Productive entrepreneurship and the effectiveness of insolvency legislation: a cross-country study

Fu, Kun; Wennberg, Karl; Falkenhall, Björn

doi:10.1007/s11187-018-0040-6

Cited by 35 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the individual level it is expected that skill perception has a strong effect on FoF (Tsai et al, 2016), we also believe that closing a business in the past 12 months and knowing someone who started a business in the past 2 years may also influence FoF (Fu et al, 2018). At the country level, investor protection, legal rights, and registration cost recovery all have influence on FoF.…”

Section: Closementioning

confidence: 82%

Do country level constructs affect the relation between self-efficacy and fear of failure?

Kamal

Daoud

2020

JEEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to show how country level constructs (investment protection, registration cost and legal protection) moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and fear of failure (FoF). Design/methodology/approach The authors use global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) data and augment it with country level data for 12 counties from different levels of economic development. The entrepreneurship literature has not yet addressed the micro/macro level influences on FoF to the best of the authors’ knowledge. This paper addresses this lacuna by using multilevel analysis by incorporating state influenced environment effects along with individual traits to explain this phenomenon. Findings It is shown that higher registration cost, higher degrees of investor protection and less legal protection diminish the effect of self-efficacy on FoF. Furthermore, the effects of the country-level factors outweigh the impact of the individual-level factors on FoF. Research limitations/implications One of the issues discussed earlier was the construct validity of FoF, the wording of the question in GEM data is phrased such that FoF prevents you from starting a business; this means the response is avoidance. Had the question been worded positively, the responses may have varied. A better measure would have been an index with a scale the shows varying degrees of FoF. Another feature of GEM data is that the cohorts change every year, making it impossible to track the effect of closing a business on perceptual variables such as FoF and skill perception. This requires further scrutiny and analysis. Practical implications It is noticed that there are regional differences in FoF country rates across various levels of economic development. The authors provide and explain by looking at how these constructs moderate the relation between skill perception and FoF. Thus, countries that have good investment protection may end up with better entrepreneurial activity rates due to mitigating the fear factor. Social implications Entrepreneurial activity rates can be increased by lowering the negative effect of FoF. This construct is known to be higher among females, which was typically thought to be an individual trait. This research also shows that legal and institutional constructs are actually more important in explaining FoF. Originality/value The contribution of this paper is that it addresses an acknowledged gap in the literature, in that it explains empirical findings that have not been explained before (at the level this paper does).

show abstract

Section: Closementioning

confidence: 82%

Do country level constructs affect the relation between self-efficacy and fear of failure?

Kamal

Daoud

2020

JEEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…North (1990, p. 97) succinctly defined the institutional environment as the “humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction.” These include “both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights).” While both the informal and the formal parts of the institutional environment have important effects on entrepreneurship and innovation (Hwang & Powell, 2005), policy is particularly concerned with the latter, more formal aspects. For example, an economy featuring secure property rights, a well‐functioning legal system, free and open markets, and stable monetary arrangements promotes savings, capital formation, and long‐term investment, including R&D. At a more focused level, laws and regulations that make it easy to start a business, protect innovations, allow for movements of skilled labor, encourage venture capital and angel investment in high‐potential, early stage ventures, allow inefficiently used resources to be reallocated through bankruptcy, and the like are particularly conducive to innovative entrepreneurship (e.g., Acs et al, 2016; Campbell, Ganco, Franco, & Agarwal, 2012; Fu, Wennberg, & Falkenhall, 2020; Lerner, 2009). Their absence constitutes what Palepu and Khanna (1998) called an “institutional void” that hampers capital accumulation, business formation, and ultimately economic development.…”

Section: Research Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy for innovative entrepreneurship: Institutions, interventions, and societal challenges

Bradley

Kim

Klein

et al. 2021

Strategic Entrepreneurship

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Innovative entrepreneurship, defined as the creation of new products, services, production methods, or business models, is critical for firm, industry, and economic growth and a key determinant of societal well‐being. This special issue explores the roles of institutions and government policies in promoting or impeding innovative entrepreneurship. In this introductory editorial, we review theory and evidence on entrepreneurship at the macro‐institutional and micro‐policy levels, highlighting costs and benefits of alternative institutional environments and targeted policy interventions, as well as interactions within and across levels. We summarize the six papers in the special issue, discuss their contributions to the literature, and suggest how future work can build upon these and other papers to advance our understanding of the conditions and mechanisms underlying successful entrepreneurial innovation. Managerial Summary Innovation and entrepreneurship bring new products and services to market, help firms and industries to grow, and generate improvements in social and economic life. The papers in this special issue explore the background conditions—laws, political processes, regulations, tax policy, subsidies, training programs, and more—that make entrepreneurship and innovation successful. Both “macro” and “micro” policies can stimulate successful entrepreneurial and innovative outcomes, but can also become politicized, be ineffective, and generate unintended consequences. The papers offer lessons to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners about making entrepreneurship and innovation more successful.

show abstract

“…There are different entrepreneurship theories, such as creative-based entrepreneurship (Ruiz, 2015), knowledge-based entrepreneurship (Hayter, 2013), growth-based entrepreneurship (Petrakis, 2012;Hermans et al, 2015;Zheng & Musteen, 2018), growth-oriented entrepreneurship (Stam & Stel, 2009;Giotopoulos et al, 2017), and necessity-based entrepreneurship (Fu et al, 2018;Zheng & Musteen, 2018); collectively, all of which could be categorized either to the Resource Exploitation Theory or the Opportunity Exploitation Theory (Ge et al, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Entrepreneurial Management amongst Bahrain SMEs

Shekar¹,

Hasan²,

Mubarak³

2021

IJAREMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entrepreneurship is widely regarded the catalyst of business prosperity and economies development. Accordingly, a high level of entrepreneurial management practices should lead to a high level of success, and vice versa. The entrepreneurial management construct (EM), conceptualized by Stevenson (1983) and operationalized by Brown et al. (2001), is centered on the business opportunity and meant to measure both the individuals' and firms-level entrepreneurial behavior with regards to dealing with business opportunity in six dimensions; namely: growth orientation (GO), strategic orientation (SO), resource orientation (RO), management structure (MS), reward philosophy (RP), and entrepreneurial culture (EC). This study aims to verify the level of entrepreneurial management embraced by the small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the kingdom of Bahrain. Based on the descriptive statistical analysis of 360 self-administered questionnaires, this study suggests that the vast majority of SMEs in Bahrain could be viewed as entrepreneurial. The dimensional investigations reveal that the SMEs propensity towards entrepreneurial management is at its most in the GO, followed by MS, then EC and RP, while it is slightly lesser in the SO and RO dimensions. This study contributes to the literature, empirically, by proving that the EM practices are applicable to any firm, regardless of its age, size, business activity, or ownership structure.

show abstract

Productive entrepreneurship and the effectiveness of insolvency legislation: a cross-country study

Cited by 35 publications

References 65 publications

Do country level constructs affect the relation between self-efficacy and fear of failure?

Do country level constructs affect the relation between self-efficacy and fear of failure?

Policy for innovative entrepreneurship: Institutions, interventions, and societal challenges

Assessing the Entrepreneurial Management amongst Bahrain SMEs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About