Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Does cultural diversity increase the rate of entrepreneurship?

  • Published:
The Review of Austrian Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the economic development literature, cultural diversity (for example, ethnolinguistic fractionalization) has been shown to have a negative impact on economic outcomes in many underdeveloped countries. We hypothesize that the impact of diversity on economic performance depends on the quality of a country's institutions. Under bad institutions diversity leads to conflict and expropriation, while under good institutions diversity leads to economic progress. A culturally diverse society or interaction among different cultures encourages exchange of, and competition between ideas and different world views. Under good institutions, this amalgamation of ideas and views leads to greater entrepreneurial initiatives. We show that higher levels of cultural diversity increase the rate of entrepreneurship in the presence of good institutions using evidence from the USA.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The idea of creative destruction has been provided by Schumpeter (1942) and later expanded and analyzed extensively by economists such as Aghion and Howitt (1992) and Cowen (2002).

  2. For evidence that the relative levels of productive and unproductive entrepreneurship across states are influenced by state-level variations in economic institutions see Sobel (2008).

  3. According to Lerner (2002) and Kortum and Lerner (1998), venture capitalists not only supply funds for business investments but also provide the entrepreneurs with the necessary expertise which is required to innovate and sell their products and ideas in the market. Thus, venture capitalists fulfill the functions of both a capitalist and an entrepreneur.

  4. This single measure incorporates data on venture capital investments per capita, patents per capita, the growth rate of self-employment activity, the establishment birth rate (all new firms), and the large-establishment birth rate (new firms with 500 or more employees). Thus, it is probably more heavily weighted toward larger-scale establishment birth than our other variables.

  5. The three main components based on which the index is created are size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, and labor market freedom.

  6. There is a potential problem of endogeneity in our specification. It is possible that areas with higher rates of entrepreneurial activities attract more immigrants. To address this we checked the benchmark results of Tables 1 and 3 with the cultural diversity measure calculated from the 1990 census. The results remain robust and comparable.

References

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Easterly, W. (1999). Public goods and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1243–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A. (1994). Political models of macroeconomic policy and fiscal reforms. In S. Haggard & S. Webb (Eds.), Voting for reform: Democracy, political liberalization, and economic adjustment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Drazen, A. (1991). Why are stabilizations delayed? The American Economic Review, 81, 1170–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (1990). A positive theory of fiscal deficits and government debt. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(3), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and tribalism are reshaping the world. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. B., & Coyne, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurship and development: Cause or consequence? In R. Koppl (Ed.), Austrian economics and entrepreneurial studies (pp. 67–87). New York: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. B., & Coyne, C. J. (2006). Entrepreneurial behavior and institutions. In M. Minniti (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The engine of growth (pp. 119–134). Portsmouth: Praeger Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T. (2002). Creative destruction: How globalization is changing the world’s culture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, C. J. (2008). After war: The political economy of exporting democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, N. (2009). “Redefining the role of media: The impact of media freedom on ethnic diversity”, Working Paper.

  • Easterly, W. (2001). Can institutions resolve ethnic conflict? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 59(4), 687–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (1997). Africa's growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1203–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (2000). Single peaked vs. diversified capitalism: The relation between economic institutions and outcomes. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser , E. L., & Saks, R. E. (2004). Corruption in America. NBER Working Paper No. 10821.

  • Godin, K., Clemens, J., & Veldhuis, N. (2008). Measuring entrepreneurship; Conceptual frameworks and empirical indicators, studies in entrepreneurship & markets No. 7. Vancouver, B. C: Fraser Institute.

  • Gwartney, J. D., & Lawson, R. A. (2009). Economic freedom of the world: 2009 annual report. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwartney, J. D., Holcombe, R. G., & Lawson, R. A. (2006). Institutions and the impact of investment on growth. Kyklos, 59(2), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. C., Sobel, R. S., & Crowley, G. R. (forthcoming). Institutions, capital, and growth. Southern Economic Journal.

  • Harper, D. A. (2003). Foundations of entrepreneurship and economic development. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. G. (1998). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 1(2), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karabegovic, A., & McMahon, F. (2005). Economic freedom of North America: 2005 Annual Report. Vancouver: The Frasier Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1998). Does venture capital spur innovation? NBER Working Paper No. 6846.

  • Kreft, S. F., & Sobel, R. S. (2005). Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom. Cato Journal, 25(3), 595–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, D., & Chamlee-Wright, E. (2000). Culture and enterprise: The development, representation and morality of business. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeson, P. T. (2005). Endogenizing fractionalization. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (2002). Boom and bust in the venture capital industry and the impact of innovation. Harvard NOM Research paper No. 03–13.

  • Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (1999). The microfoundations of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (First published in German in 1911).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1993). Corruption. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storr, V. H. (2008). The market as a social space: On the meaningful extraeconomic conversations that can occur in markets. Review of Austrian Economics, 25, 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. (2000). “Decentralization and the Quality of Government Decentralization and the Quality of Government.” Working Paper.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjukta Roy.

Appendix 1: List of Variables and Sources

Appendix 1: List of Variables and Sources

Table 5  

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sobel, R.S., Dutta, N. & Roy, S. Does cultural diversity increase the rate of entrepreneurship?. Rev Austrian Econ 23, 269–286 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-010-0112-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-010-0112-6

Keywords

JEL

Navigation