The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 506–529 | Cite as

Technology use and availability in entrepreneurship: informal economy as moderator of institutions in emerging economies

  • Saurav Pathak
  • Emanuel Xavier-Oliveira
  • André O. Laplume
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the contextual influences of institutions on the use of latest available technologies by early stage entrepreneurs in emerging economies. Hypotheses are developed and then tested using multi-level modeling techniques on a dataset covering entrepreneurs in 20 emerging economies. We utilized 10,431 individual-level responses from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey from 2002 to 2008 and complemented it with data on country-level institutions such as the size of a country’s informal economy, intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes obtained from the Index of Economic Freedom and inward foreign direct investment (FDI) from the World Bank Group. Results on the direct effects suggest that levels of FDI negatively influences the use of latest technology by entrepreneurs in emerging economies, while the moderation effects of informal economy suggest that as its size increases (1) the negative effects IPR on the use of latest technology by entrepreneurs strengthens, and (2) the negative effects of FDI on the use of latest technology strengthens. These findings support the overall proposition that the size of a country’s informal economy is an important moderator of institutional influences on technology use by entrepreneurs in emerging economies. More generally, the study proposes that institutions may not have the same effects on entrepreneurs in emerging economies that might be expected in developed countries, suggesting that future research should take the level of socio-economic development of a country into account when theorizing the role of institutions.

Keywords

Technology use in entrepreneurship Institutions Informal economy Emerging economies Multi-level modeling 

JEL Classification

L26 O34 P33 

References

  1. Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z., & Sanders, M. (2008). Intellectual property rights and the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. JENA Economic Research Papers 2008-069.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agbonifoh, B. A., & Elimimian, J. U. (1999). Attitudes of developing countries towards ‘country-of-origin’ products in an era of multiple brands. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aidis, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship in transition countries: A review. Working paper 61, Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London.Google Scholar
  6. Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1242–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property rights and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 893–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beamish, P. W., & Banks, J. C. (1987). Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 18, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beckman, C. M., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). The role of the entrepreneur in technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.-W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 143–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassou, S. P., & Xavier-Oliveira, E. (2011). Barriers to technological adoption in Spain and Portugal. Portuguese Economic Journal, 10, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, J. P., & Thum, M. (2005). Corruption and the shadow economy. International Economic Review, 43, 817–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 438–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coviello, N., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danakol, S. H., Estrin, S., Reynolds, P. D., & Weitzel, U. (2013). Foreign direct investment and domestic entrepreneurship: Blessing or curse? Paper presented at the 2013 European Economic Association & Econometric Society Meeting, August 26–30, Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.eea-esem.com/EEA-ESEM/2013/Prog/viewpaper.asp?pid=2898
  22. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Backer, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2003). Foreign ownership and productivity dynamics. Economics Letters, 79, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Mello, L. R. (1999). Foreign direct investment-led growth: Evidence from time series and panel data. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 81–91.Google Scholar
  26. Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 564–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fagerberg, J. (1987). A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ. Research Policy, 16, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feld, L. P., & Schneider, F. (2010). Survey on the shadow economy and undeclared earnings in OECD countries. German Economic Review, 11, 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleming, M. H., Roman, J., & Farrel, G. (2000). The shadow economy. Journal of International Affairs, 53, 64–89.Google Scholar
  30. Forero-Pineda, C. (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy, 35, 808–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. García, F., Jin, B., & Salomon, R. (2013). Does inward foreign direct investment improve the innovative performance of local firms? Research Policy, 42, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giles, D. E. A. (1999). Measuring the hidden economy: Implications for econometric modeling. The Economic Journal, 109, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2009). Determinants of software piracy: Economics, institutions, and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goel, R. K., Saunoris, J. W., & Zhang, X. (2015). Innovation and underground entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9420-0.Google Scholar
  35. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Hall, J. (2012). Economic Freedom of the World 2012 Annual Report. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
  36. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hong, S., & Wyer, R. S. (1989). Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute information on product evaluation: An information processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huyghe, A., & Knockaert, M. (2015). The influence of organizational culture and climate on entrepreneurial intentions among research scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Institutions and entrepreneurship. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 2, 201–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim, P. H., & Li, M. (2012). Injecting demand through spillovers: Foreign direct investment, domestic socio-political conditions, and host-country entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.10.004
  41. Kim, P. H., & Li, M. (2013). Seeking assurances when taking action: Legal systems, social trust, and starting businesses in emerging economies. Organization Studies, 35, 359–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lall, S. (2003). Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries. Research Policy, 32, 1657–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levchenko, A. (2007). Institutional quality and international trade. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 791–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lund, M. J., & McGuire, S. (2005). Institutions and development: Electronic commerce and economic growth. Organization Studies, 26, 1743–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markusen, J. R. (2001). Contracts, intellectual property rights, and multinational investment in developing countries. Journal of International Economics, 53, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McMullen, J. S., Bagby, D. R., & Palich, L. E. (2008). Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 875–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyer, K. E. (2001). Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller, T., Holmes, K. R., & Feulner, E. J. (2012). Index of Economic Freedom. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/index
  50. Munir, K. A., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the’Kodak Moment’: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26, 1665–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Narula, R., & Sadowski, B. M. (2002). Technological catch-up and strategic technology partnering in developing countries. International Journal of Technology Management, 23, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oxley, J. E. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 38, 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (1994). Barriers to technology adoption and development. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (2005). Barriers to riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Parker, S. C. (2010). A predator–prey model of knowledge spillovers and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pathak, S., Xavier-Oliveira, E., & Laplume, A. O. (2013). Influence of intellectual property, foreign investment, and technological adoption on technology entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2090–2101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pedersen, S. (2003). The shadow economy in Germany, great britain and scandinavia: A measurement based on questionnaire service. The Rockwoll Foundation Research Unit, Study No. 10.Google Scholar
  58. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  59. Propris, L. D., & Driffield, N. (2006). The importance of clusters for spillovers from foreign direct investment and technology sourcing. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Quintin, E. (2008). Contract enforcement and the size of the informal economy. Economic Theory, 37, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., Bono, N. D., Servais, I., et al. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics, 24, 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review, 78, 54–66.Google Scholar
  63. Rumelt, R. P. (1997). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In N. J. Foss (Ed.), Resources firms and strategies: A reader in the resource-based perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Schneider, F. (2000). The increase of the size of the shadow economy of 18 OECD countries: Some preliminary explanations. CESifo Working paper 306, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  65. Schneider, F., Buehn, A., & Montenegro, C. E. (2010). New estimates for the shadow economies all over the world. International Economic Journal, 24, 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schneider, F., & Enste, D. (2000). Shadow economies: Size, causes and consequences. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 77–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seth, A., & Thomas, H. (1994). Theories of the firm: Implications for strategy research. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 165–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1993). Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 18, 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stieglitz, N., & Heine, K. (2007). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–611.Google Scholar
  76. Swan, J. A., & Newell, S. (1995). The role of professional associations in technology diffusion. Organization Studies, 16, 847–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Torgler, B., & Schneider, F. (2009). The impact of tax morale and institutional quality on the shadow economy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Verlegh, P. W. J., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wallace, C., & Latcheva, R. (2006). Economic transformation outside the law: Corruption, trust in public institutions and the informal economy in transition countries of central and Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies, 58, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 598–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West, G. P, I. I. I., & Bamford, C. E. (2005). Creating a technology-based entrepreneurial economy: A resource based theory perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  83. World Bank. (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do
  84. World Economic Forum. (2011). The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness
  85. Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52, 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 414–431.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saurav Pathak
    • 1
  • Emanuel Xavier-Oliveira
    • 2
  • André O. Laplume
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Business AdministrationKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations