Skip to main content

Entrepreneurship in Comparative Economics Perspective

Abstract

From a comparative economics perspective, entrepreneurship is a property of both individuals and, also, countries and their innovation systems. Based on this, the chapter explores the issue of entrepreneurial propensities of different types of capitalist economies. We discuss three analytical approaches which are relevant for exploring the relationship between Varieties of Capitalism and entrepreneurship. We than develop a conceptual approach to explore institutional varieties of capitalism from an entrepreneurial perspective. Our framework builds on the idea of ‘institutional varieties of entrepreneurial opportunities’ (EO) and its three components of technology, market and organizational regime. The key idea is that each opportunity component of entrepreneurial regime (ER) can be generated in different institutional constellations.

Keywords

  • Varieties of capitalism
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Entrepreneurial opportunities
  • Institutions
  • Comparative economics

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-50888-3_32
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-50888-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.gemconsortium.org/

  2. 2.

    https://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-index

  3. 3.

    Dilli et al.’s (2018) varieties of entrepreneurial capitalism are liberal market economies (Ireland, the UK, the USA ), co-ordinated market economies (Continental and Northern European economies), mixed market economies (including France, Italy, Portugal and Spain), and the emerging market economies of Central and Eastern Europe. The variety of entrepreneurship most conducive to Schumpeterian forms of entrepreneurship is the Anglo-Saxon or liberal market economies with deregulated financial and labour markets, rapid investments and disinvestments and limited protection of dependent employment.

  4. 4.

    The reader should note that Dilli et al. (2018) try to link VoC and entrepreneurship empirically, but leaving both notions conceptually intact. Of course, this approach is legitimate, but it ignores the epistemological and theoretical differences between two approaches, including differences in policy implications.

  5. 5.

    A reader should not that conceptually and methodologically we consider the GEM/GEDI approach as very similar although they partly differ in the choice of indicators and construction of composite index.

  6. 6.

    Our systemic view is not entirely structuralist. EO are generated by the structure of activities, but entrepreneurs also can change institutions What emerges as a systemic property is the outcome of interactions between agency (entrepreneurs) and structure (technologies and embedded institutions). So, institutional shaping may be conducted by the entrepreneurs themselves. However, here, we are less interested in who is conducting institutional change and more interested in the outcomes or social shaping of different components of the entrepreneurship regime For research on the drivers/agents of institutional change towards entrepreneurship see Henrekson and Tino (2011).

  7. 7.

    As Shane and Nicolau (2018) show, since the late 1990s there has been move away from traditional venture capital activity towards angel funding, business accelerators, micro venture capital funds and online equity crowdfunding platforms. Unfortunately, we do not have large scale international comparative data on these funding sources for EO.

  8. 8.

    The reader might be tempted to refer to systems of entrepreneurship. However, we consider this a dubious notion since innovation systems, by definition, are entrepreneurial.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement Issues and Policy Implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aiginger, K. (2007). Performance Differences in Europe: Tentative Hypotheses on the Role of Institutions, WIFO Working Papers, No. 304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amable, B. (2003). The Diversity of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Amable, B. (2016). Institutional Complementarities in the Dynamic Comparative Analysis of Capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(1), 79–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., Gedajlovic, E., & Lubatkin, M. (2005). A Framework for Comparing Entrepreneurship Processes Across Nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5), 492–504.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), Part 1 (Oct), 893–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2002). The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-first Century. Washington D.C: Brookings Institutions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Acs, Z., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. (2008). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008 Executive Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Acs, Z., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. (2009). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008, Executive Report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College, Santiago, Chile: Universidad del Desarollo and London, UK: London Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. P., & De Clercq, D. (2008). Institutional Context and the Allocation of Entrepreneurial Effort. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 747–767.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country Institutional Profiles: Unlocking Entrepreneurial Phenomena. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 994–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernat, L. (2006). Europeanization, Varieties of Capitalism and Economic Performance in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Macmillan.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C., & Streeck, W. (1997). Political Economy of Modern Capitalism: Mapping Convergence and Diversity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilli, S., Elert, N., & Herrmann, A. M. (2018). Varieties of Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Institutional Foundations of Different Entrepreneurship Types Through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ Arguments. Small Business Economics, 51, 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0002-z.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2003). Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333–349.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public Procurement for Innovation as Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Filippo, B. (2019). Institutional Complementarities Between Labour Laws and Innovation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137418000139.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fogel, K., Hawk, A., Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2008). Institutional Obstacles to Entrepreneurship. In A. Basu, M. Casson, N. Wadeson, & B. Yeung (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabner C., Heimberger, P., Kapeller, J., & Schutz, B. (2019). Structural Change in Time of Increasing Openness: Assessing Path Dependency in European Economic Integration, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-019-00639-6.

  • Hall, P. A. (2018). Varieties of Capitalism in Light f the Euro Crisis. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 7–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism, The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (2007). Introduction: Beyond Varieties of Capitalism, In Beyond Varieties of Capitalism: Conflict, Contradictions, and Complementarities in the European Economy, Edited by B. Hancké, M. Rhodes and M. Thatcher

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. A. (2003). Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. London: Routledge.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Tino, S. (2011). The Interaction of Entrepreneurship and Institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137410000342.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (1999). Economics and Utopia. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M. (2015). Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2006). How Many Varieties of Capitalism? Comparing the Comparative Institutional Analyses of Capitalist Diversity, MPIfG Discussion Paper 06/2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. (1986). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2015). Variegated Capitalism and the Political Economy of Austerity. In R. Westra, D. Badeen, & R. Albritton (Eds.), The Future of Capitalism After the Financial Crisis. The Varieties of Capitalism Debate in the Age of Austerity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knell, M., & Srholec, M. (2007). Diverging Pathways in Central and Eastern Europe. In D. Lane & M. Myant (Eds.), Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Communist Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W. (2007). Varieties of Capitalism and Innovative Enterprise. Comparative Social Research, 24(2007), 21–69.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W. (2009). The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of US Capitalism. Capitalism and Society, 4, 2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W. (2013). The Theory of Innovative Enterprise: A Foundation of Economic Analysis, AIR Working Paper 13-05/01, The Academic-Industry Research Network, February 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2012). The Risk-Reward Nexus in the Innovation-Inequality Relationship. Who Takes the Risks? Who Gets the Rewards?, University of Massachusetts and SPRU, University of Sussex, March 2012, FP7-SSH-2007-1.2.3-217466-FINNOV-D2.11

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Risk-Reward Nexus in the Innovation-Inequality Relationship. Who Takes the Risks? Who Gets the Rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), 1093–1128.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ledeneva, A. (1998). Russia's Economy of Favours. Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S. (1998). Defining Systems of Innovation: A Methodological Discussion. Technology in Society, 20(1), 75–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S. (2007). National Systems of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: In Search of a Missing Link. Economics Working Paper No. 73. UCL-SSEES, Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/17479/1/17479.pdf.

  • Radosevic, S. (2010). What Makes Entrepreneurship Systemic? In F. Malerba (Ed.), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship and Innovation Systems (pp. 52–76). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2012). Entrepreneurial Propensity of Innovation Systems. Economics Working Paper No.117, University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, January 2012. Paper available at http://www.ssees.ucl.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp117.pdf.

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2013). Entrepreneurial Propensity of Innovation Systems: Theory, Methodology and Evidence. Research Policy, 42, 1015–1038.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., & Yoruk, E. (2020). Entrepreneurship and Varieties of Capitalism in Europe: Empirical Exploration, UCL Centre for Comparative Studies of Emerging Economies, UCL Centre for Comparative Studies of Emerging Economies Working Papers 2020/1) (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., Yoruk, E., Edquist, C., & Zabala, J. M. (2010). Innovation systems and knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: Analytical framework and guidelines for case study research. Deliverable 2.2.1 for Project AEGIS – Advancing Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship and Innovation for Economic Growth and Social Well-being in Europe, EU FP7 Large Scale integrated Research project, December 2010. Paper available at http://www4.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/reportseries/201202_Radosevic_Yoruk_Edquist_Zabala.pdf.

  • Schmid, A. (2004). Conflict and Cooperation. Institutional and Behaviour Economics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Nicolaou, N. (2018). Exploring the Changing Institutions of Early-stage Finance. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(6), 1121–1137.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W. (1997). Beneficial Constraints: On the Economic Limits of Rational Voluntarism. In J. R. Hollingsworth & R. Boyer (Eds.), Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions (pp. 197–219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tridico, P. (2011). Institutions, Human Development and Economic Growth in Transition Economies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A., & Jackson, G. (2016). Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Comparative Advantage: A Test and Reinterpretation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 778–806.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slavo Radosevic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Radosevic, S., Yoruk, E. (2021). Entrepreneurship in Comparative Economics Perspective. In: Douarin, E., Havrylyshyn, O. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Comparative Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50888-3_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50888-3_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50887-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50888-3

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)