Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship

Baumol's [Baumol, W.J., 1990. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy 98 (5), 893–921] theory of productive and unproductive entrepreneurship is a significant recent contribution to the economics of entrepreneurship literature. He hypothesizes that entrepreneurial individuals channel their effort in different directions depending on the quality of prevailing economic, political, and legal institutions. This institutional structure determines the relative reward to investing entrepreneurial energies into productive market activities versus unproductive political and legal activities (e.g., lobbying and lawsuits). Good institutions channel effort into productive entrepreneurship, sustaining higher rates of economic growth. I test and confirm Baumol's theory, and discuss its significance to the literature, economic prosperity, and policy reform.     

Scientific Paradigms,Entrepreneurial Opportunities and Cycles in Economic Growth

In this paper I present a model of economic growth that combines insights from endogenous growth theory, the field of entrepreneurship research and the philosophy and economics of science. The model is built on three relatively standard assumptions and a Kuhnian approach to scientific knowledge accumulation. I assume that innovation generates economic growth, that opportunity driven entrepreneurship is an important source of innovation, that entrepreneurial opportunities increasingly arise out of scientific knowledge creation and that science follows Kuhnian paradigm shifting dynamics. The model then generates opportunity driven cycles in entrepreneurial activity that in turn cause waves of innovation and cycles in economic growth. This result is highly relevant and fills a gap in all three literatures as ‚traditional’ endogenous growth models typically generate constant growth rates in the steady state, entrepreneurship research keeps the origin of entrepreneurial opportunity exogenous and the literatures on the philosophy and economics of science ignore the important downstream economic implications of the non-profit driven institutional framework that governs scientific knowledge accumulation. This paper contributes by identifying scientific institutions and entrepreneurial activity as prerequisites for economic growth and it offers a tentative explanation for the rise and fall in the levels of scientific, entrepreneurial and economic activity over the Kondratieff-cycle.      

Productive and harmful entrepreneurship in a knowledge economy

This paper develops an endogenous growth model with productive entrepreneurial activities and rent-seeking. Our purpose is to link contributions to the entrepreneurial and the endogenous growth literature. We deal with complementarity between productive entrepreneurship and harmful rent-seeking activities leading to potentially multiple equilibra in the economy. The degree of rent-seeking is endogenous in our model and is influenced by the economy’s legal and institutional framework as well as capital market imperfections. Policy which establishes the legal environment and financial institutions dealing with capital market imperfections together decides which of the potentially multiple equilibria is chosen by the economy. This institutional choice implies the solution to a trade-off between high economic growth on the one and a high level of productivity on the other hand.     

Financial and Institutional Reforms for an Entrepreneurial Society

In this paper, we introduce the special issue on Financial and Institutional Reforms for an Entrepreneurial Society in Europe. There are many reasons for Europe to want to make the transition to a more Entrepreneurial Society. And for decades now, policy makers are trying to bring that transition about with variations on the “educate, deregulate and finance” approach to entrepreneurship. We argue that more fundamental reforms are required to improve the entrepreneurial ecosystem and bring about this transition. We then discuss the 12 contributions that pertain to five different facets of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The first two papers address the most fundamental institutional foundations of the ecosystem. The next three papers discuss the (lack of) access to knowledge and incentives to start innovative entrepreneurial ventures. That is followed by three papers that focus on the institutions that (fail to) channel financial resources to such ventures and two papers that analyze the relevance of labor market institutions. The special issue concludes with two papers investigating how the interplay of institutions and productive entrepreneurship results in economic growth.     

Entrepreneurship,institutional economics,and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective

We analyze conceptually and in an empirical counterpart the relationship between economic growth, factor inputs, institutions, and entrepreneurship. In particular, we investigate whether entrepreneurship and institutions, in combination in an ecosystem, can be viewed as a “missing link” in an aggregate production function analysis of cross-country differences in economic growth. To do this, we build on the concept of National Systems of Entrepreneurship (NSE) as resource allocation systems that combine institutions and human agency into an interdependent system of complementarities. We explore the empirical relevance of these ideas using data from a representative global survey and institutional sources for 46 countries over the period 2002–2011. We find support for the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in economic growth.     

The double impact of institutions: Institutional spillovers and entrepreneurial activity in the solar photovoltaic industry

We investigate whether and when institutional spillovers, i.e., institutional effects across national borders, drive domestic entrepreneurial activity. Drawing on data on venture capital (VC) investments in the solar photovoltaic industry, we provide evidence for institutional spillovers and demonstrate that they are moderated by the presence of domestic institutions and the institutional distance between domestic and foreign policy schemes. By showing that domestic institutions not only influence entrepreneurial activity directly, but also facilitate spillovers, our findings demonstrate a double impact of institutions. Overall, we contribute to the literatures on the drivers of VC investments, institutions and entrepreneurship, and environmental entrepreneurship.     

Calling Baumol: What telephones can tell us about the allocation of entrepreneurial talent in the face of radical institutional changes

In his seminal contribution, Baumol (1990) proposes that the direction of entrepreneurial effort towards its productive (e.g., start-up activity) or unproductive (e.g., rent-seeking) use in a society depends on institutions or the “rules of the game”. We focus on an important micro-foundation of Baumol's theory namely that certain individuals change the direction of entrepreneurial efforts with institutional change. Our research contrasts with previous work on the role of institutions, which mostly focuses on the aggregate macro-level, while not observing individual behavior. We analyze who decides to start a venture in East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall and find that many individuals who demonstrated commitment to the anti-entrepreneurial communist regime in the GDR were active in launching new ventures soon after German re-unification. We argue that commitment to communism among post-communist entrepreneurs reflects rent-seeking. Once institutions change radically, entrepreneurial efforts are directed towards start-up activity. We rely on the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) that includes information on whether East German respondents had a telephone before German re-unification, which was one of the most sought-after rewards for commitment to the regime. We find that telephone owners had a higher propensity of becoming successful firm founders. Telephone owners were also more likely to have an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile and value orientation. Our results confirm Baumol's theory and suggest that alertness to entrepreneurial arbitrage opportunities is guiding the redirection of entrepreneurial effort in the face of drastic institutional change.Executive summaryThere is a large body of literature on the effect of institutions on entrepreneurship. A good share of this literature is rooted in the seminal contribution by Baumol (1990) who argues that the shape of institutions determines whether people direct entrepreneurial effort to productive, unproductive or destructive entrepreneurial activities. Despite the fact that Baumol‘s main argument is at the individual micro-level, most of the literature focuses only on the macro-level implications of his theory. In contrast to most previous studies, we are not focusing on the aggregate level of entrepreneurship but explore the micro-foundations of Baumol's theory and analyze how (drastic) institutional change affects the entrepreneurial choice at the individual level.In our discussion of Baumol's work, we also introduce Kirzner's concept of individual alertness to arbitrage opportunities which he originally formulated for market economies. We extend Kirzner's insights on the role of alertness to other institutional contexts (e.g., socialism) and forms of arbitrage (e.g., engagement in socialist organizations) other than start-up activity, and highlight the role of institutional change in shaping processes of opportunity formation.It is important to understand how individuals allocate their entrepreneurial effort in times of major historical shocks and institutional changes for several reasons. First, since entrepreneurship is an important driver of economic growth and development, it is crucial to understand how institutional change affects entrepreneurial behavior at the individual level for designing policy measures targeted at increasing the entrepreneurial propensity of people. Second, the share of people with an entrepreneurial talent in a society is an enormous resource to cope with socio-economic change. Third, it is also important to understand the micro-foundations of Baumol's work as vast empirical evidence on the impact of institutions on entrepreneurial activities that is available at the macro-level relies on the validity of the micro-foundations.We find that people who demonstrated commitment to one of the most anti-entrepreneurial institutional regimes in history—communism—were more likely to start a firm after transition to a market economy. Our analysis is based on the case of East Germany that saw a sudden shift from an anti-entrepreneurial communist regime that did not reward start-up activities towards an entrepreneurship-facilitating market economy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those people who were actively committed to the regime as evidenced by material rewards obtained in the GDR were more likely to become (successful) self-employed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We also observe that people with an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile and those who put a strong emphasis on entrepreneurial values were more likely to have obtained material rewards in communism that indicate a strong commitment to the system.We argue that applying and extending Baumol's and also Kirzner's ideas helps understanding this puzzling phenomenon. In essence, regime commitment can be seen as a form of rent-seeking activity, which is a classic example of unproductive entrepreneurial activity discussed by Baumol. Rent-seeking in the context of communism could be expressed, for example, in enthusiastic engagement in public organizations (e.g., party councils, youth organizations, state-owned enterprises) in exchange for specific material rewards. Their pronounced alertness to new arbitrage opportunities may have enabled these same individuals to switch to start-up activity once this option became available to them and if it was more profitable than rent-seeking.We contribute to the literature by supporting the idea that the institutional framework conditions determine the type of entrepreneurial activity to which entrepreneurially talented people devote their efforts. So far, this claim found support mainly in aggregated macro-level data. Another important insight from our analysis is that entrepreneurs are flexible and agile economic agents who are alert to arbitrage opportunities and able to promptly adapt themselves to even radical changes, such as the shock transition from a socialist command economy to a market economy. Alertness to opportunities in a market economy context could hardly be learned in an anti-entrepreneurial context. Hence, an immediate re-allocation of entrepreneurial efforts indicates that alertness to arbitrage opportunities emerging in a market economy does not necessarily require experience in a market economy context.Our assessment also suggests that institutional change is shaping subjective processes of opportunity formation. Hence, the debate on whether opportunities are ‘out there’ or they have to be created should take into consideration how institutions and institutional change set the boundaries for opportunities. In particular, identifying and pursuing new opportunities brought about by institutional change could represent a specific form of “entrepreneurship talent.”     

The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context

Using insights from institutional theory, sociology, and entrepreneurship we develop and test a model of the relationship between centralized and decentralized institutions on entrepreneurial activity. We suggest that both decentralized institutions that are socially determined as well as centralized institutions that are designed by governmental authorities are important in promoting firm foundings in the environmental context. In a sample of the U.S. solar energy sector we find that state-sponsored incentives, environmental consumption norms, and norms of family interdependence are related to new firm entry in this sector. Our findings also suggest that the efficacy of state-level policies in the sponsoring of entrepreneurial growth is dependent upon the social norms that prevail in the entrepreneur's environment. We expand entrepreneurship theory and the study of institutions and the natural environment by demonstrating the integral role that social norms play in influencing the creation of new firms and by illustrating the potential effect social norms have on the effect of policy that seeks to encourage environmentally responsible economic activity.     

Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions

We examine how country-level institutional context moderates the relationship between three socio-cognitive traits—entrepreneurial self-efficacy, alertness to new business opportunities, and fear of failure—and opportunity entrepreneurship. To do this, we blend social cognitive theory (SCT) with institutional theory to develop a multi-level model of entrepreneurial entry. We merge data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys and the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index for 45 countries from 2002 to 2012. Our results, which are based on a multi-level fixed-effects model, suggest that entrepreneurs' self-efficacy and alertness to new opportunities promote opportunity entrepreneurship while fear of failure discourages it. However, the strength of these relationships depends on the institutional context, with entrepreneurial self-efficacy and alertness substantially more likely to lead to new opportunity-driven ventures in countries with higher levels of economic freedom. These results provide suggestive evidence that economic freedom not only channels individual effort to productive entrepreneurial activities, but also affects the extent to which individuals' socio-cognitive resources are likely to mobilized and lead to high-growth entrepreneurship.     

To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-market institutions

In this paper, we examine the effects of pro-market institutions on both formal and informal entrepreneurship. While formal entrepreneurship has long been studied in economic literature, informal entrepreneurship has been less frequently discussed. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is not only to examine the impact of pro-market institutions, but also to foster a better understanding of, and introduce a method to measure, informal entrepreneurship. For the purpose of this paper, pro-market institutions are broken into their two main components: economic liberalization and governance levels. The arguments posit that economic liberalization positively impacts both formal and informal entrepreneurship while governance levels have a positive impact on formal entrepreneurship but a negative effect on informal entrepreneurship. Furthermore, governance levels reduce informal entrepreneurship to a greater extent than they increase formal entrepreneurship, resulting in a net reduction in entrepreneurial activity. The analyses of a panel covering 51 countries from 2002–2009 provide robust support for these arguments.     

Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations?

We develop entrepreneurship and institutional theory to explain entrepreneurial growth aspirations across individuals and institutional contexts. Our framework generates hypotheses at the national level about the negative impact of higher levels of corruption, weaker property rights and greater government activity on entrepreneurs' aspirations to increase employment. We further explore whether individual's social networks compensate for weaknesses in national institutions. We use the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor surveys in 42 countries for 2001–2006, applying a multilevel estimation framework to test our ideas. We find that the relationship between growth aspiring entrepreneurs and institutions is complex; they benefit simultaneously from strong government (in the sense of property rights enforcement), and smaller government, but are constrained by corruption. Social networks mediate some but not all institutional deficiencies.     

Determinants of the Prevalance of Start-ups and High-Growth Firms

The purpose of this study is to identify key institutional determinants of firm emergence and growth. We do this using various types of data from Sweden. A characterization of a number of institutions and policy measures shows that they are likely to have contributed to an environment that discourages entrepreneurial activity and firm growth. Aspects dealt with include: missing arenas for entrepreneurship in the care sectors and for household-related services, taxation of entrepreneurial income, incentives for wealth accumulation, wage-setting institutions and labor market regulations. Using original data, we provide evidence of a low prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs and a small net employment contribution by high-growth firms. We admit that indisputable evidence for the effects of institutional arrangements is almost impossible to establish. However, the consistency of our theoretical arguments and empirical data makes a strong case for the notion that the Swedish case illustrates the costs of giving too little weight to economic renewal in policy making.     

Entrepreneurship and well-being: Past,present, and future

Entrepreneurship research typically emphasizes firm-level outcomes such as growth and performance. However, people pursue entrepreneurship for deeply personal, idiosyncratic reasons. Therefore, as in other self-organized human pursuits, how entrepreneurship relates to fulfillment and well-being is of utmost importance. In this paper, we provide an overview of the well-being concept, related research, and its connection to entrepreneurship. We define entrepreneurial well-being as the experience of satisfaction, positive affect, infrequent negative affect, and psychological functioning in relation to developing, starting, growing, and running an entrepreneurial venture. We explain this definition of entrepreneurial well-being and review significant developments in our field and the broader field of well-being. Highlights of social, technological and institutional trends illustrate key areas for future research that can enhance our understanding of these phenomena. The eight papers in this special issue focus on entrepreneurial well-being each offering a specific perspective on how scholars can theorize and study the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship related to well-being.     

Entrepreneurship,innovation, and human flourishing

This essay uses Edmund Phelps’ new book Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change (Phelps 2013) as inspiration to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship. The book is laudable for its discussion of what constitutes a “good life”. Phelps argues that true life satisfaction cannot be achieved through a purposeless quest for wealth and material consumption, but rather through adventure, entrepreneurship, and creative endeavors. Weaknesses of the book include an overly glossy characterization of the period before World War II, a niggardly evaluation of European innovation, and the lack of convincing empirical evidence for the claim that the rate of innovation has slowed. These flaws are regrettable given the importance of the book’s main message: innovation and creative entrepreneurship are not merely the keys to economic growth, but to life satisfaction as well. This essay discusses topics in entrepreneurship research linked to the book, including the link between innovation and entrepreneurship, the role of institutions for entrepreneurship, and the tendency of national accounts to under-record the social value of innovation and entrepreneurship. If the measures used do not capture the full social value of innovation, we are likely to underestimate the genuine rate of innovation. Government policy may also be misguided. Finally, the challenge to entrepreneurial capitalism posed by the postmodernist research paradigm is discussed.     

Entrepreneurship,economic development,and institutional environment: evidence from OECD countries

The purpose of this article is to establish a typology of entrepreneurship for OECD countries over the 1999–2012 period. Our aim is to draw a distinction between managerial and entrepreneurial economies, to identify groups of countries with similar economic and entrepreneurial activity variables, and to determine the economic and institutional drivers of entrepreneurial activities in each group. We show that the level of development, sectoral specialization, and institutional variables related to entrepreneurship, functioning of the labor market, and openness of the country are decisive to understand differences in entrepreneurship activity across countries. Results show that the pre-crisis period, from 1999 to 2008, is a period of growth favorable to entrepreneurship. The financial crisis involved a break in entrepreneurial dynamism, with agricultural economies withstanding the financial crisis better. The 2010–2012 period of recovery is a period of a sharp slowdown in entrepreneurial activity, during which the countries that are less dependent on the financial sector proved to be the most resilient in terms of entrepreneurial activity. Nevertheless, it is the advanced knowledge economies with developed financial markets, fewer institutional regulatory constraints, and greater scope for qualitative entrepreneurship that show lower unemployment rates. These findings have important implications for the implementation of public policy in order to promote entrepreneurial activity and reduce unemployment.     

What explains the degree of internationalization of early-stage entrepreneurial firms? A multilevel study on the joint effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy,opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship,and home-country institutions

Integrating recent theories of entrepreneurship with new institutional economics, we develop a multilevel model to deepen our knowledge of how micro-level entrepreneurs’ personality and motivational antecedents interact with macro-level home-country institutions in determining internationalization by early-stage entrepreneurial firms. Data were collected from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Adult Population Survey, GEM National Expert Survey, and the World Economic Outlook Database for the year of 2014. The results show that the personality trait of entrepreneurial self-efficacy contributes positively to the degree of internationalization via mobilizing opportunity-motivated entrepreneurship and that home-country formal institutions strengthen the above relationship of such young entrepreneurial firms.     

Momentum for entrepreneurial internationalization: Friction at the interface between international and domestic institutions

In response to profound and emerging challenges arising from changes in the international order that affect international entrepreneurship, we address a gap in explanations for how the system for international relations shapes entrepreneurial internationalization. To do so, we develop a model that further explains the role of institutions in supporting international new ventures. We focus on how frictions in the interface between international and domestic institutions can influence momentum for entrepreneurial internationalization. We theorize how institutional work on the international-domestic interface can facilitate entrepreneurial internationalization that occurs in that interface. As such we provide additional understanding regarding factors that influence entrepreneurial internationalization.     

William J. Baumol: An Entrepreneurial Economist on the Economics of Entrepreneurship

William J. Baumol is the 2003 winner of the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Throughout his career Baumol has urged the profession to pay attention to the instrumental role of entrepreneurship in economic renewal and growth. At the same time he has insisted that economists continue to use their usual tool box when the purview of analysis is extended to entrepreneurship. Hence, Baumol can be characterized as a revolutionary from within. In this article we present and discuss Baumol's research contribution in the areas of entrepreneurship and small business economics, notably from a growth perspective. In addition to placing his work in these areas into the wider context of his full contribution, we emphasize Baumol's findings that growth cannot be explained by the accumulation of various factors of production per se; human creativity and productive entrepreneurship are needed to combine the inputs in profitable ways. As a result, an institutional environment that encourages productive entrepreneurship and human experimentation becomes the ultimate determinant of economic growth.     

Varieties of entrepreneurship: exploring the institutional foundations of different entrepreneurship types through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ arguments

While entrepreneurship researchers agree that institutions ‘matter’ for entrepreneurship, they also have a rather encompassing understanding of institutions as almost any external factor that influences entrepreneurship. Ultimately, this literature thus comes up with a long list of institutional factors that may explain entrepreneurial differences between countries. But which institutions are most influential? How do these institutions relate to different types of entrepreneurship? And to what extent are institutions complementary to each other in the way they sustain different entrepreneurship types? The literature on ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ (VoC) offers a parsimonious theoretical framework to address these questions. Based on the VoC literature, we theoretically derive a consistent set of institutional indicators that can explain differences in entrepreneurship types between countries. Based on principal component and cluster analyses, we illustrate how 21 Western developed economies cluster around four distinct institutional settings. Furthermore, we use simple OLS regressions to show how these institutional constellations are related to different types of entrepreneurship. We conclude that four different ‘Varieties of Entrepreneurship’ can be identified across the Western world. The main implication of our findings is that a ‘perfect’ institutional constellation, equally facilitating different types of entrepreneurship, does not exist. Policy-makers seeking to stimulate entrepreneurship are thus faced with the trade-off of targeting policy reforms to that entrepreneurship type they intend to promote—at the expense of other types of entrepreneurship and the broader societal consequences such reforms will have.