Conference PaperPDF Available


The 40th Annual Conference of the Institute for Small Business and
Push vs Pull: Does the motivation for an entrepreneurial career vary by country?
Brian A. Polin | Stephan Golla
This paper, presented at the ISBE 2017 conference, is for the individual use of conference delegates and ISBE
members only. Unauthorised republication, sharing or modification is strictly forbidden. For details, please contact
For decades scholars have been investigating what motivates one to become an entrepreneur. Why might
one subject himself to the financial uncertainties of establishing a business, when lower risk employment
options are available? In their search for an explanation, researchers considered multiple variant
explanations for the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. Among the theories that evolved were the "push" or
"necessity" based ones, positing that the predominance of entrepreneurship is primarily a function of the
shortage of employment in existing firms. These were followed by the "pull" or "opportunity" based ones,
offering that entrepreneurship is primarily driven by individuals seeking opportunity or looking to capitalize on
their skills and strengths- both in the form of human and social capital. Eventually these two competing
theories were melded into the push/pull theory of entrepreneurship, claiming that both (sets of) factors,
perhaps even diametrically opposite, determine the intensity of entrepreneurial activity.
As multi-nation studies became more commonplace, it was observed time and again that entrepreneurship,
whether in the form of entrepreneurial intent or actual entrepreneurial activity, varied greatly by country. It
was also observed that entrepreneurial activity is much more widespread in developing nations, when
compared with developed nations. Other studies, using the tripartite factor-driven, efficiency-driven,
innovation-driven paradigm reached the same conclusion- a country's GDP and its rate of entrepreneurship
are inversely related. Beyond the economic prosperity of a nation, or lack thereof, some scholars attempted
to explain the varying levels of entrepreneurial activity among nations in terms of cultural differences- often
times using Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions.
It stands to reason that countries with greater tolerances for uncertainty, for example, might be associated
with higher levels of entrepreneurial activity, but that doesn't provide us with a great deal of information about
the nascent or aspiring entrepreneurs themselves. The question that remains is how (those aspiring to
become) entrepreneurs differ from those who are not, and how these differences vary by country. Are there
specific countries where the entrepreneurs and the non-entrepreneurs are nearly indistinguishable in all
areas other than their chosen career path? Are there countries where the differences between these two
populations are very pronounced? What general conclusions might be reached about different countries
based on the intensity of motivational factors traditionally associated with entrepreneurship?
A cross-country analysis of these two populations within each country will yield interesting results about the
true individual motives of entrepreneurs by filtering out ambient cultural and economic conditions.
From push-based entrepreneurship to push/pull
In an early monograph investigating the development of technology-based firms in Palo Alto, California, the
area that would later become known as "Silicone Valley", Cooper (1971) considered why "some individuals
become entrepreneurs and not others"(p.54). He offers a number of possible explanations including genetics
(intelligence, energy levels), childhood experiences (role models, self-employed fathers) and an orientation
toward science and math, but concludes that "for most men, it is difficult to leave the 'warm bed' of a secure
and satisfying position." In other words, according to his reasoning, one wouldn't sacrifice stable and
satisfying employment and choose entrepreneurship, unless negative circumstances "forced" him into it.
Shapero (1975) determined that entrepreneurs were largely displaced persons (DPs). Most were figurative
DPs who had been fired from their jobs, while others were quite literally DPs, as in the case of political
refugees. Some entrepreneurs hadn't yet been fired from their positions, but their decision to engage in
entrepreneurship stemmed from a feeling that their jobs were leading them nowhere- certainly not to a rosier
Although Brockhaus (1980) entertains the possibility of "being 'pulled' into an extremely appealing business
opportunity", he rejects this notion immediately and concludes that entrepreneurship is driven by a "push"
either dissatisfaction or displacement from a previous job.
In a revisiting of Cooper's (1971) earlier work, Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986) consider the different paths to
business ownership, where ownership includes founding (entrepreneurship), purchasing and inheriting. As in
the case of earlier works, the term "pull" is nowhere to be found, but in a departure from previous works they
consider such factors as "to let you do the kind of work you wanted to do" and "to avoid having to work for
others" as factors in the decision to become one's own boss. These would later become known as "pull"
motivators, and will be addressed shortly in this paper.
Amit and Muller (1995) operationalize push and pull entrepreneurship as two mutually exclusive alternatives
on a push/pull continuum. With two Likert-scored survey items for push, where agreement is indicated as a
negative score, and two for pull, where agreement is indicated with a positive score, an overall negative
score indicates a push entrepreneur, while a positive score suggests pull as the motivation for one's decision
to become and entrepreneur. Beyond the mere classification of push and pull-motivated entrepreneurs, they
provide strong support to their hypothesis that pull (or opportunity) driven entrepreneurs are more successful.
Amit and Miller's conclusions about the differing success rates between push and pull entrepreneurs suggest
that the distinction between push and pull is not purely an academic one, but one with significant economic
ramifications. Acs and Varga (2005) highlighted this distinction even further with a study of 11 countries and
found that opportunity (or pull) entrepreneurship had a positive effect on a nation's economic development,
whereas necessity (or push) entrepreneurship had no effect at all. Addressing "good" and "bad", Baumol
(1996) distinguishes between productive and largely unproductive entrepreneurial activities. The former
group includes innovation, while the latter group consists of "rent seeking activities" that do not contribute to
a greater good. This finding will be revisited in the concluding section of the paper.
Variations from country to country
In addition to Acs and Varga (2005), numerous other studies have investigated entrepreneurial differences
from country to country. The research questions often asked address the degree to which a nation's culture
influences entrepreneurship. Rather than being able to attribute varying frequencies of entrepreneurship
exclusively to aspects of a county's culture, findings are often contradictory. In their study of 14 countries,
Schlaegel, He and Engle (2013) found the country's cultural dimensions to have only a "very small
moderating effect. (605)", they also found GDP and "ease of doing business" to be significantly negatively
associated with entrepreneurial intent. Estay, Durrieu and Akhter (2013) conclude that characteristics of
French entrepreneurs include risk taking, accomplishment, control and creativity, and while this is only a
single-country study, it may be possible to extrapolate regarding other countries as well. Hofstede,
Noorderhaven, Thurik, Uhlaner, Wennekers & Wildeman (2004) argue that the rate of entrepreneurship in a
given society depends both upon the capabilities and preferences of the individuals and the opportunities
provided by the society.
Tajeddini and Mueller (2009) compare "entrepreneurial characteristics" in techno-entrepreneurs in the UK
and Switzerland. While the differences for these values tend to be small between these two populations, the
difference in autonomy is quite large. This provides ample evidence that differences may be attributable to
cultural differences, rather than the intensity of the desire to become an entrepreneur. When comparing
populations in multiple countries it is necessary to distinguish between the entrepreneurial motivations and
cultural factors that both influence these values. Because of cultural differences between the countries, it is
natural that the importance of each of the factors should vary from country to country, even independent of
entrepreneurial intent. A high score for a particular dimension in a particular country may be a reflection of
the importance of that motivational dimension, but it may also be a reflection of the importance that particular
culture places on that particular value. This distinction will be address in the next section.
Empirical study
In order to compare different populations and the motivations that drive one to engage in entrepreneurship,
we utilized the most recent Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students Survey (GUESSS) data.
GUESSS is a research project about the context of entrepreneurship. Its purpose is to grasp the
entrepreneurial intent and activity of students using a geographical and temporal comparison (Project Goals).
Data is gathered using an on-line survey in English and/or the local language of the country.
Nearly 110,000 university students in 34 countries participated in the survey. Among the hundreds of survey
items was a 10 dimensional scale for "career motives". Respondents indicated on a 7-point Likert-scale how
influential each dimension was in their choosing a career path. The scale, developed and validated by
Soutaris, Zerbinati and Al-Laham (2007) is based on Kolvereid's (1996) predictors of employment choice
intentions and consists of ten motives:
(1) to have a challenging job;
(2) to have an exciting job;
(3) freedom;
(4) independence;
(5) to be your own boss;
(6) to have power to make decisions;
(7) to have authority;
(8) to realize a dream;
(9) to create something; and,
(10) to take advantage of creative needs.
Explaining the link between these motives and self-employment, Soutaris et al (2007) determine that
"Attitude towards self-employment’ is the difference between perceptions of personal desirability in becoming
self-employed and organisationally employed. Therefore, ‘high’ attitude towards self-employment actually
indicates that the respondent is more in favour of self-employment than organisational employment."
Moreover, these motivators are not only predictors of self-employment, but predictors of self-employment of
the pull variety. Although not present in the GUESS survey data, some scholars include a number of push
motives (job dissatisfaction, children in the family necessitating flexible work, etc.) as predictors of push self-
employment (Kirkwood, 2009). As the dependent variable, student-survey participants were asked students
about their preferred occupational choice immediately after graduation, as well as five years hence, as
shown in table 1.
Insert Table 1 here
The data show that a mere 6.6% of respondents consider starting their own enterprise directly after
graduation. This figure increases significantly when participants were asked about their choice career five
years after graduation. Here, 30.7% see the option of working in their own startup as a potential career path.
An increase in the percentage of survey participants expressing a desire to become entrepreneurs from
immediately post-graduation to five years post-graduation is not surprising, as many of those innately
desiring to become entrepreneurs only feel comfortable doing so after they have accumulated professional
experience in pre-existent firms. While the 30.7% figure may seem quite large, no general sweeping
statements may be made, as the percentage of participants desiring to become entrepreneurs five years
post-graduation varies greatly on a country-by-country basis. As per table 2, more than 50% of the students
in Mexico, Argentina, Columbia and Russia express an interest in entrepreneurship. By contrast, the figure
for Japan, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland, all countries traditionally associated with technological
advances, does not exceed 18%! As will be explained in the section below, this seems to contradict what
one might intuitively think about nations perceived to be innovative versus those whose economies are
largely based on industry and manufacturing.
Insert Table 2 here
In order to facilitate the investigation of the different levels of motivation, we first reduced the ten items to
three components by applying principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Here, we confirmed the
factor structure as per the extant literature (Sieger, Gruber, Fauchart and Zellweger, 2016; Carter, Gartner,
Shaver and Gatewood, 2003; Kolvereid, 1996).
The three components we extracted represent the three main (classes of) motives for seeking a specific
career path. The motive “power” (Eigenvalue = 3.955, Cronbach’s Alpha =0.79) consists of items “freedom”
(factor loading = 0.66), “independence” (0.746), “be your own boss” (0.749), “have power to make decisions”
(0.732), and “have authority” (0.669); the motive “challenge” (Eigenvalue = 1.260, Cronbach’s Alpha 0.76)
consists of items “have a challenging job” (factor loading = 0.794) and “have an exciting job” (0.829); and
finally, the motive “creativity” (Eigenvalue = 1.160, Cronbach’s Alpha 0.65) consists of items “realize your
dream” (factor loading = 0.585), “create something” (0.853), and “take advantage of your creative needs”
(0.844). All cross loadings are smaller than 0.4. KMO Measure = 0.81. Overall, the three factor structure
explains 63% of variance.
Insert Table 3 here
These factors are used to assess the different motives that drive people towards self-employment. In order to
confirm that these three motives predict attitudes towards the establishment of an entrepreneurial venture,
we performed a logistic regression. To further investigate the wide disparities in the desire to engage in
entrepreneurship by country, particularly noting the "nature" of the countries at both ends of the distribution,
we calculated a dummy variable to reflect their economic status. Porter, Sachs and McArthur (2002) created
a nomenclature to classify countries based on their stage of economic development. From subsistence-level
agriculture, a country's first stage of economic development is called factor-driven, whereby a country
produces primary commodities with largely unskilled labor. None of the countries in our sample were at this
stage of economic development. Efficiency-driven countries compete economically primarily on the basis of
their production of "standard" goods and services. These are countries traditionally associated with low-cost,
or efficient, manufacturing. Innovation-based countries compete on the basis of new technologies and high
rates of social learning. "Start-up", "hi-tech" and other terms connoting goods and services stemming from
investment in research and development are generally associated with this classification of countries. Table
4 classifies the countries on the basis of their economic group, based on the Global Economic Monitor
Insert Table 4 here
The logistic regression results are shown in table 5. Two motive factors “Power” and “Creation” are positively
related to the dependent variable “Self-Employment 5 Years after Graduation” with an odds ratio of 1.826
and 1.625 respectively and p-value <1%. The motive “Challenge” is not confirmed as a predictor of starting
an own venture with an odds ratio <1 and a non-significant p-value of 0.843. The results also show a positive
relationship between country’s economic status and self-employment. The odds ratio of 0.32 with a p-value
<1% shows that efficiency-based countries show higher startup potential than innovation-based countries.
Our interim findings may be stated as follows:
There is a strong correlation between the "power" motive and the desire to become an entrepreneur
There is a strong correlation between the "creation" motive and the desire to become an
The correlation between "challenge" and the desire to become an entrepreneur cannot be confirmed
There is a strong correlation between a country's developmental status and the desire to become an
entrepreneur, namely, the desire to become an entrepreneur in efficiency-based country is
significantly higher than the desire to become an entrepreneur in innovation-based countries
These findings confirm the 'descriptive' findings stated earlier, but leave unanswered the fundamental
question of what drives entrepreneurial orientation. More specifically, might the differences between Mexico,
Argentina, Columbia and Russia on the one hand and Japan, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on the
other be attributed to culturally embedded preferences, or is there really a huge tendency towards startups?
Does entrepreneurship vary from country to country quantitatively only, or are there qualitative differences as
well between an aspiring German entrepreneur and his counterpart in Mexico?
Insert Table 5 here
In order to indeed determine how entrepreneurs from efficiency-based countries vary from those in
innovation-based countries, it was necessary to factor out the ambient culture of the country. For our
purposes, it was necessary to determine if a high score for "power", for example, was attributable to an
entrepreneurial orientation, or if it stemmed from a general importance attributed to "power" in a given
society. Our "measure of differences" addresses this.
Insert Table 6 here
We calculated the factor scores for “power”, “creative” and “challenge” for each innovation and efficiency-
based country individually. Within each of these countries, we calculated the factor scores separately for
those desiring to become entrepreneurs and those preferring to be employed by others. The "measure of
differences" is the difference in these factors scores for each of these two "populations" within each country.
If, traditionally, (aspiring) entrepreneurs are motivated by a personal need for power, the expression of
creativity and the need to be challenged, then those desiring to be entrepreneurs should attribute higher
scores to each of these factors than the non-entrepreneurs from the same country. By addressing these
differences, and considering how entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs within each country differ from each
other, we were able to neutralize the impact of the culture that varies greatly from country to country.
Table 6 presents a mean of 0.710 for innovation-driven countries and a mean of 0.520 for efficiency
countries. This means that for the motive "power" the difference in the factor score between entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs in both groups of countries is positive. Not surprisingly, entrepreneurs rank power
higher than non-entrepreneurs, as this is one of the "needs" driving them to become entrepreneurs in the first
place. The fact that this difference is positive, for both groups of countries, may be somewhat trivial. The
innovative finding worthy of note here is the significant difference between the 0.710 for innovation-driven
countries and a mean of 0.520 for efficiency countries. The t-test in the lower section of the table confirms
the significance of the difference (between innovation and efficiency-based countries) between the
differences (between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs).
Conceptually, table 7 illustrates a pattern for "creative" similar to the one seen in table 6 for "power". The
difference in the "creative" factor score between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in innovation-based
countries is 0.40, while the difference between these two populations in efficiency-driven countries is 0.17.
Again, the t-test in the lower section of the table confirms the significance of the difference between these
factor scores.
Insert Table 7 here
Contrary to the findings for "power" and "creative", which concluded that the "difference of the differences"
was significant, the "difference of the differences" for “challenge” is smaller and not statistically significant.
Insert Table 8 here
At the outset of this paper, we asked the question that has been asked many times before: what motivates
one to become an entrepreneur? While the factors are many, the data presented in table 2 depict a pattern
of higher levels of entrepreneurship in developing countries than in developed countries. This observation
raised the possibility that entrepreneurship in efficiency-based and innovation-based countries may be driven
by different motivators altogether. The quantitative differences in entrepreneurship between developed and
developing countries are readily observed, but are there qualitative differences as well? To further consider
this phenomenon, and isolate country-specific cultural influences, we compared entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs within each country. As tables 6 and 7 (and to a much lesser degree 8) illustrate, traditional
entrepreneurial motivators distinguish between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in innovation-based
countries more than they do in efficiency-based countries. Stated differently, if the motivations detailed in
table 3 are associated with pull entrepreneurship, and they are less pronounced in distinguishing between
entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs in efficiency-based countries, is entrepreneurship in these countries of
push variety? Dawson and Henley (2012) suggest that it may be difficult to "disentangle" push and pull
motivations and that both may be present in the decision to become an entrepreneur. That notwithstanding,
when comparing the two types of countries, entrepreneurship may be more push than pull in efficiency-
based countries. Do entrepreneurs in efficiency-based countries choose their career path as a matter of last
resort? Why does this matter?
As addressed earlier in the paper, scholars distinguish between "good" and "bad" (or neutral)
entrepreneurship, where "good" and "bad" correlate with push and pull (Amit and Muller, 1995; Acs and
Varga, 2005; Baumol, 1996). Bygrave, Hay, Ng and Reynolds (2003) graphically depict this distinction:
At one end of that spectrum is a lone, self-employed person in an impoverished region for whom
eking out a subsistence living from a micro-business is better than no work at all. At the other end is
a team of high-tech superstars in a technology metropolis with a high-potential opportunity that they
believe will change the way in which we work, live, and play (105).
Governments must determine if the entrepreneurship within their jurisdictions is of the former or latter variety.
Where it is of the latter variety, government policy should prioritize the integration of these unwilling
entrepreneurs into the workforce. Not only are push entrepreneurial ventures less successful, but the
preconditions facilitating push entrepreneurship often keep university graduates out of the workforce.
Directions for further investigation
While the thrust of this paper has been to investigate the differences between entrepreneurs in efficiency-
based and innovation-based countries, and their motivations for engaging in entrepreneurship, it has not
investigated the nature of the entrepreneurial activities themselves in each of these two types of countries.
Undoubtedly, at the macro-level, one who is intrinsically motivated perform an act will do so better than one
who does it because he is compelled to do so, but are there factors other than motivation at play? How does
the role of bureaucracy or the regulatory infrastructure differ between the two types of countries, and what is
their impact on the success of the entrepreneurial ventures they host? Does the degree of enforcement of
intellectual property laws preclude "good" entrepreneurship in some efficiency-based countries?
Entrepreneurship has the power to change the world for the better, but only if it is the right type of
entrepreneurship. The conditions that enable "good" entrepreneurship do not occur in a vacuum. It is the
job of government policy makers to strategize, prioritize and create these conditions.
Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small
Business Economics, 24(3), 323-334.
Amit, R., & Muller, E. (1995). “Push” and “pull” entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 64-80.
Baumol, W. J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of
Business Venturing, 11(1), 3-22.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). The effect of job dissatisfaction on the decision to start a business.
Journal of Small Business Management, 18(1), 37-43.
Bygrave, W., Hay, M., Ng, E., & Reynolds, P. (2003). Executive forum: a study of informal
investing in 29 nations composing the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Venture Capital: An
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 5(2), 101-116.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13-39.
Cooper, A. C. (1971). The Founding of Technologically-Based Firms. Center for Venture
Management, Milwaukee, WI.
Cooper, A. C., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership.
Strategic management journal, 7(1), 53-68.
Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2012). “Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: an ambiguous
distinction?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(6), 697-719.
Estay, C., Durrieu, F., & Akhter, M. (2013). Entrepreneurship: From motivation to start-up.
Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 243.
Hofstede, G., Noorderhaven, N. G., Thurik, A. R., Uhlaner, L. M., Wennekers, A. R., & Wildeman,
R. E. (2004). Culture’s role in entrepreneurship: self-employment out of dissatisfaction.
Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture, Cheltenham UK and Brookfield US, Edward Elgar,
Kirkwood, J. (2009). Motivational factors in a push-pull theory of entrepreneurship. Gender in
Management: An International Journal, 24(5), 346-364.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47-58.
Monitor, G. E. (2014). GEM 2013 global report. http://gemconsortium. org/docs.
Porter, M., Sachs, J., & McArthur, J. (2001). Executive summary: Competitiveness and stages of
economic development. The global competitiveness report, 2002, 16-25.\
Schlaegel, C., He, X., & Engle, R. L. (2013). The direct and indirect influences of national culture
on entrepreneurial intentions: A fourteen nation study. International Journal of Management,
30(2), 597.
Shapero, A. (1975). The Displaced, Uncomfortable Entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9(6), 83-88.
Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the social identity of
entrepreneurs: Scale development and international validation. Journal of Business Venturing,
31(5), 542-572.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration
and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566-591.
Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the UK:
a comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1.
Table 1: Occupational Choices Directly and 5 Years After Graduation
Table 2: Willingness of Self Employment per Country
Table 3: Principal Components of Motives
Table 4: Efficiency and Innovation Based Economies
Table 5: Logistic Regression, Dependent Variable “Self-employed 5 Years After Graduation
Table 6: Means Difference Test Factor “Motive Power”
Table 7: Means Difference Test Factor “Motive Creativity”
Table 8: Means Difference Test Factor “Motive Challenge”
... Authors Yan, Gu, Zhao, Liang and Lu [36] state in their study that "their data analysis show that personality traits had a significantly effect on sustainable entrepreneurial intention of college students, and entrepreneurial alertness and opportunity recognition played a mediating role between personality traits and sustainable entrepreneurial intention of college students" (p. 1). A recent Swedish study shows that career preferences of young individuals are influenced mostly by their parents as role models, but they find in their research that except from the influence of role models there is a strong influence of regional inheritance on young people and their aspirations to start their own business [37]. Regional influence can be perceived as a disadvantage for developing countries of post-socialist origin as their entrepreneurship sector is struggling with the post socialist burden, which implies less parental role models having in mind the fact that most of the people worked for state owned factories during the socialist system. ...
... Nevertheless, there is also evidence that young people are much more motivated to start their own business in developing countries due to the necessity of creating a job opportunity for them. Especially university graduates, as they see entrepreneurship as one of the only choices for employment, and this aspiration is not based on their inherited characteristics, their career preferences are a direct consequence of the unstable macroeconomic conditions they live in [37]. ...
... Recent research considers entrepreneurship as a positive factor that contributes to the development of the economy and helps the employment of people [35][36][37][38][39]. González-Pernía and Peña-Legazkue [40] consider that entrepreneurial activity and its impact on the development of the economy is related closely to the quality of the enterprise that is formed. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to examine the differences in family entrepreneurship background and personal attitudes of students regarding their future career preferences and its effects on the development of specific dimensions of entrepreneurship potential of a student population. The sample consisted of a student population from Serbia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina as EU candidate countries and Belgium as an EU member country. A sample of 1008 university students from these three countries participated in this research. Instruments used in this research were the Questionnaire of Entrepreneurial Traits (QET) and the Scale of Entrepreneurial Potential (SEP). Canonical discriminant analysis confirmed significant differences in scores on both QET and SEP scales of entrepreneurial potential between students that have family entrepreneurship background and those who do not. Differences were also shown among students who strive for self-employment, and consider establishing their own business, and students who would like to find employment in the state or private sector. Young people whose family members are engaged in entrepreneurship are influenced by their parents who started companies, parents’ personal characteristics, and parent’s model of behavior, which significantly shapes the behavior and characteristics of these young people, compared to those young people whose parents do not start companies. Young people who prefer to build a career within their own enterprise have basic characteristics that predispose them for engagement in entrepreneurship within their own company, whereby this provides them with the only way they can achieve the full capacity of their individual potential. Both these groups display a more developed initiative, independence in decision making, they are more open minded and prone to take on risks, have more developed organizational skills, and more positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Results of this study can help identify and foster factors that significantly develop specific characteristics of entrepreneurship potential of student populations, such as family entrepreneurship background and career preferences.
... Polin and Golla [70] conducted an analysis regarding entrepreneurship in both developed and developing countries, concluding that the interest in entrepreneurship is higher in developing economies. The findings of our research are useful for the researchers because they can represent a starting point for analyses in other countries with different levels of economic and social development. ...
Full-text available
The main objective of the research is to analyze the factors which influence the intention to start an intergenerational family business in a developing economy, highlighting the measures that can be implemented by decision-makers to stimulate these initiatives. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the data issued from 200 valid questionnaires. The survey was applied to 950 individuals from Romania. We focused on four variables: the closeness to family members, the financial support expected from family, the independence of individuals regarding the intention to start their own business and the intention to form partnerships with family members. All the hypotheses were validated, according to the final results. Thus, closeness to family members has a direct and positive impact on both the financial support expected from the family and the intention to form intergenerational family businesses. There is also a direct correlation between the financial support received from family and the intention to have partnerships with family members. Individuals who are closer to their families are not interested in developing independent businesses. There are several studies on family businesses in Romania, but there is no research analyzing the impact of closeness to family on the intention to develop an intergenerational family business. The study is useful for the decision-makers who can create national strategies in order to stimulate families to develop their own businesses.
... Thus, while some of the distinct aspects of underdeveloped financial markets restrict the entrepreneurial activities, others facilitate the process (Bayar et al., 2018). Similarly, different studies conducted in countries with different level of development shed light that higher entrepreneurial intention is noticed in developing countries compared to developed countries (Polin and Golla, 2016). Even in developing countries, there are some aspects that inhibit entrepreneurial activities, while others encourage and support entrepreneurial activities. ...
Full-text available
Purpose This study examines whether financial development affects entrepreneurship, and how financial openness moderate this relationship. Design/methodology/approach The study employs panel data consisting of 781 country-year observations of 48 countries of Asia for the period 2001–2018. Findings The study provides empirical support for the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship in Asian countries. The findings of the study indicate that effective allocation of resources and ease of transactions increases the entrepreneurial activities in the country. Additionally, the less stringent regulations, allowing for the cross border transactions, increase the funds availability to the entrepreneurs which in turn increase innovation and establishment of new businesses. Research limitations/implications The study only considered the moderating influence of financial openness on the nexus. Other indicators such as governance quality and political stability could also have significant impact on entrepreneurship. Further, our study was based on countries belonging to Asian continent. Since Asian continent has culture distinguished from other regions, therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the other continents. Practical implications The study’s results provide insight to policymakers and regulators that in order to increase the entrepreneurial activities, the financial sector improvement is of paramount importance. The regulators should focus on well-functioning financial system and availability of capital to improve the investor's confidence and boost economic activities. Originality/value The study provides novel evidence on the effects of financial development on entrepreneurship and moderating influence of financial openness in the context of the entire Asian region, which is yet an unexplored area. This paper offers a fresh contribution in this area.
... That means countries and regions with brilliant innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems lean toward a higher productivity rate, leading to increased economic growth and more robust job creation (World Bank, 2015). Besides, Polin and Golla (2016) acknowledged that entrepreneurship in developed and developing countries is somewhat different. According to the economic triple classifications defined by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), namely factor-driven, efficiency-driven, and innovation-driven economies, the entrepreneurial activities in the developed economies are more innovative than underdeveloped and even developing countries. ...
The application of stochastic processes in modeling uncertain phenomena will benefit researchers in the fields of various sciences like management, engineering, chemistry, physics, and business. The present article tries to apply several stochastic processes to modeling the relationship between entrepreneurial innovation and entrepreneurship. The Chinese restaurant process (CRP) and the Blackwell-MacQueen scheme are the processes that will be utilized to explore a predictive model. By presenting illustrative evidence, the CRP and the Blackwell-MacQueen scheme have helped us to understand how the Schumpeterian approach goes true. The study on the proposed equation demonstrated that the considered model also may signify levels of the decision in interpreting the nexus between innovation and entrepreneurship. Hence, a new function, arbitrary called “decision function,” was discovered and introduced in this study. After having reviewed the properties of the decision function, the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial innovation (and also economic growth in its wake) was studied and interpreted. Regardless of mathematical models resulted from applying stochastic processes in investigating the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation factors, the present paper reveals the importance of statistical models and stochastic processes in understanding the unmeasurable networks formed out of various factors.
... Many past studies on entrepreneurship have compared entrepreneurship in multiple countries and those studies have clearly emphasized that entrepreneurial intention is higher in developing countries than in developed countries (Polin and Golla, 2016). Whether it is a developing or a developed country, to launch a successful entrepreneurial venture, individuals' need to have intent to pursue an entrepreneurial career. ...
Full-text available
By reviewing past literature on Entrepreneurial Intention, it can be identified that, a number of studies have recognized numerous factors which can be affected on a person’s entrepreneurial intention or rather in simple terms, a person’s willingness to startup their own venture and engaged in entrepreneurial activities. Besides all the other constructs, this study investigates the impact of Cognitive Style on Entrepreneurial Intention among commerce and management undergraduates of University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. This research measures the link between cognitive style and entrepreneurial intention of 200 undergraduates (68 male and 132 female) from Faculty of Commerce and Management Studies. The sample of the study was captured and the data were collected using a structured questionnaire and Statistical Package for the Social Science – SPSS was used to analyze the collected data. In addition, the researcher examined the moderation effect of culture and the mediation effect of learning in terms of professional education on the main constructs of the study. Further, the final outcome of this research will provide greater insights for future entrepreneurship research on cognitive style and the other related factors.
... Studies that have been conducted in countries with different level of development reveal that higher entrepreneurial intention is noticed in developing countries compared to developed countries [23]. Even in developing countries, there are some aspects that inhibit entrepreneurial activities, while others encourage and support entrepreneurial activities. ...
Full-text available
Entrepreneurship plays a major role in all countries' economies through generating new jobs and innovation, and in turn making a contribution to the economic growth. Therefore, the determinants underlying entrepreneurship have become important for designing an environment that increases entrepreneurial activity. In this study, we considered it important to investigate the influence of factors such as financial sector development, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, and trade and financial openness on entrepreneurship, using information from 15 upper middle income and high-income countries over the 2001-2015 period. The findings reveal that the banking sector and capital market development, FDI inflows, and trade openness affect the total early-stage entrepreneurial activity positively. Furthermore, the crises had a negative impact on the entrepreneurship.
Full-text available
Relatively little research has been conducted on the impact of mega events on local entrepreneurs, especially in developing countries. The purpose of this paper was to investigate whether emerging markets can leverage mega sporting events (MSEs) to create entrepreneurial opportunities by examining whether policies adopted by host countries were beneficial to local businesses. From this, we aim to produce a set of policy implications reflecting best practices should a host region aim to stimulate entrepreneurship from a MSE. In that pursuit, the authors conduct a systematic review of published literature related to the expectations and outcomes of the 2010, 2014, and 2018 FIFA World Cups. In so doing, we map the impact and legacy of event planning strategies on entrepreneurial opportunities in developing economies and derive implications for future events. The analysis indicates that the endogenous management of investments in different sectors and the involvement of entrepreneurs in the planning of the event could help achieve a positive and lasting impact on entrepreneurship and business innovation.
Introduction. High efficiency of functioning of network business structures, in comparison to traditional forms of entrepreneurship organization, their adaptability and mutual interest of all participants of relations in achieving the goal, led to a great interest in the network form of entrepreneurship organization by scientists and their practical implementation. The purpose of the article is to clarify the essence of the term «network structure» based on the definition of its essential features and associative concepts from the standpoint of institutional, collaborative and coordination approaches. Results. The semantic network was constructed as the analysis result of the concept of «network structure» using the content analysis method implemented in the software product TextAnalyst that characterizes the key categories that are related to the essence of the concept of network business structure. It is determined that associative concepts of network structure are: organization, interaction, association, management structure, a form of management, coordination, cooperation, alliance, structured population, integration, corporate structure, relations, coalition. Using the content analysis three approaches to explaining the essence of the concept «network business structure» were distinguished: institutional (according to which the network structure is considered as the organizational structure of the company), collaborative approach (network structure as a system of interconnections between structural elements) and coordination approach (network structure as a form of managing peer-to-peer entities to achieve common business goals). Conclusions. Based on the integration of selected approaches to explaining the essence of the concept under the network business structure, it is proposed to understand the hybrid form of interaction of business structures that operate on the basis of quasi-integration forms of control in order to achieve a synergistic effect in the realization of common economic interests. The proposed concept, unlike the existing ones, is based on a comprehensive consideration of the stages’ peculiarities of network forms development of business activity and reflects the essential features of an institutional, collaborative, coordination approach in the functioning of business structures. Keywords: network structure, hybrid structure, management, coordination, cooperation, quasi-integration.
Full-text available
This dissertation aims to explore the role of international institutions in contributing to a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and inclusive economic development. The thesis will review the evolving role of international institutions in the Middle East, with a particular focus on their contribution towards entrepreneurship and economic development. The focus of the study will lie in the analysis of recent multilateral interventions undertaken in both Tunisia and Egypt through the lens of their contributions towards building social, economic, and political institutions that support entrepreneurship. This research will further explore the objectives, and outcomes of these projects and how they align to current economic trends and national strategies in the countries of focus. The overall aim of the study is to explore the evolving role of institutions in the region, the national and regional barriers they face in addition to their role as agents of economic development.
Conference Paper
Start-up movement was and has been being an important topic that attracts the positive attention from the people, society, and governments of most developed and developing countries. Despite the fact that start-up operations are rapidly developing now, most of them are in a spontaneous but unsystematic manner, without close connections, thus hampering their development process. Consequently, there is a need for research activities to go along with start-up enterprises throughout their development process, from conceiving ideas to germinating, accessing the market, expanding the scope and developing business operations in a stable manner. There have been numerous studies of start-up operations; however, those studies were only restricted to finding out the factors influential in the operations of start-up enterprises rather than getting through all periods to accompany enterprises, from making business plans, carrying out start-ups, diagnosing each period, measuring and evaluating performance. Living labs, which are a concept that originated in the 1980s, are defined as a network of research including the university and the community. To develop the public-private partnerships, it promotes the collaboration between the university and the community to attack and solve problems facing the region. Nowadays, globalization and information technology have brought deep changes in the business environment. In order to operate better, enterprises need to have an open user-centered ecosystem, which can help them speed up cooperation in value creation. In this system, enterprises create values by providing products and services for the market; then, customers will continue the value creation process by using and evaluating the products and services. In an open ecosystem, enterprises can use the ideas from both inside and outside them to co-create values. As such, with an open ecosystem, members can cooperate and compete with one another to improve their capacity, support new products, meet customer needs, and start new renovation cycles. The paper aims at studying a case study about a Living Lab that supports enterprises in starting up and developing their business operations. This study explores a particular Living Lab as a renovation ecosystem to promote start-up activities and continuously improve the operational efficiency of these enterprises. The purpose of this Living Lab is to mobilize the contributions of community, especially the contribution of users, by carrying out an experiment against a practical background and encouraging co-operation among the different parties in the business eco-system. For that reason, the project can help start-up enterprises to improve their operational efficiency. Living Labs will contribute to the acceleration of the creative management process and boost partnerships among the different economic entities at different stages of enterprises’ creation and development. The approach of this research is a case study based on design science research that develops a generic knowledge used in designing solutions to management problems. The case study is presented following the action-based process that includes problem analysis, design, and implementation of the Living Lab. The insight extracted from the results of the case study is explored and transferred into explicit knowledge in order to reuse in similar contexts.
Full-text available
The goal of this article is to reveal the origins of entrepreneurial motivation and to identify the logics of action (entrepreneurial projects) associated with each dimension of this attitude. The study looks to answer the following questions: What needs are at the beginning of a business, what are their intensities, and to what extent does entrepreneurial motivation influence projects? Using questionnaires answered by entrepreneurs who have just created their business, we evaluate the characteristics of entrepreneurial motivation (needs and their intensities), identify the antecedents liked to this attitude, and isolate the entrepreneur logics of action (imitation, innovation–adventure, reproduction, and innovation–valorisation). This study is supported by a theoretical framework that is the result of research on motivation and entrepreneurship. A series of causal relations are isolated and then tested. Analysis enables an ensemble of conclusions to be drawn on entrepreneurial motivation. Pathways of motivation lead to logics of action linked to innovative projects and explain the phenomenon of reproduction (or imitation) found in some entrepreneurs. Development objectives and a need for personal independence are identified at the beginning stages of entrepreneurial planning. Creators hope that their business will bring tangible financial and material results. Entrepreneurs are conscious that they must make a commitment across a range of dimensions for their organisation (managerial, commercial, etc.). In their quest for valorisation, entrepreneurs take risks, exploiting advantageous business contexts, thanks to their competences, and show a need for creativity. These two dimensions (competences and creativity) are associated with the objective of independence. The logic of reproduction is characterised by self-confidence (locus of control) and responds to the objective of business development.
Full-text available
This study examined informal investment in the 29 nations that participated in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) study in 2001. Investment was tabulated by gender, age of investor and amount invested for the 29 nations combined. Prevalence of opportunity-pull entrepreneurship was correlated with informal investment, entrepreneurial capacity, and perception of start-up opportunities in a subset of 18 GEM nations. In contrast, necessity-push entrepreneurship had no significant correlation with those same variables.
Social identity theory offers an important lens to improve understanding of founders as enterprising individuals, the venture creation process, and its outcomes. Yet, further advances are hindered by the lack of valid scales to measure founders' social identities. Drawing on social identity theory and a systematic classification of founders' social identities (Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries), we develop and test a corresponding 15-item scale in the Alpine region and validate it in 13 additional countries and regions. The scale allows identifying founders' social identities and relating them to processes and outcomes in entrepreneurship. The scale is available online in 16 languages. Full text can be accessed here:
The adverse selection problem that is created because of asymmetry of information about entrepreneurs' attributes and abilities in turning ideas into viable businesses makes it difficult for venture capitalists or corporate executives to identify would-be successful entrepreneurs in advance. To mitigate this, and the related moral-hazard problem, we focus on an individual's motive to become an entrepreneur in the context of an individual's demographic and personal characteristics. We distinguish between two types of entrepreneurs based on their motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activity: “Push” entrepreneurs are those whose dissatisfaction with their positions, for reasons unrelated to their entrepreneurial characteristics, pushes them to start a venture. “Pull” entrepreneurs are those who are lured by their new venture idea and initiate venture activity because of the attractiveness of the business idea and its personal implications. Statistical analysis of data obtained from a questionnaire we recently mailed to Canadian enterprises reveals that “pull” entrepreneurs are more successful than “push” entrepreneurs.
The present research applied the theory of planned behavior to predict employment status choice, defined as the intention to enter an occupation as a wage or salaried individual or as a self-employed one. The role of family background, sex, and prior self-employment experience was also investigated. Using a sample of 128 Norwegian undergraduate business students, the findings strongly support the theory of planned behavior as applied to employment status choice intentions. Moreover, demographic characteristics were found to influence employment status choice intentions only indirectly through their effect on attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.
Purpose Entrepreneurial motivations are often defined as fitting into “push” or “pull” categories. To date, research has focused on the factors motivating men and women separately. What is missing from this research is an analysis of the comparative differences in these motivators of men and women, and an exploration of what this means in terms of push‐pull theory. This paper aims to contribute by applying the existing theory on push and pull factors; and using a gender comparative approach to explore the nature of potential gender differences within entrepreneurial motivations. Design/methodology/approach This exploratory study uses a gender comparative approach in semi‐structured, face‐to‐face interviews with 75 entrepreneurs (28 women and 47 men). Findings Findings suggest that both women and men appeared similarly motivated by a combination of push and pull factors. Three gender differences were found in the incidence of motivations: women were more influenced by a desire for independence; women considered their children as motivators more so than did men; men were influenced more by job dissatisfaction than were women. The discussion focuses on analysing the nature of gender differences rather than merely their incidence. Research limitations/implications A number of further research directions and questions are posed as a way of extending the knowledge in this area. Implications for managers and entrepreneurs are also presented. Originality/value Contributes to push‐pull theory by offering a gender comparative approach to advance theory.