Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Entry and exit dynamics of nascent business owners

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports a comprehensive study on the dynamics of nascent business owners using a unique longitudinal matched employer–employee dataset. We follow over 157,000 individuals who leave paid employment and become business owners during the period 1992–2007. The contributions of this paper are twofold. First, we analyze both entry and exit, identifying and characterizing different profiles of individuals leaving paid employment to become business owners, and distinguishing exits by dissolution from exits by ownership transfer. Second, we provide new evidence on how particular experiences in the labor market and entry modes shape the post-entry dynamics of nascent business owners. By differentiating between different entry and exit routes, this paper provides new evidence on different human capital patterns among nascent business owners and on key determinants of entrepreneurial survival. Our results suggest that different exit modes can be predicted by business owners’ entry route. Furthermore, different exit modes exhibit different duration dependence patterns according to the entry mode. Additionally, the paper shows that businesses started after a displacement episode are not necessarily less successful. Those individuals entering entrepreneurship after being displaced due to previous employer closure are found to persist longer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our definition of nascent business owners is “all those individuals who leave paid employment and become business owners of new or existing businesses for the first time.” Those who only have the intention of becoming a business owner, but do not make the transition, are not considered to be nascent business owners in our analysis, as we are not able to identify entrepreneurship intentions in our data.

  2. There is increasing evidence that both high-ability and low-ability agents become BOs (e.g., Joona and Wadensjö 2013; Poschke 2013).

  3. We should highlight that this paper focuses on nascent (i.e., novice or first time) business owners. Even though some studies on entrepreneurial exit frequently use samples of both nascent and serial entrepreneurs (e.g., Taylor 1999; Haapanen and Tervo 2009; Millán et al. 2012), serial entrepreneurs are documented to be significantly different than nascent entrepreneurs (e.g., Hyytinen and Ilmakunnas 2007; Plehn-Dujowich 2010), so they may also be dissimilar in their exit patterns. Consequently, we leave those experienced entrepreneurs out of our current analysis.

  4. Quadros de Pessoal dataset has been used by several authors to study workers (e.g., Sofka et al. 2014), serial entrepreneurs (e.g., Amaral et al. 2011), and the success of former entrepreneurs in the labor market (e.g., Baptista et al. 2012).

  5. We restrict to transitions from 1992 on, and exclude those occurring in 2002, because we need data on the year prior to transition to verify where each worker comes from. We exclude transitions occurring after 2007 due to the criteria adopted to identify BOs’ exits (Sect. 3.3).

  6. We restrict the analysis to workers aged between 16 and 65 years.

  7. As we are interested in transitions from paid employment to entrepreneurship, we focus on transitions of individuals who were in paid employment in t − 1, t – 2, or t − 3 and who became BOs in t. We thus allow for a maximum interval of two years of absence between the last record in paid employment and the first record as BO.

  8. The literature has been using the terms intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and corporate venturing interchangeably, commonly referring to the development of a new venture within an existing organization (see Parker 2011; Martiarena 2013). We use a wider definition of intrapreneurship in this study: a worker becomes an intrapreneur if he/she becomes the unique BO of the firm where he/she was employed (employee buyout), or if he/she leaves the “paid employee” status and enters the ownership of the business, becoming one of the BOs of the employer firm (partnership). Part of these transitions into intrapreneurship may correspond to ownership transfers within family firms. Unfortunately, QP data do not allow the identification of family businesses in particular.

  9. We also identified a residual group of individuals who became BOs in two or more different firms in the same year (portfolio BOs). These multiple entries could include both start-up and acquisition experiences, or simultaneous entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. As they corresponded to less than 1 % of the total number of transitions, we excluded these cases from the current analysis.

  10. Temporary exits from the dataset may occur for a number of reasons, a very likely reason being that the survey form was not received in the Ministry of Employment before the date when the recording operations were closed. Temporary absences of one year were therefore not classified as definitive exits of the BO.

  11. We define firm exit as firm closure. Despite the comprehensiveness of the QP dataset, we are not able to identify the motives for firm exit [e.g., bankruptcy, mergers & acquisitions (M&A)]. Regarding M&A, earlier studies (e.g., Geroski et al. 2010) have documented that fewer than 1 % of the total number of liquidations in Portugal were due to M&A, thus suggesting that our inability to identify mergers in QP is not likely to affect our results.

  12. Alternative estimations using the competing-risks model proposed by Fine and Gray (1999) did not produce qualitatively different results from those obtained by estimating cause-specific hazard functions with unobserved heterogeneity.

  13. A correlation matrix for these variables can be found in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Appendix A).

  14. Using one of the three most conventional ways of measuring overeducation (e.g., Kiker et al. 1997), an individual was considered to be overeducated if he/she had an educational attainment higher than the mode of the educational attainment of recently hired workers in the same three-digit occupation. These comparisons were performed after converting both variables in the following categories of education: 4, 6, 9, 12 years of schooling and college education.

  15. Given that, by definition, intrapreneurs never suffer a job loss immediately before their transition, we cannot include this variable in the estimation. Otherwise, the model would suffer from identification problems. We study the potential effect of recent displacement episodes in the next section, after excluding intrapreneurs from the estimation of the extended model.

  16. We report the average marginal effects obtained after the estimation of our multinomial logit model in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Appendix B).

  17. We also tested the validity of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA), though this assumption is less of a problem when the alternatives are reasonably distinct (Amemiya 1981). The fact that according to the Wald test we are unable to combine any pair of choices emphasizes the dissimilar structure of the alternatives under study. Even so, we have performed a series of Hausman tests, by sequentially omitting each of the categories of BOs from the choice set and re-estimating the model of Table 2 and then comparing the results from the full model and the several restricted models. We do not obtain systematic evidence to reject the IIA assumption.

  18. To test the consistency of our results, we re-estimated the multinomial logit model for different subsamples, restricting our attention to younger individuals (aged up to 30 years), in order to reduce potential left censoring issues related to possible experiences in the labor market prior to 1986. Additionally, we repeated the analysis for those who directly transit from paid employment in t − 1 to business ownership in t. We also re-estimated the model for the separate subsamples of males and females, single BOs and entrepreneurial teams, as well as those previously employed in services and manufacturing industry. We report the results on the main variables of interest in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Appendix C). Overall, the main results on previous experiences in the labor market remain consistent across the several subsamples.

  19. Average marginal effects are presented in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Appendix D). As a robustness check, we have also re-estimated this extended model for several subsamples of individuals. All these additional results can be found in Appendix E of the Electronic Supplementary Material.

  20. We did not take into account this disaggregation when studying entry decisions because additional estimations showed that no significant differences exist between the determinants of entry of BOs entering alone and those sharing the ownership of the firm.

  21. As we are mainly concerned with the specific hazards of exiting by dissolution or by ownership transfer, we do not present the results obtained from the single-risk model. The results are available upon request.

  22. In order to allow different groups of BOs to have different duration dependencies, we included in the estimation interaction terms between the duration dummies and each type of BO of interest. The first year in the business is the reference year in our estimations.

  23. However, we must emphasize that our analysis is confined to recent job losses. The literature often argues that entrepreneurs coming from unemployment are more likely to fail because their human capital, knowledge, and skills tend to depreciate during longer unemployment periods, or because they look at entrepreneurship as a last resort solution for their problems in finding a job. In contrast, individuals losing their job due to an exogenous shock such as firm closure, and immediately reacting by becoming BOs, may correspond to high-ability unemployed individuals. Therefore, we should not generalize our results, given that we focus on the effect of recent displacement episodes and our data do not allow an accurate identification of all types of unemployed individuals (namely long-term unemployed individuals).

  24. As a robustness check, similar to what we have done for entry, we re-estimated the competing-risks model for several subsamples (young individuals, males, females, individuals directly transiting from paid employment to business ownership, those operating in manufacturing and services, as well as single BOs and entrepreneurial teams). A summary of the results for the main variables of interest can be found in the Electronic Supplementary Material (Appendix F).

  25. To estimate these models, we used a random sample of around 550,000 Never BOs. The results for the selection equation are presented in the Appendix H, made available through the Electronic Supplementary Material. Previous wage job characteristics are used as exclusion restrictions in order to overcome identification issues. Models with selection were estimated using the program DURSEL (version 2.0) for Stata, for right-censored survival time data, written by F. Boehmke, D. Morey, and M. Shannon, and available at: http://myweb.uiowa.edu/fboehmke/methods.html (see also Boehmke et al. 2006). We assumed a bivariate exponential distribution to link the selection equation and the continuous duration outcome of interest. Alternative estimations allowing for Weibull duration dependence did not produce results qualitatively different than those reported here.

  26. We also re-estimated these duration models, with and without selection, separately for the subsamples of start-up entrepreneurs, acquisition entrepreneurs, and intrapreneurs, in order to check the consistency of our results. The estimation results were not qualitatively different, and the conclusions remained consistent for the several subsamples analyzed.

References

  • Amaral, A. M., Baptista, R., & Lima, F. (2011). Serial entrepreneurship: Impact of human capital on time to re-entry. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amemiya, T. (1981). Qualitative response models: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(4), 1483–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, P., & Wadensjö, E. (2007). Do the unemployed become successful entrepreneurs? International Journal of Manpower, 28(7), 604–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsvik, R. (2011). Is labor mobility a channel for spillovers from multinationals? Evidence from Norwegian manufacturing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R., Lima, F., & Preto, M. T. (2012). How former business owners fare in the labor market? Job assignment and earnings. European Economic Review, 56(2), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastié, F., Cieply, S., & Cussy, P. (2013). The entrepreneur’s mode of entry: The effect of social and financial capital. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 865–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(4), 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglann, H., Moen, E. R., Roed, K., & Skogstrom, J. F. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Origins and returns. Labour Economics, 18(2), 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjee, A., Higson, C., Holly, S., & Kattuman, P. (2009). Macroeconomic instability and business exit: Determinants of failures and acquisitions of UK firms. Economica, 76(2), 108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, O., & Portugal, P. (2001). What hides behind an unemployment rate: Comparing Portuguese and U.S. Labor Markets. American Economic Review, 91(1), 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D. G. (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, 7(5), 471–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J., & Sandner, P. (2009). Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs and their duration in self-employment: Evidence from German micro data. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 9(2), 117–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, J., Thurik, A., & Van der Zwan, P. (2013). Business takeover or new venture? Individual and environmental determinants from a cross-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(5), 1099–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmke, F., Morey, D. S., & Shannon, M. (2006). Selection bias and continuous-time duration models: Consequences and a proposed solution. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, M. D., Sorensen, J. B., & Beckman, C. M. (2002). Coming from good stock: Career histories and new venture formation. In M. Lounsbury & M. J. Ventresca (Eds.), Social structure and organizations revisited. Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 19, pp. 229–262). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, G. A., & Wellisz, S. (1980). Technology, entrepreneurs, and firm size. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95(4), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics—Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, R. (1999). Transitions to and from self-employment in Spain: An empirical analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(3), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. (2012). The small firm effect and the quality of entrepreneurs. Working Paper, Copenhagen Business School.

  • DeTienne, D. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: Theoretical development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Impact of founder experience on exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38(4), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, J. S., & Sakova, Z. (2000). Business start-ups or disguised unemployment? Evidence on the character of self-employment from transition economies. Labour Economics, 7(5), 575–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). A second chance for entrepreneurs. Prevention of bankruptcy, simplification and bankruptcy procedures and support for a fresh start. Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. Brussels.

  • Eurostat. (2009). Business demography: Employment and survival. Statistics in focus, 70/2009.

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1990). Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers. Small Business Economics, 2(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. W. (2013). Entrepreneurship, economic conditions and the Great Recession. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22(2), 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, L., & Wennberg, K. (2011). Mobility and entrepreneurship: How career history influences entrepreneurial entry and survival. In Paper presented at the DRUID 2011 Conference on Innovation, Strategy, and Structure—Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, June.

  • Georgarakos, D., & Tatsiramos, K. (2009). Entrepreneurship and survival dynamics of immigrants to the U.S. and their descendants. Labour Economics, 16(2), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geroski, P. A., Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding conditions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 510–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapanen, M., & Tervo, H. (2009). Self-employment duration in urban and rural locations. Applied Economics, 41(19), 2449–2461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinz, T., & Jungbauer-Gans, M. (1999). Starting a business after unemployment: Characteristics and chances of success (empirical evidence from a regional German labour market). Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 11(4), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. J., & Schmitz, J. A. (1990). A theory of entrepreneurship and its application to the study of business transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. J., & Schmitz, J. A. (1995). On the turnover of business firms and business managers. Journal of Political Economy, 103(5), 1005–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D., Lemeshow, S., & May, S. (2008). Applied survival analysis—Regression modeling of time-to-event data. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyytinen, A., & Ilmakunnas, P. (2007). What distinguishes a serial entrepreneur? Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(5), 793–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyytinen, A., & Maliranta, M. (2008). When do employees leave their job for entrepreneurship? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. P. (1995). Easy estimations methods for discrete-time duration models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 57(1), 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joona, P. A., & Wadensjö, E. (2013). The best and the brightest or the least successful? Self-employment entry among male wage-earners in Sweden. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbfleisch, J., & Prentice, R. (1980). The statistical analysis of failure data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker, B. F., Santos, M. C., & Oliveira, M. M. (1997). Overeducation and undereducation: Evidence for Portugal. Economics of Education Review, 16(2), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 208–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livanos, I. (2009). What determines self-employment? A comparative study. Applied Economics Letters, 16(3), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R. E. (1978). On the size distribution of business firms. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 508–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martiarena, A. (2013). What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs? Small Business Economics, 40(1), 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, C. H., Ford, M. W., & Human, S. E. (2001). The context of new venture initiation: comparing growth expectations of nascent entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research, Chapter, I, 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millán, J. M., Congregado, E., & Román, C. (2012). Determinants of self-employment survival in Europe. Small Business Economics, 38(2), 231–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millán, J. M., Congregado, E., & Román, C. (2014). Entrepreneurship persistence with and without personnel: The role of human capital and previous unemployment. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 10(1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nziramasanga, M., & Lee, M. (2001). Duration of self-employment in developing countries: Evidence from small enterprises in Zimbabwe. Small Business Economics, 17(4), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013). Helping displaced workers back into jobs by maintaining and upgrading their skills. Analytical Report, Employment Analysis and Policy Division, Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs.

  • Parker, S. C. (2009a). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2009b). Why do small firms produce the entrepreneurs? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3), 484–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C., & Belghitar, Y. (2006). What happens to nascent entrepreneurs? An econometric analysis of the PSED. Small Business Economics, 27(1), 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C., & Van Praag, C. M. (2012). The entrepreneur’s mode of entry: Business takeover or new venture start? Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plehn-Dujowich, J. (2010). A theory of serial entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 35(4), 377–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portugal, P., & Cardoso, A. (2006). Disentangling the minimum wage puzzle: An analysis of worker accessions and separations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(5), 988–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poschke, M. (2013). Who becomes an entrepreneur? Labor market prospects and occupational choice. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 37(3), 693–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(3), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofka, W., Preto, M. T., & de Faria, P. (2014). MNC subsidiary closures: What is the value of employees’ human capital in new jobs. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 723–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., Almeida, P., & Wu, G. (2003). Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science, 49(4), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B. (2007). Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 387–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B., & Phillips, D. J. (2011). Competence and commitment: Employer size and entrepreneurial endurance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1277–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., Thurik, R., & van der Zwan, P. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit in real and imagined markets. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1109–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. J. (1991). The birth of new firms—Does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 3(3), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tåg, J., Åstebro, T., & Thompson, P. (2013). Hierarchies, the small firm effect, and entrepreneurship: Evidence from Swedish microdata. IFN Working Paper No. 954, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

  • Tarola, O. (2013). Acquisition vsus de novo entry: A theoretical appraisal. Research in Economics, 67(2), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarola, O., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Laussel, D. (2011). To acquire, or to compete? An entry dilemma. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 11(4), 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. P. (1999). Survival of the fittest? An analysis of self-employment duration in Britain. The Economic Journal, 109(454), 140–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusitalo, R. (2001). Homo entreprenaurus? Applied Economics, 33(13), 1631–1638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Greiff, J. (2009). Displacement and self-employment entry. Labour Economics, 16(5), 556–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D., & Cardon, M. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, J. (2012). A tale of two exits: Nascent entrepreneur learning activities and disengagement from start-up. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 783–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge GEE—MEE (Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos—Ministério da Economia e do Emprego) for allowing the use of Quadros de Pessoal dataset. We are grateful to José Varejão and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper. The first author also acknowledges FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) for financial support through the doctoral grant SFRH/BD/71556/2010. CEF.UP—Centre for Economics and Finance at the University of Porto—is funded by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia); project reference: PEst-OE/EGE/UI4105/2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics (INO), Copenhagen Business School, Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Vera Rocha

  2. Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, CEF.UP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464, Porto, Portugal

    Vera Rocha & Anabela Carneiro

  3. CIPES – Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Rua 1º Dezembro, 399, 4450-227, Matosinhos, Portugal

    Vera Rocha

  4. Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering and GOVCOPP, Universidade de Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    Celeste Amorim Varum

Authors
  1. Vera Rocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anabela Carneiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Celeste Amorim Varum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anabela Carneiro.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 70 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 7.

Table 7 Description of variables included in the empirical models
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rocha, V., Carneiro, A. & Varum, C.A. Entry and exit dynamics of nascent business owners. Small Bus Econ 45, 63–84 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9641-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9641-5

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation