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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Data from only 20 countries were usable for all the variables and controls included in the regression models.
In unreported robustness checks, we isolated nascent and new entrepreneurs following which we replicated our analyses on each of the two samples. We did not observe significant loss of generalizability of our findings. We chose to adhere to GEM’s operationalization of “early stage” entrepreneurs as nascent or new entrepreneurs and used them in a combined sample in all our analyses.
In unreported robustness checks, we replaced the IPR index obtained from the Heritage Foundation with those from the World Economic Forum’s (2011) Global Competitive Index (GCI) Report, Fraser institute’s “Economic Freedom of the World” report (Gwartney et al. 2012) and GEM National Expert Survey. Our findings were generalizable across all of these sources but we chose to use IPR index from the Heritage Foundation because it offered data on IPR for the maximum number of countries common to the GEM survey.
We used xtlogit—STATA 12.0 as the statistical software tool.
Temporal variance in dependent variable was insignificant relative to country specific variance.
To be able to meaningfully interpret and express graphically the interaction terms we use beta coefficients of the logistic regressions and not the odds ratios.
References
Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.
Acs, Z., & Sanders, M. (2008). Intellectual property rights and the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. JENA Economic Research Papers 2008-069.
Acs, Z., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28, 109–122.
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.
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.
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24, 233–247.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1242–1254.
Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property rights and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 234–251.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 893–921.
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.
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.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.-W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45, 115–135.
Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 143–248.
Cassou, S. P., & Xavier-Oliveira, E. (2011). Barriers to technological adoption in Spain and Portugal. Portuguese Economic Journal, 10, 189–209.
Choi, J. P., & Thum, M. (2005). Corruption and the shadow economy. International Economic Review, 43, 817–836.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 438–458.
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.
Coviello, N., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 485–508.
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
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–332.
De Backer, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2003). Foreign ownership and productivity dynamics. Economics Letters, 79, 177–183.
De Mello, L. R. (1999). Foreign direct investment-led growth: Evidence from time series and panel data. Oxford Economic Papers, 51, 133–151.
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.
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 564–580.
Fagerberg, J. (1987). A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ. Research Policy, 16, 87–99.
Feld, L. P., & Schneider, F. (2010). Survey on the shadow economy and undeclared earnings in OECD countries. German Economic Review, 11, 109–149.
Fleming, M. H., Roman, J., & Farrel, G. (2000). The shadow economy. Journal of International Affairs, 53, 64–89.
Forero-Pineda, C. (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy, 35, 808–824.
García, F., Jin, B., & Salomon, R. (2013). Does inward foreign direct investment improve the innovative performance of local firms? Research Policy, 42, 231–244.
Giles, D. E. A. (1999). Measuring the hidden economy: Implications for econometric modeling. The Economic Journal, 109, 370–380.
Goel, R. K., & Nelson, M. A. (2009). Determinants of software piracy: Economics, institutions, and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 637–658.
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.
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Hall, J. (2012). Economic Freedom of the World 2012 Annual Report. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723–744.
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.
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.
Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Institutions and entrepreneurship. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, 2, 201–232.
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
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.
Lall, S. (2003). Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries. Research Policy, 32, 1657–1680.
Levchenko, A. (2007). Institutional quality and international trade. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 791–819.
Lund, M. J., & McGuire, S. (2005). Institutions and development: Electronic commerce and economic growth. Organization Studies, 26, 1743–1763.
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92.
Markusen, J. R. (2001). Contracts, intellectual property rights, and multinational investment in developing countries. Journal of International Economics, 53, 189–204.
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.
Meyer, K. E. (2001). Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 357–367.
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
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.
Narula, R., & Sadowski, B. M. (2002). Technological catch-up and strategic technology partnering in developing countries. International Journal of Technology Management, 23, 599–617.
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.
Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (1994). Barriers to technology adoption and development. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 298–321.
Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (2005). Barriers to riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parker, S. C. (2010). A predator–prey model of knowledge spillovers and entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 307–322.
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.
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.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.
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.
Quintin, E. (2008). Contract enforcement and the size of the informal economy. Economic Theory, 37, 395–416.
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.
Rivette, K. G., & Kline, D. (2000). Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review, 78, 54–66.
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.
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.
Schneider, F., Buehn, A., & Montenegro, C. E. (2010). New estimates for the shadow economies all over the world. International Economic Journal, 24, 443–461.
Schneider, F., & Enste, D. (2000). Shadow economies: Size, causes and consequences. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 77–114.
Seth, A., & Thomas, H. (1994). Theories of the firm: Implications for strategy research. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 165–192.
Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33, 141–149.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 181–184.
Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293–304.
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.
Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 17–38.
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 79–92.
Stieglitz, N., & Heine, K. (2007). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1–15.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–611.
Swan, J. A., & Newell, S. (1995). The role of professional associations in technology diffusion. Organization Studies, 16, 847–874.
Torgler, B., & Schneider, F. (2009). The impact of tax morale and institutional quality on the shadow economy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 228–245.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.
World Bank. (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do
World Economic Forum. (2011). The Global Competitiveness Report 2011–2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness
Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52, 1185–1199.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 414–431.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pathak, S., Xavier-Oliveira, E. & Laplume, A.O. Technology use and availability in entrepreneurship: informal economy as moderator of institutions in emerging economies. J Technol Transf 41, 506–529 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9423-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9423-x
Keywords
- Technology use in entrepreneurship
- Institutions
- Informal economy
- Emerging economies
- Multi-level modeling