Entrepreneurship in the USA: architecture, market structure and incentives

Kantarelis, Demetri

doi:10.1504/ijeim.2009.025139

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large corporations (n=4), informal network (n=3), talent pool (n=2) and the physical infrastructure (n=1) had the fewest allocations from the article population. The low weighting of articles allocated to these components, is likely justified by the fact that these framework components acted as secondary allocations -meaning that these were discussed in the context of more prevalent components identified as maximising innovative capacity within an ecosystem (Euchner 2016;Kantarelis 2009;Usman and Vanhaverbeke 2017;van den Heiligenberg et al 2017). For example, those articles focusing on 'informal network' highlight its importance in maximising the innovative capacity of an ecosystem, in the background of formal network discussions (van Gils and Rutjes 2017).…”

Section: X5 Clusterization Of Findings According To the Neck Et Al (2...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurturing Innovation Through Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: What Does the Literature Say?

Marshall

Caputo

Mehtap

2019

Contributions to Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: X5 Clusterization Of Findings According To the Neck Et Al (2...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurturing Innovation Through Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: What Does the Literature Say?

Marshall

Caputo

Mehtap

2019

Contributions to Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finland and Thailand both have unique entrepreneurial environments in terms of architecture, market structure and incentives (Kantarelis 2009, Schramm 2004. Finland is categorised as innovation-driven, while Thailand is considered an efficiency-driven economy (Kelley et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early stages of technology-intensive companies in Thailand and Finland

Muhos

Kess

Distanont

et al. 2014

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous stage models have attempted to clarify management priorities during the early stages of companies. However, a need for more focused and contextspecific studies exists. This study seeks to clarify the early stages of technologyintensive companies in in Thai and Finnish contexts. To summarise the research questions, the authors ask: What early stages do technology-intensive companies face based on recent empirical literature? How do the experiences of managers in early-stage technology-intensive companies relate to assumptions of such stage framework? What viewpoints should be considered when using stage framework in Thai and Finnish contexts? To answer these questions, this study devises a four-stage framework describing early stages of technology-intensive companies and reflects it through ten case studies in the two contexts. The framework was found to be applicable in both contexts; moreover, an analysis of context-specific viewpoints is also provided. It is necessary to recognise these viewpoints when using this framework in the Thai and Finnish contexts.

show abstract