This paper analyzes the importance of individual and place characteristics on the selection into self-employment in Chile. Following a structural and multilevel empirical approach, we test whether both sets of variables explain the variation of individual wages, self-employed earnings, and the propensity of being in independent work. The results indicate that while most of the variation in these three outcomes is explained by individuals’ traits, place-related variables account for a non-negligible share of spatial variation. Second, as suggested by occupational choice theories, the propensity of being in self-employment positively correlates with larger expected earning differentials, but only in the case of employers. This, along with other results, suggests that while employers seem to choose their occupational status, own accounts in Chile seem to respond to factors pushing them into self-employment.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for several comments about the importance of non-pecuniary motivations on the propensity to be in self-employment, which motivated a generalization of the utility functions and therefore of the empirical model.
The specific variable in CASEN (YOPRAJ) includes expenses such as discounts due to loan payments, labor union membership fees, or voluntary contributions to pension funds. On the contrary, it excludes legal discounts for social security, pension funds, and income taxes and also excludes exceptional bonuses and other allowances.
We also used the more theoretically-grounded Market Potential Function by Hanson (2005). Results did not change in any meaningful way.
As suggested by an SBE reviewer, we fitted models including interaction terms between the gender variable and the other regressors, in order to capture gender differences in marginal returns. The results indicate that the rate of return of schooling (and mean municipal schooling) is larger for women in salaried work, whereas the opposite is true for the apparent experience variable. The results are available upon request.
We also fitted the model with the Hanson’s (2005) NEG market potential function and the results are virtually the same.
The model including gender interaction terms indicated that the marginal rate of return of individual schooling and apparent experience is lower for women in self-employment, but the coefficient for municipal average schooling is not significant. Results available upon request.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for making this observation.
An LR test based on the estimation of a random-slope multilevel model rejects a uniform coefficient for this variable across Chilean comunas (chi2 with 1 d.f. = 12.13). The coefficients of the random slope model are very similar to those reported in column (3) of Table 3. The complete output is available upon request. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting a formal test of a spatially varying effect of this variable.
The estimated coefficient is, in this case, very close to zero (0.007) and highly not significant (p value = 0.743; output available upon request). Moreover, it is contained in the 95% confidence interval of the parameter in Table 3 (−0.627; 0.075). We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this robustness check.
A model including interactions of the gender dummy with the other regressors indicate that the coefficient for the apparent experience variable is larger for women, whereas it is smaller for the variable of specific experience. The results are not reported but are available upon request.
This illustration was included following the suggestion by a reviewer to whom we are grateful.
The LR test based on the random slope model was unable to reject the hypothesis of a constant coefficient for the predicted earning differential across space in the case of employers (chi2 with 1 d.f. = 1.49) but rejects it for the own-account self-employed (chi2 with 1 d.f. = 5.97). The outputs are available upon request.
In this case, the coefficient for the alternative earnings differential is 1.45 (p value < 0.001) for employers and −0.140 (p value < 0.001) for own-accounts. In both cases, the coefficient for the alternative earning differentials is contained in the 95% confidence interval of the coefficient in Table 6 ([0.153; 1.733] for employers and [−0.706; −0.060] for own-accounts). Outputs available upon request.
For a discussion on these alternative theories, see Packard (2007).
These limitations of the empirical analysis were remarked by an anonymous reviewer to whom we are grateful.
Acs, Z. J., & Amorós, J. E. (2008). Entrepreneurship and competitiveness dynamics in Latin America. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 305–322. doi:10.1007/s11187-008-9133-y.
Amorós, J. E., & Acha, A. (2014). Global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM): Reporte Nacional de Chile 2013. Santiago de Chile: Universidad del Desarrollo.
Andersson, M., & Koster, S. (2011). Sources of persistence in regional start-up rates—evidence from Sweden. Journal of Economic Geography, 11, 179–201. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbp069.
Audretsch, D. B., & Fritsch, M. (1994). The geography of firm births in Germany. Regional Studies, 28(4), 359–365. doi:10.1080/00343409412331348326.
Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship and regional growth: an evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 605–616. doi:10.1007/s00191-004-0228-6.
Benhabib, J., Rogerson, R., & Wright, R. (1991). Homework in macroeconomics: household production and aggregate fluctuations. Journal of Political Economy, 99(6), 1166–1187. doi:10.1086/261796.
Behrens, K., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2015). Agglomeration theory with heterogeneous agents. In G. Duranton, V. Henderson, & W. Strange (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. Volume 5A, pp. 171–246). North Holland: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-59517-1.00004-0.
Beugelsdijk, S. (2007). Entrepreneurial culture, regional innovativeness and economic growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17, 187–210. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0048-y.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 26–60. doi:10.1086/209881.
Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of social capital investments for the business performance of start-ups. Small Business Economics, 23, 227–223. doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000032032.21192.72.
Bullen, N., Jones, K., & Duncan, C. (1997). Modelling complexity: analysing between-individual and between-place variation—a multilevel tutorial. Environment and Planning A, 29(4), 585–609. doi:10.1068/a290585.
Callejón, M., & Segarra, A. (1999). Business dynamics and efficiency in industries and regions. Small Business Economics, 13, 253–271. doi:10.1023/A:1008015317323.
Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2003). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/0-387-24519-7_17.
Choi, Y. R., & Phan, P. H. (2006). The influences of economic and technology policy on the dynamics of new firm formation. Small Business Economics, 26, 493–503. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5989-2.
Ciccone, A., & Hall, R. E. (1996). Productivity and the density of economic activity. American Economic Review, 86, 54–70. doi:10.3386/w4313.
Contreras, D., & Plaza, G. (2010). Cultural factors in women's labor force participation in Chile. Feminist Economics, 16(2), 27–46. doi:10.1080/13545701003731815.
Durand, D., & Shea, D. (1974). Entrepreneurial activity as a function of achievement motivation and reinforcement control. Journal of Psychology, 88, 57–63. doi:10.1080/00223980.1974.9915713.
Earle, J. S., & Sakova, Z. (2000). Business start-ups or disguised unemployment? Evidence on the character of self-employment from transition economies. Labor Economics, 7, 575–601. doi:10.1016/S0927-5371(00)00014-2.
Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79(3), 519–535. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7854-7_6.
Fritsch, M., & Mueller, P. (2007). The persistence of regional new business formation activity over time – assessing the potential of policy promotion programs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17, 299–315. doi:10.1007/s00191-007-0056-6.
Gilbert, B. A., Audretsch, D. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2004). The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Small Business Economics, 22(3–4), 313–323. doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022235.10739.a8.
Glaeser, E., Kerr, W., & Ponzetto, G. (2010). Clusters of entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 150–168. doi:10.3386/w15377.
Goetz, S. J., & Rupasingha, A. (2009). Determinants of growth in non-farm proprietor densities in the US, 1990-2000. Small Business Economics, 32, 425–438. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9079-5.
Hamilton, B. H. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 705(3), 604–631. doi:10.1086/262131.
Hanson, G. (2005). Market potential, increasing returns, and geographic concentration. Journal of International Economics, 67(1), 1–24. doi:10.3386/w6429.
Harris, C.D. (1954). The market as a factor in the localization of industry in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44, 315–48.
Hundley, G. (2001). Why women earn less than men in self-employment. Journal of Labor Research, 22(4), 817–829. doi:10.1007/s12122-001-1054-3.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499. doi:10.3386/w3275.
Langowitz, N., & Minniti, M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 341–364. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00177.x.
Lazear, E. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 649–680. doi:10.1086/491605.
Lederman, D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S., & Rigolin, J. (2014). Latin America entrepreneur. Many firms but little innovation. Washington DC: The World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0284-3.
Low, S. A., & Weiler, S. (2012). Employment risk, returns, and entrepreneurship. Economic Development Quarterly, 26(3), 238–251. doi:10.1177/0891242412452445.
Lucas, R. E. (1978). On the size distribution of business firms. Bell Journal of Economics, 9, 508–523. doi:10.2307/3003596.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389–392. doi:10.1037/h0021956.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
Michelacci, C., & Silva, O. (2007). Why some many local entrepreneurs? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 615–633. doi:10.1162/rest.89.4.615.
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience and earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Modrego, F., McCann, P., Foster, W. E., & Olfert, M. R. (2015). Regional entrepreneurship and innovation in Chile: a knowledge matching approach. Small Business Economics, 44, 685–703. doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9612-2.
Montenegro, C. (2001). Wage distribution in Chile: does gender matter? A quantile regressions approach. Working paper series no. 20. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Naudé, W. A., Gries, T., Wood, E., & Meintjes, A. (2008). Regional determinants of entrepreneurial start-ups in a developing country. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20(2), 111–124. doi:10.1080/08985620701631498.
Ñopo, H. J. (2006). The gender wage gap in Chile 1992–2003 from a matching comparisons perspective. Research department working paper 562. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Olfert, R., Partridge, M., Berdegué, J., Escobal, J., Jara, B., & Modrego, F. (2014). Places for place-based policies. Development Policy Review, 32(1), 5–32. doi:10.1111/dpr.12041.
Packard, TG (2007) Do workers in Chile choose informal employment? A dynamic analysis of sector choice. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4232.
Paredes, D. (2013). The role of human capital, market potential and natural amenities in understanding spatial wage disparities in Chile. Spatial Economic Analysis, 8(2), 154–175. doi:10.1080/17421772.2013.774094.
Parker, S. C. (2005a). Explaining regional variations in entrepreneurship as multiple equilibria. Journal of Regional Science, 45(4), 829–850. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4146.2005.00394.x.
Parker, S. C. (2005b). The economics of entrepreneurship: what we know and what we don’t. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–54. doi:10.1561/0300000001.
Parker, S. C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511817441.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. STATA press. doi:10.1002/sim.3225.
Redding, S., & Venables, A. (2004). Economic geography and international inequality. Journal of International Economics, 62, 53–82. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2003.07.001.
Rees, H., & Shah, A. (1986). An empirical analysis of self-employment in the U.K. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1, 95–108. doi:10.1002/jae.3950010107.
Reynolds, P., Hay, M., Bygrave, W. D., Camp, S. M., & Autio, E. (2000). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: executive report. Kansas City, KS: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Reynolds, P. D., Miller, B., & Maki, W. R. (1995). Explaining regional variation in business births and deaths: U.S. 1976-88. Small Business Economics, 7, 389–407. doi:10.1007/BF01302739.
Roback, J. (1982). Wages, rents, and the quality of life. Journal of Political Economy, 90, 1257–1278. doi:10.1086/261120.
Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2001). The determinants of agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(2), 191–229. doi:10.1006/juec.2001.2230.
Sato, Y., Tabuchi, T., & Yamamoto, K. (2012). Market size and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 1139–1166. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbr035.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Soto, R., & Torche, A. (2004). Spatial inequality, migration and economic growth in Chile. Latin American Journal of Economics, 41, 401–424 http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-68212004012400005.
Szerb, L., & Acs, Z. J. (2012). The global entrepreneurship and development index. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.
van der Panne, G. (2004). Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 593–604. doi:10.1007/s00191-004-0232-x.
van Praag, M., & Cramer, S. (2001). The roots of entrepreneurship and labour demand: individual ability and low risk aversion. Economica, 68(269), 45–62. doi:10.1111/1468-0335.00232.
Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-1994-8.
The authors want to thank SBEJ Associate Editor, Dr. Michael Fritsch, two anonymous reviewers, Miguel Atienza, and participants at the PRSCO conference 2015 for their helpful comments and suggestions. Juan Alberto Palomino provided excellent research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies. The National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research of Chile (CONICYT) supported this work under grant [FONDECYT 1130356].
About this article
Cite this article
Modrego, F., Paredes, D. & Romaní, G. Individual and place-based drivers of self-employment in Chile. Small Bus Econ 49, 469–492 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9841-2
- Occupational choice
- Human capital
- Location theories