13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
INDULGENCE, RESTRAINT, AND WITHIN-COUNTRY DIVERSITY:
EXPLORING ENTREPRENEURIAL OUTCOMES WITH NEW CONSTRUCTS
Authors:
Heidi A. Hicks
Saginaw Valley State University
Lisa A. Maroni
Embry Riddle University
Rosalie A. Stackpole
Michigan Economic Development Corporation
Zachary P. Gibson
Saginaw Valley State University
George M. Puia
Saginaw Valley State University
Contact: George Puia, PhD
Dow Chemical Company Centennial Chair in Global Business
Saginaw Valley State University
7400 Bay Road
University Center Michigan 48623, USA
+1.989.964.6074
puia@svsu.edu
Professional Biographies
Heidi Hicks is a business management student at Saginaw Valley State University. She was
competitively selected to be a Fellow of the Vitito Global Leadership Institute. Her research
interests are in the effects of culture on entrepreneurship.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
1
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
Lisa A. Maroni received a BA in International Studies-Business from Saginaw Valley State
University and a MEd in Counseling-Student Affairs from Northern Arizona University. While a
student, she served as a William Jefferson Clinton Scholar at the American University in Dubai,
was a Saginaw Valley State University Roberts Fellow and studied as an exchange student at
Shih Hsin University in Taipei. She is currently the Assistant Director of International
Recruitment and Admissions at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona.
Rosalie A. Stackpole received degrees in Marketing and Management from Saginaw Valley
State University. While at SVSU, she was competitively selected to be a Fellow of the Vitito
Global Leadership Institute within the College of Business, where she completed and presented
Super Bowl advertising research. Rosalie has a wide array of work experiences that range from
the financial industry to international trade.
Zachary P. Gibson studies marketing at Saginaw Valley State University where he was
competitively selected to be a Fellow of the Vitito Global Leadership Institute. He has presented
research on writing center techniques and family business.
George M. Puia, Ph.D. holds the Dow Chemical Company Centennial Chair in Global Business
at Saginaw Valley State University. He earned a Ph.D. in Strategic Management with
concentrations in international business and research methods from the University of Kansas. Dr.
Puia has authored books, book chapters, case studies and refereed articles on international
business. He was named an AGBA Distinguished Fellow by the Academy for Global Business
Advancement. Professor Puia also holds the CGRP certification (Certified Global Business
Practitioner). He has served as journal editor, on editorial boards, and has held numerous
academic leadership positions.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
2
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
INDULGENCE, RESTRAINT, AND WITHIN-COUNTRY DIVERSITY:
EXPLORING ENTREPRENEURIAL OUTCOMES WITH NEW CONSTRUCTS
ABSTRACT
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships between culture, cultural diversity, and
two specific entrepreneurial outcomes: Total Entrepreneurial Activity and Fear of Failure. To
provide comparability with prior literature, the paper includes economic context covariates
common to other entrepreneurship studies.
Design/Methodology
The paper uses a multivariate analysis of variance approach to analyzing publicly available data
on culture, economic covariates, and entrepreneurship.
Findings
Both economic and cultural variables were significantly associated with entrepreneurial
outcomes. In particular, the paper found support for the effects of indulgence and within-country
diversity.
Research Implications
Research studies tend to look at economic and cultural effects independently and with only a few
exceptions, to ignore within country diversity entirely. This paper extends the literature by
jointly testing economic, cultural, and diversity variables. Additionally, this is one of the first
papers to utilize the more recent Hofstede construct of indulgence-restraint in analyzing
entrepreneurial outcomes.
Social Implications
Policy makers can change economic models but are largely unable to adjust national culture.
Within-country diversity however is frequently changed through revised work rules and visa
policies. The paper potentially opens new policy frameworks for decision makers.
Originality
This is the first paper to utilize the more recent Hofstede construct of indulgence-restraint in
analyzing entrepreneurial outcomes. Additionally, the paper adds the construct of within country
diversity to the entrepreneurship research dialogue.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship, culture, cultural diversity, indulgence, failure, regulation,
economic freedom
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
3
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
INDULGENCE, RESTRAINT, AND WITHIN-COUNTRY DIVERSITY:
EXPLORING ENTREPRENEURIAL OUTCOMES WITH NEW CONSTRUCTS
INTRODUCTION
There is substantial research on factors that differentiate a nation’s capacity for
innovation and entrepreneurship (Kogut, 1991; Porter, 2000; Nelson, 1993; Porter and Stern,
2004). Scholars have explored a wide range of constructs that potentially influence the national
environmental context, including: political frameworks (Lenway & Murtha, 1994; Spencer,
Murtha & Lenway, 2005), economic frameworks, and level and quality of regulation (Puia and
Minnis, 2007). There has also been significant research linking culture and cultural diversity to
national levels of innovation and entrepreneurship (Shane, 1992; Ambos & Schlegelmilch, 2008;
Herbig & McCarty, 1993; Steensma, Marino, Weaver & Dickson, 2000; Rhyne, Teagarden & W.
Van den Panhuyzen, 2002; Puia and Ofori-Dankwa, 2013).
Culture and entrepreneurship studies have relied heavily on the work of Hofstede,
particularly his original four constructs of individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
and masculinity (Hofstede, 1980). Recently, the Hofstede framework has been extended to
include a construct for indulgence-restraint (Hofstede, et al, 2008). This paper will test whether
Hofstede’s measure of indulgence has explanatory power in regards to certain entrepreneurial
outcomes. Additionally, the paper will explore the influence of within-country diversity on
entrepreneurial outcomes.
A more sound understanding of how indulgent cultures function as pertaining to
entrepreneurship would offer researchers new avenues for exploring antecedents of firm creation.
Further, researching aspects of culture on entrepreneurship has the potential to open dialogue
between academics and policy makers. Finally, practitioners might identify supportive national
contexts for ventures and investments.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Entrepreneurial outcomes
In order to better understand the forces that influence entrepreneurship, scholars have
measured a wide range of entrepreneurial outcomes: impact of entrepreneurs on the economy,job
creation,wealth creation, and new business startups among others. One group of scholars, the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Consortium, worked to create a common set of metrics
that could afford scholars the opportunity to research and compare entrepreneurs across nations.
For this paper, we chose two metrics from the GEMstudies: Total Entrepreneurial Activity and
Fear of Failure.The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is a research project that began in
1999, and has provided substantial data on various countries’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship,
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
4
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
start-up businesses, and goals of entrepreneurs (Bosma, 2013). On an annual basis, GEM surveys
over 150,000 people in over 50 countries (Lepoutre, et al., 2013).
Total Entrepreneurship Activity (TEA) is used to measure entrepreneurship at a national
level. TEA is defined as the percentage of individuals aged 18-64, who are either nascent
entrepreneurs or owner-managers of a new business (Slinger, et al., 2015). By adding nascent
entrepreneurs, those actively involved in setting up a business that they will own outright or coown but who are not currently receiving any ownership payments, to those who have an
established new business that is less than 42 months old, the GEM data is able to capture a full
range of early entrepreneurial activity. TEA is widely used in the entrepreneurship data (Levie, et
al., 2014). Baksi (2014) used TEA to determine if entrepreneurship and innovation were
positively correlated to economic growth.
Fear of failure rate
As researchers, we were interested not only in factors that enable entrepreneurship, but
also those that inhibit its development. To that end, we chose to study fear of failure (FFR) as a
factor that potentially slows entrepreneurial growth.
As noted in a recent literature review (Cacciotti and Hayton, 2015), the relationship
between fear and entrepreneurship should be a focus for new research. Martins (2004) believes
that fear of failure (FFR) is both a cultural and social barrier to entrepreneurship.According to
GEM, 32.53% of individuals aged 18-64 involved in any stage of entrepreneurial activity report
that fear of failure would prevent them from setting up a business, (Singer, et. al, 2015). Fear of
failure plays a significant role in the absence of business start-ups. In 2005, Bosma, et al., studied
the 16 European Union countries and found that on average 37% of adults indicated that fear of
failure would prevent them from setting up a business, while only 29% of adults in four Anglo
countries felt the same way. Across all 34 GEM countries in their study, researchersfound
consistent patterns of cultural and demographic influences (Bosma, Hunt, et. al, 2005).
Independent variables/covariates
There are several constructs that have been shown to influence entrepreneurship and
innovation in the prior research. These constructs can be divided into two categories: economic
and cultural. This section documents the literature in support of the inclusion of these variables.
Regulatory quality
Countries differ substantially in the ways they regulate entrepreneurs (Djankov et al.
2002). Business regulation can be valuable to both the entrepreneur and the country. For
example, business registration or licensing can add legitimacy to a new venture. At the opposite
extreme, some regulation can be developed for the benefit of political and business elites
(McChesney 1987, Djankov et al. 2002). To this end, Shleifer and Vishny (1993) infer that
public officials create regulations as means of incenting forms of official facilitating payments
(grease payments). Significantly, the World Bank (2004) report noted that firms with lower
regulation levels have a better functioning entrepreneurial economy. In their work, Kauffmann
and Kray (2002) posit that one can measure whether regulations are helpful or are harmful to this
business environment. This study uses Kauffmann’s measure of regulatory quality to indicate
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
5
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
whether governments manage regulations in ways that are supportive of business. These
measures are constructed on a wide set of parameters, including voice and accountability,
political stability, absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law,
and control of corruption (Kaufmann, et. al, 2008). Once measured, these are combined to give a
country’s regulatory quality index. Based on the above, we offer the following hypotheses.
H.1.a. Countries with better scores on the Kauffman Regulatory Quality Index will have
higher levels of TEA
H.1.b. Countries with weaker scores on the Kauffman Regulatory Quality Index will have
higher levels of FFR
Economic Freedom Index
There is a significant body of literature that relates economic freedom to innovation and
entrepreneurship. “Economic freedom” measures the extent of an in-place market economy, one
that includes free competition, exchange without coercion, and protection of property (Gwartney
and Lawson 2002).In a 2003 study,Berggren found a significant positive relationship between
economic freedom and economic growth. Similarly, Gwatney et al., (1999) wereable to connect
economic freedom with favorable conditions for entrepreneurs. O’Drisoll, Jr. et al (2002)
developed an “index of economic freedom (IEF)” to provide a more rigorous approach to its
measurement. The ten indices of the IEF measure are: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal
freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property
rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom. Using this measure, Gardner et al (2014)
found economic freedom to be a pivotal factor for entrepreneurship to prosper.
H.2.a: Economic freedom will be positively associated with (TEA)
H.2.b. Economic freedom will be negatively associated with fear of failure (FFA)
Indulgence
Indulgence as a measure of culture is a fairly recent addition to the literature (Hofstede,
2008). The concept of indulgence describes a society that “allows relatively free gratification of
basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun” (Hofstede, 2011).
Characteristics of a highly indulgent society include a perception of personal control over one’s
life, high value being placed on freedom of speech, and less concern for maintaining order in a
nation.Collier et al. (2013), noted that people in indulgent societies prefer happiness and tend to
create a perception of freedom, health, and control over life (Collier et al., 2013). In Hofstede’s
metric (2011), “restraint” is the opposite of indulgence, controlling gratification of needs through
social norms. Characteristics of a highly restrained society include a perception of helplessness,
lower concern for freedom of speech and a higher amount of police per capita.
As of this writing, there are no indexed articles relating indulgence to entrepreneurship. Once
and Almagtome (2015) found a relationship between indulgence and environmental reporting;
the more indulgent a culture, the more likely it was to have higher levels of corporate
environmental disclosure. Correlation results have also shown that indulgence was positively
related to the UN Human Development Index (Gaygisiz, 2013), suggesting a relationship
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
6
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
between income, development, and indulgence. Considering the nature of restraint, we would
anticipate nations with a restrained culture would exhibita greater fear of failure.
H.3.a. Indulgence will be significantly and positively associated with TEA
H.3.b. Indulgence will be significantly and negatively associated with FFR (the more
restrained you are, the more likely you will be to fear failure)
Individualism
According to Hofstede (2001), individualism represents a “loosely framed society” where
group interests are secondary to that of the individual. As a result, individuals are allowed to
pursue personal goals and interests (Hofstede, 2001). Individualistic cultures appreciate creative
and progressive behavior, attributes associated with entrepreneurship (Chang 2003). Shane’s
seminar work (1992) found a significant positive relationship between individualism and
business-led economic growth. Puia and Ofori-Dankwa (2013) found significant positive effects
of individualism inthe generation of both patents and trademarks. Currently, the literature has not
explored the relationship between individualism and fear of failure. The literature clearly
suggests that in individualistic cultures, success is earned rather than attributed. As a result, in
individualistic cultures there is greater pressure on the individual to perform (Hofstede, 2001).
H.4.a: Individualism will be significantly and positively associated with TEA
H.4.b. Individualism will be significantly and positively associated with FFR
Cultural Diversity
Prior literature treated national cultures as uniform and monolithic while in reality
national cultures have sub-cultures with attributes that are distinct from the dominant cultures
(Early & Gibson, 1998, Schwartz, 1990). The Hofstede (2001) indices measure national cultural
characteristics as central tendencies, comparing countries on their mean score for a given cultural
characteristic without reporting deviations. Au (1999) suggested that scholars’ can addresses the
limitation of central tendencies by focusing on within-country diversity, or intra-cultural
variation (ICV). Au (1999, 2000)identified several ICV dimensions like spoken languages and
ethnic composition as being associated with national outcomes such as technological innovation
and productivity advances. In their work, Puia and Ofori-Danwka (2013) using the number of
active languages as a measure of ethno-linguistic diversity, found a strong positive correlation
between diversity and measures of innovation.
H.5.a. Ethno-linguistic diversity will be significantly and positively associated with TEA.
H.5.b. Ethno-linguistic diversity will be significantly and positively associated with FFR
Income Classification
The income classification of a country potentially influences its entrepreneurial profile.
There is a known relationship between national income and high-technology innovation (Shane,
1992), a form of entrepreneurship that favors high-income countries. At the opposite end of the
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
7
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
spectrum, low-income economies have fewer employment opportunities and thus generate more
necessity entrepreneurs. To hold constant for the effects of income, we have chose touse the
World Bank Income Classifications (WBIC). The World Bank classifies countries as
follows:low-income economies are defined as $1,045 or less, lower-middle-income of $1,046 to
$4,125, upper-middle-income of $4,126 to $12,736 and high-income of $12,737 or more (World
Bank, 2015). Tang and Koveos (2004) used the income classification to separate high and low
income countries to refine the correlation between national GDP and entrepreneurship.
Additionally, Portugal-Perez and Wilson (2009) use the WBIC to categorize economic prosperity
of African nationals when analyzingtrade facilitation.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The following paragraphs describe the research design including sample characteristics,
measures, and statistical methods.
Sample Characteristics
Our initial population was the 186 countries included in the Economic Freedom Index.
There were 107 countries included in the GEMS database. The Hofstede dataset on culture
included only 77 nations. The number of active languages was drawn from the Ethnologue
database. Given the limited set of cultural data, the authors were constrained to those countries
for which measures of culture existed with the other covariates. While this is a limitation, the
Hofstede countries do cover all continents, most developed countries, and a wide range of
cultures.
Measures
The dependent measures of TEA and FFR were drawn from the GEM data set. Culture
was measured as indicated earlier through the use of two Hofstede variables, individualismcollectivism (where higher scores represented more individualistic cultures) and indulgencerestraint. To capture diversity, we input data on the number of active languages from the UN/SIL
Ethnologue Database (Studer, 1998). The Index of Economic Freedom is on a continuous scale
of one to five, where one equals complete economic freedom and a score of five represents a
totally repressed economy. Regulatory quality was represented by the Kauffman Regulatory
Quality index. Differences in income were represented using the World Bank indicators (WBIC).
Statistical Methods
Few papers have jointly tested the effects of pubic policy frameworks and culture on
business outcomes (Murtha and Lenway, 2004); a review of the literature found only a limited
set of articles that jointly explored policy orientations and culture and their effects on
entrepreneurship (Puia and Minnis, 2007).The authors chose a two-stage data analysis process.
First, given the relatively small sample size, the correlation between two dependent variables
(r=-0.45), and the desire to reduce Type-1error, the analysis began with a MANOVA (Hair, et al,
1998). Additionally, the two dependent variables share a theoretical association with start-sups,
suggesting they be treated as a group for analytical purposes (Stevens, 1992). Following the
MANOVA, the two dependent variables were regressed independently.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
8
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. Table 2 provides the
overall regression results and the coefficients from the independent regression analyses.
The multivariate F-tests for the model were highly significant. Using Wilk’s Lambda, the
F-value for the overall model was 9.81 with p=0.000. For the corrected model of tests between
subjects, TEA achieved an F value of 7.441 with p=0.000. For the FFA model, the F value was
3.323 with p=0.006. Given the significance of the multivariate model, we conducted regression
analysis of the two dependent variables. For TEA, the model had an Adjusted R-Squared of
0.466. For FFR, the model had an adjusted R-Squared of 0. 273.
For each model, we tested three economic variables and three cultural ones. In regards to
Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA), regulatory quality (H1.a) was in the correct direction but
not significant (p=0.059); economic freedom (H2.a) was significant (p=0.032). The World Bank
Income classification was insignificant (p=0.514). As to the cultural variables, TEA was
significantly associated with all three metrics. Indulgence (H3.a) was highly significant
(p=0.000), a strong finding for the first test of this metric. Individualism (H4.a) was also highly
significant with p=0.007. Our third cultural measure looked at within country diversity; the
number of active languages (H5.a) was also significant (P=0.044).
We also regressed fear of failure against three economic variables and three cultural ones.
In regards to FFR, regulatory quality (H1.b) was significant (p=0.014); economic freedom (H2.b)
was not significant (p=0.156). The World Bank Income classification was not significant
(p=0.720). As to the cultural variables, FFRwas significantly associated with two of the three
cultural metrics. Indulgence (H3.b) was again highly significant (p=0.000). Individualism (H4.b)
was in the right direction, but was short of significance (p=0.082). Cultural diversity as measured
by the number of active languages (H5.b) was highly significant (P=0.000).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to explore the relationship between culture and cultural
diversity variables on two specific entrepreneurial outcomes, “Total Entrepreneurial Activity”
and “Fear of Failure” while holding constant for anticipated economic effects. Clearly, there
were significant effects on entrepreneurial outcomes from both culture and economic policy.
While the overall model and the individual regression equations were both significant,
there were some interesting outcomes that motivate further research. Economic freedom was
significantly related to total entrepreneurial activity but not to fear of failure, suggesting that fear
of failure may have a unique set of economic antecedents.Additionally, the coefficient of
determination for the FFR equations was lower than for TEA. In part, fear of failure might relate
as much to personality characteristics as cultural ones (Carraher, et al., 2010). Additional
research is warranted.
As one of the first papers to explore the role of indulgence in entrepreneurship, we were
not surprised that the results suggested a complex layering of effects. In terms of TEA, there is a
positive and significant relationship between indulgence and entrepreneurship,the more indulgent
a society the greater the entrepreneurial activity.This is in unique contrast to the relationship of
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
9
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
indulgence to fear of failure with is inversely correlated, the more restrained a culture, the greater
the fear of failure. Hofstede (2011, p.16) noted “restrained people have a perception of
helplessness”. The potential relationship between fear of failure and a sense of helplessness
opens clear avenues for future research.
Research studies tend to look at economic and cultural effects independently and with
only a few exceptions, to ignore within country diversity entirely. This paper extends the
literature by jointly testing economic, cultural, and diversity variables. Additionally, this is one
of the first papersto utilize the more recent Hofstede construct of indulgence-restraint in
analyzing entrepreneurial outcomes. The results suggest additional new research opportunities,
e.g., exploring the role of indulgence-restraint in entrepreneurial finance, examining the role of
cultural diversity and new cultural variables in exploring necessity entrepreneurship, etc.
There were limitations to this research project. While the Hofstede and linguistic data had
significant associations with economic activity, they offer a less than complete view of culture.
In 2012, Adham found unique attributes of technological innovation and entrepreneurship from
the Islamic perspective. Contemporary interpretations of Islamic law put restrictions on business
practices. Adham’s 2012 paper suggests new research opportunities in exploring differences
between cultures based on religious diversity in addition to linguistic diversity. An additional
limitation of the Hofstede data is that it under-represents low-income and developing nations.
Given the importance of entrepreneurship to economic development, we need to find better
metrics for capturing culture in emerging economies.
As an additional limitation, this paper used cross-sectional analysis. This is appropriate
for measures of culture which are theoretically robust in respect to time. In terms of economic
metrics, there are limitations to cross sectional analysis in an environment where nations
frequently adjust their policies. Theory development would benefit from the exploration of
economic policy in a time-series context.
Policy makers can change economic models but are largely unable to adjust national
culture. Within-country diversity however is frequently changed through revised work rules, visa
policies, and large-scale immigration. The paper potentially opens new policy frameworks for
decision makers.
In a global business context, entrepreneurs have the opportunity to select the location of
their new ventures independent of their initial national context (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004). This
research helps entrepreneurs evaluate factors that may contribute to the success of a new venture.
Additionally, entrepreneurial firms can gain from adding cultural diversity; they are not limited
by the diversity of their national surroundings.
REFERENCES
Adham, K.A., Said, M.F., Muhamad, N. S., and Yaakub, N.I. (2012), “Technological Innovation
and Entrepreneurship from the Western and Islamic Perspectives”, International Journal
of Economics, Management, and Accounting, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 109-148.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
10
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. (2008), “Innovation in Multinational Firms: Does Cultural Fit
Enhance Performance?” Management International Review, Vol. 48, No.2, pp. 189-206.
Au, K.Y. (2000),“Intra-cultural Variation as Another Construct of International Management: A
Study Based on Secondary Data of 42 Countries”, Journal of International Management,
Vol. 6, pp. 217-238.
Au, K.Y. (1999),“Intra-cultural variation: Evidence and implications for international business”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 799-812.
Baksi, A. K (2014), “Exploring the Relationship Between Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Economic Progress: A Case of India with Evidences from GEM Data and World Bank
Enterprise Surveys”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 2332.
Berggren, N. (2003), “The benefits of economic freedom: A survey”, The Independent Review,
pp. 193-211.
Bosma, N (2013), “The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and Its Impact on
Entrepreneurship Research”, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9, No. 2.
Bosma, N., Hunt, S., Wennekers, S., and Hessels, J. (2005), “Early-stage entrepreneurial activity
in the European Union: some issues and challenges”, working paper, Federal Reserve Bank
of St Louis, St. Louis, March 2005.
Cacciotti, G. and Hayton, J. C. (2015), “Fear and Entrepreneurship: A Review and Research
Agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 17, pp. 165–190.
Carraher, S. M., Buchanan, J. K., & Puia, G. (2010),“Entrepreneurial need for achievement in
China, Latvia, and the USA”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 378-396.
Chang, L.C. (2003), “An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede framework”,
Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 567-570.
Collier, A., Deng, H., Zhao, F. (2013), “A multidimensional and integrative approach to study
global digital divide and e-government development”, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 38-62.
Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A. (2002),“The Regulation of
Entry”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117, pp. 1-37.
Early, P.C., and Gibson, C. (1998), “Taking stock of our progress on individualism /
collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24,
No. 3, pp. 265-304.
Gaygisiz, E. (2013), “How are cultural dimensions and governance quality related to
socioeconomic development?” Journal of Socio - Economics, Vol. 47, pp. 170.
Gardner, J.C., McGowan, C.B., Sissko, M. (2014), “Entrepreneurship and Economic Freedom”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 18, pp. 101-112.
Gwartney, J., & Lawson, R. (2002), Economic freedom of the World: 2002, Vancouver: The
Fraser Institute.
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R. & Holcombe, R.G. (1999), “Economic freedom and environment for
economic growth”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 112, No. 3,
pp. 335-344.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998), Multivariate Analysis, 5th
ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Herbig, P.A. and McCarty C. (1993), “National management of innovation: Interactions of
culture and structure”, Multinational Business Review, Vol. Spring, pp. 19 – 26.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M., & Vinken, H. (2008), Values survey module 2008.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
11
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
Hofstede, G., Minkov, M. (2011), “The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine”, Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 10-20.
Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context” Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Kaufmann, D., and Kraay, A., (2002), Governance Indicators, Aid Allocation, and the
Millennium Challenge Account, World Bank.Kogut, B. (1991), “Country capabilities and
the permeability of borders”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12(Summer/Special
Issue) pp. 33-47.
Kaufmann, D. Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2008),“Governance matters VII: Aggregate and
individual governance indicators 1996-2007”. Washington DC: World Bank.
Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004),“Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the bornglobal firm”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 124-141.
Lenway, S.A., and Murtha, T.P. (1994), “The state as strategist in international business
research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 513-536.
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjense, S., Bosma, N. (2013), “Designing a global standardized
methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor social entrepreneurship study”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.
693-714.
Levie, J., Autio, E., Acs, Z., & Hart, M. (2014), “Global entrepreneurship and institutions: an
introduction”. Small Business Economics, Vol. 42, No,3, pp. 437-444.
Martins, S. (2004), “Barriers to entrepreneurship and business creation”, ADRIMAG, pp.2.
Murtha, T. P. and Lenway, S. A. (1994), “Country capabilities and the strategic state: How
national political institutions affect multinational corporations’ strategies”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15 (Special issue) pp.113-130.
Nelson, R.R. (1993),National Innovation Systems: A comparative analysis, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Once, S. and Almagtome, A. (2015), “The impact of national cultural values on environmental
reporting”, Economic and Social Development proceedings, Varazdin Development and
Entrepreneurship Agency, Croatia.
Porter, M.E. (2000),“Attitudes, values, beliefs and the micro-economics of prosperity”, Harrison,
L.E. and Huntington, S.P., Culture Matters: How values shape human progress. New
York: Basic Books.
Porter, M.E., and Stern, S. (2004), Ranking National Innovative Capacity: Findings from the
National Innovative Capacity Index, in World Economic Forum, M.E. Porter, K. Schwab,
X. Sali-Martin, and A. Lopez Carlos (eds.) The global competitiveness report, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Portugal-Perez, A. & Wilson, J. S. (2009), “Why Trade Facilitation Matters to Africa”, World
Trade Review, Vol.8, pp.379-416.
Puia, G.M., and Minnis, W. (2007), “The Effects of Policy Frameworks and Culture on the
Regulation of Entrepreneurial Entry”, Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 36-50.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
12
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
Puia, G.M. and Ofori-Dankwa, J. (2013), "The effects of national culture and ethnolinguistic
diversity on innovativeness", Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No.3, pp. 349 – 371.
Rhyne, L.C., Teagarden. M.B. and Van den Panhuyzen, W. (2002), “Technology-based
competitive strategies: The relationship of cultural dimensions to new product
innovation”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol.13, pp. 249 –
277.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Beyond individualism/ collectivism: New cultural dimensions of
values”. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, G. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, and G. Yoon (eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Shane, S.A. (1992), “Why do some societies invent more than others?” Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 7, pp. 29–46.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1993), “Corruption”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 153,
pp. 599-617.
Slinger, S. Amorós, J.E., and Moska, D. (2015), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014: Global
Report, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Spencer, J.W., Murtha, T.P., and Lenway, S.A., (2005), “How Governments Matter to New
Industry Creation”, Academy of Management Review. Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 321-337.
Steensma, H.K., L. Marino, Weaver, K.M., and Dickson, P.H. (2000), “The influence of national
culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 951 – 973.
Stevens, J, (1992), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Studer, Gerald. (1998), Review of Ethnologue language family index to the thirteenth edition of
the Ethnologue, Grimes, Joseph E. and Barbara F. Grimes, compilers. SIL Press, Geneva.
Tang, L., and Koveos, P. E. (2004), “Venture Entrepreneurship, innovation Entrepreneurship,
and Economic Growth”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9,pp. 160-171.
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
13
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 9780974211428
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Correlation (Pearson)
Variable Name
TEA-Total Early
Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
Mean
Std. Dev.
TEA
FFR
EFI
RQI
IC
IR
NAL
12.36
6.99
1
-0.458
-0.258
-0.429
-0.550
-0.340
-0.306
0.000
0.049
0.001
0.000
0.013
0.019
1.000
0.124
0.247
0.276
-0.444
-0.048
0.349
0.059
0.034
0.001
0.720
1.000
0.848
0.493
0.209
-0.238
0.000
0.000
0.125
0.063
1.000
0.625
0.272
-0.221
0.000
0.045
0.84
1.000
0.096
-0.145
0.485
0.259
1.000
0.073
Sig. (2-Tailed)
FFR-Fear of Failure
35.41
8.83
Sig. (2-Tailed)
EFI-Economic
Freedom Index
0.000
65.26
10.53
Sig. (2-Tailed)
RQI-Regulatory
Quality Index (Kauffman)
2.54
9.25
Sig. (2-Tailed)
IC-Individualism
Collectivism (Hofstede)
43
23.6
Sig. (2-Tailed)
IR-Indulgence –
Restraint (Hofstede)
51.29
21.7
Sig. (2-Tailed)
NAL-Number of
Active Languages (ln – SIL)
Sig. (2-Tailed)
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
-0.458
3.1
1.44
-0.258
0.124
0.049
0.349
-0.429
0.247
0.848
0.001
0.059
0.000
-0.55
0.276
0.493
0.625
0.000
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.34
0.444
0.209
0.272
0.096
0.013
0.001
0.125
0.045
0.485
0.306
-0.048
0.238
-0.221
-0.145
0.073
0.019
0.720
0.063
0.084
0.259
0.596
14
0.596
1.000
13th Global Conference on Business & Economics
TEA – Total Economic Activity
Variable
Constant
Economic Freedom Index
Kauffman Regulatory Quality
Indulgence
Individualism
# of Active Languages (ln)
World Bank Income Classification
Entire equation R^2
Adjusted R^2
F
Sig.
df
FFA - Fear of Failure
Variable
Constant
Economic Freedom Index
Kauffman Regulatory Quality
Indulgence
Individualism
# of Active Languages (ln)
World Bank Income classification
Entire equation R^2
Adjusted R^2
F
Sig.
df
November 22-23, 2015
Oxford, UK
ISBN : 9780974211428
B
14.347
.253
-2.905
.123
-.105
1.060
-.883
Std. Err
5.914
.115
1.500
.032
.037
.512
1.344
Beta
.384
-.392
.398
-.374
.245
-.094
t
2.426
2.202
-1.937
3.884
-2.794
2.072
-.657
Sig.
.019
.032
.059
.000
.007
.044
.514
.526
.466
8.866
0.000
54
B
46.139
-.257
5.675
-.204
.030
-.204
-.705
.316
.273
4.519
0.002
54
15
Std. Err
10.628
.178
2.227
.049
.054
.049
1.956
Beta
-.299
.586
-.507
.082
-.507
-.058
t
4.341
-1.441
2.549
-4.176
.558
-4.176
-.360
Sig.
.000
.156
.014
.000
.580
.000
.720