira, A. A. (2011). Mapping the (in)visible college(s) in the field of entrepreneurship. Scientometrics, 89(1), 1–36.
Terjesen, S., & Amorós, J. E. (2010). Female entrepreneurship in Latin America and the Caribbean: Characteristics, drivers and relationship to economic development. European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 313–330.
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative international entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299–344.
Thornton, P. H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105–118.
Toledano, N., & Urbano, D. (2008). Promoting entrepreneurial mindsets at universities: A case study in the South of Spain. European Journal of International Management, 2(4), 382–399.
Toledano, N., Urbano, D., & Bernadich, M. (2010). Networks and corporate entrepreneurship: A comparative case study on family business in Catalonia. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(4), 396–412.
Troilo, M. (2011). Legal institutions and high-growth aspiration entrepreneurship. Economic Systems, 35(2), 158–175.
Turro, A., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2016). Intrapreneurship in the Spanish context: A regional analysis. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28(5–6), 380–402.
Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360–369.
Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. (2007). Postmaterialism influencing total entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 161–185.
Urbano, D., & Alvarez, C. (2014). Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: An international study. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 703–716.
Urbano, D., & Aparicio, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship capital types and economic growth: International evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 34–44.
Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., Guerrero, M., Noguera, M., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2016). Institutional determinants of student employer entrepreneurs at Catalan universities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.021
Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Querol, V. (2016). Social progress orientation and innovative entrepreneurship: An international analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(5), 1033–1066.
Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40–55.
Urbano, D., Toledano, N., & Ribeiro, D. (2010). Support policy for the tourism business: A comparative case study in Spain. The Service Industries Journal, 30(1), 119–131.
Urbano, D., Toledano, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and transnational entrepreneurship: A multiple case study in Spain. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 119–134.
Valdez, M. E., & Richardson, J. (2013). Institutional determinants of macro-level entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1149–1175.
Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and economic growth: Evidence from emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(5), 459–480.
Van de Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211–230.
Van Gils, A., Dibrell, C., Neubaum, D. O., & Craig, J. B. (2014). Social issues in the family enterprise. Family Business Review, 27(3), 193–205.
van Hemmen, S., Alvarez, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Urbano, D. (2015). Leadership styles and innovative entrepreneurship: An international study. Cybernetics and Systems, 46(3–4), 271–286.
van Oort, F. G., & Bosma, N. S. (2013). Agglomeration economies, inventors and entrepreneurs as engines of European regional economic development. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(1), 213–244.
van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–382.
van Stel, A., & Carree, M. (2004). Business ownership and sectoral growth: An empirical analysis of 21 OECD countries. International Small Business Journal, 22(4), 389–419.
van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 311–321.
van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.
Varvarigos, D., & Gil-Moltó, M. J. (2016). Endogenous market structure, occupational choice, and growth cycles. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 20(1), 70–94.
Veciana, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research. Introduction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365–379.
Watson, J., & Everett, J. (1996). Do small businesses have high failure rates? Evidence from Australian retailers. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(4), 45–62.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship – a call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2008). Women’s entrepreneurship from an institutional perspective: The case of Uzbekistan. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 505–520.
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behaviour in challenging environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.
Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.
Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yeganegi, S., Laplume, A. O., Dass, P., & Huynh, C. L. (2016). Where do spinouts come from? The role of technology relatedness and institutional context. Research Policy, 45(5), 1103–1112.
Yu, T. F. L. (1998). Adaptive entrepreneurship and the economic development of Hong Kong. World Development, 26(5), 897–911.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitment and strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1035–1054.
Zhang, Y. (2015). The contingent value of social resources: Entrepreneurs’ use of debt-financing sources in Western China. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(3), 390–406.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., Audretsch, D.B. (2019). Institutional Antecedents of Entrepreneurship and Its Consequences on Economic Growth: A Systematic Literature Analysis. In: Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Performance. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13373-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13373-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13372-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13373-3
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)