Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New technology entrepreneurship initiatives: Which strategic orientations and environmental conditions matter in the new socio-economic landscape?

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The transformation of ideas into new technologies depends not only on how knowledge diffuses but also on which context/time this transformation is developed. In the assumption that internal and environmental conditions directly affects the decision of exploiting technological opportunities, this paper explores how some strategic dynamic capabilities (entrepreneurial and export market) and supportive environmental conditions (regulative and normative) influence the configuration of technology entrepreneurship initiatives. A proposed conceptual model is tested with 30,648 ventures in 23 countries participating in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor for the years 2005 (pre-financial crisis), 2008 (financial crisis), and 2011 (recession). The main findings suggest the positive role of entrepreneurial orientation and export market orientation in the development of new technology entrepreneurship initiatives. Also, environmental conditions influence on the development of initiatives of technology entrepreneurship. Particularly, the study evidences how regulative environmental conditions (property rights and government programs) enhance while other regulative conditions (support for science and technology) and normative conditions (opportunity perception and national culture) simultaneously retard the probability that a new/established venture develops new technology entrepreneurship initiatives. These effects are moderated and intensified by the influence of the economic cycles. The paper provides important insights to the field of entrepreneurship, innovation, and strategic management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Self-devised based on Zhou et al. (2005), Autio et al. (2014) and Fernández-Olmos and Ramírez-Alesón (2017)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Annually, the Adult Population Survey (APS) collects the main indicators of entrepreneurial activity based on a random sample of at least 2000 adults from 18 to 74 years in each of the participating countries. The National Experts Survey (NES) collects the main indicators of the entrepreneurial ecosystem based on a sample of at least 36 experts per country to evaluate the conditions that foster or retard the entrepreneurial activity. For further details about the methodology, see Reynolds et al. (2005).

  2. This sample includes new ventures identified such as total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) that are owner–manager ventures that have been in existence for less than 42 months, as well as established ventures that are owner–manager ventures that have been in existence for at least 42 months (Reynolds et al. 2005).

  3. Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

  4. The GEM APS survey includes three categorical questions to capture innovation based on: the antiquity of the technologies developed by the venture (less than 1 year, more than a year, no new technology), the number of clients that consider the product new/unfamiliar (none, a few, all), the number of business that offer the same products (none, a few, all) (Bosma 2013; Koellinger 2008; Reynolds et al. 2005; Wong et al. 2005).

  5. Based on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data, this type of entrepreneurs is characterized by the ambition to create substantial organizations with the expectative of growing to a size of 20 employees within 5 years (Stam et al. 2011). In this perspective, having the ambition to grow a business is close to a necessary condition for subsequent growth.

  6. This percentage is distributed as follow: 26.41% has a level of exports under 10%; 5.24% exports 10–25%; 4.77% exports 25–50%; 4.20% exports 50–75%; 2.00% exports 75–90% and 2.97% exports more than 90%.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Audrestch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. CEPR Discussion paper 4783, CEPR, London.

  • Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcalde, H., & Guerrero, M. (2014). Open business models in entrepreneurial stages: Evidence from young Spanish firms during expansionary and recessionary periods. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 393–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alotaibi, M. B. G., & Zhang, Y. (2017). The relationship between export market orientation and export performance: An empirical study. Applied Economics, 49(23), 2253–2258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barasa, L., Knoben, J., Vermeulen, P., Kimuyu, P., & Kinyanjui, B. (2017). Institutions, resources and innovation in East Africa: A firm level approach. Research Policy, 46(1), 280–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baughn, C. C., Chua, B.-L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women’s participation in entrepreneurship: A multicountry study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 585–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012a). The role of the entrepreneur in technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 203–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012b). Technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, K., Corcos, G., & Mion, G. (2010). Trade crisis? What trade crisis? CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7956.

  • Bianchi, C., Glavas, C., & Mathews, S. (2017). SME international performance in Latin America: The role of entrepreneurial and technological capabilities. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(1), 176–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, G., & Roy, S. (2007). A firm-level examination of the exports puzzle: Why East Asian exports didn’t increase after the 1997–1998 financial crisis. The World Economy, 30(1), 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., Thurik, R., & Zhou, H. (2012). What turns knowledge into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(4), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Stam, E., & Wennekers, A. R. M. (2010). Intrapreneurship: An international study. EIM Research Report H201005. Zoetermeer: EIM

  • Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., Martiarena, A., & Singer, S. (2013). Global entrepreneurship monitor special report on entrepreneurial employee activity. Babson College.

  • Bricongne, J. C., Fontagné, L., Gaulier, G., Taglioni, D., & Vicard, V. (2012). Firms and the global crisis: French exports in the turmoil. Journal of International Economics, 87(1), 134–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 994–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., & Lau, C. M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., Plummer, L. A., Klotz, A. C., Shahzad, A., & Rhoads, K. (2014). Entrepreneurship research (1985–2009) and the emergence of opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 981–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & De Mortanges, C. P. (1999). A measure of export market orientation: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(4), 689–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Puttitanun, T. (2005). Intellectual property rights and innovation in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 78(2), 474–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, R. Y., & Phan, P. H. (2006). The influences of economic and technology policy on the dynamics of new firm formation. Small Business Economics, 26, 493–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. F. (2002). Corporate strategy and the management of innovation and technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(2), 263–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, H. F. (2012). Export market orientation, managerial ties, and performance. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 403–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colovic, A., & Lamotte, O. (2015). Technological environment and technology entrepreneurship: A cross-country analysis. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(4), 617–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congregado, E., Golpe, A., & Parker, S. (2012). The dynamics of entrepreneurship: Hysteresis, business cycles and government policy. Empirical Economics, 43, 1239–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covin, J. G., Green, K., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2014). National rates of opportunity entrepreneurship activity: Insights from institutional anomie theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(4), 775–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, D., Danis, W. D., & Dakhli, M. (2010). The moderating effect of institutional context on the relationship between associational activity and new business activity in emerging economies. International Business Review, 19(1), 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy, 45(4), 797–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. A. (2011). Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 412–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. W. (2013). Entrepreneurship, economic conditions, and the great recession. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22(2), 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairlie, R. W., & Fossen, F. M. (2016). The two components of business creation: Opportunity versus necessity entrepreneurship. 2017 American Economic Association Annual Meeting.

  • Fernández-Olmos, M., & Ramírez-Alesón, M. (2017). How internal and external factors influence the dynamics of SME technology collaboration networks over time. Technovation, 64, 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, J., Ferreira, F., Fernandes, C., Jalali, M., Raposo, M., & Marques, C. (2015). What do we (not) know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 12(3), 713–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1005–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management J., 25, 909–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaba, V., & Bhattacharya, S. (2012). Aspirations, innovation, and corporate venture capital: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(2), 178–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Quevedo, J. (2004). Do public subsidies complement business R&D? A meta-analysis of the econometric evidence. Kyklos, 57(1), 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghio, N., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2017). The creation of high-tech ventures in entrepreneurial ecosystems: Exploring the interactions among university knowledge, cooperative banks, and individual attitudes. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9958-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, R. K. (2007). Research spending under regulatory uncertainty. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 593–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., & Tansuhaj, P. (2001). Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., & Henkel, J. (2006). New ventures based on open innovation—An empirical analysis of start-up firms in embedded Linux. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(4), 356–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look before you leap: Market opportunity identification in emerging technology firms. Management Science, 54(9), 1652–1665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2016). The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations’ performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 294–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad, M., Harrison, A., & Hausman, C. (2011). Decomposing the great trade collapse: Products, prices, and quantities in the 2008–2009 crisis. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 5749

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Narula, R. (1996). Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: International and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26, 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, C., & Stephan, U. (2012). The influence of socio-cultural environments on the performance of nascent entrepreneurs: Community culture, motivation, self-efficacy and start-up success. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10), 917–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jogaratnam, G. (2017). The effect of market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and human capital on positional advantage: Evidence from the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 60, 104–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, N., Hascic, I., Poirie, J., Hemar, M., & Michel, C. (2012). Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: Evidence from survey data and patent counts. Applied Economics, 44, 2157–2170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koellinger, P. (2008). Why are some entrepreneurs more innovative than others? Small Business Economics, 31(1), 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkinakos, P., Markaki, O., Koussouris, S., & Psarras, J. (2017). Digital technology and innovation trajectories in the Mediterranean region: A casualty of or an antidote to the economic crisis? Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 697–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Hayton, J. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship: The innovative challenge for a new global economic reality. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 245–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S.-W., & Arenius, P. (2010). Nations of entrepreneurs: A social capital perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie, J., & Autio, E. (2008). A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 235–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, D. S., Oh, C. H., & De Clercq, D. (2016). Engagement in entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Interactive effects of individual-level factors and institutional conditions. International Business Review, 25(4), 933–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of marketing, 66(3), 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., Guerrero, M., & Greenman, A. (2017). Technology entrepreneurship research opportunities: Insights from across Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 31(6), 909–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mthanti, T., & Ojah, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO): Measurement and policy implications of entrepreneurship at the macroeconomic level. Research Policy, 46(4), 724–739.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nummela, N., Puumalainen, K., & Saarenketo, S. (2005). International growth orientation of knowledge-intensive SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaoikonomou, E., Segarra, P., & Li, X. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the context of crisis: Identifying barriers and proposing strategies. International Advances in Economic Research, 18(1), 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2011). Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. C. (2012). Theories of entrepreneurship, innovation and the business cycle. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26, 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., & Valle Cabrera, R. (2011). The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 555–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Png, I. P. (2017). Law and innovation: Evidence from state trade secrets laws. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(1), 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renko, M., Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2009). The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: A study of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 331–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., de Bono, N., Servais, I., et al. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24, 205–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salavou, H., & Lioukas, S. (2003). Radical product innovations in SMEs: The dominance of entrepreneurial orientation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2), 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott, P. K. (2009). US trade margins during the 2008 crisis. In: R. Baldwin (Eds.), The great trade collapse, causes, consequences, prospects. Voxeu.org.

  • Scott, R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 181–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19(10), 1001–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soininen, J., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., & Syrjä, P. (2012). The impact of global economic crisis on SMEs: Does entrepreneurial orientation matter? Management Research Review, 35(10), 927–944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spyropoulou, S., Katsikeas, C. S., Skarmeas, D., & Morgan, N. A. (2017). Strategic goal accomplishment in export ventures: The role of capabilities, knowledge, and environment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0519-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, R., Rangaswamy, A., & Lilien, G. L. (2005). Turning adversity into advantage: Does proactive marketing during a recession pay off? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(2), 109–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., Hartog, C., Van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2011). Ambitious entrepreneurship and macroeconomic growth. In M. Minniti (Ed.), The dynamics of entrepreneurship. Evidence from the global entrepreneurship monitor data (pp. 231–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-based vs. socially supportive culture: A cross-national study of descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347–1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 308–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., Brixy, U., Sternberg, R., & Cantner, U. (2014). Regional characteristics, opportunity perception and entrepreneurial activities. Small Business Economics, 42, 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, Z., Xie, E., & Wang, D. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, managerial networking, and new venture performance in China. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 228–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takalo, T., & Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 16–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2012). Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1395–1401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 360–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbano, D., & Turró, A. (2013). Conditioning factors for corporate entrepreneurship: An in (ex) ternal approach. International entrepreneurship and management journal, 9(3), 379–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T., Thornhill, S., & De Castro, J. O. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation, legitimation, and new venture performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 373–392.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (2015). World intellectual property report: Breakthrough innovation and economic growth. World Intellectual Property Organization.

  • Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yousafzai, S., Saeed, S., & Muffatto, M. (2015). Institutional theory and contextual embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurial leadership: Evidence from 92 countries. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 587–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures’ performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 135–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of marketing, 69(2), 42–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

David Urbano acknowledges the financial support from projects ECO2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness) and 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowledge Department, Catalan Government). Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the financial support from Santander Universidades (Iberoamerica Scholarship for Young Researchers). João J. Ferreira and Cristina I. Fernandes acknowledge the financial support from NECE – Research Unit in Business Sciences funded by the Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Project UID/GES/04630/2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    David Urbano

  2. Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Maribel Guerrero

  3. NECE-Research Unit in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal

    João J. Ferreira & Cristina I. Fernandes

Authors
  1. David Urbano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maribel Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João J. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cristina I. Fernandes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Urbano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Urbano, D., Guerrero, M., Ferreira, J.J. et al. New technology entrepreneurship initiatives: Which strategic orientations and environmental conditions matter in the new socio-economic landscape?. J Technol Transf 44, 1577–1602 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9675-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9675-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation