Institutional drivers of high-growth firms: country-level evidence from 26 transition economies

Small Business Economics volume 47, pages1075–1094(2016)Cite this article

Abstract

High-growth firms (HCF) represent a highly desirable subset of firms, which provide disproportionate economic gains, and greater insight into their determinants which is of interest to policymakers, scholars and business owners. We contribute to the literature on HGFs, which is largely absent of cross-national institutional studies, by examining the institutional conditions driving HGFs in 26 transition countries over a long period comprising three panels between 1998 and 2009. Using an institutional hierarchy approach, we test for the influence of formal and informal institutions on HGF prevalence in countries. Our analysis relies first on a principal component analysis to identify institutional factors. Second, we use GLS estimation to test the influence of these three factors on HGF prevalence in a country, followed by a robustness check. Our results show that interaction effects, rather than direct effects, are useful in explaining systematic variations in HGFs prevalence in transition economies. We find that the interaction between formal and informal institutions positively influences HGFs. Further, we find that in fast-reforming transition economies, more burdensome formal institutions discourage HGFs but in slow-reforming transition economies, informal institutions encourage HGFs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    The question of HGFs is distinct from two parallel but relevant streams of research. One stream is an established literature on antecedents and drivers of firm growth, broadly speaking (Peev 2015; Baum and Locke 2004; Baum et al. 2001) and not specifically on rapidly growing firms. HGFs are special because they generate disproportionate economic gains (Moreno and Coad 2015). The second stream is on growth aspirations of entrepreneurs (Estrin et al. 2013; Tominc and Rebernik 2007) or managers (Wiklund et al. 2003). This nascent stream in the entrepreneurship literature has recently examined the drivers of cross-national differences in entrepreneurial growth aspirations, e.g., institutional drivers like intellectual property rights (Autio and Acs 2010), corruption and property rights (Estrin et al. 2013), or cultural and personal factors (Tominc and Rebernik 2007). This question asks what shapes intentions to grow, but it does not apply to real growth (Autio and Acs 2010). As noted by Wiklund and Shepherd (2003), aspiring to grow does reflect actual growth. Growth aspirations are a “best guess” and likely optimistic (Autio and Acs 2010). In other words, just because a firm wants to grow does not mean it will grow. Studying HGFs has the advantage that these firms have already proven they can achieve growth.

  2. 2.

    The exception is the control variable logarithm GDP growth, for economic growth. This variable should be interpreted with caution. All other variables did not change statistical significance and sign.

  3. 3.

    Finding a way to measure “growth” is conceptually challenging (Penrose 1959). There is no standard definition or measurement of “high-growth” firms (Delmar et al. 2003), contributing to a lack of research on the subject (Henrekson and Johansson 2010). Measures of firm growth have focused on an increase in volume of a certain firm dynamic, typically sales or employment.

  4. 4.

    Zeger and Liang (1986) suggest a random effect equivalent GEE model has an advantage over fixed-effect model because estimates for variance of regression coefficients are consistent, even though assumed correlations are not correctly specified. The panel component for the 3-year period is short and would not allow fixed-effect model, as losing within-country variation would be rather imprecise (Allison 2005; Sine et al. 2006). There was especially little variation of institutional variables; in fact, inclusion of institutional variables was critical in rejecting fixed effect using Hausman test. Random model captures more cross-national variation; GEE is particularly germane here.

  5. 5.

    Taylor (1980) showed that for T ≥ 3 and (N − K) ≥ 9, where T is the number of time series data, N is the number of cross sectional units and K is the number of regressors, the statement holds.

  6. 6.

    We used normal distribution and skewness test (sktest command in STATA 11) to test for normality of our dependent and independent variables. High p values (0.19 for our dependent variables >0.05) are insignificant; therefore, we cannot reject the hypothesis of normal distribution.

  7. 7.

    Coefficients in random effect models are estimated for a hypothetical unit (individual) where random effect is zero, but the population-average model presents coefficients averaged for the full sample. The models make different assumptions about underlying distribution of random effects and are oriented to different research aims. Random (and mixed) effects models like GLS are more appropriate for describing how effects of level 1 predictors vary across level 2 units. Population-averaged models, in contrast, give answers to population-averaged questions; in other words, they are more appropriate for predicting about the whole population. Population-averaged inferences are based on fewer assumptions than random effect models and more robust if erroneous assumptions about random effects in the model. Both GLS and GEE allow for the inclusion of time-invariant variables.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Verdier, T. (2000). The choice between market failures and corruption. American Economic Review, 90(1), 194–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. (2008a). What does entrepreneurship data really show? Small Business Economics, 31(3), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Acs, Z., & Kallas, K. (2008). State of literature on small- to medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurship in low-income communities. In G. Yago, J. Barth, & B. Zeidman (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in emerging domestic markets (Vol. 7, pp. 21–45). Milken Institute Series on Financial Innovation and Economic Growth: Santa Monica.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acs, Z. J., & Mueller, P. (2008). Employment effects of business dynamics: Mice, gazelles and elephants. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Acs, Z., Parsons, W., & Tracy, S. (2008b). High-impact firms: Gazelles’ revisited,” manuscript, SBA reports, SBA office of advocacy, Washington D.C.

  6. Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2010). Rapid institutional shifts and the co-evolution of entrepreneurial firms in transition economies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 531–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 656–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. M. (2012). Size matters: Entrepreneurial entry and government. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aidis, R., & van Praag, M. (2007). Illegal entrepreneurship experience: Does it make a difference for business performance and motivation? Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 283–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Allison, P. (2005). Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Amaral, M., & Iglesias, J. (2015). High-growth firms: A research agenda, presented at IN + 2015 annual meeting and external review, June 16. http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/docs/external_review_meeting2015/18-IN-HighGrowthFirms-Miguel-Amaral.pdf.

  12. Audretsch, D. B., Belitski, M., & Desai, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship and economic development in cities. The Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Audretsch, D., & Dohse, D. (2007). Location: A neglected determinant of firm growth. Review of World Economics, 143(1), 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Audretsch, D. B., Heger, D., & Veith, T. (2015b). Infrastructure and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 44(2), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Autio, E. (2007). Global entrepreneurship monitor report on high-growth entrepreneurship, GEM Global Reports. London: GERA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Autio, E. (2009). The Finnish paradox: The curious absence of high-growth entrepreneurship in Finland (No. 1197). ETLA discussion paper.

  17. Autio, E., & Acs, Z. (2010). Intellectual property protection and the formation of entrepreneurial growth aspirations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(3), 234–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Autio, E., & Fu, K. (2015). Economic and political institutions and entry into formal and informal entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ballinger, G. (2004). Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baum, J., & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baum, J., Locke, E., & Smith, K. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2005). Financial and legal constraints to growth: Does firm size matter? Journal of Finance, 60(1), 137–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2008). Financing patterns around the world: Are small firms different? Journal of Financial Economics, 89(3), 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Belitski, M., Chowdhury, F., & Desai, S. (2016). Taxes, corruption, and entry. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Birch, D., Haggerty, A., & Parsons, W. (1997). Who’s creating jobs?. Cambridge: Cognetics.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bogas, P., & Barbosa, N. (2013). High-growth firms: What is the impact of region-specific characteristics?” NIPE working paper 19/2013.

  28. Bornhäll, A., Daunfeldt, S. O., & Rudholm, N. (2015). Sleeping gazelles: The unseen job creators? In J. Katz & A. Corbett (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Growth: Individual, Firm, and Region (pp. 161–185). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  29. Bos, J., & Stam, E. (2014). Gazelles and industry growth: A study of young high-growth firms in The Netherlands. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 145–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., Van Praag, M., & Verheul, I. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 410–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bravo-Boscia, A., Criscuolo, C., & Menon, C. (2013). What drives the dynamics of business growth? OECD science, technology and industry paper 1, April 4.

  32. Brown, J., Earle, J., & Lup, D. (2005). What makes small firms grow? Finance, human capital, technical assistance, and the business environment in Romania. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(1), 33–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bruton, G., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Busenitz, L., West, G, I. I. I., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carlin, W., Fries, S., Schaffer, M., & Seabright, P. (2001). Competition and enterprise performance in transition economies, EBRD working paper 63.

  36. Cassar, G. (2006). Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 610–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cassono, F., Joeveer, K., & Svejnar, J. (2013). Cash flow vs. collateral-based credit. Economics of Transition, 21(2), 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chan, Y., Bhargava, N., & Street, C. (2006). Having arrived: The homogeneity of high-growth small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 426–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clark, E., & Soulsby, A. (2005). Organizational change in post-communist Europe: Management and transformation in the Czech Republic. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Coad, A. (2009). The growth of firms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Coad, A., Daunfeldt, S., Hölzl, W., Johansson, D., & Nightingale, P. (2014). High-growth firms: Introduction to the special section. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Coad, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Innovation and firm growth in high-tech sectors: A quantile regression approach. Research Policy, 37, 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quartaro, F. (2014). High-growth firms and technological knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 261–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Conceptual and empirical challenges in the study of firm growth. Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms, 1, 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Daunfeldt, S. O., Elert, N., & Johansson, D. (2015). Are high-growth firms overrepresented in high-tech industries? Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2006). Does experience matter? The effect of founding team experience on the survival and sales of newly founded ventures. Strategic Organization, 4(3), 215–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Demirgüc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L. F., & Panos, G. A. (2011). Entrepreneurship in post-conflict transition1. Economics of Transition, 19(1), 27–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Desai, S., Acs, Z., & Weitzel, U. (2013). A model of destructive entrepreneurship: Insight for conflict and postconflict recovery. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(1), 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Desai, S., & Motoyama, Y. (2015). The regional environment: Indianapolis-insights from high-growth companies. Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship.

  52. Deschryvere, M. (2008). High-growth firms and job-creation in Finland. Discussion paper 1144, Heslinki: ETLA.

  53. Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Do, Q., & Levchenko, A. (2009). Trade, inequality and the political economy of institutions. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(4), 1489–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Du, J., & Temouri, Y. (2015). High-growth firms and productivity: Evidence from the United Kingdom. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Dutta, N., & Sobel, R. (2016). Does corruption ever help entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 47(1), 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2013). Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 564–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship in transition economies: The role of institutions and generational change. IZA discussion papers 4805, Bonn: IZA.

  59. European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Various years: Transition Report. London: EBRD.

  60. European Commission. (2014). European competitiveness report: Helping firms grow. Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission.

  61. Eurostat, O.E.C.D. (2007). Eurostat-OECD manual on business demography statistics.

  62. Falkenhall, B., & Junkka, F. (2009). High-growth firms in Sweden 1997–2007: Characteristics and development patterns. Stockholm: Report, Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis.

  63. Fogel, K. (2006). Oligarchic family control, social economic outcomes, and the quality of government. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Fries, S., Lysenko, T., & Polanec, S. (2007). The business environment and enterprise performance in transition: Evidence from a large-scale survey. ABCDE. In F. Bourguignon, P. Jacquet, & B. Pleskovic (Eds.), Economic Integration and Social Responsibility (p. 245). Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Garcia, P., & Puente, S. (2012). What makes a high-growth firm? A dynamic probit analysis using Spanish firm-level data. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 1029–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Goedhuys, M., & Sleuwagen, L. (2010). High-growth entrepreneurial firms in Africa: A quantile regression approach. Small Business Economics, 34(1), 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Goedhuys, M., & Veugelers, R. (2012). Innovation strategies, process and product innovations and growth: Firm-level evidence from Brazil. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4), 516–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Gui, H., Xu, E., & Jacobs, M. (2014). Managerial political ties and firm performance during institutional transitions. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Harrison, R., Jaumandreu, J., Mairesse, J., & Peters, B. (2008). Does Innovation stimulate employment? A firm-level analysis using comparable micro-data from four European Countries. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Hashi, I., & Krasniqi, B. (2011). Entrepreneurship and SME growth: Evidence from advanced and laggard transition economies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 17(5), 456–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2008). Competencies and institutions fostering high-growth firms. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 1–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hölzl, W. (2009). Is the R&D behavior of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hölzl, W. (2011). Peristence, survival and growth: A closer look at 20 years of high growth firms and firm dynamics in Austria. Working paper 403, WIFO.

  75. Horton, N. J., & Lipsitz, S. R. (1999). Review of software to fit generalized estimating equation regression models. The American Statistician, 53(2), 160–169.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Johnson, S., Boone, P., Breach, A., & Friedman, E. (2000). Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1), 141–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Klapper, L., Amit, R., & Guillén, M. F. (2010). Entrepreneurship and firm formation across Countries. In J. Lerner & A. Schoar (Eds.), International differences in entrepreneurship (pp. 129–158). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Klapper, L., Laeven, L., & Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 591–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Krasniqi, B. (2007). Barriers to entrepreneurship and SME growth in transition: The case of Kosova. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Krasniqi, B. (2012). Building an expanded small firm growth model in a transitional economy: Evidence on fast growing firms. Journal of East-West Business, 18(3), 231–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Krasniqi, B., & Mustafa. M. (2016). Small firm growth in a post-conflict environment: The role of human capital, institutional quality, and managerial capacities, International Entrepreneurship and Management (forthcoming).

  84. Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: External relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Lee, N. (2014). What holds back high-growth firms? Evidence from UK SMEs. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2011). Regulatory burden, rule of law, and entry of strategic entrepreneurs: An international panel study. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1392–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Liang, K., & Zeger, S. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. LiPuma, J., Newbert, S., & Doh, J. (2013). The effect of institutional quality on firm export performance in emerging economies: A contingency model of firm age and size. Small Business Economics, 40(4), 817–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Littunen, H., & Tohmo, T. (2003). The high growth in new metal-based manufacturing and business service firms in Finland. Small Business Economics, 21(2), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. McMillan, J., & Woodruff, C. (2002). The central role of entrepreneurs in transition economies. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Manolova, T., & Yan, A. (2002). Institutional constraints and strategic responses of new and small firms in a transforming economy: The case of Bulgaria. International Small Business Journal, 20(2), 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2010). High growth firms in Scotland. Research report, Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise.

  93. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013). Creating good public policy to support high growth firms. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Méon, P.G., & Sekkat, K. (2005). Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice, 122(1–2), 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Meon, P., & Weill, L. (2008). Is corruption an efficient grease. World Development, 38(3), 244–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Mohr, V., Garnsey, E., & Theyel, G. (2014). The role of alliances in the early development of high-growth firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 233–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Moreno, A., & Casillas, J. (2007). High-growth SMEs versus non-high-growth SMEs: A discriminant analysis. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Moreno, F., & Coad, A. (2015). High-growth firms: Stylized facts and conflicting results. In J. Katz & A. Corbett (Eds.), Entrepreneurship Growth: Individual, Firm, and Region (pp. 187–230). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  100. Nightingale, P., & Coad, A. (2014). Muppets and gazelles: Political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(1), 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. North, D. C. (1995). The new institutional economics and third world development. In J. Harriss, J. Hunter & C. M. Lewis (Eds.), The new institutional economics and third world development (Vol. 21). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  103. OECD. (2011). Financing high-growth firms: The role of angel investors, OECD DSTI Policy Brief, Paris: OECD.

  104. OECD. (2013). What drives the dynamics of business growth? OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 1. Paris: OECD.

  105. Parker, S. C., Storey, D. J., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Parsley, C., & Halabisky, D. (2008). Profile of growth firms: A summary of Industry Canada Research, Industry Canada, Small Business Research and Statistics, report.

  107. Peev, E. (2015). Institutions, economic liberalization and firm growth: Evidence from European transition economies. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(1), 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Peng, M. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Peng, M., & Heath, P. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 492–528.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Penrose, E. (1959). Theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Phan, P. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 617–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Raiser, M., Rousso, A., Steves, F., & Teksoz, U. (2008). Trust in transition: Cross-Country and firm evidence. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 24(2), 407–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Rauch, A., & Rijsdijk, S. (2013). The effects of general and specific human capital on long-term growth and failure of newly founded businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(4), 923–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., & Chin, N. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. STATA. (2013). Stata longitudinal-data/panel-data reference manual: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Schendel, D., & Hitt, M. (2007). Introduction to volume 1. Strategic Entrepreneurship Research, 1, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Schreyer, P. (2000). High-growth firms and employment, OECD science, technology and industry working papers, 2000/3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Siepel, J., Cowling, M., & Coad, A. (2015). Long-run drivers of growth for UK high-technology firms. Advances in Entrepreneurship: Firm Emergence and Growth. In J. Katz & A. Corbett (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Growth: Individual, Firm, and Region (pp. 95–126). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  121. Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting burns and stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Smallbone, D., & Welter, D. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. Small Business Economics, 16(4), 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship and institutional change in transition economies: The Commonwealth of Independent States, Central and Eastern Europe and China compared. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(3–4), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Stam, E., & van Stel, A. (2011). Types of entrepreneurship and economic growth. In M. Goedhuys, W. Naude, & E. Szirmai (Eds.), Innovation, entrepreneurship and economic development (pp. 78–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Stam, E., & Wennberg, K. (2010). The roles of R&D in new firm growth. Small Business Economics, 33, 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Stenholm, P., Acs, Z., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Taylor, W. E. (1980). Small sample considerations in estimation from panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 13(2), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Teruel, M., & De Wit, G. (2011). Determinants of high-growth firms: Why have some countries more high-growth firms than others? IME research report H201107.

  131. Thai, M. T. T., & Turkina, E. (2014). Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 490–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Tominc, P., & Rebernik, M. (2007). Growth aspirations and cultural support for entrepreneurship: A comparison of Post-socialist countries. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Tonoyan, V., Strohmeyer, R., Habib, M., & Perlitz, M. (2010). Corruption and entrepreneurship: How formal and informal institutions shape firm behavior in transition and mature market economies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 803–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime. (2010). World drug report 2010. New York: United Nations Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Verheul, I., van Stel, A., & Thurik, E. (2006). Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at the country level. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(2), 151–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on entrepreneurial behavior in challenging environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Delmar, F. (2003). What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1919–1941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Williamson, O. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Wooldridge, J. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. 5th edn. Nelson Education.

  141. Xheneti, M., & Bartlett, W. (2012). Institutional constraints and SME growth in post-communist Albania. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(4), 607–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Zeger, S. L., & Liang, K. Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42(1), 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Zorn, C. (2001). Generalizing estimating equations models for correlated data: A review with applications. American Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 470–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Besnik Krasniqi thanks the US State Department Fulbright program for support in Fall 2014 for time at Indiana University, as well as staff at the Institute for Development Strategies. We thank David Audretsch and Diemo Urbig for helpful discussion.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Kosovo

    Besnik A. Krasniqi

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Sameeksha Desai

Authors
  1. Besnik A. Krasniqi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sameeksha Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Besnik A. Krasniqi.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krasniqi, B.A., Desai, S. Institutional drivers of high-growth firms: country-level evidence from 26 transition economies. Small Bus Econ 47, 1075–1094 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9736-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • High-growth firms
  • Institutions
  • Transition
  • Formal
  • Informal

JEL Classifications

  • L26
  • O25
  • P2
  • P3