Content uploaded by Jan Rehak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan Rehak on Feb 01, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
2212-5671 © 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ECE 2014
doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00375-X
ScienceDirect
Enterprise and the Competitive Environment 2014 conference, ECE 2014, 6–7 March 2014, Brno,
Czech Republic
Senior entrepreneurship in the perspective of European
entrepreneurial environment
Anna Pilkovaa, Marian Holienkaa, Jan Rehaka,
*
aFaculty of management, Comenius University, Bratislava, Odbojárov 10, 82005
Abstract
This paper studies the relationship between senior entrepreneurship propensity (entrepreneurship of the elderly) and national
entrepreneurial context, in the European countries that exhibit either high or low levels of senior entrepreneurship. We focus on
European countries that participated in Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) in 2013. We use GEM data as the main data
source for our analysis. Firstly, we analyse the propensity of senior entrepreneurship on the national level, in order to create two
clusters (high and low ones) based on the senior entrepreneurial activity. These clusters are then studied separately, compared
and analysed based on their entrepreneurial environment. In order to assess the state of the national entrepreneurial environ ment,
we use the GEM evaluation of key Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions, which are evaluated by GEM National Expert
Survey. We thereafter compare the quality and profile of entrepreneurial environment based on the framework conditions in each
of the created clusters and study similarities and differences both within the clusters and between them. In the further analysis,
we investigate which of the entrepreneurial conditions and to what extent might play the role in influencing the senior
entrepreneurial activity propensity in both high-activity and low-activity clusters.
© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ECE 2014.
Keywords: Senior entrepreneurship; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor; Entrepreneurial environment;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +421-949-805225
E-mail address: jan.rehak@fm.uniba.sk
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of ECE 2014
524 Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
1. Introduction
In the recent years, mainly due to the socio-demographic changes, rising unemployment and aging population in
Europe, an increased attention is paid to the issue of inclusive entrepreneurship. Inclusive entrepreneurship support
is aimed at underprivileged groups of population, such as women, youth, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities,
and seniors, thus aiding them to participate in entrepreneurial activities. The common goal of inclusive
entrepreneurship initiatives is to ensure that all people, regardless of their characteristics and socio-economic
background, have an equal opportunity to start and manage their own business (OECD/European Commission,
2013). On one hand there are various policies and initiatives aimed at promotion and support of inclusive
entrepreneurship on national as well as on European level. On the other hand, these issues are raising the attention of
researchers, who try to explain specific aspects of the above mentioned groups of potential entrepreneurs, as well as
understand what drives them to start businesses, and which factors play key roles in influencing the propensity of
entrepreneurship in these groups. Our research objective is to study senior entrepreneurship and national
institutional frameworks in European countries to identify differences between two clusters of countries – with high
and low senior entrepreneurial activities.
2. Literature Review
Senior entrepreneurship, or entrepreneurship of the elderly population, forms an integral part of inclusive
entrepreneurship, since seniors (in the entrepreneurship literature usually aged 55–64 years old) are considered to be
underprivileged mainly due to age discrimination (Loretto and White, 2006). The reasons to support seniors in order
to consider entrepreneurship as an option before and during retirement are abundant. The untapped potential situated
in the senior cohort, and the possibilities to shift pressure from social and retirement funds are just the tip of the
iceberg (OECD/European Commission, 2013, Wainwright and Kibler, 2013). The analysis of Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS, 2011) calculated that if every adult in Britain worked for one more year,
delaying retirement, it would contribute an extra £13bn to the economy. Economic effects of senior entrepreneurship
are the subject of analysis in a number of studies. The main conclusion is that senior entrepreneurship brings both
social and economic benefits not only to the senior cohort but to the society as such (Curran and Blackburn, 2001;
Singh and DeNoble, 2003; Weber and Schaper, 2004; Halabinsky, Potter and Kautonen, 2012). Even though senior
entrepreneurship is not necessarily creating innovative and high growth businesses that has the potential to affect
economic growth, this kind of entrepreneurship is still valid in the alleviation of the negative pressure on the
retirement funds and social security funds, creates job opportunities for unemployed (Kautonen, Down and South,
2008). On the other hand, there has been found a positive relationship between the economic growth as well as
surplus in the social security funds and senior entrepreneurship among the states in the USA. Also a pattern was
discovered that senior entrepreneurs tend to retire later than senior employees (Ting Zhang, 2008).
In the literature senior entrepreneurship is studied from many perspectives. Firstly, seniors are studied not only
as potential entrepreneurs, but entrepreneurship in this age group is seen as a way to retain seniors in active work
force (Curran and Blackburn 2001; Sing and De Noble 2003; Weber and Schaper 2004; Kautonen et al. 2008).
Entrepreneurial experience provides seniors with skills and attitudes, which can help them find employment
opportunities even if the enterprise fails in the long term (OECD/European Commission 2013).
Seniors are in general less disposed to engage in the entrepreneurial activity due to health issues, time allocation
preferences, and various other reasons (Curran and Blackburn 2001; Singh and DeNoble 2003, Levesque
and Minniti, 2006), and the percentage of seniors starting a new business is about the half of the amount of young
people starting a business (Hart et al. 2004; Kautonen 2008). Recent research (Kautonen et al. 2013) suggests that
the relationship between the age and the tendency to engage in entrepreneurial activity depends to a great extent on
the heterogeneous preferences of an individual regarding his work life. In the group of individuals with the
preferences to run and invest in own business (owner-managers), the effect of age on entrepreneurial propensity is
described by an inverse U-shape, culminating at 48 years of age, which corresponds with the traditional view on the
declining propensity in senior entrepreneurship. On the contrary, in the group, where individuals aspire to become
self-employed, or do not anticipate hiring employees, the tendency to become entrepreneurial increases with age
525
Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
almost linearly. In the group of reluctant entrepreneurs (those pushed in the entrepreneurship by necessity), the
effect of age on their entrepreneurial activity is marginal.
Senior entrepreneurs can benefit from accumulated human capital through work experience (Botham and Graves,
2009), but the relevance of former work experience for entrepreneurial predispositions depends on the nature of the
experience (Weber and Schaper, 2004), since former entrepreneurial or managerial experience has naturally a higher
impact than industrial worker experience (Kautonen, Down and South, 2008; Kautonen et al., 2010). Based on this
distinction, a study by the Age UK (2012) suggests that 5 years after the business foundation, 70 % of ventures
established by senior entrepreneurs were still in operation compared to 28 % of enterprises established by younger
entrepreneurs. We must add that the relationship between age and the survival of the started businesses is studied
from various points of view and studies reveal slightly different possible explanations (Patel and Grey, 2006; Green
et al. 2008). This can be due to the fact that unemployment negatively affects the quality of human capital, and
therefore the seniors that are in the pre-retirement age, and find themselves unemployed have lower probability to
start a successful business (Hart et al. 2004, Kautonen et al. 2008). Another area of study regarding the senior
entrepreneurs is social capital, where seniors are expected to have broader networks personal contacts that might
facilitate the start and operation of a venture (Bacus and Human 1994; Alizadeh, 2000; De Bruin and Firkin, 2001),
but the reach of such networks declines with age and the relevance of network depends on the former work
experience of the individual (Botham and Graves, 2009).
Accumulated financial capital can have both positive and negative effect on the propensity of senior
entrepreneurship. On one hand it can facilitate the start of a new venture, but can have a negative effect on the
motivation, since the individual is no longer dependent on revenue stream (Webster and Walker 2005; Singh
and DeNoble 2003; Kilber et al. 2011). The entrepreneurial motivations in the senior cohort can be described by the
“push” and “pull” motives (McClelland et al. 2005; Webster and Walker 2005; Kautonen 2008). In this age group,
the motives can vary from the realization of own ideas, work flexibility and independence to the need of financial
security and self-sufficiency (Kautonen et al. 2008; McKay 2001, Kautonen, Luoto and Tornikoski, 2010). The
financial concern in relation to senior entrepreneurship is also connected to opportunity costs of time (Lévesque and
Minniti, 2006). In deciding whether to pursue the entrepreneurial path or not, time is treated as a scarce resource
whose availability is decreasing hand in hand with aging, in contrast to decrease of the present value of a stream of
potential future payments possibly gained after starting up. The opportunity costs of choosing the entrepreneurial
path therefore generally increase with the increasing age of an individual.
Finally, besides all the above mentioned individual level factors, we expect that also entrepreneurial context as a
national-level characteristic plays an important role in determining senior entrepreneurship in an economy (Krueger
et al., 2000, Mrva and Stachova, 2014, Pilkova et al., 2012, Stenholm et al., 2013). The understanding of
entrepreneurial environment concept nowadays builds mainly on the institutional theory that is traditionally
concerned with how individuals, groups or organizations better secure their positions and legitimacy by conforming
to the rules of institutional environment (Bruton et al., 2010). The institutional theory introduces the concept of
institutions that according to North (1990) represent the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the
humanly devised constraints that shape human action. Their influence directs the behaviour of subjects to reach
legitimacy and survive in the environment rather than to keep the efficiency-seeking focus only (Bruton et al.,
2010). Institutions can be generally divided into two main categories: formal institutions and informal institutions
(North, 1990). The first category represents the formalized rules, laws and entire legal framework shaping the
behaviour of different society members, while the latter represents the constraints originated in socially transferred
information that are part of the culture (Okruhlica, 2013). Informal institutions as well as the effect of
entrepreneurial culture are important factors affecting senior entrepreneurship propensity in Europe as well as in the
United States. Various studies on cultural openness and attitudes towards senior citizens confirm that the acceptance
of seniors and cultural openness as such have a strong positive influence on entrepreneurship, whereas ageism and
rejection of seniors in the culture have negative effects (Ting Zhang 2008; Weber and Schaper 2004; Kautonen et al.
2008, 2009, 2011). Negative perception of age as well as age discrimination itself can also have a positive effect on
entrepreneurial activity, since the overcoming of this barrier can motivate seniors to engage in entrepreneurial
activity (Kilber et al. 2011). Saul Estrin and Tomas Mickiewicz (2011) build on the institutional theory and study
the effect of both formal and informal institutions of entrepreneurial propensity as such. They discover that both
formal and informal institutions have a high impact on entrepreneurship, but also a generation effect, where in the
526 Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
transitional economies (CEE and post-soviet union), the underdeveloped informal institutions of the previous era
have a high negative impact on seniors – causing a low senior entrepreneurial activity, and a generation gap in
entrepreneurial propensity.
Literature on senior entrepreneurship focuses on a variety of factors influencing the entrepreneurial activity. This
paper extends the body of knowledge on the topic of senior entrepreneurship literature by exploring the following
research question: Which conditions are different (if any) in institutional frameworks in high rate senior
entrepreneurship countries in comparison to low rate ones? Are they any similarities between these two groups of
countries?
3. Data and methods
We based our analysis on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2013 data. GEM is the largest academic
study in the world focused on entrepreneurship. It collects data every year for each participating country using two
survey instruments. Adult population survey (APS) collects data on entrepreneurial attitudes, activity and aspirations
from representative adult population samples (18 to 64 years). National expert survey (NES) collects data from a
sample of expert respondents with different relations to entrepreneurship that assess the state of the entrepreneurial
framework conditions in their country. In our analysis we employed the 2013 national level data for 28 European
countries participating in GEM, that are built on 91,904 APS respondents (adult population individuals) and 1,005
NES respondents (experts).
To quantify the level of senior entrepreneurial activity we created an index based on two GEM APS variables:
total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA – percentage of adult population involved in the process of actively
starting a business or running a new business less than 3.5 years old) and TEA in age category 55–64 (percentage of
55–64 years population involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity). These variables evaluate the
entrepreneurial activity on a national level, i.e. they are calculated for each country. The country’s senior
entrepreneurial activity index was then calculated by dividing TEA in age category 55–64 by the overall TEA. This
index shows the height of senior entrepreneurship relative to overall entrepreneurship, and therefore indicates the
inclusion of senior population (in our case 55–64 population) in entrepreneurial activity in an economy. Considering
the desirability of inclusive entrepreneurship as far as age is concerned, the index has positive polarity by nature. It
has a greater explanatory power than senior TEA itself, as the isolated view would provide no insights on the role of
senior entrepreneurship in the context of overall entrepreneurial activity. To measure the state of entrepreneurial
framework we have utilized the GEM NES variables evaluating the key entrepreneurial framework conditions
(EFCs). These variables represent mean values of latent variables calculated according to experts’ evaluation of the
various entrepreneurial environment dimensions. In particular, the key EFCs reflected by the variables used in our
analysis are entrepreneurial finance, government policy (both general as well as specific policies regarding
bureaucracy and taxes), government entrepreneurship programs, entrepreneurship education (both primary and
secondary as well as higher education), R&D transfer, commercial and legal infrastructure, market dynamics,
market openness, physical infrastructure and cultural and social norms. Each variable represents an assessment on
Likert-type scale from 1 (worst state) to 5 (best state).
Regarding the methods of our analysis, we have first calculated the senior entrepreneurial activity index for each
of the analysed countries. Secondly, the countries were grouped in three groups according to the rate of senior
entrepreneurial activity expressed by the index. We have classified the countries with index value greater than 0.66
as having high rate of senior entrepreneurship, and accordingly countries showing index value lower than 0.33 as
having low senior entrepreneurship rate. Thirdly, for both groups we have calculated the average values of variables
assessing different key EFCs to obtain their institutional framework profiles. Finally, we have compared the
institutional environment profiles of countries with high and low senior entrepreneurial activity and used descriptive
statistics to identify the differences.
4. Results
Results of our analysis are presented in two steps. First we present the visualization of senior entrepreneurial
activity index for each of the analysed countries. The countries are ranked according to the index values and both
527
Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
high and low senior entrepreneurship groups are indicated. The visualization is presented in Figure 1. For further
details, data table containing overall TEA, 55–64 age category TEA and senior entrepreneurial activity index are
presented in Appendix 1.
As can be seen on Figure 1, the senior entrepreneurial activity in European countries included in our analysis
varied considerably, with index value from 0.90 in Sweden (suggesting that early-stage entrepreneurial activity of
senior Swedes is very similar to those of overall adult population) to as little as 0.21 in case of Slovakia (showing
that early-stage entrepreneurial activity of seniors in Slovakia is only one fifth of the activity of the overall adult
population). On average, the value of senior entrepreneurial activity index in European countries is 0.49, meaning
that the entrepreneurial activity of seniors is the half of the overall activity of adult population.
Fig. 1. Senior entrepreneurial activity index values for analysed countries, 2013
Fig. 2. Institutional profiles: high and low senior entrepreneurship clusters, 2013
0,90
0,84
0,69
0,67
0,63
0,60
0,60
0,59
0,55
0,54
0,53
0,51
0,50
0,50
0,48
0,46
0,41
0,41
0,39
0,39
0,37
0,37
0,32
0,32
0,31
0,30
0,26
0,21
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Italy
Switzerland
Greece
Belgium
Russia
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Bosnia
Netherlands
Macedonia
Portugal
Slovenia
Latvia
Romania
Czech Republic
Spain
Poland
Croatia
France
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Senior entrepreneurial activity index (2013)
1
2
3
4
5
A
B1
B2
C
D1
D2
E
F
G1
G2
H
I
High and low senior entrepreneurship clusters - institutional profiles
high
low
528 Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
Applying the classification criteria on the analysed countries, the high senior entrepreneurship cluster consists of
four countries showing index values from 0.67 to 0.90 (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Luxembourg), while the
opposite cluster grouping the low senior entrepreneurship economies comprises six countries with index values from
0.21 to 0.32 (Poland, Croatia, France, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia). Even in the remaining European countries,
those with neither exceptionally high nor low senior entrepreneurial activity index, a tendency of developed
European countries towards higher senior inclusiveness is visible. On the other hand the former eastern bloc
countries seem to be drawn towards lower senior inclusivity in entrepreneurial endeavour. In the second step of the
analysis, we present the results of the institutional framework evaluation and comparison between high and low
senior entrepreneurship clusters. The entrepreneurial environment profiles created by assessing the key
entrepreneurial framework conditions are displayed on Figure 2, respective data are also presented in Table 1 below.
As can be seen on Figure 2 and in Table 1, institutional profiles of high and low senior entrepreneurship clusters
have certain differences as well as certain similarities. As far as differences are concerned, countries with high
senior entrepreneurship rates outperform those lacking senior entrepreneurship in government policies related to
entrepreneurship (both in terms of concrete policies, priorities and support towards entrepreneurship – B1, but
especially in terms of bureaucratic and tax burdens – B2), primary and secondary education support towards
entrepreneurship (D1), as well as in research and development transfer (E). On the other hand, low senior
entrepreneurship countries show higher evaluation of market dynamics (G1) than the high senior entrepreneurship
cluster. In case of the remaining EFCs, the two analysed clusters show less considerable differences, all of which
were in favour of high senior entrepreneurship cluster. Moreover, in evaluations of entrepreneurial financing (A)
and especially in the case of vocational, professional and university education (D2), we observed no differences
between high and low senior entrepreneurship countries.
Table 1. Institutional profiles: high and low senior entrepreneurship clusters, 2013
code
EFC
High
Low
Difference
A
Entrepreneurial finance
2.62
2.58
0.03
B1
Government policies (concrete policies, priority, support)
2.95
2.48
0.47
B2
Government policies (bureaucracy, taxes)
2.94
2.33
0.61
C
Government programs
3.04
2.73
0.32
D1
Education (elementary, secondary)
2.45
2.00
0.45
D2
Education (higher education)
2.71
2.71
0.00
E
R&D Transfer
2.76
2.32
0.44
F
Commercial and legal infrastructure
3.33
3.00
0.33
G1
Market dynamics
3.03
3.55
−0.52
G2
Market openness
2.77
2.49
0.27
H
Physical infrastructure
4.14
3.95
0.19
I
Cultural and social norms
2.80
2.57
0.23
Source: GEM 2013, authors
5. Discussion
From the classification of countries into two clusters, based on the entrepreneurial activity of their seniors, there
are some observations that can be made even without analysing further their entrepreneurial environment. On one
hand there are countries from northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland) and Luxembourg, which are highly
developed, with long tradition and experience with open market economy, and where even the cultural environment
is different from the rest of the Europe, and the standard of living is also considerably high. On the other hand,
countries with low entrepreneurial activity in the senior cohort are predominantly from the former eastern bloc, with
the exception of France, which is in a way traditionally a leftish country. The reasons for this division might be
partially caused by lower predispositions of seniors to be entrepreneurial in former eastern bloc countries. The
529
Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
propensity of senior entrepreneurship depends on individual’s entrepreneurial mind-set, skills and other factors such
as individual’s preference towards employment, but the factor of institutional environment is non-the-less important.
The reason for the different inclusiveness of senior entrepreneurs in the age 55–64 in European countries could be
caused by both the different attitudes towards entrepreneurship in these countries, but also by different
entrepreneurial environment.
In our study we focused on the differences in entrepreneurial environment measured by assessing the key
entrepreneurial framework conditions (EFCs) analysed in GEM research (Pilkova et al., 2013), and compared the
profiles of mentioned two clusters based on the average levels of EFCs evaluation in the groups. The results of our
analysis suggest that the countries with a high senior entrepreneurial activity index outperform those with low senior
entrepreneurship rates in quality of entrepreneurial framework conditions throughout almost the whole institutional
profile, with the exception of two framework conditions that are similar for both groups, namely entrepreneurial
finance (A) and higher education (D2). Only one EFC showed assessment in favour of the low senior
entrepreneurship cluster – market dynamics (G1).
Government policies, both when it comes to concrete policies aimed at the support of entrepreneurship (B1) and
bureaucracy and taxes (B2) were found to be the most differentiating factors between the two clusters. This shows
that well established and most of all consistently entrepreneurship-supportive government policies shape
entrepreneurial environment by encouraging senior population to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour, thus fostering
inclusive entrepreneurship and social cohesion in an economy. Furthermore we suggest that high administrative and
tax burden might have a stronger effect in discouraging seniors from entrepreneurial activity than it has on the
younger population. This can be caused by a lower ability of seniors to adapt to changing and demanding
circumstances and overcoming these barriers (Ting Zhang 2008; Weber and Schaper 2004). Also, high tax burden
might even strengthen the decrease of the present value of potential future payments from a business, when payback
of investment to new entrepreneurial activity by senior individual is concerned.
Noticeable differences between high and low senior entrepreneurship clusters were found in education on
primary and secondary level and its support towards entrepreneurship (D1). The main effect of this factor regarding
senior entrepreneurship may not be directly the knowledge transferred in educational process, but rather an
entrepreneurial mind-set it has provided to individuals, thus shaping their entrepreneurial behaviour and personal
qualities. This factor influences also the generations of children and grandchildren of the senior population (i.e. the
entire population in the country) by fostering entrepreneurship-friendliness in the national culture. This may in turn
create a supportive environment that encourages senior population to engage in entrepreneurship.
Higher R&D transfer (E) seems to be a common feature of the countries with high senior inclusivity in
entrepreneurship. Transfer of R&D into business in general is a sign of well-developed economies and a positive
factor fostering the quantity but mainly the quality entrepreneurship. The relationship between inclusivity of seniors
in entrepreneurship and the transfer of R&D is a question that should be further studied, mainly on individual level.
One possible explanation may be that in the countries with high R&D transfer, support in relation to
entrepreneurship includes senior professionals, scientists or researchers, who are encouraged to commercialize their
ideas through entrepreneurial activity.
Financing (A) and higher and professional education (D2) seem to have no significant relation with senior
entrepreneurship rates of European countries. The negligible role of finance in senior entrepreneurship that our
results suggest may be caused by higher savings of senior population at the end of their professional career that can
be used as a start-up capital, thus diminishing the effect of the external financing possibilities on seniors in
particular. Authors in other studies suggest that own finances as a source for starting an enterprise are often the case
regarding senior entrepreneurs, and even seem to be an advantage in this age cohort (Singh a DeNoble 2003, Weber
a Schaper 2004). The quality of higher and professional education (D2) according to our results does not play an
important role in the support of the inclusiveness of seniors in the entrepreneurship. We suggest that seniors aspiring
to start a new business may be building more on their expertise and experience, rather than on knowledge and skills
obtained through educational schemes.
When it comes to the assessment of market dynamics (G1), the countries with low senior inclusivity have
markedly higher results in this EFC. We suggest that this difference might be caused by the fact that high senior
entrepreneurship countries in our sample are all highly developed countries with saturated markets with lower
market dynamics. The countries with low senior entrepreneurship are predominantly in the stage of market
530 Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
development as transitional economies from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven stage. This leads to a higher
market dynamics in the developing markets causing considerable changes. Such a development is a common feature
for most of the countries belonging to this group.
The results of our study show that the senior entrepreneurship propensity in comparison to total early stage
entrepreneurial activity, or in other words, the inclusivity of seniors in entrepreneurial activity, is markedly higher in
northern Europe and Luxembourg, whereas in the former eastern bloc countries and in France this inclusiveness is
the lowest among European countries. A tendency of developed countries towards higher inclusiveness of senior
entrepreneurship contrasts the lower inclusiveness inclination of transitional economies. These results to a certain
extent support the argument of Saul Estrin and Tomas Mickiewicz (2011) who claim that in the transitional
economies, generation gap between young entrepreneurs and senior entrepreneurs is caused partially by
underdeveloped informal institutions. The entrepreneurial conditions in our study proved to be lower evaluated in
most of the analysed areas for the countries with low senior inclusiveness. The possible effect of previous historical
and political background on the senior entrepreneurship inclusiveness remains an interesting topic for further
research, since there are some inconsistencies in this tendency in our analysis (Russia and Hungary with above
average senior entrepreneurial activity index, and France, Spain and Portugal with below the average inclusivity of
seniors in entrepreneurship). We also have to account for the limitations of our research (we only used the data for
the year 2013), and in Estrin’s and Mickiewicz study (based on data from the period of 2000–2005). An analysis
with broader time scope or with focus on relation between senior entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial environment
development is therefore encouraged for future research.
6. Conclusion
Population aging is nowadays a serious and complex issue not only for European countries but worldwide. One
aspect immediately connected with this issue is also the phenomenon of senior entrepreneurship. In spite of the fact
that entrepreneurial activities are generally declining with age, there are significant differences among countries as
far as the level of senior entrepreneurship is concerned. There is no doubt that an important driver of these
differences is the national entrepreneurial environment. In our paper we found out that the highest differences
among developed European countries with high level of senior entrepreneurial activity and developing eastern
European countries with low level of senior entrepreneurship rate are in government policies, both when it comes to
concrete policies aimed at the support of entrepreneurship as well as in the area of bureaucracy and taxes. This
finding suggests that there is a need for prioritisation in terms of initiatives leading to the improvement of senior
entrepreneurship rate in countries lacking in senior inclusion in the entrepreneurial activity. In this paper our
ambition was not to study the level of policies focused on senior entrepreneurship support in these two clusters, but
we believe, that the policies in countries with the highest levels of senior entrepreneurship are worth further research
as they are important sources of information and insight for policy makers in developing countries. In addition, our
findings suggest that also education on primary and secondary level and R & D transfer as conditions differentiating
high and low senior entrepreneurship clusters, and deserve further attention as potential enhancers of senior
entrepreneurship inclusivity.
531
Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
Appendix A. Main entrepreneurial activity indicators in European countries, 2013
Country
TEA (%)
TEA
(55–64 population, %)
Senior entrepreneurship index
Belgium
4.92
2.73
0.55
Bosnia
10.34
5.13
0.50
Croatia
8.27
2.64
0.32
Czech Republic
7.33
2.74
0.37
Estonia
13.11
3.99
0.30
Finland
5.29
3.65
0.69
France
4.57
1.42
0.31
Germany
4.98
2.66
0.53
Greece
5.51
3.26
0.59
Hungary
9.68
4.98
0.51
Ireland
9.25
4.62
0.50
Italy
3.43
2.07
0.60
Latvia
13.25
5.22
0.39
Lithuania
12.43
3.26
0.26
Luxembourg
8.69
5.83
0.67
Macedonia
6.63
3.03
0.46
Netherlands
9.27
4.41
0.48
Norway
6.25
5.25
0.84
Poland
9.28
3.00
0.32
Portugal
8.25
3.39
0.41
Romania
10.13
3.91
0.39
Russia
5.75
3.09
0.54
Slovakia
9.52
2.00
0.21
Slovenia
6.45
2.63
0.41
Spain
5.21
1.91
0.37
Sweden
8.25
7.40
0.90
Switzerland
8.18
4.90
0.60
United Kingdom
7.14
4.52
0.63
Source: GEM 2013, authors
References
Age, UK, The rise of ‘olderpreneur’, 2012 [online], [18. 2. 2014] available: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/looking-for-work/the-
rise-of-the-olderpreneur/ .
Alizadeh, Y.; Unravelling Small Business Owner/Managers Networking Activities', Paper presented to the 45th International Council for Small
Business World Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, 2000.
BIS, Phasing out the Default Retirement Age: Government Response to Consultation, London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills,
2011.
Baucus, D. A., S. E. Human; Second–Career Entrepreneurs: A Multiple Case Study Analysis of Entrepreneurial Processes and Antecedent
Variables; Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(2), 1994.
Botham, R., Graves A., The grey economy: How third age entrepreneurs are contributing to growth, London: NESTA Research report, 2009,
Bruton, G.D. et al.; Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship: Where Are We Now and Where We Do Need to Move in the Future?,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 421–440, 2010.
532 Anna Pilkova et al. / Procedia Economics and Finance 12 ( 2014 ) 523 – 532
Curran, J. a Blackburn, R.; Notes and Issues, Older People and the Enterprise Society: Age and Self-Employment Propensities; [online], In Work ,
Employment and Society, 15(4): 889–902; 2001; [23. 2. 2013] available: http://wes.sagepub.com/content/15/4/889.
DeBurin, A. a Firkin, P., Self-Employment and The Older Worker, Massey University of New Zealand, Auckland, 2001.
Estrin, S., MIickiewicz, T., Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies: The Role of Institutions and Generational Change; in: The Dynamics of
Entrepreneurship, ed. Maria Minniti, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-19-967244-8 .
Green, F.J. el al.; Three Decades of Enterprise Culture; [online] London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2008; [23. 2. 2013] available: http://www.wbs.ac.uk/research/explore/by/kevin-mole/three-decades-of-enterprise-culture/04B5C985-2CF0-4EA3-
B0DC-F185C40B9ABE/.
Halabinsky, D. Potter, J. Kautonen, T.; Entrepreneurial Activities in Europe: Policy Brief on Senior Entrepreneurship; OECD Local Economic
and Employment Development Division; 2012.
Hart M., Anyadike-Danes M., Blackburn, R., Spatial differences in Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Prime Age and Third Age Cohorts,
Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Belfast, 2004.
Kauton en, T., Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing Third Age and Prime Age entrepreneurs in Finland, Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management Vol. 3 No. 3, 2008.
Kautonen, T., Down, S., Minniti, M., Ageing and Entrepreneurial Preferences, 2013 DOI 10.1007/s11187-013-9489-5.
Kautonen, T., Down, S., South, L., Enterprise suppo rt for o lder entrepreneurs: t he case of PRIME in the UK, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research Vol. 14 No. 2, s. 85–101, 2008.
Kautonen, T., Luoto S.; Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: The impact of career history, [online], University of Vaasa, 2008
[20. 1. 2013] available: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lib/ir/onlineconferences/agse2008/000020.pdf.
Kautonen, T., Luoto S., Tornikoski, T., Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary
study, SAGE: International Small Business Journal Vol. 28 No. 6, DOI: 10.1177/0266242610368592, 2010.
Kautonen T., Tornikoski, T., Kilber, E., Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age norms, Springer: Small Business
Economics Vol. 37, DOI 10.1007/s11187-009-9238-y, 2011.
Kilber, E., Wainwright T., Kautonen T., Blackburn R., (Work) Life after work: Understanding barriers to older entrepreneurship in London;
Stockholm, v 56th Annual ICBS World Conference, 2011.
Krueger, N.F. et al., Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Business Venturing, 15, s. 411–432, 2000.
Levesque M., Minniti M., The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior, Journal of Business Venturing, 21, s. 177–194, 2006.
Loretto, W., White, P., Work, more work and retirement: Older workers’ perspective. Social Policy and Society, Vol. 5: 495–506.
OECD/The European Commission, The Missing Entrepreneurs: Policies for Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Europe, OECD Publishing, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264188167 -en.
Mrva, M., Stachova, P., Regional development and support of SMEs – how university project can help, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 110, 2014, pp. 617–626.
North, D.C., Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Okruhlica, F.; Vlastnicka sprava spolocnosti (Corporate Governance); Bratislava: Iura Edition, 2013.
Patel, S.H., Grey, C., Grey Entrepreneurs in the UK; IKO Working Paper No. 18, Open University Research Centre on Innovation, Knowledge
and Development. Milton Keynes: Open University; 2006.
Pilkova, A. et. al.; Podnikanie na Slovensku: vysoká aktivita, nízke rozvojové ašpirácie; Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave Fakulta
managementu, 2012. ISBN 978-80-223-2823-4.
Pilkova, A. et. al; Podnikanie na Slovensku: nadpriemerná podnikateľská aktivita v podpriemernom podnikateľskom prostredí; Univerzita
Komenského v Bratislave Fakulta management, 2013. ISBN 978-80-223-3481-5.
Singh, G. a DeNoble, A., Early Retirees as the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs ; In Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol.27 (3), 2003, pp.
207–226.
Stenholm, P. et al., Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity; Journal of Business
Venturing, 28, 176–193.
Ting Zhang, Elderly Entrepreneurship in an Aging US Economy; Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2008. ISBN 978-981-281-
449-4.
Weber, P. Schaper, M., Understanding the Grey Entrepreneur, In Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 12, June 2004. ISSN 1793-6330 .
Webster, B., Walker, B., Smart training for older entrepreneur, Annual Conference of the International Council for Small Business, 2005.
Wainwright, T., Kilber, E., Beyond financialization: older entrepreneurship and retirement planning, Journal of Economic Geography, 2013
doi:10.1093/jeg/lbt023.
