Small Business Economics

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 71–92 | Cite as

Start-ups by the unemployed: characteristics, survival and direct employment effects



Fostering and supporting start-up businesses by unemployed persons has become an increasingly important issue in many European countries. These new ventures are being subsidized by various governmental programs. Empirical evidence on skill-composition, direct job creation and other key variables is rather scarce, largely because of inadequate data availability. We base our analysis on unique survey data containing a representative sample of over 3,100 start-ups founded by unemployed persons in Germany and subsidized under two different schemes: the bridging allowance (BA) and the start-up-subsidy (SUS). We are able to draw on extensive pre- and post-founding information concerning the characteristics of the business (start-up capital, industry, etc.) and of the business founders (education, motivation, preparation, etc.). Our main results are: (1) The two programs attracted very different business founders (higher skilled for the BA, more female persons for the SUS), and different businesses were created (less capital intensive for the SUS). (2) We find that formerly unemployed founders are motivated by push and pull factors. (3) Survival rates 2.5 years after business founding are quite high (around 70%) and similar for both programs and across gender. (4) However, the newly developed businesses differ significantly in terms of direct employment effects. While around 30% of the founders with the BA already have at least one employee, this is true for roughly 12% of the founders with the SUS.


Start-up subsidies Self-employment Unemployment Direct employment effects Survival 

JEL Classifications

J68 M13 L26 


  1. Andersson, P., & Wadensjö, E. (2007). Do the unemployed become successful entrepreneurs? A comparison between the unemployed, inactive and wage-earners. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 604–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D., & Vivarelli, M. (1995). New firm formation in Italy. Economics Letters, 48, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartelsmann, E., Scarpetta, S., & Schivardi F. (2005). Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: Evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, H., & Caliendo, M. (2008). Turning unemployment into self-employment: Effectiveness of two start-up programmes. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 26–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. (2007). What makes a young entrepreneur? Discussion paper no. 3139. Bonn: IZA.Google Scholar
  7. Brixy, U., Kohaut, S., & Schnabel, C. (2007). Do newly founded firms pay lower wages? First evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 29, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2009). Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs: New evidence from an experimentally-validated survey. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. (2009). Die reformierte Existenzgründungsförderung für Arbeitslose: Chancen und Risiken. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 10(2), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caliendo, M., & Steiner, V. (2005). Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Deutschland: Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung der mikroökonomischen Evaluationsergebnisse. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarktforschung/Journal for Labour Market Research, 38(2–3), 396–418.Google Scholar
  11. Caliendo, M., Steiner, V., & Baumgartner, H. (2006). Mikroökonometrische Analysen. in Evaluation der Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung der Vorschläge der Hartz-Kommission: Wirksamkeit der Instrumente: Existenzgründungen (Modul 1e), ed. by Forschungsverbund IAB, DIW, SINUS, GfA, infas, pp. 201–255.Google Scholar
  12. Eichhorst, W., & Zimmermann, K. (2007). And then there were four … how many (and which) measures of active labor market policy do we still need? Applied Economics Quarterly, 53(3), 243–272.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2005). Labour market policy—expenditure and participants, data 2003. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, L., & Leighton, L. (1990). Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers. Small Business Economics, 2, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairlie, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship and earnings among young adults from disadvantaged families. Small Business Economics, 25, 351–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fritsch, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship, entry and performance of new businesses compared in two growth regimes: east and west Germany. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fritsch, M. (2008). How does new business development affect regional development? Introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics, 30, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fritsch, M., Grotz, R., Brixy, U., Niese, M., & Otto, A. (2002). Die statistische Erfassung von Gründungen in Deutschland - ein Vergleich von Beschäftigtenstatistik, Gewerbeanzeigenstatistik und den Mannheimer Gründungspanels. Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, 86, 87–96.Google Scholar
  19. Fritsch, M., & Müller, P. (2008). The effect of new business formation on regional development over time: The case of Germany. Small Business Economics, 30, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fritsch, M., & Weyh, A. (2006). How large are the direct employment effects of new businesses? An empirical investigation for West Germany. Small Business Economics, 27, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, B. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 604–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 and Regional Develoment, 11, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ILO. (2008). Labor statistics. Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  24. Institut für Mittelstandsforschung. (2007). Newsletter 1/2007. Bonn: Institut für Mittelstandsforschung.Google Scholar
  25. Johannson, E. (2000). Self-employment and liquidity constraints—evidence from Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch, S., & Wießner, F. (2003). Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual. IAB Kurzbericht, (2).Google Scholar
  27. Kommission zum Abbau der Arbeitslosigkeit und zur Umstrukturierung der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Hartz-Kommission). (2002). Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt. Final report, Berlin.Google Scholar
  28. Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau. (2004). KfW-Gründungsmonitor 2004. Jährliche Analyse von Struktur und Dynamik des Gründungsgeschehens in Deutschland. Frankfurt: Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau.Google Scholar
  29. Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau. (2005). KfW-Gründungsmonitor 2005. Jährliche Analyse von Struktur und Dynamik des Gründungsgeschehens in Deutschland. Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau: Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  30. Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (2006). KfW-Gründungsmonitor 2005. Jährliche Analyse von Struktur und Dynamik des Gründungsgeschehens in Deutschland. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  31. Kritikos, A., & Kahle, K. (2006). Das Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland. In Evaluation der Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung der Vorschläge der Hartz-Komission. Wirksamkeit der Instrumente: Existenzgründungen (Modul 1e), ed. by IAB, DIW, Sinus, GfA, infas, pp. 40–90. BMAS, Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. Kronthaler, F. (2005). Economic capability of East German regions: Results of a cluster analysis. Regional Studies, 39, 739–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levenson, A., & Willard, K. (2000). Do firms get the financing they want? Small Business Economics, 14, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meager, N. (1992). Does unemployment lead to self-employment. Small Business Economics, 4, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD. (2008). Factbook: Economic, environmental and social statistics.Google Scholar
  36. Parker, S., & van Praag, M. (2006). Schooling, capital constraints and entrepreneurial performance: The endogenous triangle. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 24(4), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfeiffer, F., & Reize, F. (2000). Business start-ups by the unemployed—An econometric analysis based on firm data. Labour Economics, 7, 629–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piorkowsky, M.-B. (2008). Existenzgründungen im Kontext der Arbeits- und Lebensverhältnisse in Deutschland - Eine Strukturanalyse von Mikrozensusergebnissen. Discussion paper. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.Google Scholar
  39. Rosen, H., & Willen, P. (2002). Risk, return and self-employment. Discussion paper. University of Princeton.Google Scholar
  40. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2005). Fachserie 1, Reihe 4.1.2. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  41. Storey, D. (1991). The birth of new firms—Does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 3, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Storey, D., & Jones, A. (1987). New firm formation—a labor market approach to industrial entry. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 34, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Praag, C., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(3014), 351–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner, J. (2007). What a difference a Y makes—female and male nascent entrepreneurs in Germany. Small Business Economics, 28, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wießner, F. (2001). Arbeitslose werden Unternehmer. Nuremberg: Beiträge zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung.Google Scholar
  46. Winter-Ebmer, R., & Zweimüller, J. (1999). Firm-size wage differentials in Switzerland: Evidence from job-changers. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 89, 89–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)BonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of Innovation, Manufacturing, ServiceGerman Institute for Economic Research (DIW)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations