OUTCOMES FROM:
UNDERSTANDING ENTREPRENEURSHIP: ISSUES AND NUMBERS
ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDICATORS PROJECT EXPERT WORKSHOP
26-27 OCTOBER 2005
The first phase of the Entrepreneurship Indicators Project will culminate in the delivery of a plan for
an international entrepreneurship indicators programme. This work plan will be presented at the end of
February 2006. Among other elements the plan will include recommendations on an international data
collection initiative, content, data sources, management and governance, as well as, importantly, plans for
engaging countries and other stakeholders in the programme. The Expert Workshop, held in Paris on
October 26-27, 2005, was designed to provide critical inputs to that overall plan.
The Expert Workshop involved some forty selected experts from government, academia and the
OECD. The agenda of the meeting can be found in Annex 2 of this paper. Through their invited
presentations and discussions they were asked to debate and advise on the programme and plans for the
Entrepreneurship Indicators Project. More specifically, the Workshop participants were asked to address
seven questions:
 Why is Entrepreneurship important?
 What are, or should be, the key policy issues?
 What does the existing data offer?
 Where are the remaining data gaps?
 Is there a need for standard definitions?
 How can data best be assembled or developed?
 How can countries be engaged to join and support an international programme?
This document provides a summary of the key outcomes of the workshop.
Why is Entrepreneurship Important?
The Workshop underscored several aspects of the importance of entrepreneurship. The first relates to
the link between entrepreneurship and economic growth. The second concerns the link between
entrepreneurship and job creation. And the third concerns the role that entrepreneurship could play in
improving the economic and social position of groups within society.
There is some debate about whether entrepreneurship causes economic growth or whether it is a
facilitator or enabler of economic change. The evidence appeared to be that both entry and exit played a
very powerful role in enhancing productivity. If anything, it appeared that if entrepreneurship led to the
1
more rapid exit of low productivity firms, that this was particularly desirable when they were replaced by
new firms that were more productive.
FORA, the Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs' Division for Research and Analysis,
did a study using a database in Denmark containing all firms to investigate the link between high growth
firms and multi-factor productivity (MFP). On the x-axis is the growth level within a given industry (100
industries and all firms less than five-years old in Denmark). When one looks at the growth rate within that
industry and the MFP (turnover) within that industry, the graph confirms that high productivity firms do
grow.
High growth and MFP
1,8
1,6
MFP level, 2002
1,4
1,2
Average MFP level, 2002
1
0,8
0,6
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Growth among new firms within a given industry
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
The link between entrepreneurship and employment growth was also emphasised. Entrepreneurship is
often closely associated or equated with SMEs and hence, the size of the firm. However, it was shown that
in looking at the net employee change, after two years of age, every cohort loses, not gains employment.
The reason for this is productivity. Therefore, when we look at entrepreneurship as being important in
terms of job creation, it is actually the age, and not the size of the firm that is important. In this sense, it is
important not to equate all SMEs, not matter what the age, with entrepreneurship.
2
Figure B:
19951995-96 Net Job Growth by Age and Type of Establishment
Per cent of total net job growth (1.87 mil)
275%
225%
143%
multi-unit locations
175%
single unit firms
125%
75%
150%
25%
-15%
-25%
-7%
-12%
-12%
-10%
-19%
-14%
-15%
-20%
4-6 years
7-9 years
10-13 yrs
14-18 yrs
-15%
-18%
-36%
-75%
0-1 years
2-3 years
19 or older
Years of Age in 1996
It was recognised that entrepreneurship could also play an important social function. Some ethnic
minorities, throughout history, have seen entrepreneurship as a way of escaping from disadvantage,
particularly the case for recent immigrants. In other cases women have often not been able to be considered
as equals in the male-controlled corporate structure and have seen entrepreneurship as an appropriate and
desirable employment opportunity.
What are, or should be, the key policy issues?
Despite the explosion of entrepreneurship research in recent years, there still seems to be a disconnect
between research and policy. Anders Lundstrom has recently characterised Swedish initiatives in support
of entrepreneurship as “trial and error”, “not based on any theoretical foundation”1. And Sweden is not
alone; many other countries rely on case studies and best practices, rather than empirical evidence, to
assess the impact of their entrepreneurship programmes.
With respect to broader entrepreneurship policy issues, five specific policy questions emerged from
the Expert Workshop. These were:
 What kind of a framework can be used to examine priories in entrepreneurship policy?
 What are the most relevant policy areas?
 What can be learned from more enterprising countries?
 Can less enterprising countries change their policies so as to become more enterprising?
 Will these policies actually make a difference?
1
Lundstrom, A., Effects of Initiatives on SMEs Development, 2005
3
What kind of a framework can be used to examine priories in entrepreneurship policy?
David Storey asked the participants to consider entrepreneurship policy from the point of view of the
constraints that prevent one from becoming an entrepreneurship. The constraints that could form the basis
for policy could be, for example:





Ideas/opportunity
Financing
Motivation
Information
Lack of Skill
Anders Lundström, President of the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research, looks at
entrepreneurship policy from a model that 1. provides motivation, 2. provides skill and 1. provides
opportunity. According to him the policy for entrepreneurship and SME overlap. Entrepreneurship policy
begins at the pre-start phase, through the nascent phase, up until the post start-up up to 42 months. The
SME policy begins at the nascent phase and goes until maintenance and expansion. Therefore, the overlap
phase is between nascent and post start-up to 42 months.
The Interconnection between SME and Entrepreneurship Policies
Entrepreneurship
Policy
QuickTi me och en
TIFF ( LZW)-dekompri merar e
kr ävs för att kunna se bi lden.
Pre-start period
Nascent phase Start-up
SME-Policy
Post-start-Up
Up to 42 months
Maintenance
and expansion
Time process
He provides a list of different types of entrepreneurship policy measures, examples of stated problems
in implementing the policy, how much research has been done and examples of possible policy initiatives.
4
Evaluation Problems and Perspectives
Different types of entrepreneurship policy measures
Type of
measures
Problems stated
(examples)
Knowledge
from
research
Objectives
(examples)
Administrative
burden
Too many
High compliance costs
Limited but
increasing
Decrease
regulations
with x %
Im proving
perceived
opportunity
Seed financing
Lack of seed capital
Relatively h igh costs
Entre preneurship
education
Lack of role models
Lack of awareness
Extensive
Increase seed
but conflicting capital in different
forms
Limited
Increase the
awareness to be
an entrepreneur
Tax incentives
In crease expected
profits
Limited
Increase the no of
start-up s
Counselling and
info rmation
High costs
Lack of competence
Limited and
conflicting
Increase
competence
Free information
QuickTime och en
TIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerare
krävs för att kunna se bilden.
Evaluation Problems and Perspectives
Different types of entrepreneurship policy measures
Type of measures Problems stated
(examples)
Knowledge
From
research
Objectives
(examples)
R&D and
inno vations
Need for renewal
Techno logy transfer
Limited and
conflicting
Increase innovative
entrepreneurship
Export
Low degree of
internationalisation
Lack of competence
Limited
Create better
international
possibilities
Target groups (e.g.
women
entrepreneurs)
Too few
Some mainly
statisticly
oriented
Increase the degree
of start-up s for
underrepresented
groups
Promotion activities Lack of awareness and
role-models
Limited
Create more
positive attitudes for
entrepreneurship
Networking
Limited
Create more
awareness of
different policy
programs
Lack of individual
competence and
resources
QuickTime och en
TIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerare
krävs för att kunna se bilden.
Source: Revised from Lundström and Steve nson, 2002
Anders Hoffman is creative director of FORA, as the head of the International Consortium for the
Dynamic Entrepreneurship Benchmarking. The goal of the Danish government is to be a leading
entrepreneurial society, where the most high growth enterprises are launched by 2015. On order to achieve
this goal, FORA has elaborated a General Policy Framework for Entrepreneurship to serve as a model for
the collection of indicators which can then, in turn, be used to create systematic evaluations and
internationally comparable benchmarks of entrepreneurship policies. Dr. Hoffman pointed out that the two
5
main contributions to a policy framework come from Audretsch, Thurik and Verheul (Audretsch et al,
2002) and Lundström and Stevenson (Lundström and Stevenson, 2001, 2002, 2005) which are shown
below. FORA’s model follows.
Favourable business climate e.g. tax regime, competitive environment, savings, flexible
labour market, competitive banking system, low inflation, low interest rates, etc.
Make it easier to go through
Make it easier to survive
the steps.
and grow.
Reduce entry/exit barriers.
Improve access to resources
Improve access to advice,
Opportunity
information, networks,
- financing, networks,
expertise.
mentoring, incubators.
Improve access to markets,
Provide access to micro-
employees, technology.
loans and seed capital.
Reduce regulatory and
Make it easier to gain
labour market obstacles.
Make it easier to gain
management know-how.
management know-how.
Put entrepreneurship
Access to counselling,
education in schools.
Skills
Tailor entrepreneurship
technical assistance,
management skills, peer
training programs.
networks, ‘best-practice’
Support student venture
management tools,
programmes.
performance.
Establish peer learning
networks.
Increase
awareness and
Influence ‘will to grow’
legitimacy of
motivation
entrepreneurship.
Promote new business
Provide information about
Motivation
possibilities
its role in society.
Promote growth
Profile role-models
possibilities
Promote entrepreneurial
Promote role-models
Role as feasible option
For start-up
Create entrepreneurial climate
General Population ’A want-to-be’ Nascent Start-Up
t-n
t
For growth
Survival
t+ 42 months
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
Audretsch, Thurik and Verheul
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
6
Growth
Our model
Demand
Supply
Potential amount of
entrepreneurship opportunities
Number of potential
entrepreneurs with
skills and capital
Incentive structure
Potential benefits versus
Potential costs
Motivation/Culture
Entrepreneurial motivation
Entrepreneurship
Activity
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
What are the most relevant policy areas?
One of the most important things to keep in mind when setting policy priorities, according to Alistair
Nolan of the OECD, is selecting areas that policy makers will support because they believe there will be a
yield. Many aspects that have an effect on entrepreneurship will not be of use to policy makers. For
example, it has been shown that entrepreneurs who maintain contact with other entrepreneurs tend to be
more successful. However, this is not an area in which policy can intervene. Likewise, even though we
know the profile of someone who is more likely to become a successful entrepreneur we cannot deny those
who are less likely entrepreneurship advisory services.
Mr. Nolan created a wish list of entrepreneurship data to be used in the policy areas gaining
increasing importance.
1.
More time series data to better understand framework conditions and the impact they have in
support of high quality business creation is needed.
2.
Although we have quite a bit of information on regulatory burden and administrative barriers,
there is a paucity of information on tax effects.
3.
Why is there such a difference between the rates of stated preference for self-employment and
actual lower rates of self-employment?
4.
More work is needed on gazelles. They make a disproportionately high impact in terms of growth
and employment. Why do they exist and what are the key traits?
5.
Data related to demographic change. Life expectance increases by one month each year but only
1 in 3 French over the age of 55 are economically active. Japan responds with programmes to
encourage older groups to stay economically active. Age based over-sampling in an international
survey to gain greater analytical depth could be a possibility.
7
6.
Data related to technological change. There are important differences across countries in regards
to their patterns of technology use. According to the OECD adult literacy and life skills survey
which surveyed 7 or 8 countries, in Norway 7% of the adult population has never switched on a
computer. The percentage is 40% in Italy. This is extremely relevant to policy.
 Internet using firms have high value added, superior job creation, higher salaries, higher
performance, but we do not know the direction of causality. Is it because of the Internet, or do
higher performing firms use the Internet?
 Technology will bear out in how the services are provided for entrepreneurs. GEM indicates
that business angel networks are important in that they allow entrepreneurs to bypass
standard introduction procedures. But it could also encourage angel networks to add value to
other services, for example, work with clients on equity for service arrangements, pick out
best projects etc.
7.
Impact of demonstration and motivational effects. Importance of imitation in driving
entrepreneurship. Intergenerational component. Many entrepreneurs come from families with a
history of entrepreneurship. Women having a husband who is self-employed are twice as likely to
choose this path. Is imitation significant, or is it other factors? If you are in an area with low rates
of start-ups and imitation is an important variable, then you are likely to have low-rates in the
future as well.
8.
Marital stability in family owned firms could have policy ramifications given that family
pensions and mortgages are often tied up in family businesses. Marital and spousal support for
couples that are entrepreneurs is not available.
9.
Regional and local data.
 Under what conditions and how will enhancing the birth rate also add to regional growth?
The fact that we see strong correlations over time in the birth rate in the same regions, in the
same places gives grounds for pessimism about the efficacy of public policy in the ability to
change birth rates. However, the policy stakes are sufficiently high and volume of resources
dedicated to regional development in the European Union are so great that this is clearly an
issue that merits continued analytical attention.
 At the regional level there is almost no data examining the impact of sub-national regulations
on entrepreneurial activity. There was one study done in the US that looked at state building
codes, land use and zoning. This study suggested that there is a significant compliance burden
and had an adverse effect on small and minority firms and their start-up decisions.
 Individual programmes at local level. Training, incubations, micro-finance are not being
examined with any degree of rigor and could provide clues as to interesting things that may
be going on in different countries and point to robust policy oriented research agendas.
André Letowski of the Agence pour la Création des Entreprises (APCE) of France suggested that the
two biggest obstacles to entrepreneurship in France are the parents and the media. Parents tend to warn
their children against risk taking instead of encouraging it and prefer their child choose a secure path as an
employee. The media focus on examples of the extremely rich, successful and intelligent entrepreneur
which gives an image of inaccessibility and intimidation, as opposed to presenting entrepreneurship as
possible career choice for everyone.
8
The International Consortium has defined the relevant policy areas based on 61 indicators and
assessed them on the basis of the quality dimensions relevance, accuracy and availability. They then tested
them for correlation between the indicators chosen for performance and those chosen to measure the
business environment across countries. As correlation was demonstrated, they then chose the areas the
most critical to investigate. Then they compared Denmark’s performance in those areas to the best
performing countries and came up with a list of the most critical policy areas for Denmark.
Step 3: Define relevant policy areas
- 61 indicators
Total measure of the business environment for entreprenurship
Factors affecting
entrepreneurial
performance
Opportunities
Capital
Entry Barriers/
deregulation
Loans
Wealth &
bequest tax
Access to foreign
markets
Policy arears affecting
entrepreneurial
performance
Ability
Incentives
Motivation/Culture
Trad. Business
education
Personal
Income tax
Entrepreneurial
motivation
Entrepreneurship
education
Business tax &
Fiscal incentive
Initiatives towards
Specific groups
Communication
About heroes
Technology
transfer
Business Angels
Restart
posibilities
Social security
discrimination
Private demand
factors
Venture capital
Entrepreneurship
Infrastructure
(public)
Administrative
burdens
Procurement
regulation
Capital taxes
Entrepreneurship
Infrastructure
(private)
Laubor market
regulation
Bankruptcy
legislation
Stock markets
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
Those areas deemed the most important in Denmark are:
 Venture capital
 Bankruptcy legislation
 Entrepreneurship education
 Personal Income tax
 Labour market regulation
What can be learned from more enterprising countries?
It is clear that the United States, which is generally taken as an exemplar of an enterprising country
has low tax rates, low levels of regulation, but also low levels of business support. Its policy focus is on
enhancing competition with the private sector playing the leading role. Denny Dennis from the NFIB
Research Center stressed that the US has a competition policy, not an entrepreneurship policy.
9
The American Approach – A Competition,
Not an Entrepreneurship (or SME) Policy

The Policy –
 Vigorous
(if not vicious) competition
 Few
impediments (relative)
 Little direct assistance (relative)
 Creeping social policy
 A supportive culture
 Continued
growth of social and environmental regulation
16-Jan-2006
5
In contrast Europe is a relatively high tax economy with high levels of social security and high – if
decreasing – levels of regulations.
It is also clear that it is not simply SME policy which influences the performance of small firms and
contributes to overall levels of enterprise. Indeed the view of the workshop was that it was overall
economic policy that was most influential upon the competitiveness of SMEs. It was also clear that
government budgets earmarked specifically for SMEs were comparatively modest in comparison with
overall government funding from which SMEs benefited.
Can less enterprising countries change their policies so as to become more enterprising?
The view of the workshop was that it is possible to change policies. From the paragraph above, it is
clear that other developed countries could change their policies to become more like the US, but the price
of so doing may be too high.
Specifically such changes would require a greater acceptance of a less equitable distribution of
wealth. It would also require public acceptance of taxes being lowered on wealthy individuals and a
reallocation of power away from suppliers and towards customers. There would clearly be strong vested
interests that would oppose such changes and, given the inevitable short-term horizon politicians, such
long-term changes might be difficult to implement. Nevertheless, the key point is that the knowledge of
what is required is available.
Will these policies actually make a difference?
The workshop had different views on this question. Some participants pointed to the changes which
the United States has undergone since the 1960s when it was essentially a corporatist society. During the
intervening period it has experienced significant cultural change moving towards a greater focus upon
enterprise. The economic success associated with these changes, has served to reinforce movements
towards an increasingly enterprising economy.
10
However, other participants were less convinced about the possible impact policy change. In
particular, they were unsure whether all of the elements in the policy package were equally important, so
that a ‘pick and mix’ approach was not possible. To take a specific example it might be that even if a
country spent heavily on entrepreneurship education and business support, but failed to reform a generous
social security package the impact upon enterprise might still be modest. Finally, as was noted in the
paragraphs above, the ‘price’ for becoming an enterprising society might be unacceptable to many.
Existing Data
A number of activities are currently available at international or national level concerning the
collection of data on entrepreneurship. The list is far from being exhaustive; it is rather an initial effort
accounting for existing data that directly or indirectly refer to some sort of entrepreneurial activity.
At the international level, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM2) is a research programme
initiated in 1998 which accounts for an annual production of harmonised data on entrepreneurship in some
forty countries. Along with generic information on the population structure (gender, age, geographic
distribution, ethnic background, education, etc), GEM collects standardised information on total level of
national entrepreneurial activity (TEA) and factors that account for national differences in the level of
entrepreneurship, so as to allow for assessment of policies for enhancing entrepreneurship and estimation
of the role of entrepreneurial activity in national economic growth.
At the European level, two surveys are worth noting: the Eurostat Factors of Business Success
(FOBS) and the Eurobarometer (European Commission). The FOBS, involving 15 European countries,
complements information on harmonised data on enterprise births, survivals and deaths3 where
determinants of success and growth of newly born enterprises, motivations for starting up ones own
business, barriers and risks encountered during the first years of existence and business plans for future
development are explored. The target population of this survey are enterprises that survived for more than
three years, hence the current survey is addressing newly born enterprises that entered the economy in
2002 and survived through 20054.
The European Commission has also been conducting longitudinal analysis of dynamic trends for the
past five years through the Eurobarometer survey. It measures European and American attitudes on annual
basis through telephone interviews. Such a summary represents the first effort in a series of annual reports
investigating the scope and manner of regulations in order to enhance business activity.
The Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) is designed to improve the understanding of
the start-ups phenomenon (Reynolds, Carter et al.). The PSED is a U.S. research programme that provides
longitudinal data on business formation. The modelling investigates external factors that may influence
entrepreneurship: from a political, sociological and economic prospective. The survey uses a mix between
detailed phone interviews and self-administrated questionnaires to contact respondents.
The above mentioned works provide examples of existing data on entrepreneurship. Additional
indicators, both qualitative and quantitative, will be documented in subsequent Reports by the
Entrepreneurship Indicators Project. While the existing data have been useful in identifying the extent and
2
Reynolds, P., Bosma, N.S., Autio, E. et al. (2005).
3
Such information is taken from the existing Eurostat project “Business Demography”. The database collects information on firms from 1997 to
2002 on 17 member states plus Norway and Romania. More information at www.epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int
4
NACE activity classification from C to K, excluding 74.15. NACE activity and employment size class are observed at birth and not at survival
year.
11
importance of entrepreneurship, none of them are sufficiently comprehensive and internationally
comparable to satisfy the needs of policy makers.
Data Gaps
Gaps in internationally-comparable entrepreneurship data were identified in a variety of ways at the
Workshop. Individual Presentations, such as that by Anders Hoffmann of Denmark on “A General Policy
Framework for Entrepreneurship”, set out lists of specific indicators and assessed the quality of currentlyavailable data. Other presentations highlighted interesting data developments in individual countries, such
as the Kauffman Firm Survey in the United States, and suggested the possible extension of such initiatives
in other countries. Finally, through the Workshop discussions, participants drew attention to numerous
specific data gaps.
 Linked data on entrepreneurs and firm performance;
 Data on employee-firms to be distinguished from self-employment;
 Identification, and characteristics, of growth firms and their entrepreneurs;
 Entrepreneurial activities in established firms;
 Entrepreneurial spin-offs in existing firms;
 Financing for entrepreneurship, including venture capital;
 Panel data tracking survival/non-survival/change over time;
 Family business and entrepreneurship;
 Women’s entrepreneurship and minority entrepreneurship;
 Regional and/or local data; and,
 Social entrepreneurship;
Standard Definitions
Research has dedicated almost three centuries to the attempt to define the concept of entrepreneurship.
A wide range of definitions has been produced, spanning various disciplines such as psychology (Shaver &
Scott, 1991), sociology (Reynolds, 1991, Thorton, 1999), economics (Kirchhoff, 1991) and management
(Stevenson, 1985).
All these conceptualisations aim to understand the relationship between economic growth and
entrepreneurship, yet none is considered to be the commonly accepted definition that could facilitate the
way in which entrepreneurship data are collected. Discrepancies in the definitions have to do with the
nature of the subject itself. Being a multifaceted concept, entrepreneurship can be hardly locked up into a
single definition. As the slide below (FORA, 2004) demonstrates, entrepreneurship is so difficult to define
because it is not an “event” per say, but a process that can be measured at several stages. There is also
disagreement over whether or not entrepreneurship should be defined in terms of the firm, or in terms of
the entrepreneur, or whether it is the newness of the firm, the size of the firm or whether or not the firm or
entrepreneur is innovative that is the defining factor. As evidence to the extent to which the experts differ
12
in their interpretation of the term, in his concluding remarks at the Workshop, David Storey identified
eleven different concepts of entrepreneurship that were mentioned in the discussions. Therefore, depending
on the context in which entrepreneurship is observed, the definition can vary considerably and lead to
different measurements.
What is Entrepreneurship?
> No single definition exists of
entrepreneurship simply because
entrepreneurship cannot be seen as a
single event.
Eurostat
General
population
Want-to-be
30%
Entry
1%
GEM
Exit
25%
Survival
70%
Growth
5%
Copyright 2005 © FORA, Langelinie Allé 17, 2100 Kbh Ø - www.foranet.dk
Paul Reynolds, of the Pino Global Entrepreneurship Center at Florida International University, agrees
that entrepreneurship as a concept as it is commonly used is too amorphous and multi-dimensional that it is
useless to researchers. He defines entrepreneurship as people starting new businesses, and although it may
not satisfy everyone’s idea of the term, it is broad enough to encompass virtually every concept of an
entrepreneurial activity related to new business. The study done by the International Consortium defined
entrepreneurship as both the entry and exit of firms and the creation of high growth firms. Other
researchers such as Paul Westhead of Nottingham Business School, sees entrepreneurship not simply as the
creation of new ventures, but as imagination, creativity, innovativeness, calculated risk taking, opportunity
recognition, pursuit and exploitation. There was much debate at the workshop as to whether or not selfemployment constitutes entrepreneurship, whether or not to consider new ventures created from larger,
older organisations, or whether only to consider independent owner-managed businesses solely with
employees.
Although a single definition of entrepreneurship across OECD countries may not be feasible, agreeing
on the type, or types, of entrepreneurship one wants to measure is necessary. The Workshop called on the
OECD to develop standard measures that could be applied by both OECD and non-OECD countries, as the
Organisation has done, for example, for e-commerce and other ICT measurements.
Approaches to Developing Data
A number of options for developing entrepreneurship data were discussed. These ranged from
compilations of existing data, with little value added, to development of an ideal entrepreneurship indicator
framework coupled with a standardised international survey (administered within individual countries but
co-ordinated centrally with results compiled, compared and published by the OECD.
13
As a first initiative, the possibility of a Compendium of data used by different countries to understand
and analyse entrepreneurship was suggested. Since such data sets are often unique to individual countries,
little in the way of cross-country comparisons could be carried out, but the compendium would be useful
for illustrating different approaches to understanding entrepreneurship. This would help to identify the
most appropriate components of possible international entrepreneurship indicators framework and, where
similar measures do exist in several countries, the potential for harmonisation could be explored. The
OECD has numerous examples of simple, Compendia of measures that could serve as models here. Also,
work by FORA and the International Consortium on Entrepreneurship Benchmarking has already pulled
together some relevant data and collaboration would be possible.
The preparation of such a Compendium would require co-operation by officials in member countries
who would have to provide the data and metadata inputs to the OECD. While such an activity seems
simple and straightforward, some participants reminded the Workshop that every effort must be made to
justify, simplify and minimise the burden of reporting to organisations such as the OECD. A Workshop
presentation by Canada was useful in this regard.
Despite the value of a simple Compendium in the short term, most participants were anxious to go
beyond the compilation of existing, non-comparable data. A presentation by Steve Vale, on secondment
from the ONS to the OECD, on the comparability of data on business entry and exit, through Business
Registers, illustrated the significant inconsistencies that exist across OECD countries. Progress has been
made within the European Community but much work remains if European and non-European data are to
be compared. Indeed, even within countries, the use of different approaches to data outputs means that
multiple, inconsistent measures may exist even based on the same register data. Given the fact that
definitions and registration procedures are difficult to change, it was recognised that harmonisation of
register-based data must be a long-term activity. Nonetheless, there was considerable support for ongoing
work by the OECD to exploit register-based business dynamics data for study of entrepreneurship.
A clear advantage of survey data, especially when surveys are developed anew, is that relevancy and
consistency can be built in through standardised definitions and measurement approaches. The GEM and
Panel Survey of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) programs were offered as examples here. Many agreed
that it would be most advantageous to tie high quality register data to consistent survey data for maximum
value. The ability to link across data sets is also highly desirable.
As an important initial step in establishing survey programs it was recommended that, in consultation
with member countries, the OECD develop an overall framework of entrepreneurship data including a
listing all the data elements to be assembled in an ideal world. Such a framework would also include
standard definitions and measurement approaches. Given an agreed-to framework, different approaches to
developing data could be considered.
One approach would be to conduct a standardised international entrepreneurship survey, similar to the
way the OECD-led PISA education survey is conducted. This would ensure that all data elements were
collected in all participating countries at the same time via the same methodologies. The survey would be
administered within individual countries but co-ordinated centrally with strong, objective quality standards.
Results would be compiled, compared and published on a co-ordinated basis. Through a governance
structure, participating countries would decide on specific data priorities for each cycle of the survey. Such
a programme would be expensive, though much of the development cost would be spread over a number of
countries; costs would be much less than having each country develop a programme on its own. There
were numerous advantages cited for this approach but it was recognised that it might be too expensive for
many countries to do take on the complete survey each cycle. Furthermore, given the different state of
development of different economies, achieving agreement on data priorities could be challenging. Some
14
measures would be more useful for developing countries while others would be appropriate for shaping
policies in developed countries. Thus modular approaches were also suggested.
Once an agreed –to framework for entrepreneurship data is established, work could proceed on
several fronts simultaneously. Since some interesting g data developments are already underway in some
countries, the OECD could explore commonalities and encourage other countries to use the same
approaches. For example, Eurostat is already conducting a survey on Factors of Business Success. The
Kauffman Foundation in the USA is also conducting a firm survey that covers many of the same
determinants of entrepreneurial success. Since other countries have expressed interest in similar
information on determinants of success, it would be useful to ensure that a common set of definitions and
questions is available, based as much as possible on the work already underway.
Another approach would be to have a number of interested countries agree on a few specific, shortterm priority data topics and to jointly develop, in co-operation with the OECD Entrepreneurship
Indicators Project, a pilot survey to be tested in one or two countries. The results would be used to inform
policy analysts throughout the OECD in order to gauge interest in broader application of the survey. At the
Workshop, several countries expressed interest in participating in such a pilot survey.
Engaging Countries and Other Stakeholders
The Workshop strongly endorsed a role for the OECD in developing standardised, international data
on entrepreneurship as well as its determinants and outcomes. Most participants expressed interest in
continuing the work to engage policy analysts and policy makers throughout the OECD in order to
strengthen support for entrepreneurship data development. In this regard, there was support for a broader
Conference the work of the Entrepreneurship Indicators Project in 2006 in order to demonstrate the
relevance of entrepreneurship data.
15
ANNEX 1: EIP TIMETABLE
EIP Project Timetable
2005
2007
2006
Phase 1
Feasibility Study and Action Plan
Phase 2
Compendium of Existing Data
Pilot Surveys
Event
Phase 3
Extend Network
Data Gathering
Dissemination
Financial support by:
Kauffman
Int’l Consortium
OECD
Financial support
sought from:
existing + other
sources
16
Financial support
sought from:
participating
countries + other
sources
ANNEX 2: EXPERT WORKSHOP AGENDA
Wednesday 26 October 2005
Room 7
Opening Session
Welcome by Herwig Schlögl , Deputy Secretary-General Herwig Schlögl - OECD
9:00-9:30
Sergio Arzeni, Director, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development (CFE)- OECD
Tim Davis, Project Manager, OECD Entrepreneurship Indicators Project, Statistics Directorate- OECD
SESSION 1
Entrepreneurship: What’s the Big Deal?
9:30-10:30
This session looks at the importance of entrepreneurship in today’s economies and why it is necessary to understand its
various dimensions in terms of the policies that influence it.
Zoltan Acs, Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University and The Kauffman Foundation - USA
Discussant : David Storey, Associate Dean, Research & Director of Enterprise Group, Centre for Small and Medium
Sized Enterprises, Warwick Business School – UK
10:30-11:00
Coffee Break
SESSION 2
Policy Making for Entrepreneurship: Who? What? Where? When? Why? and How?
11:00-12:00
This session will seek to answer the question – what kind of policy needs to be in place regarding entrepreneurship?
What kind of policy already exists in certain countries and how is it affecting the level and kinds of entrepreneurship?
Roy Thurik, Professor of Economics and Entrepreneurship, Erasmus University Rotterdam, EIM Business and Policy
Research- The Netherlands
Discussant: Edmund Phelps, McVickar Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University- USA
SESSION 3
Policy Making for Entrepreneurship: What’s Missing?
12:00-13:00
This session will examine the existing data gaps and policy needs in terms of what is measurable through an
international statistical survey.
Anders Lundström, President, Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF)- Sweden
Anders Hoffmann, Creative Director, FORA, Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs- Denmark
Discussant : Alistair Nolan, Education Directorate, , Indicators and Analysis Division- OECD
13:00-14:30
Lunch
17
SESSION 4
Policy Making for Entrepreneurship: What do we already know?
The collection of entrepreneurship data on the international level is not a new concept. GEM, the World Bank and
Eurostat, to name a few, have all made significant contributions to our understanding of entrepreneurship.
Nevertheless, many feel that data gaps and comparability issues still exist. This Session will review a number of other
data initiatives so that those data gaps can be put into proper context.
Steven Vale, UK Office of National Statistics and Structural Business Statistics, on secondment to Statistics
Directorate- OECD
14:30-16:30
Morvarid Bagherzadeh, Structural Business Statistics, Statistics Directorate, OECD
Zoltan Acs, Professor, School of Public Policy, George Mason University and The Kauffman Foundation- USA
André Letowski, Agence pour la création des entreprises (APCE)- France
Peter Boegh Nielsen, Internal Market and Services Directorate-General- European Commission / Hartmut Schroer,
EUROSTAT
Paul Reynolds, Director of the Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Pino Global Entrepreneurship Center, Florida
International University- USA
Discussant: Michela Gamba, Entrepreneurship Indicators Project, Statistics Directorate- OECD
16:30-17:00
Coffee Break
SESSION 5
17:00-18:00
Wrap up and Conclusions
Stefano Scarpetta, Labor market advisor and lead economist, Human Development Network- World Bank
Thursday 27 October 2005
Room 10
SESSION 1
A General Policy Framework for Entrepreneurship
9:00-10:30
FORA (Denmark) has elaborated a General Policy Framework for Entrepreneurship to serve as a model for the
collection of indicators which can then, in turn, be used to create systematic evaluations and internationally comparable
benchmarks of entrepreneurship policies. This session will be used to present the framework and discuss its suitability
for application to OECD countries.
Anders Hoffmann, Creative Director, FORA, Danish Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs- Denmark
Discussant: Paul Westhead, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Nottingham Business School- UK
10:30-11:00
Coffee Break
SESSION 2
Country Experiences
11:00-12:30
This session will look entrepreneurship policy issues and priorities from a national perspective, using Canada, the
Netherlands and the USA as models.
Denny Dennis, Senior Researcher of the National Federation of Independent Business- NFIB, U.S.A.
Luuk Klomp, Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM)- The
18
Netherlands
Chris Parsley, Small Business Policy Branch, Industry Canada
Discussant: Jonathan Potter, Local Economic and Employment Development Programme, Centre for
Entrepreneurship- OECD
12:30-14:00
Lunch
SESSION 3
International Data Collection Considerations: Roundtable
This session will examine tools for collection of international entrepreneurship data. The opening presentation will
compare household surveys and registers as alternatives for tracking firm births. The roundtable will explore different
survey approaches and compare scope, survey methods, costs and applicability for the collection of different
entrepreneurship indicators on an internationally-comparable basis.
14:00-15:30
Opening speaker: Paul Reynolds, Director of the Entrepreneurship Research Institute, Pino Global Entrepreneurship
Center, Florida International University- USA
Roundtable
Chairperson: Anders Hoffmann, Creative Director, FORA, Danish Ministry of Economic and Business AffairsDenmark
Andy Cosh, Assistant Director, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge- UK
Alistair Nolan, Education Directorate, Indicators and Analysis Division- OECD
Terry Evers, Director of the Small Business and Special Surveys Division (SBSSD), Business and Trade Statistics
Field, Statistics Canada
SESSION 4
15:30-16:30
Wrap Up and Conclusions
Discussion led by: David Storey, Associate Dean, Research & Director of Enterprise Group, Centre for Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises, Warwick Business School - UK
19