H200627
Motivation Based Policies for an
Entrepreneurial EU Economy
S. Jolanda A. Hessels
Marco van Gelderen
A. Roy Thurik
Zoetermeer, December, 2006
1
This report is published under the SCALES-initiative (SCientific AnaLysis of Entrepreneurship and SMEs), as
part of the 'SMEs and Entrepreneurship programme' financed by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Most recent EIM reports and much more on SMEs and Entrepreneurship can be found at:
www.eim.nl/smes-and-entrepreneurship.
address:
mail address:
telephone:
telefax:
website:
Italiëlaan 33
P.O. Box 7001
2701 AA Zoetermeer
+ 31 79 343 02 00
+ 31 79 343 02 01
www.eim.nl
The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM. Quoting numbers or text in papers, essays and
books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. No part of this publication may be copied
and/or published in any form or by any means, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior written
permission of EIM.
EIM does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections.
2
PRELIMINARY VERSION –
DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AUTHORS
MOTIVATION BASED POLICIES FOR AN ENTREPRENEURIAL EU
ECONOMY
S. Jolanda A. Hessels A
Marco van Gelderen B
A. Roy Thurik
C, A
A
EIM Business and Policy Research, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Massey University, College of Business, Auckland, New Zealand
C
Centre for Advanced Small Business Economics (CASBEC), Erasmus University Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
B
Paper presented at 2006 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference
(Bloomington/Indiana, June 8-10, 2006)
Abstract:
This paper investigates the impact of various entrepreneurial motives and institutional conditions on entrepreneurial aspirations in terms of innovativeness, job growth expectations and
export orientation. We estimate a two-equation model explaining entrepreneurial motivations
and entrepreneurial aspirations, while taking into account the interrelationship between both
groups of variables. We use data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and find
that entrepreneurial aspirations are different for various types of entrepreneurial motives. For
example, we find that the increase wealth motive as a prime driver for becoming selfemployed is positively related to innovation and growth ambitions, whereas we find no evidence of a relation between the independence motive and entrepreneurial aspirations. On the
basis of our findings policy directions are presented for an entrepreneurial EU economy.
Version: 2006
Keywords: entrepreneurship, policies, entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial aspirations, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
JEL-classification: H50, L21, L26, M13
Document:DM-#156339-v1Motivation_Based_Policies_for_an_Entrepreneurial_EU_Economy.DOC
Correspondence: Jolanda Hessels, [email protected]
3
1. Introduction
From the 1970s onwards the importance of small businesses has increased in most European
countries and North America, which marks the shift from the Managed Economy to the Entrepreneurial Economy (Audretsch and Thurik 2001, 2004). The shift from the Managed to
the Entrepreneurial Economy may, among others, be explained by ICT developments and
globalization which have resulted in an increased specialization in knowledge based activities
in developed countries (Audretsch and Thurik 2000, 2001)). Technology and globalization
may require entrepreneurial actions by individuals in knowledge-based ventures. With the
shift from the Managed to the Entrepreneurial Economy came the renewed perception of the
importance of entrepreneurship. A growing body of literature states that in modern economies new and small firms make a positive contribution to innovation and economic growth
(e.g. Acs and Audretsch, 1990, Audretsch and Thurik, 2000).
We state that entrepreneurial motivation may influence entrepreneurial aspirations in terms of
innovation and growth. Prime motivators for people to become self-employed are autonomy,
wealth, and risk perception (see e.g. Van Gelderen, 2004; Douglas and Shephard, 2002). In
this paper we empirically test the influence of entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial
growth ambitions at the macro level. We build on a framework that identifies two dimensions
or main institutional conditions that influence entrepreneurial motivation: (1) the uncertainty
versus certainty of living conditions and (2) the level of accumulated wealth (less wealthy
versus wealthy). Regions with generous social security and welfare schemes can be labelled
as certain, regions that emphasize the responsibility of the individual for its survival as uncertain. We hypothesize that entrepreneurial ambitions or aspirations in the emerging Entrepreneurial Economy will differ along these dimensions. For example, in regions where high levels of accumulated wealth are combined with high degrees of social security and employment
protection, individuals will be predominantly interested in so-called lifestyle entrepreneurship
(e.g., Van Gelderen, Thurik, and Bosma, 2005). Autonomy will be an important motive for
becoming self-employed. Self-employment is a vehicle to freedom-related needs of the individual and ambitions to grow a big or innovative business will be low. In regions where levels of accumulated wealth are high, but there is a relative lack of social security nets and employment protection economic survival of entrepreneurs will depend more on the survival of
their business. Therefore, increase wealth will be a dominant motive for becoming an entrepreneur and individuals will tend to be more growth- and innovation-oriented.
The present contribution investigates the role of the psychology of the individuals taking part
in this Entrepreneurial Economy. The aim of the study is to investigate how entrepreneurial
motivations and institutional conditions are related to entrepreneurial aspirations in order to
identify possibilities for policy intervention within the EU.
The paper is organized as follows. We first discuss relevant literature regarding entrepreneurial motivations and aspirations. In the subsequent sections we elaborate on the main data
used, we discuss our research methodology and present the empirical results. Finallly, we
discuss the study’s findings and identify some policy implications.
4
2. Literature
2.1 Entrepreneurial motivations
Audretsch and Thurik (2000, 2001) point to ICT developments and globalisation when explaining the emergence of the Entrepreneurial Economy. Because of these developments,
large firms in the developed countries were able to relocate much of their production to low
wage countries. Being at a comparative disadvantage in terms of wage levels, developed
countries had to look elsewhere in order to maintain low unemployment as well as high
wages. The answer was to specialize in knowledge based activities. These cannot be easily
transferred to low wage countries, and are nurtured by local or regional characteristics (e.g.,
fashion in Milan, culinary arts in Paris, ICT in Silicon Valley). The knowledge economy
gives rise to the Entrepreneurial Economy because of the inherent uncertainty of ideas. Ideas
need to be tried out, and it is difficult to predict in advance what will be successful or not.
Firms cannot pursue all opportunities recognized and instead focus on a few. If people have
an idea that seems worth a try on the market, they will have to start a business, in order to
find out whether their idea proves viable.
Still, technology and globalisation are constructs that do not start businesses. The Entrepreneurial Economy requires actions by individuals in knowledge-based ventures. The strength
and type of entrepreneurial motivation influence whether and which type of action will be
taken, and therefore their eventual macro-economic influences (see Weber (1915) and
McClelland (1961) for early seminal examples of studies of macro-economic psychology).
Studies of entrepreneurial motivation, defined as the motivation to start a business, come in
three types. First, there are studies of reasons, motives, or goals to start a business. In this
type of study, being mostly conducted in western countries where push motives are less
prevalent, autonomy (independence, freedom) is a dominant motive (Kolvereid, 1996;
Feldman en Bolino, 2000; Carter, Gartner, Shaver, and Gatewood, 2003; Shane, Locke, and
Collins, 2003; Wilson, Marlina, and Kickul, 2004; van Gelderen and Jansen, 2006), as well as
material gains, especially in conjunction with a perceived instrumentality of wealth
(Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988; Carter, Gartner, Shaver, and Gatewood, 2003). Push motives, for example when (a threat of) unemployment forces people into self-employment, play
a major role in developing countries, and also in developed countries, albeit to a lesser extent.
When reasons not to start a business are studied, a need for financial security stands out (van
Gelderen, Brand, Van Praag, Bodewes, Poutsma, and Van Gils, 2006), in other words, people
do not start a business because they like risk, but rather, people don’t start a business, because
they prefer the security associated with being an employee. In yet another approach the motivating properties of the environment are highlighted, with the perception of opportunities being a trigger to a wish for starting a business.
Second, there are cost-benefit types of studies that try to explain the decision to (intent to)
start a business (e.g., Douglas and Shepherd, 2002). In this type of study, material and immaterial risks and gains are brought into some decision function. Third, there are studies of entrepreneurial motivation in which motives are conceived of as traits, e.g., studies on need for
achievement (McClelland, 1961) and need for power (McClelland, 1975). nAch and nPower
usually do not figure heavily in the first two types of studies just mentioned, as actual business starters do not often list these motives as conscious reasons to start a business. While we
attempt in this paragraph to connect individual motivation to level and type of national entre-
5
preneurship, just as McClelland (1961) attempted, we will proceed from the motivation as
experienced by the entrepreneur and therefore disregard need for achievement.
So autonomy, wealth, risk perception (with financial security as a reversed predictor), and the
recognition of opportunities stand out as motivators for people to become self-employed.
While policymakers all over the world like growth, employment, and innovation, we expect
that the achievement of these outcomes will depend on the strength and prevalence of these
motives. In the remainder of this paper we will investigate, using GEM data, how the type of
entrepreneurial motivation is related to the type of outcomes that business starters aim to
achieve, and how entrepreneurial motivation itself is impacted on by the institutional environment in which entrepreneurs operate. In the final paragraph we will discuss how this affects policy implications.
2.2 Entrepreneurial motivations in relation to institutional environment and entrepreneurial aspirations
We now explore conceptually how macro-conditions are related to individual entrepreneurial
motivation, and how the type of entrepreneurial motivation relates to outcome (aspiration)
variables. Figure 1 shows two main conditions that we expect to influence entrepreneurial
motivation (for other relevant conditions see Wennekers, Uhlaner and Thurik, 2003), and lists
examples of EU regions categorized by these dimensions. The first dimension concerns the
uncertainty versus certainty of living conditions. Regions with generous social security and
welfare schemes can be labelled as secure, regions which place close to full responsibility to
the individual for its survival as less secure. The second dimension concerns the level of accumulated wealth.
Figure 1: Regions compared on two dimensions affecting entrepreneurial motivation
Uncertainty
I
IV
E.g., Eastern Europe
E.g., United Kingdom, Ireland
Wealthy
Less wealthy
E.g., Eastern Europe before the fall of E.g., Western Europe, Scandinavia
the Berlin Wall
II
III
Certainty
6
The dimensions may well work out differentially on the type of entrepreneurial motivation
and the level of entrepreneurial ambitions. We start with the regions of Western Europe and
Scandinavia in quadrant 2. The accumulated wealth of these regions, combined with high degrees of state-installed security nets and the protection provided by labour laws, had resulted
in individuals predominantly interested in so-called lifestyle entrepreneurship (e.g., Van
Gelderen, Thurik, and Bosma, 2005). Wealth has made a more individualized lifestyle possible. This means that there will be a strong emphasis on the individual and his needs, on freedom of choice, and on self expression and fulfilment (Van Gelderen and Jansen, 2006). Selfemployment is very popular as a vehicle to serve the freedom-related needs of the individual;
it will make a lifestyle possible in which one can decide oneself on goals, methods, and time
scheduling. There are little ambitions to grow a big business. Variety may still occur though,
as autonomy driven entrepreneurs tend to create diversity in the economy just by doing things
independently (Sayers, Van Gelderen, and Keen, 2006).
The relative lack of security nets and labour law protection in the U.K. (as in the U.S.) (quadrant 1) may explain why individuals tend to be more growth- and innovation oriented than
their Western- and Northern European counterparts. For them entrepreneurship may also
mean the achievement of a highly valued autonomy. However, their economic survival will
depend more on the survival of their business. In order to survive, entrepreneurs in these regions are more growth- and innovation oriented. This will also result in better performances
in the Entrepreneurial Economy, as the importance of knowledge as a factor of production
implies speedy changes of industry conditions. Moreover, being more used to uncertainty in
terms of personal economic survival, individuals in this region may also be more used to
dealing with industry-related types of uncertainty.
The regions mentioned in the other two quadrants are less wealthy. To start with quadrant 3,
in the Eastern European countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall there were many legal
barriers to entrepreneurship. However, even apart from legal barriers, there existed very little
personal initiative because of socialization effects (Frese et al., 1997). This lack of initiative
was strongly reinforced by high degrees of social security. However, when daily economic
survival is seriously at stake, which is currently the case in many of the former communist
Eastern European countries, a strong entrepreneurial motivation may develop. The right institutional conditions should be present to guide this energy into new businesses instead of in
other things (Baumol, 1991). These individuals will tend to be more growth oriented; however they will be less innovation oriented because of restraints in their access to capital and
technology.
Our purpose at this stage is to provide exploratory evidence for the relevance of motivation
based policies. In the next sections of this paper we will first examine empirically what is the
influence of the institutional environment (wealth/uncertainty) on entrepreneurial motiovations. Next, we will examine whether different entrepreneurial motivations have a different
impact on entrepreneurial aspirations, while taking into account the institutional environment.
7
3. Methodology and Data
In order to examine the determinants of entrepreneurial motivations and entrepreneurial aspirations we will estimate a two-equation model. This model takes the following form:
M = f (I, X)
A = f (M, I, X)
Where:
M = entrepreneurial motivations
A = entrepreneurial aspirations
I = institutional environment
X = socio-economic variables
In our model entrepreneurial motivation has a specific role as this variable appears on the one
hand as dependent variable in equation 1 and on the other hand as independent variable in
equation 2. The set-up of our model parallels the model of Grilo and Irigoyen (2006) in
which they investigate determinants of latent and actual entrepreneurship.
We make use of various data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2005 Adult
Population Survey for entrepreneurial motivations and entrepreneurial aspirations (levels of
innovation, job growth expectations and export orientation of early-stage entrepreneurs). We
also use data from other sources such as the World Bank and the World Competitiveness
Yearbook. The unit of analysis is the country level.
3.1 Entrepreneurial Motivations
Several measures of entrepreneurial motivation are used in this paper. These measures are
taken from GEM 2005. The measures for entrepreneurial motivation relate to the Total earlystage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate, which is defined as the percentage of the adult
population (18-64 years old) that is either actively involved in starting a new firm (nascent
entrepreneur) or that is the owner of manager of a business that is less than 42 months old
(young business owner). As indicators for entrepreneurial motivation we use the ‘necessity
motive’, the ‘independence motive’ and the ‘increase wealth motive’, expressed as percentage
of TEA:
Necessity motive. The share of early-stage entrepreneurs that indicates to participate
primarily in entrepreneurial activity because they have no other options for work.
Independence motive. The share of early-stage entrepreneurs for which independence
is the main motive for becoming an entrepreneur.
Increase wealth motive. This variable denotes to the share of early-stage entrepreneurs
that indicate that their prime motive for being or becoming an entrepreneur is to increase wealth.
8
3.2 Entrepreneurial Aspirations
For measures of entrepreneurial aspirations we use GEM data on innovativeness, job growth
expectations and export orientations. For innovativeness we use the following indicators:
Uses very latest technology. This variable denotes to the rate of early-stage entrepreneurs in the adult population that indicates to make use of technologies that have been
available for less than 1 year;
Offers products/services that are new to all customers. This variable denotes to the
rate of people involved in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity that have indicated
to offer a product or service that is new to the market.
None businesses offer the same product. This variable expresses the rate of earlystage entrepreneurs in the adult population of a country that offer a product or service
that is not sold by other businesses.
Furthermore, as indicator for job growth expectations we use ‘expects medium job growth’,
which refers to the rate of early-stage entrepreneurs in the adult population that expect to create 6 or more jobs in the next five years, and ‘expects high job growth’, which refers to the
rate of early-stage entrepreneurs that expect to create 20 or more jobs in five years time.
As indicators for export involvement we use the variables ‘export orientation’, which denotes
to the rate of new entrepreneurs for which at least 1% of their customers live outside the
country borders, and ‘substantial export orientation’, which refers to the rate of early-stage
entrepreneurs for which 26% or more of their customers live abroad.
3.3 Institutional Environment (wealth/uncertainty)
We use GDP per Capita as indicator for wealth and the social security contribution rate as indicator for certainty/uncertainty. Furthermore, we also include an interaction term of GDP per
capita and the social security contribution rate (GDP*Social Security):
GDP per Capita. Gross national income per capita is expressed in purchasing power
parities per US$. These data are taken from the World Development Indicators database of the World Bank.
- Social security contribution rate. This is the total (employer’s and employee’s) compulsory social security contribution rate taken from the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 (WCY).
3.4 Socio-Economic Controls
The following control variables are included in the analysis:
GDP Growth. Data on GDP Growth for 2005 are taken from the World Economic
Outlook Database from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
% Population 25-44 yrs. This variable refers to the percentage of people age 25 to 44
years in the total population for the year 2005. Data is taken from the US Bureau of
the Census.
Gross tertiary enrolment ratio. The gross tertiary enrolment ratio refers to the number
of people enrolled in tertiary education expressed as a percentage of the population in
the appropriate age range (the five-year age group following on from the secondary
school leaving age). These data are derived from the World Development Indicators
database of the World Bank.
Value added in services (% of GDP). We use data on value added in services from the
World Development Indicators database of the World Bank. Value added is the net
output of the sector after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs.
9
4. Empirical analysis
We intend to estimate equation 1 and 2 as presented above. We have data for 29 countries
that participated in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2005.
Step 1: Investigating the influence of Institutional Environment (wealth/uncertainty) on Entrepreneurial Motivations
Regression results for equation 1 are presented in Table 1. The analysis is meant to illustrate
how the institutional environment in terms of wealth and uncertainty may affect various entrepreneurial motivations. For each of the dependent variables for entrepreneurial motivations
(necessity motive, independence motive and increase wealth motive) we depart from a base
model that includes GDP per capita, social security and an interaction term of GDP per Capita and social security (Model 1), and then present a model that includes these variables as
well as socio-economic controls (Model 2). For the necessity motive we find that GDP per
capita has a significant negative impact in Model 1, indicating that when a country’s GDP per
capita increases, its share of necessity based entrepreneurs will decline. We find no significant impact for social security on necessity entrepreneurship in Model 1. However, when
socio-economic controls are included (Model 2) the impact of social security on the necessity
motive becomes significant positive, whereas no significant impact for GDP per capita is
found. One explanation for the positive impact that we find for the social security contribution rate may be that a high level of social security expenditures may be indicative for a high
level of beneficiaries or unemployed people within a country. Hence, when unemployment
levels are higher this may result in a higher share of necessity-motivated entrepreneurs.
For the independence motive we find that GDP per capita has a significant positive impact
and social security has a significant negative impact in Model 1. When socio-economic controls are included we no longer find a significant effect for GDP per capita, whereas the significant negative impact of the social security contribution rate becomes stronger (Model 2).
Table 1 also shows a significant negative impact of GDP per capita on the increase wealth
motive in Model 1. However, when socio-economic control variables are included in the
analysis (Model 2) we no longer find a significant impact for GDP per capita.
10
Table 1
Investigating the impact of Institutional Environment
(wealth/uncertainty) on Entrepreneurial Motivation
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: ENTREPRENEURIAL MOTIVATIONS
Necessity motive
Constant
GDP Capita
Soc. security contribution rate
GDP * Social
security
Model 1
0.35***
(6.68)
Model 2
1.31***
(2.99)
-0.77***
(-4.21)
0.13
(1.56)
0.01
(0.57)
Institutional Environment
-0.35
0.72***
0.31
(-1.50)
(4.65)
(1.39)
0.22**
-0.17**
-0.23***
(2.71)
(-2.45)
(-3.09)
0.01
-0.01
-0.00
(1.24)
(-0.94)
(-0.39)
Model 1
0.25***
(5.64)
Model 2
0.35
(0.85)
Socio-economic controls
-0.01
(-0.60)
-0.00**
(-2.40)
-0.02**
(-2.34)
-0.00
(-1.20)
GDP Growth
Tertiary Enrolment
ratio
% Population 25-44
yrs
Value added in services (% of GDP)
R²
Observations
Independence motive
0.471
0.669
0.535
Increase wealth motive
Model 1
0.28***
(5.64)
Model 2
-0.15
(-0.32)
-0.31*
(-1.74)
0.08
(0.99)
0.01
(0.89)
-0.34
(-1.34)
0.09
(0.97)
0.00
(0.37)
-0.03*
(-1.85)
0.00
(1.52)
0.01
(0.72)
-0.00
(-0.73)
0.649
0.02
(1.09)
0.00
(0.96)
0.01
(1.25)
-0.00
(-0.27)
0.121
0.302
29
***: p<0.01; **: p<0.05; *: p<0.10.
11
Step 2: Investigating the influence of Entrepreneurial Motivation on Entrepreneurial Aspirations
In order to investigate the influence of entrepreneurial motivations on entrepreneurial aspirations in terms of innovativeness, job growth and export orientation we carry out regression
analysis. As a first step we take a model that only includes the various entrepreneurial motives without taking into account any other controls or explanatory variables. Regression results are presented in Table 2. We find no significant impact for the necessity motive and the
independence motive on entrepreneurial aspirations. For the increase wealth motive we find a
significant positive impact on the use of very latest technology and on medium and high job
growth expectations.
Table 2
Investigating the impact of Entrepreneurial Motivation on Entrepreneurial Aspirations
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: ENTREPRENEURIAL ASPIRATIONS
Expects
high job
growth
(20+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
Export
orientation
Substantial export
orientation
(>25%)
-0.12
(-0.12)
0.63
(0.15)
-0.87
(-0.73)
Entrepreneurial Motivations
0.09
0.17
2.61
(0.04)
(0.10)
(0.64)
-0.12
1.73
1.64
(-0.04)
(0.90)
(0.35)
3.51
0.82
9.06**
(1.38)
(0.48)
(2.16)
0.36
(0.27)
0.56
(0.36)
2.86**
(2.07)
-1.76
(-0.30)
4.27
(0.64)
7.90
(1.22)
-1.03
(-0.63)
0.38
(0.20)
1.58
(0.87)
0.089
29
0.157
29
0.110
28
0.086
28
Uses very
latest
technology (<1
yrs old)
Offers
products/
services
new to all
customers
Constant
-0.36
(-0.12)
0.40
(0.22)
Necessity
motive
Independence
motive
Increase wealth
motive
3.86
(0.89)
-2.70
(-0.54)
10.77**
(2.42)
R²
Observations
0.327
29
None
businesses offer the
same
product
-0.01
(-0.01)
0.055
29
Expects
medium
job
growth
(6+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
-0.82
(-0.28)
0.177
29
***: p<0.01; **: p<0.05; *: p<0.10.
12
The model presented in Table 2 may not be complete, since no other explanatory variables or
controls are included in the analysis. Therefore, as a next step we include the institutional environment variabels. Results are presented in Table 3. We still do not find a significant impact for the necessity motive and the independence motive. Furthermore, we find that the impact for the increase wealth motive becomes stronger for the use of very latest technology
and for medium and high job growth. Also, in contrast to Table 2, we now also find a significant positive impact for the increase wealth motive on our variables for export orientation.
Table 3 shows support for a negative influence of social security on entrepreneurial aspirations. As regards GDP per capita we see that there is a significant positive effect on our variables for export orientation, whereas we find no effect on the other aspiration variables. Also
note that the effect of GDP per capita and social security interact for the use of very latest
technology. The significant negative impact for the interaction term indicates that higher levels of social security lead to less entrepreneurs that use newest technologies when GDP per
capita is higher.
Table 3
Investigating the impact of Entrepreneurial Motivation on Entrepreneurial Aspirations (including Institutional Environment)
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: ENTREPRENEURIAL ASPIRATIONS
Constant
Necessity
motive
Independence
motive
Increase wealth
motive
GDP Capita
Soc. security
contribution
rate
GDP * Social
security
R²
Observations
Expects
high job
growth
(20+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
Export
orientation (1100%)
Substantial export
orientation
(>25%)
0.32
(0.32)
-1.60
(-0.41)
0.09
(0.08)
3.35
(0.81)
-4.64
(-1.02)
11.59***
(2.89)
Entrepreneurial Motivations
-0.49
0.60
3.76
(-0.21)
(0.35)
(0.93)
-1.26
0.52
-1.67
(-0.50)
(0.27)
(-0.37)
3.65
1.26
10.28**
(1.64)
(0.76)
(2.60)
0.81
(0.59)
-0.54
(-0.36)
3.31**
(2.48)
5.87
(1.09)
-3.63
(-0.61)
14.32**
(2.50)
1.24
(0.82)
-1.87
(-1.13)
3.56**
(2.23)
0.01
(0.11)
-5.18***
(-3.11)
Institutional Environment
-0.01
0.01
0.03
(-0.30)
(0.47)
(0.55)
-3.02***
-1.72**
-4.76***
(-3.28)
(-2.50)
(-2.91)
0.01
(0.65)
-1.52**
(-2.76)
0.18**
(2.78)
-7.18***
(-3.28)
0.06***
(3.08)
-2.08***
(-3.41)
Uses very
latest
technology (<1
yrs old)
Offers
products/
services
new to all
customers
1.78
(0.60)
2.08
(1.26)
None
businesses offer the
same
product
0.56
(0.45)
Expects
medium
job
growth
(6+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
-0.74
(-0.25)
-0.41*
(-1.98)
-0.15
(-1.35)
-0.03
(-0.38)
-0.10
(-0.50)
-0.04
(-0.52)
-0.28
(-1.06)
-0.12
(-1.60)
0.579
29
0.465
29
0.301
29
0.440
29
0.403
29
0.469
28
0.464
28
***: p<0.01; **: p<0.05; *: p<0.10.
13
Since our model may still not be complete, as a next step, in addition to entrepreneurial motivations and institutional environment, we also include socio-economic controls. Table 4 contains the results for this analysis. In contrast to the previous models we now find some impact
for the necessity motive. More specifically, it can be seen that the necessity motive has a significant positive impact on high job growth (p<0.10), export orientation (p<0.10) and on substantial export orientation (p<0.05). Furthermore, as was the case in the previous models, we
do not find a significant impact for the independence motive on the ambition variables. For
the increase wealth motive we find a significant positive impact on the use of very latest
technology (p<0.10), on medium and high job growth expectations (P<0.10) and on our export orientation variables (p<0.05). Looking at our indicators for wealth and uncertainty or
the institutional environment we find that GDP per capita has a significant positive impact on
export orientation (p<0.05) and on substantial export orientation (p<0.01). For the social security contribution rate we find a significant negative impact on all aspiration variables. Note
however, that there is also an indirect positive impact of the social security contribution rate
on high job growth and export involvement through the necessity motive (see estimation results for equation 1 in Table 1).
The interaction variable for GDP per capita and social security has a significant negative impact on the ambition variables ‘uses very latest technologies’ (p<0.05), ‘offers products/services that are new to all customers’ (p<0.05), on ‘export orientation’ (p<0.10) and on
‘substantial export involvement’ (p<0.01). This implies that for these aspiration variables social security has a stronger negative influence in countries with a higher level of GDP per
capita. The results for the R² in Table 4, as compared to Table 3, suggest that the models are
better specified when socio-economic controls are included in the analysis.
14
Table 4
Investigating the impact of Entrepreneurial Motivation on Entrepreneurial Aspirations (Including Institutional Environment and Socioeconomic controls)
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: ENTREPRENEURIAL ASPIRATIONS
Constant
Necessity
motive
Independence
motive
Increase wealth
motive
GDP Capita
Soc. security
contribution
rate
GDP * Social
security
GDP Growth
Tertiary Enrolment ratio
% Population
25-44 yrs
Value added in
services (% of
GDP)
R²
Observations
None
businesses offer the
same
product
-5.17
(-1.23)
Expects
medium
job
growth
(6+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
-12.86
(-1.21)
Uses very
latest
technology (<1
yrs old)
Offers
products/
services
new to all
customers
-1.33
(-0.12)
-5.46
(-1.10)
4.48
(0.93)
-4.14
(-0.82)
8.55*
(1.98)
Entrepreneurial Motivations
1.38
1.79
7.26
(0.64)
(0.98)
(1.57)
-0.91
1.46
-1.05
(-0.41)
(0.76)
(-0.22)
1.05
-0.07
7.57*
(0.54)
(-0.04)
(1.83)
Expects
high job
growth
(20+ jobs
in 5 yrs)
Export
orientation (1100%)
Substantial export
orientation
(>25%)
-7.02**
(-2.27)
-29.92*
(-2.08)
-11.37***
(-3.76)
2.62*
(1.95)
-0.41
(-0.29)
2.16*
(1.80)
12.41*
(2.00)
-2.20
(-0.34)
13.43**
(2.27)
3.49**
(2.68)
-0.44
(-0.32)
3.08**
(2.48)
0.01
(0.64)
-1.90***
(-3.24)
0.18**
(2.68)
-9.05***
(-3.37)
0.07***
(4.54)
-2.30***
(-4.06)
0.01
(0.10)
-4.42*
(-2.09)
Institutional Environment
-0.01
0.02
0.03
(-0.33)
(0.76)
(0.51)
-2.89***
-1.44*
-5.12**
(-3.05)
(-1.80)
(-2.53)
-0.49**
(-2.15)
-0.24**
(-2.35)
-0.25
(-1.13)
-0.10
(-1.58)
-0.52*
(-1.75)
-0.23***
(-3.64)
0.39
(1.01)
0.02
(0.89)
0.11
(0.49)
-0.04
(-0.51)
Socio-economic controls
0.38**
0.32**
0.51
(2.21)
(2.22)
(1.39)
0.02
0.01
0.03
(1.67)
(0.91)
(1.19)
0.20
0.10
0.30
(2.13)
(0.13)
(1.46)
-0.01
0.01
0.02
(-0.28)
(0.41)
(0.33)
0.22*
(2.04)
0.01*
(1.81)
0.17**
(2.83)
0.02
(0.80)
0.70
(1.37)
0.03
(0.86)
0.53*
(1.96)
0.12
(1.30)
0.42***
(3.94)
0.01
(0.81)
0.19***
(3.39)
0.05**
(2.43)
0.660
29
0.719
29
0.660
29
0.591
28
0.766
28
-0.10
(-1.21)
0.523
29
0.569
29
***: p<0.01; **: p<0.05; *: p<0.10.
15
5. Conclusion & Discussion
Although many studies focus on aspects of entrepreneurial motivation, little is known about
how various entrepreneurial motives affect innovativeness and growth. This paper investigates the impact of different entrepreneurial motivations and institutional conditions on entrepreneurial aspirations in terms of innovativeness and growth ambitions. More specifically,
we have investigated: (1) how the institutional environment as expressed by the dimensions
‘wealth’ and ‘uncertainty’ is related to entrepreneurial motivations; (2) how entrepreneurial
motivations (necessity motive, independence motive and increase wealth motive) are related
to entrepreneurial aspirations.
Our empirical exercise has shown that especially the increase wealth motive has a positive
impact on entrepreneurial aspirations. More specifically, the increase wealth motive is positively associated with the use of very latest technologies, medium and high job growth expectations and export orientation. We find no evidence of an impact on entrepreneurial ambitions
for the independence-motivated entrepreneurs, confirming our expectation that these type of
entrepreneurs do not tend to have a strong focus on innovation and growth. Also in accordance with our expectations we find that necessity-based entrepreneurs are not so much oriented towards innovation, however, they do tend to contribute to high job growth and export.
Furthermore, we find GDP per capita to be positively related to export involvement. We find
a negative impact of social security on our ambition variables indicating that when social security systems are more generous start-ups tend to be less oriented towards innovation and
growth. We find some indications of direct effects for the institutional environment on entrepreneurial aspirations as well as indirect effects, through entrepreneurial motivation. For example, in case of social security we find two counteracting influences on high job growth and
export orientation. We find a direct significant negative impact for social security on high job
growth and export involvement, whereas we also find evidence of an indirect positive impact
of social security on high job growth and export involvement through the effect of the necessity motive.
We will end this paper with some policy proposals directly based on the prime motives for
becoming self-employed, i.e. independence, increase wealth, risk-perception and opportunity
recognition. Obviously, the type of individual entrepreneurial motivation is not the only factor to consider when designing entrepreneurship policies. Generally speaking, governmental
economic policies are constrained by what has become known as the “Washington Consensus” (e.g., Stiglitz, 2002). In the Entrepreneurial Economy, the uncertainty of the value
knowledge exerts a major influence on the shape of government policy. Trial-and-error
commercialisation is of primary importance. It is impossible for any government to demand
specific outputs, although high growth industries as well as high potential individuals can be
targeted. Therefore, the central role of government policy in the Entrepreneurial Economy is
enabling in nature. It targets education, increases the skills and human capital of workers, offers help by mentors, facilitates the mobility of workers and their ability to start new firms,
lowers administrative burdens for small business and promotes knowledge transfer to innovative new enterprises.
16
Enabling, generic policies coincide very well with the characteristics of independence or
autonomy as a start-up motive. A wish for autonomy in a work context means that people like
to decide when, what, and how they do their work. A strong prevalence of the autonomy motive in the population of (entrepreneur) is tricky for policy makers and difficult to influence.
Autonomy is a pull motive strengthened by the level of accumulated wealth (just as individualism correlates positively with wealth). Autonomy-driven individuals prefer to make up their
own minds and don’t like to be coerced by their government. On the other hand they certainly
appreciate facilities that offer training, mentoring, and knowledge transfer, which they can
use on their own conditions.
While autonomy can be associated both with a big business as well as with a small business,
most autonomy driven entrepreneurs do prefer their business to stay small, especially under
conditions of wealth and certainty. Thus, as our empirical results suggest, the macroeconomic effects on growth and employment creation will be relatively small. The upside is
that autonomy driven entrepreneurship brings about variety. Just because of their autonomy
orientation, these entrepreneurs may do things in a slightly different way. In addition, the
sheer number of business starters driven by autonomy argues for generic policies. Ten new
businesses with one employee create as much employment as one new business with ten employees. For small businesses, a reduction in compliance issues is especially relevant, as these
fall proportionally heavy on the (very) small firm.
Our empirical results suggest that entrepreneurs that are primarily motivated by increase
wealth may in particular contribute to positive macro-economic outcomes in terms of innovation and growth. Policies based on the motivation to acquire material gains and its associated
status can be influenced by tax laws. High tax levels, as well as a strong progressive taxation
of income tax reduce the incentive for these people to pursue material gains. The more earnings that individuals motivated by material gains can retain, the more incentive there will be
for them to engage in entrepreneurship. Reduction of compliance costs and red tape are also
integral elements of material gain policies, as they will help to reduce frustration for the materially hungry.
The experience of risk is something that can be influenced more directly by policy makers.
This can be achieved in several ways. One important element of risk perception policies concern labour laws and social security laws. A higher degree of environmental uncertainty may
benefit both level of (more) and type of (innovative) entrepreneurship. More risk and uncertainty in the environment makes starting one’s own business comparatively less risky. (Obviously, there may be social reasons to sustain certainty providing labour laws and social security laws). Vice versa, need for financial security, as a negative predictor of entrepreneurial
activity, will be more of a deterrent when perceived risk and uncertainty are low. Another
element of risk perception policies concern insolvency laws. Less severe sanctions against
failure lowers the perceived risk of venturing. Still another element concerns the availability
of risk capital. VC’s and angels willing to take part in entrepreneurial ventures will also help
the entrepreneur to lower risks.
Finally, there are policies for opportunity recognition. Governments in knowledge economies
can create opportunities by funding technology development and knowledge creation in general, and especially knowledge transfer and dissemination. Diversity is another key concern.
This applies to people, for example, to have a working population that is diverse in terms of
ideas and knowledge, as can be targeted by immigration policies. Diversity is also brought
about when people interact. Therefore the facilitation of networks is important, and even the
17
planological layout of cities (Jacobs, 1965). Fostering international connections is also an important part of opportunity recognition policies.
The empirical part of this study has a number of limitations, such as the small sample size
and the cross-sectional nature of the analysis. Furthermore, we were only able to take into account a limited number of motives currently measured as part of the GEM-project. However,
the significant relationships between country-level institutional environment variables and the
type of individual-level motivation on the one hand, and type of individual-level motivation
and firm-level aspirations on the other hand, show the potential for motivation based policies
for an entrepreneurial EU economy.
18
References
Acs, Z. & D. Audretsch. (1990) Innovation and Small Firms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Audretsch, D.B., & A.R. Thurik. (2000) “Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: from
the managed to the entrepreneurial economy.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics
10(1): 17-34.
Audretsch, D.B., & A.R. Thurik. (2001) “What’s new about the new economy? From the
managed to the entrepreneurial economy.” Industrial and Corporate Change 10(1):
267-315.
Audretsch, D.B., A.R. Thurik, I. Verheul, & A.R.M Wennekers (eds). (2002) Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policies in the New Economy. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Audretsch, D.B. M.A. Carree, A.J. van Stel & A.R. Thurik. (2002) “Impeded industrial restructuring: the growth penalty.” Kyklos 55(1): 81-97.
Audretsch, D.B. & A.R. Thurik. (2004) “The model of the entrepreneurial economy.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 2(2): 143-166.
Autio, E., H.J. Sapienza and J.G. Almeida (2000), ‘Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity and imitability on international growth’, Academy of Management Journal, 43,
909-924.
Baumol, W.J. (1991) “Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive.” Journal
of Business Venturing 11: 3-22.
Breaugh, J.A. (1999) "Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies."
Journal of Business and Psychology 13(3): 357-373.
Carree, M.A. & A.R. Thurik. (1999) “Industrial structure and economic growth” in Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment, eds. D.B. Audretsch & A.R. Thurik, 86-110.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carree, M.A. & A.R. Thurik. (2003) “The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth”
in Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. D.B. Audretsch & Z.J. Acs, 437-471.
Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carree, M.A., A.J. van Stel, A.R. Thurik & A.R.M. Wennekers. (2002) “Economic development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD countries in the period 1976-1996.” Small Business Economics 19: 271-290.
Carter, N.M., W.B. Gartner, K.G. Shaver, & E.J. Gatewood. (2003) "The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs." Journal of Business Venturing 18: 13-39.
Dijken, J.A. Van & Y.M. Prince. (1997), Zicht op de relaties tussen marktwerking, innovativiteit en export. Theorie en praktijk (Insight into the relation between the functioning of
the market, innovativeness and export. Theory and practice), Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.
Douglas, E.J., & D.A. Shepherd. (2002) “Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximazation.” Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 26(3): 81-90.
European Commission. (2003) Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/green_paper/
Feldman, D.C., & M.C. Bolino. (2000) "Career patterns of the self-employed: Career motivations and career outcomes." Journal of Small Business Management 38: 53-67.
Frese, M., W. Kring, A. Soose, & J. Zempel. (1997) “Personal initiative at work: Differences
between East and West Germany.” Academy of Management Journal 39: 37-63.
Grilo, I. & J. Irigoyen. (2006), Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and Not to Be, Small
Business Economics, forthcoming.
Kolvereid, L. (1996) "Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 20(3): 23-31.
19
McClelland, D. (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
McCelland, D.C. (1975) Power. The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
Sayers, J., M.W. Van Gelderen, & C. Keen. (2006) “Home-based Internet businesses as drivers of variety.” Manuscript submitted for publication.
Scheinberg, S., & I.C. MacMillan. (1988). “An 11 country study of motivation to start a business.” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Shane, S., E. Locke, & C.J. Collins. (2003) "Entrepreneurial motivation." Human Resource
Management Review 13(2): 257-280.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
Van Gelderen, M.W., A.R. Thurik, & N. Bosma. (2005) “Success and risk factors in the prestartup phase.” Small Business Economics 24(4): 365-380.
Van Gelderen, M. (2004) Opportunity Entry Performance: Studies of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, Ph.D. thesis, Tinbergen Institute Research Series, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam.
Van Gelderen, M.W., & P.G.W. Jansen. (2006) “Autonomy as a startup motive.” Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development 13(1): 23-32.
Van Gelderen, M.W., M. Brand, M. Van Praag, W. Bodewes, E. Poutsma, & A. van Gils.
(2006) “Some advances in the explanation of entrepreneurial intentions.” Regional
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Melbourne: Swinburne.
Weber, M. (1991/1905) The Protestant Work Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism London:
Harper Collins.
Wennekers, A.R.M, L. Uhlaner, & A.R. Thurik. (2003) “Entrepreneurship and its conditions:
A Macro-Perspective.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(1): 2564.
Wilson, F., D. Marlino, & J. Kickul. (2004) "Our entrepreneurial future: Examining the diverse attitudes and motivations of teens across gender and ethnic identity." Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship 9(3): 177-197.
20
The results of EIM's Research Programme on SMEs and Entrepreneurship are published in the following
series: Research Reports and Publieksrapportages. The most recent publications of both series may be
downloaded at: www.eim.net.
Recent Research Reports and Scales Papers
H200626
19-12-2006
H200625
18-12-2006
H200624
H200623
13-12-2006
6-12-2006
H200622
1-12-2006
H200621
1-12-2006
H200620
23-11-2006
H200619
20-11-2006
H200618
20-11-2006
H200617
11-10-2006
H200616
11-10-2006
H200615
2-10-2006
H200614
25-9-2006
H200613
25-9-2006
H200612
25-9-2006
H200611
25-9-2006
H200610
25-9-2006
H200609
25-9-2006
H200608
24-8-2006
H200607
H200606
H200605
18-8-2006
6-7-2006
27-6-2006
H200604
22-6-2006
H200603
H200602
21-6-2006
21-6-2006
H200601
22-5-2006
N200520
7-3-2006
N200519
1-2-2006
N200518
26-1-2006
N200517
N200516
23-1-2006
23-1-2006
Export Orientation among New Ventures and Economic
Growth
Institutionele voorwaarden voor zelfstandig ondernemerschap
Creative Destruction and Regional Competitiveness
Entrepreneurship, Dynamic Capabilities and New Firm
Growth
Determinants of self-employment preference and realization of women and men in Europe and the United
States
Is human resource management profitable for small
firms?
The entrepreneurial ladder and its determinants
Knowledge Spillovers and Entrepreneurs’ Export Orientation
The effects of new firm formation on regional development over time: The case of Great Britain
On the relationship between firm age and productivity
growth
Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a crosscountry setting
The Geography of New Firm Formation: Evidence from
Independent Start-ups and New Subsidiaries in the
Netherlands
PRISMA-K: een bedrijfstakkenmodel voor de korte termijn
PRISMA-M: een bedrijfstakkenmodel voor de middellange termijn
PRISMA-MKB: modelmatige desaggregatie van bedrijfstakprognose naar grootteklasse
PRISMA-R: modelmatige desaggregatie van bedrijfstakprognoses naar provincie
Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs
The effect of business regulations on nascent and Young
business entrepreneurship
High growth entrepreneurs, public policies and economic
growth
The decision to innovate
Innovation and international involvement of Dutch SMEs
Uncertainty avoidance and the rate of business ownership across 21 OECD countries, 1976-2004
The Impact of New Firm Formation on Regional Development in the Netherlands
An Ambition to Grow
Exploring the informal capital market in the Netherlands: characteristics, mismatches and causes
SMEs as job engine of the Dutch private economy
High Performance Work Systems, Performance and Innovativeness in Small Firms
Entrepreneurial Culture as Determinant of Nascent Entrepreneurship
Social security arrangements and early-stage entrepreneurial activity; an empirical analysis
Determinants of Growth of Start-ups in the Netherlands
Entrepreneurship in the old en new Europe
21
N200515
23-1-2006
N200514
23-1-2006
N200513
20-1-2006
N200512
20-1-2006
N200511
19-1-2006
N200510
11-1-2006
N200509
11-1-2006
N200508
11-1-2006
N200507
11-1-2006
H200503
6-12-2005
N200506
N200505
5-9-2005
5-9-2005
H200502
H200501
31-8-2005
12-5-2005
N200504
21-4-2005
N200503
N200502
7-4-2005
31-3-2005
N200501
H200408
H200409
H200407
H200406
31-3-2005
23-12-2004
22-12-2004
9-12-2004
9-11-2004
H200405
H200402
27-10-2004
4-10-2004
H200401
H200404
4-10-2004
3-9-2004
H200403
H200311
H200310
14-6-2004
29-4-2004
16-3-2004
H200309
3-3-2004
H200308
3-3-2004
H200307
3-3-2004
Entrepreneurial engagement levels in the European Union
Latent and actual entrepreneurship in Europe and the
US: some recent developments
Determinants of self-employment preference and realisation of women and men in Europe and the United
States
PRISMA-K: een bedrijfstakkenmodel voor de korte termijn
Strategic Decision-Making in Small Firms: Towards a
Taxonomy of Entrepreneurial Decision-Makers
Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at the
country level
The link between family orientation, strategy and innovation in Dutch SMEs: a longitudinal study
From nascent to actual entrepreneurship: the effect of
entry barriers
Do entry barriers, perceived by SMEs, affect real entry?
Some evidence from the Netherlands
The Impact of New Firm Formation on Regional Development in the Netherlands
Entrepreneurial intentions subsequent to firm exit
The relationship between successor and planning characteristics and the success of business transfer in Dutch
SMEs
Product introduction by SMEs
Kosten van inhoudelijke verplichtingen voor het bedrijfsleven
Does Self-Employment Reduce Unemployment?
Zipf's Law in Economics
Early-stage entrepreneurial activity in the European Union: some issues and challenges
Scale effects in HRM Research
Aantallen ondernemers en ondernemingen
Armoede onder zelfstandige ondernemers
How do firms innovate?
Perception of competition : A measurement of competition from the perspective of the firm
Arbeidsproductiviteit in de Nederlandse dienstensector
Verklaren en voorspellen van naleving: uitwerking van
een ex ante schattingsmethode
Explaining variation in nascent entrepreneurship
Academic entrepreneurship : a source of competitive
advantage
How can leaders trigger bottom-up innovation?
Transforming an idea into a strategic decision in SMEs
Business dynamics and employment growth: A crosscountry analysis
The National Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation by SMEs
Understanding the Role of Willingness to Cannibalize in
New Service Development
Factors influencing export development of Dutch manufactured products
22