New technology entrepreneurship initiatives: Which strategic orientations and environmental conditions matter in the new socio-economic landscape?
The transformation of ideas into new technologies depends not only on how knowledge diffuses but also on which context/time this transformation is developed. In the assumption that internal and environmental conditions directly affects the decision of exploiting technological opportunities, this paper explores how some strategic dynamic capabilities (entrepreneurial and export market) and supportive environmental conditions (regulative and normative) influence the configuration of technology entrepreneurship initiatives. A proposed conceptual model is tested with 30,648 ventures in 23 countries participating in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor for the years 2005 (pre-financial crisis), 2008 (financial crisis), and 2011 (recession). The main findings suggest the positive role of entrepreneurial orientation and export market orientation in the development of new technology entrepreneurship initiatives. Also, environmental conditions influence on the development of initiatives of technology entrepreneurship. Particularly, the study evidences how regulative environmental conditions (property rights and government programs) enhance while other regulative conditions (support for science and technology) and normative conditions (opportunity perception and national culture) simultaneously retard the probability that a new/established venture develops new technology entrepreneurship initiatives. These effects are moderated and intensified by the influence of the economic cycles. The paper provides important insights to the field of entrepreneurship, innovation, and strategic management.
KeywordsStrategic orientations Environmental conditions Technology entrepreneurship Dynamic capabilities Regulative and normative conditions GEM
JEL ClassificationL26 M13 E00
David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from projects ECO2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness) and 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowledge Department, Catalan Government). Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the financial support from Santander Universidades (Iberoamerica Scholarship for Young Researchers). João J. Ferreira and Cristina I. Fernandes acknowledge the financial support from NECE – Research Unit in Business Sciences funded by the Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Project UID/GES/04630/2013).
- Acs, Z. J., Audrestch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. CEPR Discussion paper 4783, CEPR, London.Google Scholar
- Baughn, C. C., Chua, B.-L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women’s participation in entrepreneurship: A multicountry study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 585–718.Google Scholar
- Behrens, K., Corcos, G., & Mion, G. (2010). Trade crisis? What trade crisis? CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7956.Google Scholar
- Block, J. H., Thurik, R., & Zhou, H. (2012). What turns knowledge into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
- Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Wennekers, A. R. M. (2010). Intrapreneurship: An international study. EIM Research Report H201005. Zoetermeer: EIMGoogle Scholar
- Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., Martiarena, A., & Singer, S. (2013). Global entrepreneurship monitor special report on entrepreneurial employee activity. Babson College.Google Scholar
- Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 994–1003.Google Scholar
- Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C. M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25–39.Google Scholar
- Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.Google Scholar
- Fairlie, R. W., & Fossen, F. M. (2016). The two components of business creation: Opportunity versus necessity entrepreneurship. 2017 American Economic Association Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
- Ghio, N., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2017). The creation of high-tech ventures in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Exploring the interactions among university knowledge, cooperative banks, and individual attitudes. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9958-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Haddad, M., Harrison, A., & Hausman, C. (2011). Decomposing the great trade collapse: Products, prices, and quantities in the 2008–2009 crisis. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 5749Google Scholar
- Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26, 33–52.Google Scholar
- Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 19–46.Google Scholar
- Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2009). The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: A study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 331–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schott, P. K. (2009). US trade margins during the 2008 crisis. In: R. Baldwin (Eds.), The great trade collapse, causes, consequences, prospects. Voxeu.org.Google Scholar
- Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- WIPO. (2015). World intellectual property report: Breakthrough innovation and economic growth. World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar