IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/krk/eberjl/v4y2016i3p11-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entrepreneurship and Economic Freedom: Do Objective and Subjective Data Reflect the Same Tendencies?

Author

Listed:
  • Burak Erkut

    (Dresden University of Technology, Germany)

Abstract

Objective: The paper addresses the question whether the same tendencies on entrepreneurship, innovation and economic freedom can be captured by subjective (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) and objective (Index of Economic Freedom) data – and to which extent one can classify countries by different data sources in a theoretical framework based on the national competitiveness of each country. Research Design & Methods: Main method used was the direct discriminant analysis. Since this approach has shortcomings, selected variables from an exhaustive CHAID analysis (Erkut, 2016a) were used to predict the degree of economic freedom of the country based on the answers of experts. Findings: To determine the degree of economic freedom in a country, the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights legislation and quick access to utilities are the two variables with the most informational content. 86.8% of the original grouped cases was classified correctly – this is above the widely accepted threshold of 75%. Implications & Recommendations: A new trend in entrepreneurial research is to build compound indices based on different data sources. It is important to understand whether parts of a compound index reflect the same tendencies. This paper gives formal empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis. Contribution & Value Added: The contribution of this work lies in closing a research gap defined by Coduras and Autio (2013) concerning Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, suggesting that GEM results should be tested against objective data sources such as Index of Economic Freedom.

Suggested Citation

  • Burak Erkut, 2016. "Entrepreneurship and Economic Freedom: Do Objective and Subjective Data Reflect the Same Tendencies?," Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Centre for Strategic and International Entrepreneurship at the Cracow University of Economics., vol. 4(3), pages 11-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:krk:eberjl:v:4:y:2016:i:3:p:11-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eber.uek.krakow.pl/index.php/eber/article/download/129/pdf_1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Israel M. Kirzner, 1997. "Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 60-85, March.
    2. David B. Audretsch & A. Roy Thurik, 2000. "Capitalism and democracy in the 21st Century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 17-34.
    3. von Hayek, Friedrich August, 1989. "The Pretence of Knowledge," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(6), pages 3-7, December.
    4. Heckelman, Jac C & Stroup, Michael D, 2000. "Which Economic Freedoms Contribute to Growth?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 527-544.
    5. Jeffery S. McMullen & D. Ray Bagby & Leslie E. Palich, 2008. "Economic Freedom and the Motivation to Engage in Entrepreneurial Action," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 32(5), pages 875-895, September.
    6. Coduras , Alicia & Autio, Erkko, 2013. "Comparing subjective and objective indicators to describe the national entrepreneurial context: the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Competitiveness Index contributions," INVESTIGACIONES REGIONALES - Journal of REGIONAL RESEARCH, Asociación Española de Ciencia Regional, issue 26, pages 47-74.
    7. Kuckertz, Andreas & Berger, Elisabeth S.C. & Mpeqa, Andrew, 2016. "The more the merrier? Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1288-1293.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tuğberk Kaya & Burak Erkut & Nadine Thierbach, 2019. "Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business and Economics Students in Germany and Cyprus: A Cross-Cultural Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Juan M. Dempere & Alexandrina M. Pauceanu, 2022. "The impact of economic-related freedoms on the national entrepreneurial activity," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Piotr Trąpczyński & Łukasz Puślecki & Michał Staszków, 2018. "Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-32, November.
    4. Jian Xu & Jae-Woo Sim, 2018. "Characteristics of Corporate R&D Investment in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Manufacturing Industry in China and South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Sharma, Gagan Deep & Tiwari, Aviral Kumar & Erkut, Burak & Mundi, Hardeep Singh, 2021. "Exploring the nexus between non-renewable and renewable energy consumptions and economic development: Evidence from panel estimations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    6. Xuluo Yin & Xuan Xu & Qi Chen & Jiangang Peng, 2019. "The Sustainable Development of Financial Inclusion: How Can Monetary Policy and Economic Fundamental Interact with It Effectively?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bradley K. Hobbs & Mushfiq Swaleheen, 2014. "Entrepreneurial starts: nature or nurture?," Chapters, in: Robert F. Salvino Jr. & Michael T. Tasto & Gregory M. Randolph (ed.), Entrepreneurial Action, Public Policy, and Economic Outcomes, chapter 5, pages 83-99, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Oasis Kodila-Tedika & Julius Agbor, 2016. "Does Trust Matter for Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Cross-Section of Countries," Economies, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Shastitko, Andrey & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "Meeting blindly… Is Austrian economics useful for dynamic capabilities theory?," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 86-110.
    4. Andrew Burke & Serhiy Lyalkov & Ana Millán & José María Millán & André Stel, 2021. "How do country R&D change the allocation of self-employment across different types?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 695-721, February.
    5. de Soto Jesus Huerta, 1998. "The Ongoing Methodenstreit of The Austrian School," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-40, March.
    6. Niklas Elert & Magnus Henrekson, 2019. "The collaborative innovation bloc: A new mission for Austrian economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 295-320, December.
    7. Magnus Henrekson & Jesper Roine, 2007. "Promoting Entrepreneurship in the Welfare State," Chapters, in: David B. Audretsch & Isabel Grilo & A. Roy Thurik (ed.), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Magnus Henrekson, 2005. "Entrepreneurship: a weak link in the welfare state?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(3), pages 437-467, June.
    9. Wandel, Jurgen, 2010. "The Cluster-Based Development Strategy In Kazakhstan’S Agro-Food Sector: A Critical Assessment From An "Austrian" Perspective," IAMO Discussion Papers 91760, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    10. Daniel L. Bennett, 2021. "Local economic freedom and creative destruction in America," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 333-353, January.
    11. Gabriele Pellegrino & Mariacristina Piva & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "How do new entrepreneurs innovate?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 42(3), pages 323-341, September.
    12. Milo Bianchi & Magnus Henrekson, 2005. "Is Neoclassical Economics still Entrepreneurless?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 353-377, July.
    13. Richard Seymour, 2006. "Hermeneutic phenomenology and international entrepreneurship research," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 137-155, December.
    14. Jürgen Wandel, 2011. "Business groups and competition in post-Soviet transition economies: The case of Russian “agroholdings”," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(4), pages 403-450, December.
    15. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269, January.
    16. Brian Chi‐ang Lin, 2007. "A New Vision Of The Knowledge Economy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 553-584, July.
    17. Turan Yay & Gülsün G. Yay & Tolga Aksoy, 2018. "Impact of institutions on entrepreneurship: a panel data analysis," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(1), pages 131-160, April.
    18. John B. Cullen & Jean L. Johnson & K. Praveen Parboteeah, 2014. "National Rates of Opportunity Entrepreneurship Activity: Insights from Institutional Anomie Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(4), pages 775-806, July.
    19. Martin Carree & André van Stel & Roy Thurik & Sander Wennekers, 2000. "Business Ownership and Economic Growth in 23 OECD Countries," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-001/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Rodriguez Torres, Omar, 2021. "How different are necessity and opportunity firms? Evidence from a quantile analysis of the Colombian microenterprise sector," MERIT Working Papers 2021-019, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    entrepreneurship; economic freedom; innovation; discriminant analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    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:krk:eberjl:v:4:y:2016:i:3:p:11-26. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Piotr Stanek, PhD. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aekrapl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.