Analysis the of institutions’ interaction for regional entrepreneurship development

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD Student in Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

2 Associate professor, Tehran university

3 Faculty member of the Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran

4 assistant professor

Abstract

 Introduction: To analyze the impact of institutions on the level of entrepreneurship, growth and ultimately economic development, we need to examine the data over time; and because systematic statistics on entrepreneurship have not yet been provided, the empirical literature linking entrepreneurship and institutions is still recognized as an emerging field. Most studies to date have this is how the institutional framework determines the level of entrepreneurial activity. Culture as one of the prominent institutional characteristics influences the level of entrepreneurial activities. In fact, entrepreneurial perception is considered as a part of local culture that stimulates productive entrepreneurship. One way to overcome these limitations are the institutions that are needed to describe the gift of entrepreneurship in different regions. This idea may be useful in understanding how entrepreneurship works in different regions. In view of the above, the purpose of this study is to identify and analyze previous studies conducted in the field of institutions that lead to the development of entrepreneurial activities in different regions.
  Methodology: The method of this research is qualitative and has been done using meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a qualitative study that examines information and findings extracted from other qualitative studies related to the same topic. As a result, the sample for meta-analysis consists of selected qualitative studies and based on their relationship with the research question. Hypertext is not an integrated review of the qualitative literature of the subject. Also, the analysis of secondary data and primary data is not from selected studies, but rather, the analysis of the findings of these studies. In other words, meta-analysis is the interpretive composition of the main data interpretations of the selected studies. In order to analyze the research data, two levels of open and axial coding have been used.
 
Results and Discussion: A review of selected research shows that physical infrastructure is one of the most important factors affecting the development of entrepreneurship at the regional level. Infrastructure includes roads, waterways and airports, efficient communication devices and integrated distribution channels. Areas with well-developed infrastructure enable entrepreneurs to identify market needs, respond quickly to them, and invest in new ones. In contrast, the lack of related infrastructure and basic services (health and financial care) can force people with the necessary entrepreneurial skills, knowledge and talent to relocate or prevent them from doing business at the regional level. Population size and income composition and distribution also affect demand for goods and services at the regional and local levels. Changes in population size lead to changes in aggregate demand for goods and services. Changes in population composition and income distribution reduce demand for certain goods and services and increase demand for others. A region can attract companies whose markets are compatible with its population composition and revenue level. Policies for the benefit of businesses at the regional level, especially those related to information and communication technology, are stimulated through institutions such as universities, science parks and venture capital firms. Markets are critical to identifying and seizing opportunities. Population size, composition and expansion, as well as income levels in a region, provide opportunities for new businesses to subsequently expand their markets to other regions.
 Conclusion: According to the research findings, regional entrepreneurship development with the main characteristics of growth and development in GDP, increasing the level and per capita employment in the region, increasing the rate of entrepreneurial activities and the rate of provincial innovation (number of patents registered), ‌ The institutional context, along with factors such as 1. Policy-making at three levels: national, regional and local; 2. Physical infrastructure including air infrastructure, rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, gas access, water access, electricity access, and 3- Commodity market or economic infrastructure including regional labor market, human capital, enterprise mix (SME and large) And the structure of the region's industry stimulated entrepreneurial activity. The importance of the dimensions of entrepreneurial regions does not mean that all entrepreneurial activities are influenced by regional conditions and variables, and certainly national components are also very important in describing entrepreneurial activities, which means that these conditions are more between countries and not between different regions. Countries change (for example, tax laws); Some conditions are also determined based on the characteristics of individuals. However, a wide range of empirical and theoretical findings suggest that in addition to the national framework, there are many other conditions that vary between different regions of a country and affect individuals' decisions about self-employment. The term "entrepreneurial atmosphere" integrates many of these regional characteristics that are at least able to influence the decision of local people to start and not to start a startup and even the future success and failure of a startup. Existence of programs to support entrepreneurship, perception, views and skills of the population about startups or the existence of support centers and promoters of startups, including universities with related fields and innovative companies, are examples of such characteristics of areas under the umbrella of entrepreneurship.

Keywords


  1. Acs, Z. J., & Phillips, R. J. (2002). Entrepreneurship and philanthropy in American capitalism. Small Business Economics, 19(3), 189-204.‏
  2. Acs, Z. J., & Varga, A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, agglomeration and technological change. Small business economics, 24(3), 323-334.‏
  3. Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. (2008). What does" entrepreneurship" data really show? A comparison of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and World Bank Group datasets. The World Bank.
  4. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of business Venturing, 23(6), 656-672.‏
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1030–1051.
  6. Audretsch, D., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of business venturing, 23(6), 687-698.
  7. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance, regional studies, 38(8), pp 949-959.
  8. Boland, Lawrence A (1979). Knowledge and the Role of Institutions in Economic Theory, Journal of Economic, 13(4), 23-36.
  9. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional studies, 39(1), 61-74.‏
  10. Bradley, S. W., & Klein, P. (2016). Institutions, economic freedom, and entrepreneurship: The contribution of management scholarship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 211-221.‏
  11. Brettle, A. (2003). Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 20, 3-9.
  12. Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship, institutions and growth in European regions: a uniform mechanism? school of Utrecht School of Economics. This paper can be downloaded at: http://.
  13. Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H. L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34(3), 421-440.‏
  14. Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpää, H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 913-930.‏
  15. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: an economic theory, rowman and littlefield.
  16. Carbonara, E., Santarelli, E., & Tran, H. T. (2016). De jure determinants of new firm formation: how the pillars of constitutions influence entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 139-162.‏Charmaz, C. (1990). Discovering Chronic Illness: Using Grounded Theory, Social Science and Medicine, 30.
  17. Castaño, M. S., Méndez, M. T., & Galindo, M. Á. (2016). The effect of public policies on entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5280-
  18. ‏Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm, economica, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 16.
  19. Coase, R. H. (1992). The institutional structure of production. American Economic Review, 82(4), 713-720.
  20. Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 1–14.
  21. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., & Walsh, J.P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48 (1), 1–23.
  22. Commons, J. R. (1931). Institutional economics, the american economic review, Vol. 21(4), 63-79.
  23. Cooke, P., Uranga, M., & Etxeba, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4-5) , 475-491.
  24. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd edition).
  25. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130.
  26. Davis, L. S., & Williamson, C. R. (2016). Culture and the regulation of entry. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(4), 1055-1083.‏Del Monte, A., & Pennacchio, L. (2020). Historical roots of regional entrepreneurship: The role of knowledge and creativity. Small Business Economics, 55(1), 1-22.‏
  27. Den Hartigh, E. & Tol. M. (2008). Business ecosystem, encyclopedia of networked and virtual organizations, 1, 106-111.
  28. Dequech, D. (2002). The demarcation between the "old" and the "new" institutional economics: recent complications, Journal of Economic Issue, 36(2), 65-81.
  29. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment: 3–22. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  30. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–161.
  31. Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2017). The effect of entrepreneurship on economic development—an empirical analysis using regional entrepreneurship culture. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1), 157-189.
  32. Fotopoulos, G., & Storey, D. J. (2019). Public policies to enhance regional entrepreneurship: another programme failing to deliver?. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 189-209.‏
  33. Gretzinger, S., Royer, S., Matiaske, W., Burgess, J., & Brown, K. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems, smart specialisation, industrie clusters and regional development: understanding change on the network level. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business 10(2), 101-104.
  34. Hasan, I., Kobeissi, N., Wang, H., & Zhou, M. (2017). Bank financing, institutions and regional entrepreneurial activities: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 52, 257-267.
  35. ‏Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of political economy, 99(3), 483-499.‏
  36. Kotey, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship and regional development: A theoretical framework. Small Enterprise Research, 14(2), 20-45.‏
  37. Lowe, N. J., & Feldman, M. P. (2017). Institutional life within an entrepreneurial region. Geography Compass, 11(3), e12306.‏Mazzarol, T. (2003). Regional Entrepreneurship – Developing a Holistic Framework for Stimulating Regional Enterprise. Regional Development SA, 2003 Conference, Adelaide 10-12 September 2003 , 1-26. Adelaide .
  38. Liñán, F., & Fernandez-Serrano, J. (2014). National culture, entrepreneurship and economic development: different patterns across the European Union. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 685-701
  39. ‏Mohajan, H. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability‏. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59-82.
  40. Moirangthem, N. S., & Nag, B. (2021). Measuring regional competitiveness on the basis of entrepreneurship, technological readiness and quality of institutions. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal.‏
  41. Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 493-509.
  42. ‏McClelland, D. C., & Mac Clelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society (Vol. 92051). Simon and Schuster.‏
  43. Naude, W., Gries, T., Wood, E., & Meintjies, A. (2008). Regional determinants of entrepreneurial start-ups in a developing country. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 20(2), 111-124.‏
  44. Razmjoo, S., & Nouhi, N. (2011). A SWOT analysis of the junior high school English program: A grounded theory approach. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, 26, 182-186.
  45. Rogalska, E. (2018). Multiple-criteria analysis of regional entrepreneurship conditions in Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 13(4), 707-723.‏
  46. Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the process of firms’ entry, survival and growth. Industrial and corporate change, 16(3), 455-488.‏
  47. Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.‏
  48. Sternberg, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship, proximity and regional innovation systems. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(5), 652-666.‏
  49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research,, 273-285.
  50. Swedberg, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: the view of the young Schumpeter (Vol. 3, pp. 21-34). Edward Elgar Publishing.‏
  51. Sweeney, G. P. (1987). Innovation, entrepreneurs and regional development. Burns & Oates.‏
  52. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic performance. Springer.
  53. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of management review, 25(1), 217-226.‏
  54. Urbano, D. Liñán, F., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 23(3-4), 187-199.
  55. Urbano, D., Toledano, N., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and transnational entrepreneurship: A multiple case study in Spain. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 119-134.‏
  56. Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group collaboration. Communications of the association for information systems, 13(1), 19.‏
  57. Xie, Z., Wang, X., Xie, L., & Duan, K. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem and the quality and quantity of regional entrepreneurship: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Research, 128, 499-509.‏
  58. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 311-318.