Although risk is an essential element of the business landscape and one of the more widely researched topics in business, there is noticeably less scholarship on strategic risk. Business risk literature tends to only delineate characteristics of risk that are operational rather than strategic in nature. The current operational risk paradigm focuses primarily on only two dimensions of risk: the probability of its occurrence and the severity of its outcomes. In contrast, literature in the natural and social sciences exhibits greater dimensionality in the risk lexicon, including temporal risk dimensions absent from academic business discussions. Additionally, descriptions of operational risk included minimal linkage to strategic outcomes that could constrain or enable resources, markets, or competition. When working with a multidimensional model of risk, one can adjustment the process of environmental scanning and risk assessment in ways that were potentially more measurable. Given the temporal dimensions of risk, risk management cannot always function proactively. In risk environments with short risk horizons, rapid risk acceleration, or limited risk reaction time, firms must utilize dynamic capabilities. The literature proposes multiple approaches to managing risk that are often focused on single challenges or solutions. By combining a strategic management focus with a multidimensional model of strategic risk, one can match risk management protocols to specific strategic challenges. Lastly, one of more powerful dimensions of risky events is their ability to differentially affect competitors, changing the basis of competition. Risk need not solely be viewed as defending against potential losses; many risky occurrences may represent new strategic opportunities.

Entrepreneurship research posits that high potential new firms are the leading source of employment growth (Acs et al., 2008), wealth creation (Venkataraman, 1997), and economic development (EC, 1999). The European Union’s Lisbon Strategy recognized the significant role of entrepreneurs in creating employment (EC, 2000). The authors posit that a “Unified Europe” is not the same as a “Uniform Europe.” Using states in the United States as a comparative unit of analysis, the authors demonstrate ways in which differences in endowments (e.g., human capital, support for entrepreneurship, and regulatory environment) dynamically influence entrepreneurial outcomes. This analysis identifies challenges faced by local entrepreneurs in the context of Europe 2020.

The World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the Heritage Foundation, and other global organizations have studied national business climates to determine optimal conditions and practices necessary to stimulate entrepreneurship and economic growth. This chapter compares select measures from the three organizations from six West African countries (Benin, Cote d'Ivorie, Ghana, Liberia, Senegal, and Sierra Leone) and benchmarks their results against the United States and an unweighted average of six European Union member states. These measures are most directly tied to the establishment, protection and sustainable growth of technology or technology-dependent entrepreneurial businesses: business freedom, investment freedom, investor protection, property rights protection, technological readiness, innovation, freedom from corruption, and access to risk capital. This chapter contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it provides a broad policy comparison. Second, it benchmarks entrepreneurial readiness climates via comparisons among emerging and developed markets. Lastly, it offers recommendations for policy makers and researchers.

No abstract

Understanding the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship to economic growth and stability, the European Union has implemented policies and programs to create a more uniform context for cross-border business activities within the EU. While initial efforts led to a more unified European region, they did not lead to a more uniform one. Over the past five years, dramatic changes in Europe resulting from the financial crisis, the Eurosceptic movement, and the Syrian refuge crisis have incented nations to create their own national innovation and entrepreneurship efforts. This chapter explores the results of those diverging national programs on entrepreneurial outcomes. Specifically, the research explores national landscapes created as a result of differing endowments, regulatory regimes, tax systems, and venture funding levels. Results indicate that differences in these factors create significantly different entrepreneurial outcomes as measured by patent applications and new business registrations.