Author
Abstract
Why do some nations exhibit opportunity-driven entrepreneurship while others show necessity-driven ventures? This study introduces the institutional-ideological matrix framework examining how economic, political, and legal freedoms interact with cultural ideologies of authority and well-being to shape entrepreneurial motivations. Using panel fixed-effects regression on 721 observations from 109 countries (2006–2018), combining Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Atlantic Council Freedom Index, World Values Survey, and World Bank data, we identify four distinct contexts: Progressive Modern, Progressive Traditional, Conservative Developing, and Pragmatic Transitional societies. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, increased freedoms can decrease opportunity entrepreneurship in Progressive Modern contexts, and surprisingly increasing opportunity entrepreneurship in Conservative Developing contexts. Our findings demonstrate that cultural ideologies function as interpretive frameworks that amplify, neutralize, or reverse institutional effects on entrepreneurial behavior. This challenges universal institutional theory, showing that freedom-entrepreneurship relationships are contingent on cultural contexts, with important implications for context-specific entrepreneurship policies. Plain English Summary. Freedom does not automatically lead to more opportunity-driven entrepreneurship in a country, it depends on a country’s ideologies. This study of 109 countries reveals that the relationship between freedoms (economic, political, and legal) and the ratio of opportunity-to-necessity entrepreneurship varies dramatically based on cultural ideologies about authority (traditional vs. secular-rational values) and well-being (survival vs. self-expression values). Surprisingly, in highly developed societies with secular-rational and self-expression values, increased economic freedom actually decreases opportunity entrepreneurship, while in traditional developing societies, it has the opposite effect. Political freedom shows the strongest and most consistent positive effects across different cultural contexts. These findings challenge the widespread assumption that “more freedom is always better” for entrepreneurship and suggest that successful entrepreneurship policies must be tailored to specific cultural contexts. Thus, the principal implication is that policymakers should design freedom-enhancing reforms that align with their society’s cultural ideologies rather than adopting one-size-fits-all approaches to promoting opportunity entrepreneurship.
Suggested Citation
Diana M. Hechavarría & Siri Terjesen, 2025.
"The institutional-ideological matrix: how freedom and ideology shape opportunity-to-necessity entrepreneurship,"
Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 2179-2215, December.
Handle:
RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:65:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11187-025-01083-6
DOI: 10.1007/s11187-025-01083-6
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
- O17 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Formal and Informal Sectors; Shadow Economy; Institutional Arrangements
- O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth
- P51 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems - - - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems
- Z10 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:65:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s11187-025-01083-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.