Determinant Factors for the Development of Entrepreneurial Activity: A Correlational Study

AbstractEntrepreneurship is characterized by the transformation of innovation, knowledge, oppor-tunities and ideas for creating new businesses to make profits and stimulate social and eco-nomic changes. According to literature, high levels of regional entrepreneurship are essen-tial to unleash these changes. This research proposes an integrated model of determinantfactors that stimulate entrepreneurial activity and economic development. This model con-sists of institutional, economic and social determinants. Data were collected through 189questionnaires to nascent entrepreneurs. Significant correlations were found between thedeterminants model and entrepreneurial activity. The results of this research provide use-ful tools for designing public policies to stimulate entrepreneurship and economic devel-opment. It also provides researchers with a basis for further studies to determine the effec-tiveness of the integration of elements that encourage entrepreneurial activity.

Keywords: regional entrepreneurship, economic development, entrepreneurship, regionalentrepreneurship, economic development, entrepreneurial activity

JEL codes: H70, L26, O10, O21, O31.

1. Introduction

The global economic environment has undergone radical changes over the pastdecades. This has been characterized by the segmentation of smaller companies. Inaddition, technological developments have intensified global competition and inte-grated regional economies (Acs, 1992). Also, small businesses have taken an active

Esic Market Economics and Business JournalVol. 45, Issue 1, January-April 2014, 53-66

Determinant Factors for the Development ofEntrepreneurial Activity: A Correlational Study

José E. Berríos Lugo and Maritza I. Espina

Universidad del Este

* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0212-1867 / e-ISSN 1989-3558© ESIC Editorial, ESIC Business & Marketing SchoolDOI: 10.7200/esicm.147.0451.2ihttp://www.esic.edu/esicmarket

role in regional economic development. Research has found that small businessesplay an important role in technological change and serve as agents of change andeconomic regeneration, creating new niche markets and creating jobs.

Economic regions have a unique set of stimulating activities leading to sustainedeconomic development resources. The literature suggests that there are more favor-able regions to pursue entrepreneurial activities than others (Mueller, 2004). Even,there are regions with similar entrepreneurial characteristics and exhibit differentrates of development (Acs & Armington, 2003). In addition, the literature indicatesthat there is great interest from researchers for regional economic behavior and pro-duction factors.

Some researchers (Beugelsdijk & Noorderhaven, 2004) have pointed out that thelack of entrepreneurial activity may be the key factor for the failure of regional inno-vation systems. Therefore, it is essential the need to innovate and generate knowl-edge to find solutions to the economic weaknesses (Lamboy, 2005) that can result ineconomies with low growth rates, which, in turn, generate low rates of entrepre-neurship and consequently an economic slowdown, as stated by Belso (2005). Stud-ies (Amoros et al., 2012) have indicated the importance of self-employment initia-tives in economic development, but in turn its limitation is also recognized in theimpact on the growth of regional economies. To stimulate economic acceleration,there are certain determinants (Acs, 1992) which are essential in the process to gen-erate entrepreneurial activity. While entrepreneurship is identified as the heart ofnational competitiveness (Porter, 1990), it is increasingly recognized as an importantdeterminant of economic productivity and agent of change in economic markets(Acs, 1992). Therefore, it is important to identify the factors that encourage entre-preneurial activity.

Entrepreneurial activity can be identified within the companies, regions or organ-izations that identify business opportunities to generate wealth (George & Zahra,2002). These environments are characterized by accepting controversial situations asnormal, for ability to depersonalize politics, for a long-term emphasis on educationin schools, the willingness to pay taxes to support public infrastructure, and the flex-ibility and diversity of community leaders (MacKenzie, 1992). Lack of an entrepre-neurial environment can be felt regionally as a result of a shortage in innovation sys-tems. Research has found evidence indicating that this culture is crucial in producingentrepreneurs (Amit et al., 1993).

There is a gap between public policies and strategies implemented to promoteentrepreneurship in the regions. Lundstrom and Stevenson (2002) argued that policiesthat encourage entrepreneurship are lacking theoretical basis. Spencer and Gomez(2003) argue that depending on the level of entrepreneurial activity that is pursued ,different theoretical frameworks that are independent from economic policies shouldbe developed. However, policy makers lack the knowledge of the factors that are asso-ciated with high entrepreneurial activities and actions that governments can take topromote entrepreneurship in their economies. Therefore, it is determined that there isa need to investigate and understand the policies and practices that cultivate regional

José E. Berríos Lugo and Maritza I. Espina54

entrepreneurship. For example, Busenitz and others (2000) ) suggest direct researchto identify the composition of factors that help governments develop, implement andpromote policies that encourage entrepreneurial activities in the long term.

Existing research and literature reviewed presented fragmented models to relateentrepreneurship to demographic, social and economic factors (Acs & Armington,2002; Audretsch & Keilbach, 2005; Busenitz et al., 2000; Kostova, 1997; Spencer &Gomez, 2003; Van Stel et al., 2005). These research models identify and use a vari-ety of determinants to shape the regional entrepreneurial activity. However, accord-ing to the literature reviewed, there is no integration of these factors to build a con-ceptual model of these determinants.

This research will present a model of determinants in which social, institutionaland economic factors are considered in order to explore their relationship with thelevel of entrepreneurship at regional level. In turn, this research will be useful toidentify policy tools that encourage accelerated levels of entrepreneurial activity in aregion. Using this model, people that develop entrepreneurial policies can directresources to the areas that are really receptive to these strategies.

2. Literature Review

Entrepreneurial activity is a key to economic development. A determining factoris one that increases (Acs & Armington, 2003) and directs entrepreneurial activity.It has been shown that entrepreneurial activity varies with the combination ofresources, factors or elements that exist in the regions. The identification of the ele-ments, that are crucial to entrepreneurial activity, leads us to present an integratedmodel for such activity. The literature reviewed in this research aims to identify theelements that stimulate entrepreneurship. Once these elements are identified a mod-el of integration of these determinants and their relation to economic development isproposed.

The suggested model is composed of three groups of determinants (Acs & Arm-ington, 2003). These factors are grouped into institutional, economic and socialdeterminants.

2.1. Institutional Determinants

Institutional determinants composed of cognitive, regulatory and policy factorsare proposed by Kostova (1997).

The cognitive factor includes the knowledge, skills and frameworks for catego-rizing and evaluating information possessed by individuals in a region. The ability toidentify relevant information to manage the risk inherent in a business must be relat-ed to entrepreneurial activity. Knowledge of how to start a company could be dis-persed in a region (Spencer & Gomez, 2003). The regulatory factor is constructed

Determinant Factors for the Development of Entrepreneurial Activity… 55

with by the laws, regulations, aid programs and government policies to promoteentrepreneurship, reducing risk to start a business, and the ease of obtainingresources and succeed. This factor specifies the responsibilities of owners of smallbusinesses by assigning property rights (Gómez, 2003).

The regulatory factor is composed by the degree to which individuals in a coun-try admired business and value the creative and innovative thinking (Busenitz, 2000).Kostova (1997) defines the normative component as social norms, values and knowl-edge of human behavior that are shared in a society by individuals. A positive regu-latory environment does not provide enough momentum to promote entrepreneurialactivities (Spencer & Gomez, 2003).

Government intervention can be classified into two types, directive and facilita-tive. The government in its management role defines the growth, productivity andcompetitiveness of the economy. It aims to achieve results with your deliberate inter-vention in the markets by applying incentives and controls, identifies opportunitiesand suggests the direction to be followed by companies. The directive approach isassociated with the influence to change the competitive advantages of existing indus-tries. The facilitative role aims to create environments for entrepreneurs to utilizetheir opportunities to provide law and order, public infrastructure, homes and socialstability that cannot be provided by private markets (Yu, 1998).

Bjornskov & Foss (2006) studied regional regulatory aspects. In its investigation,they analyzed the government institutional framework to evaluate economic policiesand institutional design and its impact on entrepreneurship. Their results indicatethat there is a close relationship between determining the size of government andentrepreneurship. Government involvement in consumption, their transfers, subsi-dies, and tax policy is negatively related to entrepreneurship. Licht y Siegel (2005)showed that legal rules will affect the levels of entrepreneurial activity and suggestthat these shortcomings can be partly overcome by using social networks to facili-tate balance in the resources.

The government acts as an entrepreneur when their policies or facilitative direc-tives create competitive advantages for a country. The intersection of governmentand entrepreneurship can lead the economy to achieve great things (Yu, 1998). Buton the other hand, a high government intervention of public funding reduces incen-tives to pursue entrepreneurial activities (Bjornskov & Foss, 2006). The waste ofpublic resources to permanently hold jobs that do not add value to productionexhausts the capacity of the economy to compete in markets that do not respect bor-ders (Gutiérrez, 1996).

Institutional determinants were constructed with the laws and rules that promoteentrepreneurship. Also incorporates the government and its policies (Audretsch &Keilbach, 2004a; Bjornskov & Foss, 2006; Kostova, 1997; Kreft & Sobel, 2005;Licht & Siegel, 2005; Yu, 1998; Zahra & Hansen, 2000). The government factordepends on the degree of involvement and government support for entrepreneurship.The political factor is composed by the size of government, spending, taxes, regula-tions and legal framework.

56 José E. Berríos Lugo and Maritza I. Espina

2.2. Economic Determinants

Amoros et al. (2012) suggest that public policy for enterprise development shouldbe designed to support dynamic business sectors rather than industries in a region.Liao et al. (2001) developed a model to determine the growth of an entrepreneurialbehavior. Their behavior model is based on macro environment and micro environ-ment characteristics. Macro factors relate to public policy, market infrastructure,financial markets and technological developments. The micro environment factorsinclude internal factors such as motivations and aspirations of entrepreneurs, whichare critical for understanding the growth of enterprises.

Begley et al. (2005) shaped the relationship between the political and economicdimensions of the environment and entrepreneurship. The political-economic dimen-sions are constituted by the economic, the political, the market, and the social infra-structure that determined the interest of entrepreneurial activity.

Some economists (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2004b) have identified physical capital,human capital and knowledge capital as factors stimulating economic development;they also introduced a fourth factor, the concept of entrepreneurial capital. Entre-preneruial capital comprises all the factors and forces in society that lead to the cre-ation of companies. It is the provision of a region of favorable factors to entrepre-neurship. Their model found there is a positive relationship to economic growth withthe regional per capita income. This same concept was applied to investigate its rela-tionship with regional labor productivity. The results suggest that venture capital hasa large positive impact on regional labor productivity (Audretsch & Keilbach, 2005).Spencer and Gomez (2003) see self-employment as the simplest form of entrepre-neurship. Acs (1992) stated that the growth rates of self-employment can be associ-ated with increases in entrepreneurial activity, an increase in diversity and high levelsof human capital. The government and its policies can affect self-employment in aregion. In regions with generous “welfare” benefits , most individuals tend not to jointhe workforce and become part of entrepreneurship (Bygrave & Cowling, 2004).

Hayton et al. (2002) suggest a causal role of economic factors in creating a cli-mate of entrepreneurship. The economic determinants are based on technology,financial markets and market structure. To these factors we have to add financialcapital in terms of access to capital (Liao et al., 2001), the level of research and devel-opment based on the relationship of technology and development (Beugelsdijk et al.,2002; Kirchhoff et al., 2002; Lamboy, 2005), professional services and business sup-port infrastructure and physical infrastructure in terms of accessibility of profits fornew or developing businesses (Chrisman et al., 2002).

2.3. Social Determinants

Lee et al. (2004) explored the connection between regional social, human capitaland the creation of new businesses. Their model is based on the idea that diversity


and creativity have a positive social impact on entrepreneurial activity. The researchsuggests that creativity and diversity are critical resources to stimulate entrepreneur-ship. They also noted that it is important to pay more attention to the habitat andsocial context in which entrepreneurial activity takes place. Regional studies, Lópezet al.(2006), found a strong influence among socio cultural factors in decidingwhether to create a company. Other investigations (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) havefound that in a community setting, the political and social support by entrepreneur-ial leaders and team spirit are critical to foster entrepreneurship. It has also beendemonstrated (Greve & Salaff, 2003) that social relationships play an important rolein the process of establishing a company. It is during the planning phase when thesupport of social networks was felt to be necessary. In the first and last stages, thisimpact is significantly reduced.

Social factors in this model are composed by education and culture (Acs & Arm-ington, 2003; Acs et al., 2006; Armington & Acs, 2002; Greve & Salaff, 2003;Kirchhoff et al., 2002; Kostova, 1997). Education is analyzed through the numberof trainees intending to start a business (Beugelsdijk & Noorderhaven, 2004). Cul-ture is analyzed through the innovative capacity and the promotion of entrepre-neurship in a region.

Entrepreneurial activity is defined by Bosma and Harding (2006), as the numberof people who are in the process of starting a business or who are already owners ofa new company. The elements of entrepreneurship are identified markets for goodsand services, opportunities, business environment and innovation.

This model proposes that there is a statistically significant relationship betweenentrepreneurial activity and economic development. Economic development isdefined as the increase in the gross national product.


3. Methodology

The purpose of this research was to integrate a model of determining factors thatencourage entrepreneurial activity in a region. Quantitative data were collected usingquestionnaires developed using the factors for determining the proposed relationshipsusing correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. To have the intention toestablish a company or to be in the process of developing a business were identifiedas the main characteristic for participants. It was identified as the main characteristicfor the participants, to had formal intention to establish a company or were in theprocess of developing a business. The population was identified in a government pro-gram to promote the establishment of new businesses and business development.

Using a probabilistic method, 189 participants meeting the requirement of theresearch were interviewed and were willing to answer the questionnaire. Of the sam-ple, 28 percent were current employers and 72 percent were individuals intending toestablish a company or were already in the process. Of the 72 percent who intendedshortly to set up a company, 33.6 percent were unemployed at the time of adminis-tering the questionnaire. The dominant industries when establishing businesses were


Entrepreneurial Activity

GovernmentPolicies

InstitutionalDeterminants

Kostova (1997)

GovernmentPrograms

Financial Capital

Research &Development

Professional & CommercialInfraestructure

Infraestructure

EconomicDeterminants

Liao et al., (2001)

SocialDeterminants

Lee, et al. (2000)

Education

Culture

Figure 1. Integration Model of Determinants of Entrepreneurial Activity

Note: Integration Model of Determinants of Entrepreneurial Activity.

the “professional services” with 30.7 percent, followed by industry “retail” with16.4 percent and then by industry “art, entertainment and recreation” with a 10.1percent. The industry had the lowest percentage was “computer or communica-tions” with a 0.5 percent selection.

4. Results

This study aimed to determine the relationship between the institutional, eco-nomic and social determinants of entrepreneurial activity. A series of statistical testsof correlation and multiple regressions was performed to determine the nature of thelinear relationship between these determinants and entrepreneurship. The results arepresented in Tables 1 and 2. These coefficients indicate a moderate positive correla-tion to entrepreneurial activity. The highest correlation coefficient is the social deter-minant. This coefficient is r = 0.597, followed by economic and institutional deter-minant. The interaction of the determinants model with entrepreneurship reflects acoefficient R = 0.676; this indicates a positive correlation between the observed val-ues and entrepreneurship. The correlation coefficient for this model is 0.456. Thismodel explains 45.6 percent of the variation in entrepreneurial activity. If new deter-minants are introduced to the model, this would affect the entrepreneurial activity ina 0.448. The interaction of the determinants of the model has to be significant withrespect to entrepreneurship.


Note: n = 189, *p < .05

Entrepreneurial Activity Social Economic Institutional

Entrepreneurial Activity 1 0.597* 0.542* 0.519*Social Determinant 0.597* 1 0.496* 0.517*Economic Determinant 0.542* 0.496* 1 0.559*Institutional Determinant 0.519* 0.517* 0.559* 1

Table 1. Correlation Model for Determinants of Entrepreneurial Activity

Note: a. Predictors: (Constant), Institutional Determinant, Social Determinant, Economic Determinant.b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Activity.

R R2 R2 adjusted

0.676 0.456 0.448

Table 2. Multiple Regression Coefficient for the Model for Determinants of EntrepreneurialActivity

The model presented determinants of entrepreneurial activity values indicatinga moderate positive relationship. This relationship, which although positive is notthe strongest, predicts the relationship between the determinants and entrepre-neurship.

Taking the model as a whole and not considering the interaction of the factorsthat make each determinant, the factor of greater magnitude is the social determi-nant. This determinant is analyzed in terms of the number of people trained withintent to start a business. These results are consistent with the research by Lee et al.(2004), in which they conclude that the elements of social infrastructure worktogether to increase regional capacity to generate entrepreneurial activity. The sec-ond significant element was the economic determinant followed by the institutionalone. The results of this model are consistent with previous research (Audretsch,2004), which suggest that the development policies of entrepreneurship should focusmore on the process of change in environmental conditions rather than the businessunit level. The elements that composed the institutional determinant showed signif-icant levels with respect to the relationship with entrepreneurial activity. This deter-minant is composed of government policies and programs. Both factors of this deter-minant predict and explain changes in entrepreneurial activity, but not the greateststrength of the model. The most influential institutional determinant for entrepre-neurship was government policy. Some research recommends (Kreft & Sobel, 2005)that to stimulate entrepreneurial activity the government should focus on creating anenvironment of economic freedom instead of bringing foreign capital into an area.Government programs are the second element of this determinant.

The components of economic determinant factors had a positive relationshipwith entrepreneurial activity. The economic determinant was composed by financecapital, research and development, commercial and professional infrastructure, andphysical infrastructure.

Three main elements within the economic determinant are the most influentialentrepreneurial activity: research and development, commercial and professionalinfrastructure, and physical infrastructure. The element with less relation was finan-cial capital. Financial capital is internationally renowned as one of the main obsta-cles to establishing business factors (Thurik & Grilo, 2005). Research and develop-ment was one of the three factors of economic determinant of greater connectionwith entrepreneurial activity. The results of the research and development are con-sistent with results obtained by other researchers. These results circle around theopportunities created by research and development (Audretsch & Keilbach, 1990).

Commercial and professional infrastructure was another element that showsstrong relationship with entrepreneurial activity. However, a statistically significantfactor, the participants indicated the high quality and availability of professionalservices, but noted its high cost. These findings are consistent with the results of theimportance of professional and commercial infrastructure in the literature (Fairlie,2006). The physical infrastructure is the third element of strong relationship withentrepreneurial activity.


The factors of the social determinant presented are the most significant relation-ships of the model. This consists of determining factors of education and culture.

In the interaction of the factors with respect to entrepreneurship, education hadthe lowest ratio.

Education was measured according to the teaching of need for achievement, self-sufficiency and personal initiative. Some studies (Kristiansen & Indarti, 2004) havefound that these elements of education are significant with respect to entrepreneur-ship. There was a lot of disagreement among participants concerning this aspect. .Some researchers (Lena & Wong, 2003) recommend that academic standards shouldinvest its efforts in changing the attitudes and mindset of their target groups andshould also develop incentives for people who are genuinely interested in devotingtheir time to education in entrepreneurship. Culture is the most significant elementof the social determinants model. Culture is seen by some researchers (Amit et al.,1993) as the determining factor in entrepreneurial activity and suggest that thereshould be harmony between the ideological constructs and economic behavior.There is consensus in the literature (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) on the impact ofadvertising business success and perception of entrepreneurs in the national culture.This has a positive impact on entrepreneurial activity, since it is a culture that sup-ports entrepreneurship, combining structures, reward systems and support mecha-nisms that collectively reinforce the norms and values aimed at entrepreneurship(Krueger & Brazeal, 1994).

5. Conclusions

After developing the necessary analyses for each investigated element, we con-clude that there is a relationship between the proposed model and entrepreneurialactivity. The results of the statistical analysis indicate that there is a relationshipbetween entrepreneurial activity and institutional, economic and social determi-nants. The most significant determinants in the model were social factors. Thesedeterminants were composed of cultural and educational elements.

The model presented values that indicate a moderate positive relationship. Thisrelationship is positive although not the strongest, but according to the coefficientsof determination and regression, it predicts the relationship between the determi-nants and entrepreneurship. The findings of this study suggest that continuedresearch and practical utility of the factors that encourage entrepreneurship beinvestigated to expand the elements that influence entrepreneurship in economicdevelopment and as a result, establish an integrated business development policy. Italso suggests courses of action for governments to recommend an active role toencourage the establishment and protection of regional companies. It is recom-mended to those responsible for designing corporate policies to be more informedof the relevant elements for entrepreneurs, and integrate academic faculty in thedesign and implementation of public and corporate policies. It is also recommend-


ed to promote creativity, self-reliance and personal initiative on education and directthe national culture to support business success and encourage risk-taking, innova-tion and creativity.

Study limitations are the possibility that there may be more factors that are deter-minants or in connection with entrepreneurial activity since the model only lookedat three elements. This opens new avenues of research to identify and expand deter-minants. Another limitation is that the cultural factor was divided into two compo-nents. According to the literature review, it is a multidimensional issue of great aca-demic interest.

References

Acs, Z. , 1992. “Small business economics: A global perspective”. Challenge, Vol.35, Issue 6, pp. 38-44.

Acs, Z., & Armington, C., 2003, “The impact of geographic differences in humancapital on service firm formation rates”. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 56,Issue 2, pp. 244-278.

Acs, Z., Armington, C., & Zhang, T., 2007, “The determinants of new firm survivalacross regional economies”. Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 86, pp. 367-391.

Amit, R., Glosten, L., & Muller, E., 1993, “Challenges to theory development inentrepreneurship research”. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 5, pp.815-834.

Amorós, J.E., Etchebarne. S. and Felzensztein, C., 2012, “International Entrepre-neurship in Latin America: Development Challenges”. Esic Market Economicsand Business Journal, Vol. 43, Issue 3, September-December, pp. 497-512.

Armington, C., & Acs, Z., 2002, “The determinants of regional variation in newfirm formation”. Regional Studies, Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 33-45.

Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M., 2004a,. “Entrepreneurship and regional growth: Anevolutionary interpretation”. Journal of Evolutionary Economic, Vol. 14, pp.605-616.

Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M., 2004b, “Entrepreneurship capital and economicperformance”. Regional Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 8, pp. 949-959.

Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M., 2005, “Entrepreneurship capital and regionalgrowth”. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 39, pp. 457-469.

Belso, J. A., 2005, “Equilibrium entrepreneurship rate, economic development andgrowth. Evidence of Spanish regions”. Entrepreneurship & Regional Develop-ment, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 145-161.

Beugelsdijk, S., & Noorderhaven, N., 2004, “Entrepreneurial attitude and econom-ic growth: A cross section of 54 regions”. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol.38, pp. 199-218.

Bjornskov, C., & Foss, N., 2006, “Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity:Some cross-country evidence”, Public Choice, Vol. 134, Issue 3, pp. 307-328.


Bosman, N., & Harding, R., 2007, Global entrepreneurship monitor, ExecutiveReport. Babson College and London Business School.

Busenitz, L., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J., 2000, “Country institutional profiles:Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena”. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.43, Issue 5, pp. 994-1003.

Chrisman, J., Gatewood, E. J., & Donlevy, L., 2002, “A note on the efficiency endeffectiviness of outsider assistance programs in rural versus non-rural states”.Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 26, Issue 3, pp. 67-80.

George, G., & Zahra, S. A., 2002, “Culture and its consequences for entrepreneur-ship”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 5-8.

Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W., 2003, “Social networks and entrepreneurship”. Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, Issue 1, pp. 1-22.

Hayton, J. C., Goerge, G., & Zahra, S. A., 2002, “National culture and entrepre-neurship: A review of behavioral research”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-tice, Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 33-52.

Kirchhoff, B., Hassan, I., Armington, C., & Newbert, S., 2002, The influence of r&dexpenditures on new firm formation and economic growth. [referred November8, 2013]. http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/finalreport_10-02-02.pdf

Kostova, T., 1997, “Country institutional profiles concept and measurement”. Acad-emy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 97, pp. 180-184.

Kreft, S., & Sobel, R., 2005, “Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic free-dom”. Cato Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 3, pp. 595.

Kristiansen, S., & Indarti, N. , 2004, “Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesianand Norwegian students”. Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp.55-78.

Krueger, N., & Brazeal, D., 1994, “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entre-preneurs”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 91-104.

Lamboy, J., 2005, “Innovation and knowledge: Theory and regional policy”. Euro-pean Planning Studies, Vol. 13, Issue 18, pp. 1137-1152.

Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z., 2004, “Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regionalanalysis of new firm formation”. Regional Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 8, pp. 879-891.

Lena, L., & Wong, P. k., 2003, “Attitude towards entrepreneurship education andnew venture creation”. Journal of Entrepreneurship Culture, Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp.339-357.

Liao, J., Welsch, H. P., & Pistrui, D., 2001, “Environmental and individual determi-nants of entrepreneurial growth: An empirical examination”. Journal of Entre-preneurship Culture, Vol. 9, Issue 3, pp. 253-272.

Licht, A. L., & Siegel, J. I., 2006, “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”. InCasson, M. Yeung, B. Basu, A. & Wadeson, N. (eds.), Oxford Handbook ofEntrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 511-539.

López Cabarcos, M.A., Vázquez Rodríguez, P. and Muñoz Ferreiro, N., 2006, “Astudy of entrepreneurship in Spain through a cluster analysis”, Esic Market Eco-nomics and Business Journal, º 124, May · August, pp. 409-435.


Lundstrom, A., & Stevenson, L., 2002, “Entrepreneurship Policy for the Future: Onthe road to entrepreneurship policy”. Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 149-190.

MacKenzie, L. R., 1992, “Fostering entrepreneurship as a rural economic develop-ment strategy”. Economic Development Review, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 38-44.

Mueller, S., 2004, “Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countriesand cultures”. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp.23-45.

Porter, M., 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.Spencer, J., & Gomez, C., 2003, “The relationship among institutional structures,

economic factors, and domestic entrepreneurial activity: A multi country study”.Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, Issue 10, pp. 1098-1107.

Van Stel, A., Caree, M., & Thurik, R., 2005, “The effect of entrepreneurial activityon national economic growth”. Small Business Economic,Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp.311-321.

Yu, T. F. L.., 1998, “Economic development in latecomer economies: An entrepre-neurial perspective”. Development Policy Review, Vol. 16, Issue 4, pp. 353-372.

Zahra, S. A., & Hansen, C. D., 2000, “Privatization, entrepreneurship, and globalcompetitiveness in the 21st century”. Competitiveness Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1,pp. 83.

Zhang, J., 2003. “Growing silicon valley on a landscape: An agent-based approachto high tech industrial clusters”. Journal of Evolutionary Economic, Vol.13, Issue5, pp. 529-548.


Notes on Contributors

Name: José E. Berríos Lugo, DBAPosition: Catedrático AsociadoSchool / Faculty: IEN Business SchoolUniversity: Universidad del EsteAddress: PO Box 2010. Carolina, PR 00984-2010Telephone: 787-257-7373 Ext. 3178Email: [email protected]

Name: Maritza I. Espina, Ph.D.Position: Decana y CatedráticaSchool / Faculty: IEN Business SchoolUniversity: Universidad del EsteAddress: PO Box 2010. Carolina, PR 00984-2010Telephone: 787-257-7373 Ext. 3178Email:


Determinant Factors for the Development of Entrepreneurial Activity: A Correlational Study

Documents

Transcript of Determinant Factors for the Development of Entrepreneurial Activity: A Correlational Study