Entrepreneurship and the Process of Firms' Entry, Survival and Growth
By Enrico Santarelli, M. Vivarelli. Social Science Research Network, 2007
627 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This survey paper aims at critically discussing the recent literature on firm formation and survival and the growth of new-born firms. The basic purpose is to single out the microeconomic entrepreneurial foundations of industrial dynamics (entry and exit) and to characterise the founder’s ex-ante features in terms of likely ex-post business performance. The main conclusion is that entry of new firms is heterogeneous with innovative entrepreneurs being found together with passive followers, over-optimist gamblers and even escapees from unemployment. Since founders are heterogeneous and may make “entry mistakes”, policy incentives should be highly selective, favouring nascent entrepreneurs endowed with progressive motivation and promising predictors of better business performance. This would lead to the least distortion in the post-entry market selection of efficient entrepreneurs.
Subfields: Accounting, Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/421145334bff929810d781f93edffa638fcae25b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Accounting
In Economics and Econometrics
In Management of Technology and Innovation
Citations in the corpus
- Does innovativeness reduce startup survival rates (2015, background): “As Buddelmeyer et al. (2010) note, the empirical measures of innovative-ness are frequently ex post indicators that tend to capture successful innovations and innovators (Artz et al., 2010; Mairesse and Mohnen, 2002; Pandit et al., 2011; Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2007).”
- R&D in SMEs: a paradox? (2009, neutral): “For example, evidence is provided to show that SMEs are important sources of employment growth, and innovation in the high-tech sectors, both through existing firms and ‘‘New Technology Based Firms’’ (NTBFs; see Colombo and Grilli 2007; Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007; Vivarelli 2007).”
- Start-Up Incentives: Entrepreneurship Policy or Active Labour Market Programme? (2013, neutral): “(Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2007, p. 475).”
- Searching for the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a regional cross-section growth regression approach (2017, background): “…1998) have found a positive relation overall, but often these results are multiinterpretable.2 Second, and closely related, there is heterogeneity within entrepreneurial activity and the effect on growth is not equal for all types of entrepreneurship (Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007; Stam 2009).”
- Entrepreneurship, Evolution and Geography (2009, background): “They are too broad, because we know that the majority of founders has no motivation to innovate or grow their firm (Vivarelli 2007; Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007; Stam et al. 2008; Stam and Wennberg 2009).”
- Muppets and gazelles: political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research (2014, neutral): “There may well be excessive entrepreneurship if public policy encourages market entry to the point that markets become thin, the profits of higher quality firms are reduced so their growth is constrained, and a market for lemons is created for investors (Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2002, 2007).”
- Should I quit my day job?: : A hybrid path to entrepreneurship (2014, background): “Research indicates that entrepreneurial activity is a key driver of economic growth, but only if entrepreneurial entrants are able to avoid early exodus (Santarelli & Vivarelli, 2007).”
- Life satisfaction and self-employment: a matching approach (2010, background): “The empirically weak association between happiness and self-employment, however, could also be explained by a different, methodological phenomenon: it could be due to the fact that the self-employed are a quite heterogeneous group (Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2007).”
- Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: a country-level analysis (2013, background): “From an empirical point of view, it has been suggested that many individuals that start new independent businesses are only marginally innovative and do not apply novel (scientific and technological) knowledge at all in their commercial offerings (Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007).”
- How Satisfied are the Self-Employed? A Life Domain View (2015, positive): “An alternative explanation could be that the self-employed are a rather heterogeneous group (Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007) and only certain forms of self-employment might be conducive for subjective well-being, for example when individuals pursue entrepreneurial opportunities as opposed to being fo”
- Effects of Schumpeterian and Kirznerian entrepreneurship on economic growth: panel data evidence (2017, background): “Entrepreneurship has recently been defined as the creation of new economic activities (Davidsson et al. 2006), entrepreneurial opportunities (Audretsch and Keilbach 2008; Bosma and Levie 2010), and innovation (Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007).”
- R&D drivers and age: : Are young firms different? (2014, background): “of early failure (see Bartelsman et al., 2004; Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2007; Vivarelli, 2013b), whereas the US economy has been able to generate a steadily increasing flow of young innovative firms that not only survive but which develop new products at the core of emerging sectors.”
- Entrepreneurial exit and entrepreneurial engagement (2011, background): “Shane (2003), Parker (2004) and Santarelli and Vivarelli (2007) also mention this connection in their surveys of studies of new firm entry, exit, survival and growth.”
- Is the R&D behaviour of fast-growing SMEs different? Evidence from CIS III data for 16 countries (2008, background): “123 Santarelli and Vivarelli 2007 ). In addition, highgrowth firms are not concentrated in only a few industries.”