FAMILY SUPPORT AND YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS’ START-UP ACTIVITIES IN
AN EMERGING AND DEVELOPED ECONOMY CONTEXT: AN EMPIRICAL
EXPLORATION
Tatiana S. Manolova, Bentley University and St. Petersburg State University
Galina Shirokova, St. Petersburg State University
Tatyana Tsukanova, St. Petersburg State University
Linda F. Edelman, Bentley University and St. Petersburg State University
SUMMARY
Research Question: What is the effect of the institutional context (emerging vs developed
market economies) on the strength of the relationship between family support and the scope of
start-up activities of young nascent entrepreneurs?
Theoretical Perspectives: Institutional theory (Tolbert et al., 2011; Scott, 2007; North, 1990),
institutional embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985), family embeddedness (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003)
Source of Data: 2011 Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS)
project (n = 33,925 university students, aged 18-34, from 13 developed and 10 emerging
economies).
Major Findings: The higher the family support in the form of financial capital (b=-0.029,
p<0.001), the lower the scope of start-up activities (H1a rejected). The higher the family support
in the form of social capital (b=0.026, p<0.001), the greater the scope of start-up activities
undertaken by young entrepreneurs (Hypothesis H1b supported). Hypothesis H2a received
ambivalent support, in that the effect of family financial support was indeed stronger in emerging
economies, as H2a predicted, but in a direction opposite to what H1a predicted. The interaction
between social capital and emerging economy (b=0.016, p<0.001) was positive and statistically
significant (H2b supported).
Contributions: Our study contributes to the literature on nascent entrepreneurship by improving
our understanding of how different types of family resources influence the start-up activities of
young nascent entrepreneurs. Further, our study highlights the important interplay between
family and institutional influences, providing an important link between the family
embeddedness and the institutional embeddedness literatures. Finally, our study offers the
potential to predict the viability of a nascent venture. If, as our hypotheses suggest, greater
family support leads to additional start-up activities, and we know from prior research that the
greater the number of start-up activities, the more likely the firm is to survive in the short run
(Brush et al., 2008), then developing an understanding of the family’s role in the start-up process
may help us predict which entrepreneurial initiatives are high risk or high potential.
Acknowledgements: This research has been conducted with financial support from a Russian
Science Foundation grant (Project No. 14-18-01093).
of the effects
Hierarchical Poisson regression
estimates
on the scope of start-up
activities
*
Variable
Controls
Age
Gender
Bachelor
Field of Study: Nat Sci
Field of Study: Soc Sci
Field of Study: Others
Family background
Previous experience
Level of commitment
Number of partners
University
Industry
Family Support
Financial capital
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.255***
(0.009)
-0.039***
(0.013)
-0.059***
(0.013)
-0.087***
(0.018)
-0.055***
(0.012)
0.100***
(0.009)
0.360***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.260***
(0.009)
-0.042***
(0.013)
-0.058***
(0.013)
-0.086***
(0.018)
-0.055***
(0.012)
0.091***
(0.009)
0.356***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.260***
(0.009)
-0.042***
(0.013)
-0.058***
(0.013)
-0.086***
(0.018)
-0.055***
(0.012)
0.091***
(0.009)
0.356***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.260***
(0.009)
-0.042***
(0.013)
-0.058***
(0.013)
-0.085***
(0.018)
-0.055***
(0.012)
0.091***
(0.009)
0.356***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.260***
(0.009)
-0.042***
(0.013)
-0.059***
(0.013)
-0.087***
(0.018)
-0.056***
(0.012)
0.093***
(0.009)
0.356***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
0.016***
(0.001)
-0.260***
(0.009)
-0.040***
(0.013)
-0.058***
(0.013)
-0.086***
(0.018)
-0.055***
(0.012)
0.093***
(0.009)
0.356***
(0.009)
0.002***
(0.000)
0.101***
(0.004)
YES
YES
-0.029***
(0.003)
0.026***
(0.003)
-0.029***
(0.003)
0.026***
(0.003)
0.010
(0.069)
-0.023***
(0.004)
0.026***
(0.003)
0.010
(0.069)
-0.010*
(0.005)
-0.029***
(0.003)
0.015***
(0.004)
0.010
(0.069)
0.016***
(0.004)
-0.013***
(0.004)
0.008*
(0.004)
0.008
(0.069)
-0.028***
(0.006)
0.030***
(0.005)
-0.148*
(0.082)
0.0623
33925
-0.177**
(0.083)
0.0625
33925
Social capital
Emerging economy
Financial Capital x Emerging
Social Capital x Emerging
Regression Function
Constant
Pseudo R2
N
-0.183**
(0.081)
0.0611
33925
-0.175**
(0.082)
0.0622
33925
-0.175**
(0.082)
0.0622
33925
-0.193**
(0.083)
0.0622
33925
* Poisson regression coefficients are reported (standard errors in parentheses). Prob>chi2=0.000 for all models, all
models are statistically significant; ***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.05.