The influence of institutional and conductive aspects on entrepreneurial innovation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to improve understanding of how different aspects of the national institutional environment may influence the extent of innovative entrepreneurial activities across countries. Several institutional and conductive factors affecting a country’s capacity to support innovative entrepreneurship are explored. Design/methodology/approach Institutional theory is used to examine the national regulatory, normative, cognitive and conducive aspects that measure a country’s ability to support innovative entrepreneurship. A cross-national institutional profile is constructed to validate an entrepreneurial innovation model. The impacts of country-level national institutions on innovative entrepreneurial activity as measured by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data are assessed through structural equation modeling. Findings Knowledge about the influence of specific institutional aspects on innovative entrepreneurship, and hence of institutional structures within and across countries, is enhanced. For new innovative enterprises, conductive and regulatory aspects seem to matter most. All conductive factors have a significant and positive impact on entrepreneurial activity rates. Research limitations/implications Results could support policy makers and practitioners in evaluating government policies’ effects on innovative entrepreneurship. Interventions should target both individual attributes and context. Future research could include longitudinal designs to measure the direction of causality. Practical implications Aspects such as regulatory institutions, and conductive factors such as information communication technology use and technology adoption, are important for innovation entrepreneurship development. Originality/value The literature on institutional theory and innovative entrepreneurship is highly limited. This study complements growing interest in empirical analysis of the effects of national institutions on innovative entrepreneurial activities and substantiates previous empirical work.

Entrepreneurs and Environmental Sustainability in the Digital Era: Regional and Institutional Perspectives

“…Gómez-Haro Samuel et al [100] summarized that institutional environment can be defined as the stable rules, social standards, and cognitive structures in a society, which can guide and constrict business activity, including strong influence on economic behavior, organizational behavior, and entrepreneurship. Arabiyat et al (2019) [101] also emphasized that the institutional environment can affect the extent of innovative entrepreneurial activities in various countries. Furthermore, Bernardino et al [102] presented that the intention toward becoming a social entrepreneur is directly and indirectly affected by institutions.…”

The opportunity to create a business: Systemic banking crisis, institutional factor conditions and trade openness

“…Culture assumes a collective nature and the values associated with it may vary within and among nations, though there is a considerable overlap between countries' cultures. As acknowledged by Arabiyat et al (2019), the GEM model distinguishes between national culture viewed as "cultural context" and "entrepreneurial cultural and social norms". While the former are treated as a contextual aspect, the latter involve context-specific beliefs and attitudes toward entreprenurship.…”

“…This study relies mainly on the NES-GEM variables; however, other studies considered other variables to measure the normative, cultural-cognitive, and regulative dimensions (Urbano and Alvarez 2014;Busenitz et al 2000; among others). For instance, Arabiyat et al (2019) in a recent a recent study included a vast number of variables from different data bases (NES-GEM, APS-GEM, GCI, WEF). Still, another limitation is related with the use of cross-sectional data, i.e., each sub-sample only covers 1 year (year 2012), which does not capture the dynamic processes of the global economic crisis.…”

“…If governments react to boost growth by stimulating the opportunities perceived by managers, then the negative impact of the crisis can be counterbalanced by strong institutional factor conditions, such as cultural and social norms that encourage entrepreneurship, internal market openness, entrepreneurial education, government programs, among others, even when countries are more negatively affected by unanticipated changes in economic conditions. Ultimately, several authors stressed "how" entrepreneurs are guided and influenced by the surrounding environment or institutional context (Arabiyat et al 2019;Bruton et al 2010;Busenitz et al 2000;Urbano and Alvarez 2014;Raza et al 2019, among others).…”

“…To achieve this goal, this study uses the lens of the institutional theory (Scott 1995) which relies on three major institutional pillars (normative, regulatory, and culturalcognitive). In a recent study, Urbano et al (2019) carried out a systematic literature analysis over the last 25 years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth and found that a number of scholars have used Scott's (2014) institutional dimensions or pillars (Busenitz et al 2000;Kostova 1997;Arabiyat et al 2019;among others). In a sense, this study advances knowledge in a related field as it assumes that the three Scott institutional pillars influence entrepreneurial opportunities.…”