1 Introduction

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the formerly centrally planned countries across Eastern Europe and Asia transitioned into liberal market economies. However, their socialist legacy has persisted in terms of shaping people’s values and attitudes toward an entrepreneurial mindset and behavior (Ockenfels and Weimann 1999). This legacy involves existing formal institutions (e.g., rules and regulations or legal frameworks) as well as informal institutions (e.g., norms and values, conventions, and codes of conduct).

Research on the connections between this socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship has increased to the point of forming a new, dynamic, and rapidly growing field of research. The existing studies have generated a wealth of interesting insights on the relationship of individual attitudes toward entrepreneurship activities in post-socialist economies (Fritsch 2004; Fritsch et al. 2014; Hayton et al. 2002). For example, the socialist legacy might influence the mindset of people with long experience under the regime, including a lower preference for self-control, autonomy, and mastery (Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). Those with this kind of psychological mindset are found to be less likely to invest in social networks (Bönisch and Schneider 2013), less willing to attain new knowledge and experience from entrepreneurial role models (Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Wyrwich et al. 2016), and less likely to become involved in entrepreneurial activities.

Despite its recent development, the research field remains largely unorganized and full of conflict, making it challenging to take stock of the literature systematically. The diversity of research questions, theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and emerging findings adds richness but, at the same time, leads to fragmentation in the literature. Furthermore, the field spans several disciplines (management sciences, sociology, economics, etc.) and therefore is largely shaped by diverse underlying assumptions, academic discourses, and potential biases. This combination of shortcomings indicates the need for an as-yet absent systematic literature review that reveals major patterns and maps out potential academic conversations in the literature without subjective bias.

How can the research concerning the legacy of socialism, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship be characterized? Which subfields have been identified in the literature and require further investigation? By addressing these questions, we explore the evolution and internal structure of the field while also suggesting an agenda for future studies.

By combining three relational bibliometric techniques (citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis) and qualitative content analysis in this review, we employ a novel methodological approach. These specific methods are frequently used in management research (e.g., van Oorschot et al. 2018), but they have rarely been used together, especially in the entrepreneurship context. This methodological fusion enables a better understanding of the internal structure and arguments of the field.

We make two contributions to the literature. First, we explore the key trends, patterns, and relational knowledge structures in the literature. We find several encouraging developments in the literature since 2007, a wide range of research questions that have been addressed, and dispersion of the field across different academic disciplines. We also reveal the most impactful authors (e.g., Welter, Smallbone), foundational publications, and influential outlets (e.g., Journal of Business Venturing) in the research field since its beginning. Our review shows that distinct yet related conversations are taking place in the literature—including those on corruption and institutions, entrepreneurialism and economics, social capital and culture, education, personal characteristics, and business environment—and each focuses on a set of research questions and topics of interest.

Second, our review highlights under-researched areas that deserve more scholarly attention in the future. Our study reveals a lack of empirical research on the legacy of socialism and individual perceptions of entrepreneurship. Thus, scholars should consider these research gaps when conducting empirical investigations, and many promising further research avenues exist, particularly in the context of developing countries. The literature should move beyond the bias of a European context in theorizing and empirical analysis on a longer-term, deeper investigation of the mechanisms in which the socialist legacy influenced individual attitudes toward different kinds of entrepreneurial activity.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces and justifies the methodology applied in the review. Next, we present the main findings highlighting the critical trend, patterns, internally structured subfields, and meanings. Subsequently, before concluding, we discuss a future research agenda.

2 Methodology

This study applies bibliometric analysis to address the research questions. Bibliometric study, sometimes also called “scientometric” (Cobo et al. 2011) or “science mapping” study (Leydesdorff 1987), is a specific variant of the systematic review methodology (SLR) that has been widely used in management, innovation, and entrepreneurship scholarship in recent years (Zupic and Čater 2015).

Unlike traditional forms of SLR, which may be biased toward researchers’ interpretations (Tranfield et al. 2003), bibliometric analysis is methodologically rigorous and objective because it employs a quantitative/science approach and statistical techniques (e.g., citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling) to examine the bibliographic data of published literature. It also allows researchers to map the structure of a research field and its development even before reading the related publications by identifying links/thematic clusters in the literature and visualizing these newly emerging networks/themes in a structural order using software without subjective bias (Zupic and Čater 2015).

Following guidance by Block and Fisch (2020) and Tranfield et al. (2003), this study adopts a three-stage review process, that consists of (1) developing a searching strategy, (2) data collection, and (3) analysis, visualization, and reporting. Figure 1 illustrates the overall process.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research strategy and process

Full size image

2.1 Stage 1: Developing a search strategy

Stage 1 identifies the search terms and the database. The objective is to cover the broadest range of research on the interrelationship of entrepreneurship, a socialist legacy, and individual attitudes in the most systematic and reproducible manner.

2.1.1 Step 1: Identification of search terms

To mitigate the risk of subjective selection bias, keywords for our search are borrowed from most-cited research in the field. For instance, the keywords “post-communist,” “entrepreneurship,” and “transition economy” are included because they were mentioned several times in past studies (Fritsch et al. 2014; Sztompka 1996; Wyrwich 2013a) while also allowing for variations in spelling. One external expert then revises the keywords.

In the end, we have 15 keywords representing the socialist legacy theme, 6 for the attitude theme, and 7 for entrepreneurship. As a result, we generate 630 combinations of keywords (15 × 6 × 7) for identifying relevant articles. These keyword combinations enable us to cover the literature scope broadly and minimize the risk of missing critical papers, which could result in misleading interpretations of the state of knowledge (Kovacs et al. 2015). The details are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Keywords used to identify relevant articles
Full size table

2.1.2 Step 2: Identification of the database

The Scopus database is chosen as the only database for the SLR for several reasons. The first is that, in comparison to other major high-end databases, such as ProQuest, Science Direct, and the Web of Science, Scopus covers a broader range of scholarly journals of high quality across different disciplines and offers richer bibliometric and citation data, essential ingredients for a bibliometric analysis (Block and Fisch 2020). Most importantly, data retrieved from the Scopus database are closely aligned with VOSviewer, the software we use later in our bibliometric analysis.

2.2 Stage 2: Data collection

This stage involves defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviewing and retrieving the final sample in our analysis. The details are specified in Table 2. First, to cover the most up-to-date work, we include publications from 1990 to 2020. We use 1990 as a starting point because the post-socialist era began after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (Adam-Müller et al. 2015; Fritsch et al. 2014; Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Wyrwich 2013a). Second, journal articles are considered only because of the academic and confirmed knowledge in them (Podsakoff et al. 2005). In comparison, books, book chapters, reports, and conference papers are all excluded because of the variability in the peer-review process and their more restricted availability (Jones et al. 2011). We consider only empirical scholarship in English with search terms in the title, abstract, or keywords. The search yields 282 records, as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria for search strings
Full size table

Next, we omit four papers that were mistakenly included in the retrieved dataset because of system errors in the search. The abstracts in the remaining articles are reviewed individually to ensure that the scholarship focuses on the intersection of entrepreneurship, a socialist legacy, and attitudes. If a conflict arises over whether a paper should be included, all the authors read the entire paper and then make a final determination. This process identified 142 articles that do not focus on our main research objectives and are therefore eliminated. Thus, the final sample comprises 136 papers.

2.3 Stage 3: Data analysis, visualization, and reporting

These 136 records in the final sample are first used to map the research field. In particular, the trends, patterns, and internal structure of the research stream are examined based on the number of publications per year in 1990–2020 and a content analysis of abstracts. Citation analysis also reveals the top relatively influential authors, journals, and scholarship in the area examined. Citation metrics are widely accepted as reliable and legitimate for the research impact if adequately used (Block and Fisch 2020; Garfield 1979). High citation rates often correlate with scientific excellence and importance. Citation scores are retrieved from Google Scholars.

Co-occurrence and co-citation analyses are conducted with the dataset to reveal the internal knowledge structure of the research field because they allow researchers to objectively group relevant documents, authors, or journals based on the original author’s ideas (e.g., authors cite publications that they consider the most relevant to their work) (Zupic and Čater 2015). First, we use VOSviewer software to construct and illustrate a bibliometric mapping because it is better at creating graphical representations of the maps than the other programs available. This makes it more useful for illustrating complex research fields and creating practical interpretation (Cobo et al. 2011). Second, VOSviewer is strongly aligned with the dataset obtained from Scopus. New subgroups that emerged because of the analysis are labeled based on content within the subgroup, following Skute et al. (2019) and Block and Fisch (2020).

3 Main results

3.1 Mapping the research field

3.1.1 Evolution of the research field

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the research field concerning the interrelationship among socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship, based on the number of articles published over the period 1990 to 2020. In summary, after 30 years of development, the research stream has grown in the number of publications but is still considered nascent.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of articles by year of publication

Full size image

The first article appeared in 1992. In the following years (1992–2006), the research field was limited (26 papers, an average of 1.8 articles a year). Other than a decline in 2011, since 2007, the number increased considerably, resulting in a total of 110 papers over the period 2007–2020, an average of 7.8 articles per year. In 2010 and 2017, 11 articles were published, the highest number. Notably, approximately 45% were published from the second half of 2014 to 2020.

3.1.2 Influential journals in the area

The citation analysis indicates that the field consists of 18 top journals in which at least two articles were published. The Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development is one of the leading journals, with seven studies and 579 citations in Google Scholar. Meanwhile, the The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business published four papers but received a minimal number of citations (55 citations in Google Scholar). Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Communities, and Small Business Economics each had three citations. Notably, Small Business Economics had the highest number of citations, with 1,148 times per Google Scholar. Table 3 summarizes the results.

Table 3 Top 18 journals according to the impact factor, Scopus cite-score, number of articles, and citations
Full size table

Another indicator of the journal’s quality is the impact factor (IF), which measures the average number of times a year that an article was cited in a journal. Consequently, high-impact factor journals are usually considered more prestigious than lower-impact journals. Table 3 also reports impact factor journals among the top 18 journals in our dataset. According to the 2020 impact factor, the Journal of Business Venturing (IF: 12.065) is the highest-ranked journal among the top 18 journals, followed by Small Business Economics (IF: 8.164) and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (IF: 5.940).

The Scopus citation score measures a specific journal’s citation impact. The 2020 Scopus citation score has the same conclusion as the 2020 impact factor. The Journal of Business Venturing is the leading citation score (13.3), the Small Business Economics had the second-highest citation score with 7.3, and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal with 6.2.

3.1.3 Influential authors in the field

A citation analysis of authors based on publications and citations per author shows that Matlay, Westhead, Solesvik et al. Smallbone, Welter, and Li and Zhang are the most influential authors in the research area. Table 4 shows that 16 exceptional authors in the field contribute at least two publications to the field. Matlay is the most prominent author, having contributed three articles. Welter and Smallbone are the second-most-prolific authors considering the 997 citations for their co-authored works. Solesvik and Westhead are next, and together they published two articles that received 323 citations in Google Scholar. Noticeably, Li and Zhang published only one article, and it exceeded 1,000 citations in Google Scholar.

Table 4 Influential authors in the field based on the number of publications per author
Full size table

3.1.4 Influential articles in the field

Table 5 shows the most influential articles in the field by 2020. We break down the time frame into three 10-year periods, which indicate the top five articles in each period while minimizing the bias of citation scores over time (e.g., papers published earlier might be cited more than those published later). In general, the most influential scholarship in the field was published in highly ranked journals in the entrepreneurship field, especially between 2001 and 2010.

Table 5 Top 5 most-cited papers in the period between 1990 and 2020
Full size table

In the early stage (1990–2000), the most critical article, titled “A Comparative Study of Values among Chinese and U.S. Entrepreneurs: Pragmatic Convergence between Contrasting Cultures,” by Holt, received 220 citations. It was published in 1997 in the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV)—one of the top-tier journals in entrepreneurship. The second most cited, “The Russian Entrepreneur,” by Hisrich and Grachev, was published in JBV in 1993.

The most cited work over the entire time frame appeared in the next period (2001–2010). The article, written by Li and Zhang (2007), was published in the top-tier Strategic Management Journal and received the most citations—the only one that exceeded 1,130 citations. Similarly, Smallbone and Welter (2001) published “The Distinctiveness of Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies” in Small Business Economics (also a top journal in entrepreneurship), receiving over 928 citations.

In the most recent 10-year period (2010–2020), the two most cited articles were written by Solesvik et al. (2012, 2013). Both articles, both published in entrepreneurship journals, received about 207 citations. Solesvik et al. (2013) was the first influential work published in a journal outside entrepreneurship, Education and Training.

3.1.5 Geographic origin of contributions

The review shows that European countries accounted for more than three-quarters of the contributions, approximately 79.85%, with 107 out of a total of 136 articles. Among the 107 studies from European countries, Russia made the highest contribution with 13 papers, followed by Romania with eight, and Germany and Poland contributing seven (detailed results available from the authors). The second group of the publications comes from East Asia and the Pacific, with 20 articles (approximately 14.93%), of which China contributed 14, followed by Vietnam with 3 (detailed results available from the authors). Latin America receives the least attention, contributing only 3 papers, and 4 articles came from more than one region. Table 6 details the results.

Table 6 Geographic origin of contributions
Full size table

3.1.6 Topics of analysis

Five thematic areas are identified based on the papers’ abstract content, including business environment, corruption and institutions, informal economy and development, social capital and culture, and personality traits. Table 7 summarizes the results.

Table 7 Number of articles in each thematic sub-group
Full size table

The business environment theme consists of 23 papers focused on the business environment in a new stage of transition economy, such as banking, accounting, and service sectors (20), and innovation activities (3). The second theme (34) discusses corruption (5) and institutions (29). Numerous studies in our sample analyze the influence of institutional variables (e.g., rules and laws, property rights, taxes, financial sources, government policies) on individual attitudes and entrepreneurial activities in a transition environment. The reason for the most significant academic interest in this research field might be that the remnants of the former socialist regime, for example, formal institutional frameworks (e.g., rules, laws, and constitution), remain and affect entrepreneurship activity (Aidis et al. 2008; Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Fritsch et al. 2014; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). The third theme, informal economy and development, comprises 16 articles on the informal economy and development, only one on political development, one analyzing sustainable development, and 14 on the informal economy. Most studies on this theme looked at European countries.

The social capital and culture theme consists of 26 articles and examines networks, support from families and friends, culture related to values, and entrepreneurship in transition economies. Out of a total of 26 articles on this theme, 16 discuss social capital, 6 analyze culture, and 8 focus on the impacts of social capital (entrepreneurial role models) and education in a former socialist regime on entrepreneurship activities. Research related to social capital and culture is mostly conducted in European countries, for example, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, and Hungary. The final theme is personality traits and includes 11 papers on education, 16 discussing individuals’ locus of control and risk aversion, 5 focused on gender, and 5 analyzing other personality traits—for example, managerial skills and altruistic values. Most articles in this area are empirical studies.

3.2 Bibliometric analysis results

3.2.1 Co-occurrence analysis of author keywords

We set the minimum threshold at three appearances of author keywords, a threshold met by 32 of the total of 428 keywords. Then, we exclude country names, yielding 23 keywords to consider in co-occurrence analysis. Figure 3 displays the most frequently used keywords in the 136 articles in our database identified by the VOSviewer technique. The most widely used keyword is entrepreneurship, with 34 occurrences. Other frequently used keywords are economic development, corruption, institutions, social capital, culture, and education.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Co-occurrences of keywords

Full size image

We also identify topic clusters with the VOSviewer, finding seven, which are shown in Table 8 along with the appearance of keywords in each cluster. In naming the clusters, we do not use these keywords because they represent the main topics of our search on the inter-relationship among the socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship. So, instead to name the clusters, we use all the widely used keywords identified by VOSviewer other than the keywords used for identifying the articles. In other words, a theme is labeled using the name of an essential keyword in the associated network of themes (Aparicio et al. 2019).

Table 8 Topic clusters based on the appearances of the keywords
Full size table

Cluster 1 is called Corruption and Institutions, encompassing macro-level studies on, for example, corruption, institutions, and business development. Studies in this cluster examine the impact of institutional arrangements such as corruption, laws, property rights, and government policies on individual values and attitudes, which, in turn affect entrepreneurship (Aidis et al. 2008; Bauernschuster et al. 2012). The findings show that a high level of corruption, limited property rights, and cumbersome rules and regulations discourage the creation of new ventures by individuals in transition economies (Chen and Dickson 2008; Xheneti and Bartlett 2012). Furthermore, limited financial resources are among the most dominant barriers to entrepreneurship after the socioeconomic and political reforms (Batsakis 2014).

Cluster 2 is called Entrepreneurialism and Economics. This cluster mainly discusses entrepreneurialism and economic development in developing countries.

Cluster 3 considers Social Capital and Culture while cluster 4 discusses Risk Attitudes and Social Networks. Social capital, as an indication of the characteristics of a social network, is a determining factor of entrepreneurship and can be affected by the socioeconomic environment (Boenisch and Schneider 2010; Wyrwich et al. 2016). Therefore, we merge clusters 3 and 4 and call it Social Capital and Culture. The findings in this cluster reveal that people, particularly those who are older, are less willing to obtain knowledge and experience from entrepreneurial role models (Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Smallbone and Welter 2001). This finding is explained by a low perception of entrepreneurship in formerly socialist environments (e.g., East Germany) (Bauernschuster et al. 2012).

Cluster 5 is called Informal Economy and Development. Research in this cluster analyzes the informal economy in terms of informal entrepreneurship activity as well as informal business in transition economies. Papers in this group reveal that in transition economies with complicated rules and regulations, high taxes, and corruption, people prefer to run informal businesses, which have political connections as well as relationships with state authorities (Markina et al. 2017; Williams 2014a, b).

Cluster 6 represents studies focused on education and entrepreneurship, so we call it Education. The results report that entrepreneurship education programs have a significant influence on the entrepreneurship intentions of the younger generation in their student days. Moreover, other findings document that older people and women who had prolonged exposure to the communist framework have a lower locus of control and greater fear of failure (Bitzenis and Nito 2005; Holt 1997; Runst 2013; Schwarz et al. 2009).

Cluster 7 covers the Business Environment and mainly discusses macro-level studies on a transition economy's business environment. Previous studies point out that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people invested more in skills related to services, rather than industry-specific skills, such as those for mining and manufacturing because of a remarkable increase in demand for services (e.g., finance, insurance, and consulting) (Orazem and Vodopivec 1997).

3.2.2 Co-citation analysis of authors in the field

We perform a co-citation analysis at the author level to shed light on the most influential researchers in the field and how they are connected to the others based on co-citation counts. Only those with at least 15 citations are considered, and 31 authors satisfy this criterion.

The finding shows that Welter, Smallbone, and Audretsch are the central researchers in the field of the socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship, consistent with the results of the previous citation analysis at the author level. Based on the co-citation analysis and the illustration shown in Fig. 4, the academic community involved in the research is divided into five thematic clusters, each of which has the same number of researchers.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Co-citation analysis of authors

Full size image

Cluster 1 (red) comprises six renowned authors in the entrepreneurship field: Audretsch, Bosma, Johnson, North, Thurik, and Verheul. A central tenet of this cluster is entrepreneurship and education in transition economies. Cluster 2 (green) consists of scholars who examine the effect of the institutional environment, including formal (e.g., government policies, corruption) and informal frameworks (role models, social networks) of entrepreneurship activity. Cluster 3 (blue) addresses the relationship between individual values (e.g., risk preferences, locus of control) and the gender gap in self-employment in a transition economy.

Cluster 4 (yellow) focuses on the influence of social capital (e.g., institutional trust in general, trust in business-oriented actors, and networks) and engagement in entrepreneurship by individuals and entrepreneurial culture across regions and countries. Cluster 5 (purple) is considered one of the most significant clusters, as it includes the two most cited researchers in the field. Scholarship in this field examines how social capital (e.g., family business, friends) affects the entrepreneurial intentions of people at different stages of an economy’s transition to the market.

3.2.3 Co-citation analysis of journals

The results of a co-citation analysis of journals in the research field are illustrated in Fig. 5. Journals with at least 13 citations are considered for further examination, and only 36 journals meet this criterion. Based on co-citation counts, the analysis shows that research concerning the nexus of a socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship is scattered across various academic disciplines. In particular, the top three journals are the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP), and Small Business Economics (SBE). According to Scopus, these are also top-tier journals in management and entrepreneurship science. The analysis yields 5 clusters (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Co-citation analysis of journals

Full size image

Cluster 1 (red) and cluster 4 (yellow) are dominated by a total of 17 items. Journals in these two groups cover broad theoretical and practical insights in management and organization as an interdisciplinary science. For instance, some focus on economic perspectives (e.g., Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Economic Perspectives, and Journal of Political Economy) while others concern sociology.

Cluster 2 (green) is the second-largest group. It consists of top-tier journals in the entrepreneurship field, such as the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, JBV, and ETP.

Cluster 3 (blue) focuses on family business and administration science, including Administrative Science Quarterly and Family Business Review. Cluster 5 (purple) mainly addresses academic and technology entrepreneurship. It covers the top two journals in this subfield, Research Policy and the Journal of Technology Transfer.

4 Future research agenda

Our review highlights five areas that are critical and require future research. First, future research should be more geographically inclusive. Although the number of empirical studies is growing, they still tend to have a strong bias toward countries in Europe. More research is needed to explore context-dependent knowledge such as in Asia.

Second, studies are needed to examine the role of education on an individual’s perception of entrepreneurship. Although the education system is a crucial institution, the existing literature has insufficiently explained its role in this respect. For example, Fuchs-Schündeln and Masella (2016) test the long-lasting effect of a socialist education on returns to school and reveal that individuals (both men and women) with an additional year of socialist education are less likely to obtain a college degree. Moreover, Wyrwich (2013a, b) finds that, under socialism, formal education had less economic value and did not matter in starting a new firm. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to quantitatively compare the role of a formal and informal institutional socialist legacy on individual attitudes and entrepreneurship.

Third, more work is needed on changes in attitude by those who are exposed to socialist transformation at different stages, as well as how a change in mindset influences entrepreneurial activities. The political-socioeconomic changes from one stage to another in transition economies lead to differences in (potential) entrepreneurs’ strategies and characteristics (Estrin et al. 2006).

Fourth, the entrepreneur’s mode of entry in a transition economy needs to be investigate more deeply. Entrepreneurship can take different forms, including starting a firm, inheriting a (family) firm, purchasing an outside firm (management buy-in), and purchasing the firm of a former employer (a management buy-out) (Cooper and Dunkelberg 1986). However, the literature overemphasizes starting a firm (Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). Hence, further research could investigate the role of the socialist legacy and individual attitudes in an entrepreneur’s choice regarding the mode of entry.

Fifth, it would be interesting to examine how the socialist legacy affects the determinants of entrepreneurship groups: opportunity-based and necessity-based entrepreneurship. An opportunity entrepreneur goes into self-employment voluntarily, whereas necessity entrepreneurs become self-employed out of necessity (Block and Sandner 2009; Reynolds et al. 2005). Socioeconomic changes during the transition period opened many profitable opportunities for (potential) entrepreneurs in the service sector (Smallbone and Welter 2006). However, at the same time, significant economic reforms in transition economies have led to excessive and persistent unemployment (Manev and Manolova 2010). As a result, those who are unemployed and formerly worked at SOEs are more likely to be forced into entrepreneurship because of the lack of career alternatives. Thus, we need to learn more about the differences between necessity entrepreneurs and opportunity entrepreneurs in terms of the duration of self-employment in a transition economy.

5 Conclusion

Since 2007, the interconnections between socialist legacy, individuals’ attitudes, and entrepreneurship have attracted scholarly attention. Using a novel approach that combines three relational bibliometric techniques (citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis) and qualitative content analysis, our review highlights the most impactful authors, foundational publications, and journals in the research field since its beginning. We also identify five ongoing academic conversations that address distinct research questions and topics of interest in the business environment, corruption and institutions, the informal economy and development, social capital and culture, and personality traits.

Like any other academic works, this review has several limitations. The sample is limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English. This means that the scholarship in other languages, including essential conference papers or book chapters, is not considered in our analysis. The research is also restricted to the Scopus database. Even though Scopus covers a wide range of high-quality outlets in multiple disciplines, there is still a possibility that crucial work is missing. Second, the bibliometric techniques applied in this study are full of flaws. Citation and co‐citation analyses are biased toward older articles because they receive a higher number of citations than newly published papers. Additionally, the co‐occurrence of (key)word analysis depends on the frequency of the term. However, the same word has different meanings in different contexts, so the analysis could be misleading.

Among the directions for future research proposed is the influence of other types of institutions, such as education on individual perceptions of entrepreneurship and subsequent entrepreneurial behavior. Furthermore, the literature needs to move beyond the bias toward the European context in theorizing and empirical analysis and examine the longer-term, deeper mechanisms through which the socialist legacy affects individual attitudes toward a diversity of entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, future research questions need to focus on the political-socioeconomic changes from one stage to the next in transition economies that lead to differences in entrepreneurial strategies between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship, which is still absent from the existing scholarship.