G l o b a l E n t r e p r e ne ur s hi p M o n i t o r
2 0 1 0 T he N e t he r l a nd s
The emergence of an entrepreneurial society
Chantal Hartog
Jolanda Hessels
André van Stel
Sander Wennekers
Zoetermeer, August 2011
ISBN:
978-90-371-1028-9
Order number: A201108
Price:
€ 50.-
This report is part of the research programme SMEs and Entrepreneurship, which is financed by the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.
All the EIM research reports are available on the website www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM bv. Quoting numbers or text
in papers, essays and books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned. No part
of this publication may be copied and/or published in any form or by any means, or stored
in a retrieval system, without the prior written permission of EIM bv. EIM bv does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections.
Contents
1
Introduction
5
1.1
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
5
1.2
The entrepreneurial process
6
1.3
The GEM Adult Population Survey (APS)
1.4
Ten years GEM Netherlands
10
1.5
The Dutch GEM Report 2010
11
2
The state of entrepreneurship in 2001 and 2010
13
2.1
Introduction
13
2.2
Historical perspective
13
2.3
Profile of entrepreneurship in 2001 and 2010
15
2.4
Discussion, conclusions and recommendations
22
3
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions & intentions
27
3.1
National entrepreneurial attitudes
27
3.2
Individual entrepreneurial perceptions
29
3.3
Start-up intentions
33
3.4
Conclusions
37
4
Entrepreneurial activity
39
4.1
Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA)
39
4.2
Incumbent entrepreneurship
49
4.3
Entrepreneurial exits
51
4.4
Conclusions
53
5
Entrepreneurial aspirations
55
5.1
High-growth entrepreneurship
55
5.2
Innovative entrepreneurship
58
5.3
International entrepreneurship
61
5.4
Conclusions
63
6
Informal investment activity in the Netherlands
65
6.1
Recent developments in informal investment activity in the Netherlands
65
6.2
Determinants of informal investment activity
70
6.3
Conclusions
72
7
Role models and entrepreneurship
75
7.1
Presence of role models
75
7.2
Significance of role models
76
7.3
Relationship with role model
78
7.4
Characteristics of individuals who are influenced by role models
79
7.5
Conclusions
82
References
8
83
3
1
Introduction
1.1 The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
H i st o ry
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is a research program executed annually with the aim to obtain internationally comparative high quality research
data on entrepreneurial activity at the national level. This academic research
consortium started as a partnership between the London Business School and
Babson College in 1999 and began with 10 participating countries in this same
year. Over the years GEM has expanded to comprise 60 economies in 2010. Currently, GEM is the single largest study of entrepreneurial activity in the world.
The GEM research program provides a harmonized assessment of the level of national entrepreneurial activity and conditions to which it is subject for all participating countries. In 2010, the Netherlands participated in GEM for the tenth time
since its enrolment in 2001.
T h e r o le o f en tr e pr en eur sh i p i n ec on om ic d ev e lo p me nt
Although it is widely acknowledged that entrepreneurship is an important force
shaping a country's economy, the understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development is still far from complete. The quest to
unravel this complex relationship has been hampered particularly by a lack of
cross-national harmonized data on entrepreneurship. Since 1999, the GEM Research program has sought to address this by collecting relevant cross-national
harmonized data on an annual basis. GEM focuses on three main objectives:
− To measure differences in the level of entrepreneurial activity between countries
− To uncover factors determining national levels of entrepreneurial activity
− To identify policies that may enhance the national level of entrepreneurial activity.
In addition to these three main objectives GEM's goal is to study the contribution
of entrepreneurship to national economic growth. Traditional analyses of economic growth and competitiveness have tended to neglect the role played by
new and small firms in the economy. GEM takes a comprehensive approach and
considers the extent of involvement in entrepreneurial activity within a country,
identifying different phases of entrepreneurship and stages of a country's economic development level. As far as the phases of entrepreneurship are concerned, GEM distinguishes between potential entrepreneurship, prospective entrepreneurship, early-stage entrepreneurship (which can be split into nascent entrepreneurship and new/young business entrepreneurship), established business
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial exit and entrepreneurial reengagement.
The role and nature of entrepreneurship are considered to differ according to a
country's stage of economic development. Three major stages of economic development can be identified (ordered from least developed to most developed):
(1) factor-driven economies which are based primarily on the extraction of natural resources; (2) efficiency-driven economies in which industrialization and increasing scale-intensity are the major drivers of development; and (3) innovation-driven economies in which the service sector strongly expands and the in-
5
dustrial sector evolves in terms of variety, R&D and knowledge intensity, see figure 1.1
Figure 1
Characteristics and key development focus by stage of economic development
Source: Kelley, Bosma and Amorós (2011).
It should be noted that elements of all three principal stages of economic activity
are present in all national economies, whether factor-driven, efficiency-driven or
innovation-driven. However their relative prevalence - and their contribution to
economic development - may vary. A nation could be marked as primarily factordriven, efficiency-driven or innovation-driven depending on the activities that are
most significant for a nation's economic development. We follow the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) proposition to classify a country into a certain stage of
economic development on the basis of its level of per capita income (Schwab,
2010). See table 1 for the precise income thresholds.
Table 1
Income thresholds for establishing stages of economic development
Stage of economic development
GDP per capita (in US$)
Stage 1: Factor-driven
< 2,000
Transition from stage 1 to stage 2
2,000 - 3,000
Stage 2: Efficiency-driven
3,000 - 9,000
Transition from stage 2 to stage 3
Stage 3: Innovation-driven
9,000 - 17,000
≥ 17,000
Source: The Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2010-2011 (Schwab, 2010).
1.2 The entrepreneurial process
Entrepreneurial activity is best seen as a process rather than a single time event.
We make use of the entrepreneurial process2 life cycle model depicted in figure 2.
6
1
These phases correspond to the classification of the World Economic Forum (WEF) into factordriven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven economies, presented in the Global Competitiveness Reports (GCRs).
2
Also known as the ‘entrepreneurial engagement ladder’ (Van der Zwan, Thurik and Grilo, 2010).
Various phases (or engagement levels) in the entrepreneurial process can be distinguished as follows.
− Potential entrepreneur: Individuals differ in the extent to which they consider
themselves capable of setting up a firm and in the extent to which they recognize actual opportunities for setting up a firm. Those individuals who believe they have the skills, knowledge and expertise to set up their own firm
and/or perceive good opportunities for setting up a firm are considered to be
part of the pool of potential entrepreneurs.
− Prospective entrepreneur: When individuals have actual start-up intentions (in
the near future) they are labeled prospective or pre-nascent entrepreneurs.
Next, the cycle refers to individuals who are on the point of committing resources to start a business they expect to own themselves (nascent entrepreneurs), and when they currently own and manage a new/young business
(new/young business entrepreneurs).
− Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity: The aggregate of the prevalence of
nascent entrepreneurs and that of owner-managers of new/young businesses
is referred to as Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA). More precisely, the group of nascent entrepreneurs refers to individuals within the
adult population (18-64 years of age) who are actively involved in their own
new firm start-up, as full- or part-time owner and for whom no salaries or
wages have yet been paid for over three months. The group of new/young
business entrepreneurs refers to individuals who are, as owner and manager,
actively involved in operating a business that is less than 42 months old and
which has paid salaries or wages for between 3 and 42 months.1
Figure 2
The entrepreneurial process
* A reassessment may be implicit or explicit and continual or incidental. Note also that a
reassessment can take place at any time after the birth of the firm.
Source: EIM/GEM.
1
It should be noted that if a person is both a nascent entrepreneur and a young business owner,
this person is counted as one active person in the adult population when calculating TEA.
7
Once an individual has become an owner-manager of a new business, the stylized model in figure 2 acknowledges two distinct further steps in the entrepreneurial process: survival and reassessment.
− Established business owner: During the survival step, also known as the step
of persistence or consolidation, the owner-manager of a new/young business
becomes the owner-manager of an established business (EB), which is defined
as a business of more than 3.5 years old.
The final step on the entrepreneurial engagement ladder (reassessment) may
take place either before or after a new/young firm has become an established
business.
− Exiting entrepreneur: Eventually any owner-manager will exit a business, either with business closure or business continuance (e.g. when the business is
transferred to another business owner).
− Reengaging entrepreneur: Some of the exited entrepreneurs may reengage in
the entrepreneurial process and again enter one of the earlier phases.
Note that figure 2 represents the general entrepreneurial process. This does not
mean that there are no exceptions. It may, for instance, be the case that an individual becomes a nascent entrepreneur without having had concrete start-up
intentions. It may also be the case that an individual suddenly acquires an existing business, older than 3.5 years or not. Another possibility is that someone
suddenly becomes co-owner of a business that just started.
1.3 The GEM Adult Population Survey (APS)
The main survey conducted within the GEM research program is the Adult Population Survey (APS). The GEM APS data collection covers the complete life cycle
of the entrepreneurial process. GEM data are collected using a standardized telephone survey in all participating countries, involving approximately 2,000 or
more respondents per country. The data are re-weighted by the actual distribution of a country's population in terms of age, gender, educational level and (if
possible) region to make them representative for a country’s adult population
(18-64 years of age).
P a rt i c ipa t in g c ou nt r ie s i n GE M AP S 20 1 0
In the 2010 GEM APS, research was conducted in 60 economies across the globe
with a high variation in terms of economic development. Among this number
there are 26 OECD1 member countries and 17 Member States of the European
Union, see table 2. The countries are classified according to the three major
stages of economic development: factor-driven economies, efficiency-driven
economies and innovation-driven economies. The sample size (the number of
surveyed persons aged between 18-64 years) for each participating country is
also presented in table 2. As far as the Netherlands is concerned 2,359 individuals between 18 and 64 years of age were interviewed in 2010. The sample size
ranges from 1,010 in the Azores to 26,386 in Spain. The average sample size
equals 2,791 and the median is 2,002.
1
8
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Table 2
Participating countries in the GEM Adult Population Survey (APS) 2010
Countries
Member OECD
Member EU
Sample size
Angola*
no
no
2,131
Bolivia
no
no
3,524
Egypt*
no
no
2,769
Ghana
no
no
2,437
Guatemala*
no
no
2,280
Iran*
no
no
3,345
Jamaica*
no
no
2,287
Pakistan
no
no
1,980
Saudi Arabia*
no
no
1,957
Uganda
no
no
2,265
Vanuatu
no
no
1,112
West Bank & Gaza Strip
no
no
1,992
Zambia
no
no
2,011
Argentina
no
no
1,700
Bosnia and Herzegovina
no
no
2,000
Brazil
no
no
1,997
Chile*
yes
no
6,236
China
no
no
3,677
Colombia
no
no
11,025
Costa Rica
no
no
2,003
Croatia*
no
no
1,614
Ecuador
no
no
2,077
Hungary*
yes
yes
2,000
Latvia*
no
yes
2,001
Macedonia
no
no
2,002
Malaysia
no
no
2,004
Mexico
yes
no
2,525
Montenegro
no
no
2,000
Peru
no
no
2,108
Romania
no
yes
1,669
Russia
no
no
1,736
South Africa
no
no
2,800
Taiwan*
no
no
2,001
Trinidad & Tobago*
no
no
1,826
Tunisia
no
no
1,999
Turkey
yes
no
2,401
Uruguay*
no
no
1,635
Factor-driven economies (13)
Efficiency-driven economies (24)
9
Countries
Member OECD
Member EU
Sample size
Australia
yes
no
1,705
Azores
no
no
1,010
Belgium
yes
yes
1,578
Denmark
yes
yes
1,957
Finland
yes
yes
2,006
France
yes
yes
1,607
Germany
yes
yes
5,552
Greece
yes
yes
1,996
Iceland
yes
no
1,684
Ireland
yes
yes
2,000
Israel
yes
no
2,007
Italy
yes
yes
2,995
Japan
yes
no
1,906
Korea
yes
no
2,001
Netherlands
yes
yes
2,359
Norway
yes
no
1,528
Portugal
yes
yes
2,002
Slovenia
yes
yes
3,012
Spain
yes
yes
26,386
Sweden
yes
yes
2,271
Switzerland
yes
no
1,619
United Kingdom
yes
yes
2,291
United States
yes
no
2,880
Innovation-driven economies (23)
* Country in transition to next stage.
Source: EIM/GEM.
1.4 Ten years GEM Netherlands
This report marks ten years of GEM research in the Netherlands. In particular, it
compares the entrepreneurial achievements of the Netherlands anno 2010 with
those reported in the first Dutch Global Entrepreneurship Monitor entitled 'The
Long Road to the Entrepreneurial Society; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001
The Netherlands' (Bosma, Stigter and Wennekers, 2002). The analysis shows
that a great deal of progress has been made in the past decade. In particular,
both early-stage and incumbent rates of entrepreneurial activity are now structurally higher than ten years ago. There are also signs that a more entrepreneurial culture is slowly replacing the previously dominant job culture. In that sense
it seems justified to speak of an emerging entrepreneurial society in the Netherlands. Even so, some weaknesses remain. In particular, the rates of product innovation and business innovation are still quite modest in comparison with other
innovation-driven economies. Accordingly, some related challenges on the road
to an entrepreneurial society lie ahead.
10
1.5 The Dutch GEM Report 2010
This report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the state of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands in 2010, as compared with 2001 and also viewed
from an international comparative perspective. In a final section the chapter
evaluates the progress made by the Netherlands in the past decade, while drawing on relevant findings in all chapters of the present report. The subsequent
three chapters describe the annual developments in the Netherlands over the
past years for respectively entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions
(chapter 3), entrepreneurial activity (chapter 4) and entrepreneurial aspirations
(chapter 5). In these chapters, Dutch entrepreneurial attitudes, activities and
aspirations in 2010 are also viewed from a global perspective by benchmarking
Dutch levels to innovation-driven economies, OECD countries and EU Member
States. Chapter 6 and 7 each zoom in onto specific topics. Chapter 6 pays attention to informal investment activity. Finally, chapter 7 provides insight in the role
that role models play in entrepreneurship.
11
2
The state of entrepreneurship in 2001 and 2010
2.1
Introduction
This chapter views the state of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands anno 2010
from a historical perspective. Section 2.2 shows how, after a long period of decline of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands from at least the year 1900 onwards, the mid 1980s marked the beginning of a revival which has continued up
to this day. Section 2.3 elaborates the state of entrepreneurship reached anno
2010, and compares it with the situation in 2001 as described in the first GEM
Netherlands report (Bosma, Stigter and Wennekers, 2002). Specifically this section first discusses the absolute changes in several key indicators for the Netherlands, and then goes on to analyze the changes in the relative position of the
Netherlands compared to a large benchmark group of innovation-driven economies. Finally, section 2.4 deals with the entrepreneurial strengths and weaknesses of the Netherlands anno 2010. This discussion draws on the major findings of the present report as well as on other relevant insights from literature.
2.2
Historical perspective
T h e lon g d ec l in e
Available time series as well as cross-sectional data suggest that, for the most
developed economies, the process of long term economic development since the
Industrial Revolution has implied a systematic and strong decline of the selfemployment rate in total employment (Wennekers, Van Stel, Carree and Thurik,
2010). The exact data differ between individual countries but the stylized fact of
a 'long decline' in the rate of self-employment seems beyond doubt. For the
Netherlands, the available data show a decline of self-employment in total employment (including agriculture) from slightly above 25% in 1900 to around 10%
in 1980 (Wennekers and Folkeringa, 2002). In the USA this long decline started
reverting in the early 1970s but in several European countries, including the
Netherlands, the decline of self-employment continued until the mid 1980s. This
continued decline may have been part of a more comprehensive syndrome of
stagnation. In fact, in the late 1970s and early 1980s the Dutch economy was
characterized by a combination of stagflation, a high government deficit, low labor participation and low business profitability as well as a low point in business
ownership. Subsequently, in 1982, the Netherlands was hit by a severe recession
and the economy dropped to a very low level. Things at the time could hardly
have been worse but fortunately they improved significantly in subsequent years.
T h e r ev i va l of en t re p ren eu rs h ip ( 1 98 5- 20 01 )
In fact, during the twenty years since the deep recession of 1982 and the ensuing trilateral agreement between the employers' organizations, the labor unions
and the government, the Netherlands accomplished a great deal "in terms of
wage moderation, the pruning of social security, enhanced labor market flexibility, tax reform, improved functioning of markets and the promotion of entrepreneurship and competition" (Bosma et al., 2002). Consequently, in the 1990s the
macro-economic performance of the Dutch economy was again remarkably vital.
Furthermore, the percentage of independent entrepreneurs in the labor force
(excluding agriculture) finally started increasing, from 7.8% in 1985 to 10.3% in
13
20011. As early as in 1999 this macro-economic success gained wide attention
from policy makers in other countries who referred to it in terms of a "Dutch
cure" and/or "Dutch delight" (see The Economist, May 22nd 1999, page 97).
E nt re p r en eu rsh i p i n 200 1 : a pa ra do x
In spite of the improved economic performance of the Netherlands, the research
carried out for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 (Bosma et al., 2002)
presented some puzzling results. First, the prevalence of nascent entrepreneurship was found to be low relative to the rate reported by most other countries
participating in GEM (see section 2.3.2 for more details). At the same time, attitudes towards entrepreneurship in the Netherlands were found to be quite favorable, certainly when compared to twenty years earlier. In 2001 entrepreneurs
were again2 well respected in the Netherlands and were often even admired for
their initiative, courage and success. The willingness to pursue entrepreneurship
as a personal career goal however, was found to be relatively weak particularly
among graduate students. As put by some of the experts interviewed for the
GEM 2001 report the Netherlands was at the time, still characterized by a job
culture. Probably related to this, it was also noted by the experts that failing was
still not regarded as a 'learning experience'. Nevertheless, among young people
job churning did now seem to be well accepted.
C u l tu ra l a n d i ns t itu t iona l i mp e d im en ts
As was elaborated in Bosma et al. (2002), the educational system probably
played a major role in perpetuating the Dutch job culture. Teaching goals were
usually derived from wage job descriptions and the basic inner drive of teachers,
parents and pupils alike was one for graduation exclusively, and certainly not for
developing entrepreneurial skills. Moreover, Bosma et al. (2002, p. 78) noted
that "contacts between schools and business were scant, except in some vocational schools. Most pupils and students never met a real life entrepreneur
through school". Finally, Dutch teachers as a rule had very little knowledge and
awareness of entrepreneurship. The National Program on Entrepreneurship and
Education, jointly launched by the Department of Economic Affairs and that of
Education, Culture and Sciences in 2000, was therefore a major first step in the
right direction. Bosma et al. (2002: 78) concluded that while cultural change was
on its way "it is apparently a slow process, which may take one or two generations to bear fruit".
The GEM 2001 report also diagnosed three other institutional impediments. First,
obtaining all the required permits and licenses, registering a new firm with all
the relevant authorities, including the tax office and social security, created quite
a burden in the Netherlands. Second, the opportunity costs of entrepreneurship,
related to the high level of employment protection and social security in paid
jobs, were still quite high in the Netherlands. Finally, Bosma et al. (2002, p. 78)
observed that "a major problem was the fact that new and growing firms have
less access to new research technology than do large, established firms".
14
1
Source: EIM’s COMPENDIA data base, available at www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
2
Compared to the (early) 1980s, as indicated in the expert interviews for Bosma et al. (2002).
T h e lon g r oa d to t he e nt r ep r en eu r ia l so c ie ty 1
Overall, Bosma et al. (2002: 79) concluded that while the Dutch government
over the two decades since 1982 had systematically invested in improving the
institutional environment for business start-ups by removing impediments and by
introducing more incentives and, at the same time, had also addressed the cultural domain, through the promotion of entrepreneurship in the media and by
launching the National Program on Entrepreneurship and Education, "nonetheless
the mission had not yet been completed". They continued that "In spite of the
much more favorable attitude towards entrepreneurship within the Dutch population, the willingness to pursue a personal career as an entrepreneur is still relatively weak, many remnants of the previous job culture have remained, the opportunity costs of entrepreneurship are still high and regulatory barriers for
business start-ups remain serious".
According to Bosma et al. (2002: 79), mutual reinforcements between culture
and institutions had created a vicious circle leading to a structural decline of entrepreneurship. They therefore concluded that "fully reversing this process asks
for a systemic or holistic approach encompassing both the cultural and the institutional domain". The road to an entrepreneurial society appeared to be a long
one. In the next section we will see to what extent, in the decade since 2001,
the Netherlands has progressed on this road.
2.3
Profile of entrepreneurship in 2001 and 2010
2 . 3 . 1 C ha ng es in en t re p re ne ur sh i p b et we en 2 00 1 a nd 20 10
I n t h is s ect i on the emphasis will be on absolute changes in various dimensions
and aspects of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands during the decade 20012010.
D e ve l o pm ent o f en tr e pre n eu r ia l a tt it ud es , pe r ce p t io ns a nd int en t io ns
Table 3 presents seven indicators2 of entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and
intentions in the Netherlands for the years 2001 and 2010. Over this period,
three out of seven indicators have structurally improved3. These are the prevailing attitude in the Netherlands with respect to entrepreneurship being considered
a desirable career choice, the self-perceived capabilities to start a new business
and the intention to start a new business within the next three years. Three
other indicators i.e. the status of entrepreneurship, the (perceived) media attention for entrepreneurship and the degree to which fear of failure would prevent
people from starting a new business, have been relatively stable. Finally, over
the years 2001-2010 the perceptions of entrepreneurial opportunities have
strongly fluctuated, this is, to a large extent, related to the business cycle.
1
This heading for the final section in Bosma et al. (2002: 79) obviously referred to the Dutch
government policy paper entitled ‘The Entrepreneurial Society’ (Ministry of Economic Affairs,
1999).
2
See chapter 3 for the exact wording underlying the questions for these indicators in the GEM
Adult Population Survey.
3
For the development of these indicators in the years between 2001 and 2010 the reader is referred to chapter 3.
15
The improvements in entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions can
also be illustrated with other sources. The GEM 2001 report (Bosma et al., 2002)
observed few contributions from the Dutch education system to an entrepreneurial culture and primarily noted a role of education in perpetuating a job culture.
However, the Education and Entrepreneurship Action Program that was originally
set up in 2004 (Bal et al., 2007) and was renewed in 2007, has contributed to a
gradually strengthened anchoring of entrepreneurship in the educational system
(Gibcus et al., 2010). A growing number of students in secondary and tertiary
education now consider self-employment as a serious occupational choice (see
chapter 3 of the present report).
Table 3
Indicators of entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions in the Netherlands, 2001 and 2010
Item
2001
2010
Entrepreneurship as a desirable career choice
77**
85
Entrepreneurship is given high status
66**
69
Media attention for entrepreneurship
63**
61
Perceived capabilities
37
46
Perceived opportunities
42
45
Fear of failure
25
26
5.1*
7.1
Start-up intentions within the next three years
*
Refers to 2002.
** Refers to 2003.
Source: EIM/GEM.
D e ve l o pm ent o f en tr e pre n eu r ia l a ct iv i ty a nd a sp i ra t io ns
Table 4 presents eight indicators of entrepreneurial activity and aspirations in
the Netherlands for the years 2001 and 2010. Again, for the development of
these indicators in the years between 2001 and 2010 the reader is referred to
subsequent chapters of this report. The prevalence of early-stage entrepreneurial
activity, as measured by the rate of nascent entrepreneurship, the rate of young
business entrepreneurship and their aggregate (TEA) has increased considerably
in 2010 compared to 2001. This appears to be a structural development, witness
an average TEA of 6.5 in 2008-2010 compared to an average of 4.4 in 20012003.
As regards the dominant motivation for early-stage entrepreneurial activity, the
percentage of opportunity driven entrepreneurship was at about the same high
level in 2002 and 2010. As can be seen in chapter 4, in the years 2003-2009 the
level of opportunity entrepreneurship usually remained in the same order of
magnitude. The most notable exception was the crisis year 2009 showing a rate
of only about 70%.
As for entrepreneurial aspirations, the percentage of high-growth expectation
early-stage entrepreneurial activity within TEA (so-called HEA) was rather stable
in 2010 compared to 2002, but over the entire period 2002-2010 this indicator
fluctuated between a high level of 13.9% and a low level of 4.1% (see chapter
5). Finally, the indicators for product innovation ('product is new to all or some
customers') and technology innovation ('the very latest or new technology is
16
used') have increased in 2010 compared to 2002, while the indicator for business
innovation ('few or no businesses offer the same product') has declined. As is
apparent from the data for all years 2002-2010 in figure 23 (chapter 5), the upward tendencies in product and technology innovation appear to be structural,
but the rate of business innovation seems to fluctuate around a level of 50%.
Table 4
Indicators of entrepreneurial activity and aspirations in the Netherlands, 2001
and 2010
Item
2001
2010
Nascent entrepreneurship
2.3*
4.0
Young business entrepreneurship
2.8*
3.4
TEA
4.9*
7.2
% opportunity-driven entrepreneurship
87**
85
13.9**
12.9
Product innovation (% product is new to all or some customers)
31**
36
Business innovation (% few or no businesses offer the same product)
53**
43
Technology innovation (The very latest or new technology is used)
11**
25
High-growth expectation early-stage entrepreneurial activity
in % of TEA (HEA)
*
Revised figure for 2001.
** Refers to 2002.
Source: EIM/GEM.
D e ve l o pm ent in ot he r in d ica to rs
Maybe not surprisingly, the percentage of incumbent business owners in the labor force (excluding agriculture) that had already increased from 7.8% in 1985
to 10.3% in 2001, went on increasing after 2001 but stabilized at a level of
11.9% in the crisis years 2007-20091. This continued upward trend is also partly
related to a structurally low level of business closures in the Netherlands2 (see
section 2.3.2).
Finally, the percentage of informal investors in the adult population, which in
2001 was quite low by international standards, has shown a remarkably positive
development in recent years. For more details about the level of informal investment, see section 2.3.2 as well as chapter 6.
2 . 3 . 2 B enc hma rk in g th e Ne the r la nd s in 2 00 1 a nd 2 01 0
In this section we analyze the relative position of the Netherlands in 20013 and
2010, versus a group of countries that were all classified as 'innovation-driven
economies' in 2010 and participated in GEM in both 20014 and 2010. These countries are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the Neth-
1
Source: EIM’s COMPENDIA data base, available at www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
2
In fact, exits were on average even lower in the years 2006-2010 than in the years 2002-2005.
This is remarkable as early-stage entrepreneurship has increased.
3
For some variables the oldest available data refer to 2002 or 2003.
4
As well as in 2002 and 2003.
17
erlands. The analysis is supported by means of spider web diagrams1. In the discussion, the emphasis will be on the development in the relative position of the
Netherlands.
B enc hma rk in g en tr e p ren eu r ia l a tt i tu de s, p er c ep t io ns a n d in te nt i ons
In figure 3 and figure 4 we benchmark the Netherlands with respect to the same
seven indicators of entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions that
were also used in table 3.2
Figure 3
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions in 2001, the Netherlands
versus a benchmark group of innovation-driven economies (with name of best
performing country between parentheses)
Desirable career choice (Italy)
2.50
2.00
1.50
Start-up intentions (United States)
High status (Finland)
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
Non-fear of failure (United States)
Media attention (Ireland)
Perceived opportunities (Finland)
Netherlands
Perceived capabilities (United States)
Best in class
Mean
Source: EIM/GEM.
As figure 3 shows, in 2001 the Netherlands already held a fairly strong relative
international position with respect to its entrepreneurial outlook. This was particularly the case for the prevailing attitude in the Netherlands with respect to
entrepreneurship being considered a desirable career choice and the low degree
to which fear of failure would prevent people from starting a new business. For
'desirable career choice' the Dutch score was about 1.5 times the standard de-
18
1
Spider web diagrams display multivariate data on axes originating from one common central
point. By plotting normalized data for The Netherlands (i.e. in deviation of the mean value for
the group of benchmark countries and divided by their standard deviation) we show the relative
position of The Netherlands for each of the selected variables. For each variable we have also
plotted the best performing country as ‘best in class’ (with the name of the country between parentheses). See CBS (2007), p. 20, for a more extensive explanation (in Dutch) of spider web
diagrams.
2
However, for reasons of presentation. instead of using fear of failure, we now use its opposite,
i.e. ‘non-fear of failure’, which is defined as (100% - the % fear of failure).
viation above the mean. Only start-up intentions were conspicuously below average.
As figure 4 bears out, the overall relative position of the Dutch entrepreneurial
outlook has not greatly changed in the past decade. An interesting result is that
the United States, which in 2001 had pole position for three indicators, has lost
two of its top placements in 2010 while the Netherlands gained two first positions.
Figure 4
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions in 2010, the Netherlands
versus a benchmark group of innovation-driven economies (with name of best
performing country between parentheses)
Desirable career choice (Netherlands)
3.00
2.50
2.00
Start-up intentions (France)
High status (Finland)
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
Non-fear of failure (Netherlands)
Media attention (Finland)
Perceived opportunities (Sweden)
Netherlands
Perceived capabilities (United States)
Best in class
Mean
Source: EIM/GEM.
B enc hma rk in g en tr e p ren eu r ia l a ct i v ity a n d a spi r a t i ons
Figure 5 and figure 6 show the relative position of the Netherlands vis-à-vis the
benchmark countries, with respect to entrepreneurial activity1 and aspirations2 in
2001 and 2010 respectively. The diagnosis is somewhat different from the situation with respect to the entrepreneurial attitudes and perceptions of the Netherlands in the previous diagrams. In 2001 the Dutch performance in entrepreneurial activity and aspirations was below average for five out of seven indicators,
while in 2010 this was the case for only two indicators. Most conspicuously, the
relative position for TEA and its underlying rate of nascent entrepreneurship, as
well as for the rate of high-growth expectation early-stage entrepreneurial activity, has greatly improved. This improvement is partly due to an absolute increase
in these indicators for the Netherlands and partly to an absolute decline in the
1
In this section all underlying data for TEA and its indicators in 2001 are original, non-revised
figures.
2
However, compared to section 2.3.1, technological innovation is not included here because
benchmarking data were less readily available for this variable.
19
average values for the benchmark economies. However, the rates of product innovation and business innovation among early-stage entrepreneurs are still quite
modest compared to other innovation-driven economies.
Figure 5
Entrepreneurial activity and aspirations in 2001, the Netherlands versus a
benchmark group of innovation-driven economies (with name of best performing
country between parentheses)
TEA (Ireland)
2.50
2.00
1.50
Business innovation (Ireland)
Nascent entrepreneurship (United
States)
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
Young business entrepreneurship
(Ireland)
Product innovation (Denmark)
HEA (United States)
Opportunity TEA (United States)
Netherlands
Best in class
Mean
Source: EIM/GEM.
Figure 6
Entrepreneurial activity and aspirations in 2010, the Netherlands versus a
benchmark group of innovation-driven economies (with name of best performing
country between parentheses)
TEA (United States)
2.50
2.00
1.50
Business innovation (United States)
Nascent entrepreneurship (United
States)
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
Young business entrepreneurship
(Finland)
Product innovation (Denmark)
HEA (United States)
Netherlands
Source: EIM/GEM.
20
Opportunity TEA (Netherlands)
Best in class
Mean
B enc hma rk in g ot he r i ndi ca to rs
E x its
As will be discussed in section 4.3, the share of individuals that recently exited a
business they personally owned and managed is significantly lower in the Netherlands in comparison to innovation-driven economies, OECD countries and EU
Member States. In particular the prevalence rate of individuals that in 2010 indicated they had recently closed a business was, on average, 1.5 to 2 times higher
in countries with comparable levels of wealth. In fact, from 2002 onwards the
available data for most years show a relatively low rate of business closures in
the Netherlands.
B u s in es s o wn e rsh i p ra te
As regards the percentage of incumbent business owners in the labor force (excluding agriculture), the 2001 rate of the Netherlands (10.3%) was still below
the average rate for the EU-15 (11.5%). However, in the past decade the rate in
the Netherlands increased to a value of 11.9% in 2010, while the average rate
for the EU-15 hardly increased and leveled off at 11.8% in 2010.1 The business
ownership rate of the Netherlands is now the highest of the countries in Northern
and Western Europe. In sum, in terms of the prevalence of business ownership
the Netherlands has attained a quite prominent position within the group of most
advanced economies.
I nf or ma l in ve st or s
T ra d it io na l ly, th e p r eva l e nc e of informal investment activity in the Netherlands lags behind our benchmark group of innovation-driven economies2 as a
whole. In fact, in all consecutive years during the period 2001-2010 informal investment activity in the Netherlands was lower than the average rate for the
benchmark group. Chapter 6 provides more details on individual years and, for
2010 in particular, shows a sudden, strong increase of the informal investor
prevalence rate in both the Netherlands and the benchmark countries.
All in all, the trend in informal investment activity in the Netherlands appears to
be positive in both absolute and relative terms. Whereas in 2001 the prevalence
rate in the Netherlands was 1.3% against 3.0% in the benchmark countries,
these rates were respectively 3.4% and 3.6% in 2010. This seems to reflect a
structural development, as the absolute level of informal investment in the Netherlands has risen from an average of 1.6% in 2001-2005 to 2.1% in 2006-2010,
while lagging somewhat less behind the benchmark countries in the second period compared to the first. However this rising trend is, to a large extent, due to
the strong increase in 2010, so it remains to be seen whether informal investment activity in the Netherlands will again be high in 2011 and later years.
F a st -g r ow in g en te r pr i ses
Underlying data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010 (Kelley, Bosma
and Amorós, 2011) shows that the percentage of nascent and young business
entrepreneurs with high-growth expectations in the Netherlands is relatively low
compared to other innovation-driven economies. See figure 7.
1
Source: EIM’s COMPENDIA data base, available at www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
2
Similar to the spider diagrams presented in this chapter but unlike the other chapters of this
report, this refers to an unvarying group of 13 countries that were all classified as ‘innovationdriven economies’ in 2010, and participated in GEM in 2001 and 2010, as well as in 2002 and
2003.
21
This finding is consistent with the internationally modest performance of the
Netherlands in terms of the number of fast-growing firms. A comparative analysis by Teruel and De Wit (2011) shows that this is mainly due to a relatively low
percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs with an income motive, a relatively high
level of employment protection and a relatively low economic growth rate.
Figure 7
High-growth expectation (≥20 jobs in five years) early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (HEA) in innovation-driven economies, average 2008-2010, percentage
of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Ireland
Israel
Iceland
United States
Norway
Belgium
Korea
Slovenia
United
Kingdom
France
Germany
NETHERLANDS
Denmark
Italy
Finland
Spain
Greece
0%
Source: EIM/GEM.
I nt ra p r en eu rs h ip
The 2008 GEM Netherlands report (Hessels, Hartog and Wennekers, 2009) presented some major results of a first empirical GEM study into entrepreneurial
employee behavior, also known as intrapreneurship and defined as employees
developing new business activities for their employer1. In this pilot study, the
rate of intrapreneurship in the Netherlands was among the highest of the sample. Possibly, a relatively participatory and permissive management style in
many organizations in the Netherlands enables entrepreneurial employees to exploit their entrepreneurial tendencies inside the business they work for. In addition, intrapreneurship also appears be a predictor of future early-stage entrepreneurial activity. In both respects intrapreneurship may act as a 'hidden entrepreneurial force' in the Netherlands.
2.4
Discussion, conclusions and recommendations
T h e e me r ge nc e of a n en tr e p re ne ur ia l s oc i ety
The past 25 years have brought about considerable changes in the economic
landscape of the Netherlands. The number of business owners (excluding agriculture) has risen from a low point of about 0.5 million in 1983 to almost 1.1 million
in 2010. The attitudes of the population have become more entrepreneurial and
1
22
For a full exposition see Bosma, Stam and Wennekers (2010).
people have more positive perceptions of their own entrepreneurial capabilities.
Entrepreneurship is also increasingly better anchored in the educational system,
and a growing number of students in secondary and tertiary education now consider self-employment as a serious occupational choice. Accordingly, the prevalence of early-stage entrepreneurial activity now appears to be at a structurally
higher level than ten years ago and the level of business closures is low. In addition, entrepreneurship also flourishes on the shop floor of incumbent businesses
in the Netherlands, witness the relatively high level of intrapreneurship as discussed previously. Finally, the percentage of informal investors in the adult
population is now significantly higher than ten years ago (see also chapter 6 of
the present report). This revival of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands in the
past decades has contributed to job creation, to more flexibility and competition,
to innovativeness and to job satisfaction (EIM, 2011).
Many other advanced economies show similar developments, but the Netherlands
now has a prominent position in the front ranks. Additionally, self-reinforcing
mechanisms propelling the Netherlands forward on the way towards an entrepreneurial society have been set in motion by a growing availability of entrepreneurial role models in the immediate environment of average citizens (see chapter 7
of the present report) and by the leapfrogging of institutional and cultural
change (EIM, 2011).
D r i v in g f o rc es
These developments are primarily driven by trends in the international arena
(Wennekers et al. 2010). These include the advent of a services economy with
lower entry barriers, declining scale economies due to a differentiation of consumer preferences and increasing preferences for more independence and autonomy in occupational choices. Last but not least, the ICT-revolution has lowered
transaction costs facilitating subcontracting and networking, while e-commerce
has enabled small producers to reach distant customers.
Specifically for the Netherlands, the high economic growth rate of the late 1980s
and most of the 1990s created abundant market opportunities for new entrants.
The influence of high economic growth on entrepreneurial activity is, however,
limited as is demonstrated by the continued increase in the business ownership
rate during the past decade of more modest economic growth. Finally, Dutch
economic policy since the mid 1980s has consistently favored the emergence of a
more entrepreneurial society. There was a gradual development from 'defensive
SME-policies towards offensive entrepreneurship policies' (Kuiper, 2010). Over
the past decades this has been particularly manifest in the gradual abolition of
the highly restrictive Establishment Act, in extended loan guarantee schemes
and improved fiscal conditions for new businesses and in growing attention for
entrepreneurship in the Dutch educational system.
R e ma in in g w ea k n es se s
Compared to our earlier analysis in the GEM Netherlands 2008 Report (Hessels,
Hartog and Wennekers, 2009, section 7.1.8), the most recent years have shown
further progress in terms of higher entrepreneurial intentions, a higher TEA and
23
a higher rate of informal investment. Nonetheless, some weaknesses remain1. As
we have seen, the rates of product innovation and business innovation among
early-stage entrepreneurs are still quite modest compared to other innovationdriven economies. In addition, the Netherlands has at best an average ranking in
terms of fast-growing enterprises. As discussed before, modest growth ambitions
of new businesses and the relatively high degree of employment protection are
impediments to firm growth in our country (Teruel and De Wit, 2011).
However, due to the financial crisis of 2008/2009 and its many consequences,
most economies in the world are now being confronted with various challenges to
which only innovative and ambitious entrepreneurship can provide an adequate
response. Product innovations are needed to create and exploit new markets,
while process innovations are necessary to increase productivity. Likewise, firm
growth is indispensable to speed up the rate of economic growth (EIM, 2011). It
is thus imperative that the Netherlands should face up to its remaining weaknesses.
P o l icy r e co mm en da t i ons
A further deregulation of the labor market may promote ambitious entrepreneurship in two ways. First it may be helpful in removing disincentives that discourage prospective ambitious entrepreneurs from leaving their tenured jobs and
creating new enterprises. Second, a lower rate of employment protection will reduce the risks and impediments for new enterprises to create jobs and start
growing.
In addition, the government might intensify its attempts to stimulate ambitious,
innovative start-ups by facilitating the commercial exploitation of recent scientific discoveries. This may include encouraging universities to establish science
parks, technology offices, business incubators and venture funds. This will contribute to the emergence of productive 'ecosystems' of innovative entrepreneurship around universities and other knowledge centers (Nooteboom and Stam,
2008; Porter, 1990: 125; Senor en Singer, 2009). More generally, the supply of
risk capital investment is not a strong point in the Netherlands (CBS, 2011; EIM,
2011), even though informal investment showed an increase in 2010. Policy initiatives in this area are much needed.
Related to the previous issue, intensified investment in higher education is also
recommended. On average, more highly educated entrepreneurs perform better
and entrepreneurs have even higher returns to education than employees (Van
Praag, Van Witteloostuijn and Van der Sluis, 2009; Van Praag and Van Stel,
2010). In addition, firms that employ more educated workers appear to be more
productive (Millan, Congregado, Roman, Van Praag and Van Stel, 2011). Finally,
enrolment in tertiary education also has a positive effect on the number of fast
growing enterprises (Teruel and De Wit, 2011). However, the occupational choice
for entrepreneurship is not positively associated with higher education (Van
Praag et al., 2009). Thus, a further extension and intensification of effective en-
1
24
These weaknesses are to a large extent related to ‘the three other institutional impediments’
diagnosed in Bosma et al. (2002) and discussed in section 2.2 of the present report i.e. high
compliance costs of new business start-ups, high opportunity costs of entrepreneurship and impediments in the access to new research technology for new and growing firms. However, it
would take a more in-depth investigation to assess the exact progress in these policy domains.
trepreneurship education also seems sensible for promoting (ambitious) entrepreneurship (EIM, 2008).
Another aspect of entrepreneurial ambitions is related to the sizable amount of
unused potential for exporting and internationalization in the Dutch SME-sector
(Tiggeloove and Hessels, 2009). This requires more intensified export promotion,
including raising awareness of export opportunities among Dutch enterprises. Finally, the impending retirement of many established business owners from the
baby boom generation offers opportunities for business transfer to ambitious
new entrepreneurs. Policy could do more to match supply and demand in this
area.
25
3
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions & intentions
This chapter examines entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions in
the Netherlands. Entrepreneurial attitudes encompass several dimensions, including the extent to which people think entrepreneurship is considered as a desirable career choice, whether high status and respect is attached to successful
entrepreneurs, and whether the public media provides stories about successful
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial attitudes thus express the general feelings of the
population toward entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial perceptions cover individual perceptions of entrepreneurial activity and include dimensions such as beliefs about one's capabilities for starting a business, views about
the presence of good entrepreneurial opportunities in one's living area and the
level of risk individuals might be willing to take when starting a business. Entrepreneurial intentions refer to the fraction of the adult population that intends to
start their own business within the next three years. In this chapter, entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions are presented for the Netherlands
over time and are put in an international perspective. This international comparison focuses mainly on a comparison with innovation-driven economies, OECD
countries and EU Member States.1
3.1 National entrepreneurial attitudes
Entrepreneurial attitudes reflect the social attractiveness of being self-employed.
If national attitudes toward entrepreneurship are positive, this may generate cultural support, financial resources, networking benefits and various other forms of
support for those who are already entrepreneurs or want to start a business.
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship in the Netherlands over time (2003-2010)
are summarized in table 5. A relatively stable pattern can be observed over time.
In 2010, as in previous years, a large majority of the Dutch adult population (1864 years of age) is of the opinion that entrepreneurship is considered as a desirable career choice in the Netherlands (85%). Over two third thinks that most
citizens attach high status to successful entrepreneurs, and 61% of the respondents agree that public media in the Netherlands pays much attention to successful entrepreneurs. These indicators seem to reflect that attitudes toward entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are positive in the Netherlands.
1
Unless specified otherwise, EU and OECD averages presented in this chapter are based on the EU
and OECD countries that participated in GEM in the year(s) concerned. EU and OECD countries
participating in GEM 2010 are reported in table 2.
27
Table 5
National entrepreneurial attitudes in the Netherlands, 2003-2010, percentage of
the adult population (18-64 years of age) that agree with the statement
Item
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
77
81
79
80
85
85
84
85
66
67
66
65
69
69
67
69
63
59
58
59
61
61
64
61
Entrepreneurship as desirable career choice:
In the Netherlands, most people consider
starting a new business a desirable career
choice
Entrepreneurship is given high status:
In the Netherlands, those successful when
starting a new business have a high level of
status and respect
Media attention for entrepreneurship:
In the Netherlands, you will often see stories
in the public media about successful businesses
Source: EIM/GEM.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
The results of an international comparison of entrepreneurial attitudes are presented in table 6. In the Netherlands, significantly more individuals believe that
entrepreneurship is an attractive career choice than individuals in factor-driven
economies (75%), efficiency-driven economies (73%) and innovation-driven
economies (60%). While on average the support concerning entrepreneurship as
desirable career choice decreases by stage of economic development, Dutch citizens are much more positive than innovation-driven economies in general and
than OECD countries and EU Members.
Table 6
National entrepreneurial attitudes internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of adult population (18-64 years of age) that agree with
the statement (see table 5 for the complete statement)
Innovation-driven
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
choice
60
61
61
85
Entrepreneurship is given high status
71
70
71
69
Media attention for entrepreneurship
55
55
51
61
Entrepreneurship as desirable career
Source: EIM/GEM.
Concerning the level of status and respect attached to successful entrepreneurs,
it follows from table 6 that there is no difference between the Netherlands and
(groups of) countries with similar levels of economic development. In factordriven and efficiency-driven economies, however, respectively 81% and 70% of
the respondents is of opinion that successful entrepreneurs receive high status
and respect. Perhaps this is related to the relatively higher shares of entrepreneurs in these countries as opposed to higher income countries.
28
For the media image of entrepreneurship the differences are small. In countries
with similar levels of economic development as the Netherlands, 50-55% of the
individuals think that the public media provides many articles about successful
entrepreneurs. In factor-driven and efficiency-driven economies, these shares
are 65% and 62% respectively. With a share of 61%, the share of individuals
that is positive on this point in the Netherlands is significantly higher than in innovation-driven economies in general and than OECD countries and EU Member
States.
3.2 Individual entrepreneurial perceptions
Countries need people who can recognize valuable business opportunities, and
who perceive they have the required skills to exploit these opportunities. The extent to which people perceive good opportunities for starting a business, or are
positive concerning their own skills, knowledge and experience for setting up a
new business, for example, might be affected by national attitudes toward entrepreneurship in their country. The share of individuals that perceives valuable
business opportunities, feels they have the required skills, knowledge and experience to exploit these opportunities and is willing to take the risk to set up a
new business is used as an indicator for the share of potential entrepreneurs1. As
perceptual variables are shown to be strongly correlated with new business creation (Arenius and Minniti, 2005), potential entrepreneurship might be seen as a
leading indicator for prospective entrepreneurship (which will be discussed in
section 3.3).
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
Table 7 shows the development in the aforementioned indicators for potential
entrepreneurship over time (2001-2010). Whereas the share of the Dutch adult
population (18-64 years of age) that indicated in 2010 possessing entrepreneurial skills (46%) and/or to fear failure for starting a new business (26%) is the
same as in 2009, the share of Dutch citizens recognizing good opportunities for
starting a business in the area in which they live was considerably higher in 2010
than in 2009 (45% versus 36%). In 2009, entrepreneurship seemed to become a
more real (or even inevitable) occupational option for employees who expected
to become or became unemployed and found its expression in a larger share of
individuals with self-perceived entrepreneurial capabilities, as compared to the
years before the economic crisis. In 2010, the adverse impact of the crisis had
weakened, witness the fact that relatively more individuals perceived valuable
business opportunities in 2010 as opposed to 2009. The rate of perceived opportunities may have also been positively affected by the recently increased share
of the adult population that is involved in an (early-stage) business. Entrepreneurs generally have much more positive perceptions than the general population (see table 8).
1
In this chapter, potential entrepreneurs are defined as the share of the adult population (18-64
years of age) that responds with ‘yes’ to the statement ‘You have the knowledge, skills, and experience required to start a new business’ and with ‘yes’ to the statement ‘In the next 6 months
there will be good opportunities for starting a business in the area where you live’, and responds
with ‘no’ to the statement ‘Fear of failure would prevent you from starting a new business’.
29
Moreover, as previously stated in chapter 2, it seems that the increasing attention for entrepreneurship in education and in government programs is now bearing fruit. In the Netherlands, an extensive list of action plans for each phase of
the entrepreneurial process (start-up, survival, exit) was drafted in 2003-2004 in
order to design specific entrepreneurship policies with the aim to encourage entrepreneurial activity (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2004). In addition, in 2007 a
renewed Education and Entrepreneurship Action Program was set up with the aim
to create a closer link between education and entrepreneurship at all levels of
education (from primary to university education). An increasing number of students in secondary and tertiary education now consider self-employment as a serious occupational choice. Compared to 2007, these students are not only more
frequently marked as potential or prospective entrepreneur, they are also significantly more often involved in an actual business start-up (Gibcus, Overweel, Tan
and Winnubst, 2010). In that respect the increased attention for entrepreneurship in education appears to begin to be translated into entrepreneurial perceptions, intentions and actions.
Table 7
Individual entrepreneurial perceptions in the Netherlands, 2001-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that agree with the statement
Item
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
37
37
32
37
42
38
39
38
47
46
42
49
29
38
39
46
42
39
36
45
25
24
28
32
29
29
21
26
27
26
Perceived capabilities:
You have the knowledge, skills,
and experience required to start a
new business
Perceived opportunities:
In the next 6 months there will be
good opportunities for starting a
business in the area where you
live
Fear of failure:
Fear of failure would prevent you
from starting a new business
Source: EIM/GEM.
P e rc ep t io ns of p o rtf o l io a nd s e r ia l ent r ep r en eur s
A fraction of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that is entrepreneurially
active owns and manages multiple firms at the same time - portfolio entrepreneurs - or starts a new entrepreneurial career after a business exit - serial entrepreneurs (Stam, Thurik and Van der Zwan, 2010). Portfolio and serial entrepreneurs thus simultaneously respectively successively own and manage a business. In this report, portfolio entrepreneurship refers to the share of the adult
population (18-64 years of age) that is involved in at least two of the following
entrepreneurial phases: prospective entrepreneurship, nascent entrepreneurship,
young business entrepreneurship and established entrepreneurship. Serial entrepreneurship refers to the share of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that
exited a business they owned and managed in the year prior to the survey and is
involved in either one of the following entrepreneurial phases: prospective entre-
30
preneurship, nascent entrepreneurship, young business entrepreneurship or established entrepreneurship.1 As portfolio and serial entrepreneurs generally have
accumulated a variety of experience and more (financial) resources than novice
entrepreneurs (Westhead, Ucbasaran, Wright and Binks, 2005), their perceptions
of their own entrepreneurial capabilities and of potential business opportunities
in the area in which they live, and their risk attitudes are also likely to be different from those of other entrepreneurs. A closer look at the perceptions of portfolio and serial entrepreneurs as opposed to entrepreneurs in general (table 82) reveals that these types of entrepreneurs do indeed relatively more often feel they
have the required skills, knowledge and experience to launch a new business and
relatively more often perceive valuable business opportunities. Furthermore, the
level of fear of failure is lower for portfolio entrepreneurs as opposed to entrepreneurs in general. Serial entrepreneurs, however, of all groups of entrepreneurs most often fear failure. Possibly this stems from their real time experience
with failure of prior ventures they owned and managed. Note that the gap is
quite large when comparing these entrepreneurial perceptions of portfolio and
serial entrepreneurs with the total adult population, see table 8.
Table 8
Entrepreneurial perceptions of portfolio* and serial entrepreneurs** in the
Netherlands, average 2002-2010, percentage of adult population (18-64 years
of age) that agree with the statement (see table 7 for the complete statement)
Prospective, early-
Total adult
Portfolio
Serial
stage and estab-
population
entrepreneurs
entrepreneurs
lished entrepre-
(18-64 years of
(n=512)
(n=115)
neurs (n=2101)
age) (n=13783)
Perceived capabilities
95.9
92.1
83.7
39.4
Perceived opportunities
69.1
53.3
51.8
41.5
9.0
19.0
17.4
26.5
Item
Fear of failure
*
Portfolio entrepreneurs refer to the share of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that is
involved in at least two of the following entrepreneurial phases: prospective entrepreneurship, nascent entrepreneurship, young business entrepreneurship and established entrepreneurship.
** Serial entrepreneurs refer to the share of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that
exited a business in the year prior to the survey and is involved in one of the following entrepreneurial phases: prospective entrepreneurship, nascent entrepreneurship, young business
entrepreneurship or established entrepreneurship.
Source: EIM/GEM.
M a i n em p loy m ent s ta tus o f po te nt ia l en t re p re ne u rs
In 2010, Dutch potential entrepreneurs - as defined before - are mainly employed in a full-time (50%) or part-time job (18%). Over 23% of this group with
favorable entrepreneurial perceptions in the Netherlands is already selfemployed. In addition, about 4% is retired or disabled, over 2% is student at the
time of survey, another 2% is seeking employment and 1% is full-time home-
1
To avoid too small sample sizes for portfolio and serial entrepreneurs, the condition to be involved in prospective entrepreneurship is added as opposed to the literature. Our definition thus
includes prospective portfolio and serial entrepreneurs.
2
For this table, GEM data are combined for the years 2002-2010 in order to make a more accurate
assessment of perceptions of portfolio and serial entrepreneurs.
31
maker. Hence, the large majority of potential entrepreneurs is involved in paid
employment or in self-employment, see figure 8.
Figure 8
Main employment status of potential entrepreneurs, the Netherlands, 2010,
n=367
Not employed: retired or
disabled
4%
Student
2%
Full-time home-maker
1%
Seeking employment
2%
Self-employed
23%
Employed in full-time
work
50%
Employed in part-time
work
18%
Source: EIM/GEM.
D e mo g ra p h ic st ru ctu r e o f po t ent ia l e nt re p r en eu rs
Figure 9 presents the gender, age and educational distribution of potential entrepreneurs. Consistent with the entrepreneurship literature (e.g. Zhang et al.
2009; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007; Verheul, Van Stel and Thurik, 2006; Verheul,
2005), males have significantly higher prevalence rates of potential entrepreneurship than females. Besides, potential entrepreneurs are most often in the
age range between 35 and 44 years (33%), but also frequently between 25-34
years (25%) and between 45-54 years (20%). The youngest and oldest age
categories are less well presented. Finally, 43% of potential entrepreneurs are
equipped with a secondary degree and 56% with a post-secondary degree/graduate experience.
Figure 9
Gender, age and educational distribution of potential entrepreneurs, the Netherlands, 2010, percentage of potential entrepreneurs, n=375
80%
70%
68%
56%
60%
50%
43%
40%
33%
32%
25%
30%
20%
20%
14%
8%
10%
2%
Gender
Source: EIM/GEM.
32
Age
Education
Post-secondary
degree/graduate
experience
Secondary
degree
Some secondary
degree
55-64
45-54
35-44
25-34
18-24
Male
Female
0%
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
Perceived capabilities, perceived opportunities and the degree of fear of failure of
Dutch citizens in 2010, viewed from an international perspective, reveals that
the Netherlands performs above average. As table 9 shows, the percentage of
Dutch citizens who perceive they have the required skills for starting and running
a business is comparable to the three groups of benchmark countries with similar
levels of economic development. With regard to the recognition of valuable business opportunities and the level of fear of failure, Dutch rates are respectively
significantly higher and lower than the averages in innovation-driven economies,
OECD countries and EU Member States. In fact, the Netherlands has the lowest
fear of failure among all innovation-driven economies. Although in factor-driven
and efficiency-driven economies rates of perceived capabilities and opportunities
are higher, fear of failure shows less variety across economies at different stages
of economic development.
Table 9
Individual entrepreneurial perceptions internationally compared (unweighted
average), 2010, percentage of adult population (18-64 years of age) that agree
with the statement (see table 7 for the complete statement)
Innovation-driven
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
Perceived capabilities
44
46
46
46
Perceived opportunities
33
36
32
45
Fear of failure
38
37
40
26
Source: EIM/GEM.
3.3 Start-up intentions
Even when a country has a large share of individuals with favorable entrepreneurial perceptions, the share of individuals with the intention to actually launch a
new business may nonetheless be low. In 2003 such a contradiction between entrepreneurial attitudes and perceptions on the one hand and ditto intentions and
activities on the other was still quite prominent in the Netherlands (Bosma and
Wennekers, 2004). The step from positive perceptions to actual entrepreneurial
activity is influenced by many factors. First, there is the assessment of opportunity costs of self-employment, including better social security benefits of wage
employment (Hessels, Van Stel, Brouwer and Wennekers, 2007) and favorable
employment protection legislation for people in wage jobs. Second, there is a
risk-reward assessment. Even if the expected returns from entrepreneurship are
considerably higher than the best alternative, the (perceived) risks involved may
be too high for a person who is thinking about starting a business. An individual's risk-avoidance preference may thus be a significant factor in the transition
from potential (or latent) entrepreneurship to actual entrepreneurial activity
(Kihlstrom and Laffont, 1979). The greater the fear of failure for starting a business, the less likely it is that an individual will make the transition from potential
to actual entrepreneurship. At the same time, the individual's occupational decision may also be influenced by demographic characteristics such as age, gender,
origin or ethnicity. Young people, for instance, may have less to lose in the sense
that they do not yet have to support a family or pay off a mortgage and as such
may be more willing to start their own business than older people. However,
33
older people have accumulated financial and human capital and a network of
(professional) contacts, which they may use for a new business start-up. In addition, immigrants may face fewer opportunities for generating income from paid
employment or may see opportunities for stores with products from their country
of origin, and as such may be more willing to start their own business than native citizens. Finally, the start-up decision also depends on the bureaucratic and
legal hurdles for starting a business and on the possibilities for obtaining startup capital (e.g. Van Stel, Storey and Thurik, 2007).
Even though intentions are not (always) directly transformed into action (Katz,
1994), studying pre-organizational phenomena, such as having the intention to
start a new business, may be of great value since they offer means to understand and predict future entrepreneurial activity (Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud,
2000). In other words, assessing entrepreneurial intentions is valuable for understanding trends in entrepreneurial activity. In fact, prospective entrepreneurship might be seen as a leading indicator for early-stage entrepreneurial activity.
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
The development of prospective entrepreneurship in the Netherlands over time
(2002-2010) is presented in table 10. This shows that the share of Dutch citizens
having the intention to start a new enterprise in the near future has increased to
a higher level since 2009. Prior to 2009 about 5% to 6% of the Dutch adult
population (18-64 years of age) expected to start a new business in the next
three years at the time of survey. Since 2009, however, this share has increased
notably to a level above 7%. In 2010, 7.1% of the Dutch adult population (18-64
years of age) intends to launch a new business within the next three years. As
the increased attention for entrepreneurship in education seemed also to be a
factor of influence on potential entrepreneurship (see table 7), the rise in startup intentions in the Netherlands might also be related in part to the increasing
attention for entrepreneurship in education and in government programs.
Table 10
Start-up intentions in the Netherlands 2002-2010, percentage of the adult
population (18-64 years of age)
Item
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
5.1
5.7
6.5
6.2
5.6
5.5
5.3
7.4
7.1
Prospective entrepreneurship:
You are, alone or with others, expecting
to start a new business, including any
type of self-employment, within the next
three years
Source: EIM/GEM.
M a i n em p loy m ent s ta tus
Looking at the employment status of prospective entrepreneurs (figure 10)
shows that in 2010 almost half of the Dutch individuals that intend to start their
own business within the next three years is full-time employed. An additional
20% is employed in a part-time job. One-fifth is already self-employed and this
would make them portfolio or serial entrepreneurs by the time the new business
is actually created. Furthermore, 6% of the prospective entrepreneurs is, at the
34
time of the survey, seeking employment, 5% is student, and 1% is not employed
because of retirement or disablement.
Figure 10 Main employment status of prospective entrepreneurs, the Netherlands, 2010,
n=162
Not employed: retired or
disabled
1%
Student
5%
Full-time home-maker
1%
Seeking employment
6%
Self-employed
20%
Employed in full-time
work
47%
Employed in part-time
work
20%
Source: EIM/GEM.
D e mo g ra p h ic st ru ctu r e o f p ro sp ec t iv e en tr e pr en eu rs
The gender, age and educational distribution of prospective entrepreneurs, as
illustrated in figure 11, reveals that males are considerably more likely than females to have the intention to launch a new business in the next three years.
Entrepreneurial perceptions, which are associated with entrepreneurial intentions, differ strongly between males and females. Women generally have a lower
risk-taking propensity than men and are on average less positive when it comes
to their entrepreneurial skill-perceptions (e.g. Langowitz and Minniti, 2007; Minniti and Nardone, 2007). These factors can play a determining role in the transition from potential to prospective or actual business starts and as such contribute to explaining gender differences in start-up intentions.
35
Figure 11 Gender, age and educational distribution of prospective entrepreneurs, the
Netherlands, 2010, percentage of prospective entrepreneurs, n=162
80%
70%
68%
60%
54%
44%
50%
40%
32%
30%
20%
26%
28%
22%
3%
2%
Some secondary
degree
10%
55-64
20%
Gender
Age
Post-secondary
degree/graduate
experience
Secondary
degree
45-54
35-44
25-34
18-24
Male
Female
0%
Education
Source: EIM/GEM.
The age distribution of prospective entrepreneurs demonstrates that they are
mainly younger than 55 years, and the age category 25-44 years is slightly more
strongly represented. As regards education, 44% of the prospective entrepreneurs is equipped with a secondary degree and more than half of this group has
a post-secondary degree or graduate experience.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
When comparing entrepreneurial intentions in the Netherlands with (groups) of
countries with similar levels of economic development, it follows from table 11
that the Dutch share of prospective entrepreneurs (7.1%) is still significantly
lower than the average in innovation-driven economies (9.8%), OECD countries
(12.5%) and EU Member States (10.3%). In many more highly developed
economies - European countries in particular - start-up intentions are relatively
low even though perceptions of entrepreneurship are favorable. The Netherlands,
in particular, reveals having among the most favorable entrepreneurial attitudes
and perceptions of the innovation-driven economies but, nevertheless a rate of
only 7.1% intends to start a business in the near future. In factor-driven and efficiency-driven economies, where shares of self-perceived capabilities and perceived opportunities are on average higher than in innovation-driven economies
(and levels of fear of failure lower), respectively 45.0% and 26.3% of the adult
population (18-64 years of age) expects to start a business within the next three
years.
Table 11
Start-up intentions internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of adult population (18-64 years of age) that agree with the statement
(see table 10 for the complete statement)
Innovation-driven
economies
Prospective entrepreneurship
Source: EIM/GEM.
36
9.8
OECD
12.5
EU
10.3
NETHERLANDS
7.1
There are several explanations that might underlie the relatively low share of
prospective entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. First, it may be that Dutch individuals perceive many bureaucratic and legal hurdles attached to starting a business, reducing the attractiveness of entrepreneurship for them. According to the
World Bank Doing Business project 2010, the Netherlands is ranked 21st (together with the Slovak Republic) of all 34 OECD countries as to the ease of starting a business. Looking at the overall ranking of the World Bank Doing Business
project in 2010, covering various topics related to starting, owning-managing
and closing a business1, the Netherlands takes the 19 th place of all 34 OECD
countries. This suggests that the administrative hurdles an entrepreneur must
overcome to start and own-manage a business in the Netherlands are of average
level.
A second explanation for the gap between entrepreneurial attitudes and perceptions on the one hand and entrepreneurial intentions on the other hand, might
be the relatively high level of employment protection and social security entitlements in the Netherlands. This may discourage employees with positive entrepreneurial perceptions from actually switching to self-employment. In this respect it is possible that the Dutch population acknowledges a trade-off between
entrepreneurship and security (Hessels, Van Stel, Brouwer and Wennekers,
2007). On the one hand Dutch adults like to be flexible and entrepreneurial,
while on the other hand they prefer the relative income security of wage employment. Hence, once Dutch adults become prospective entrepreneurs, they
probably have considered their choice carefully and are relatively well prepared.
Besides, as explained by Hessels, Hartog and Wennekers (2009), there also
seems to be comparatively plenty of space in the Netherlands for entrepreneurial
behavior within businesses2. The relatively high number of safe and well-paid
jobs as well as the relatively participatory and permissive management style in
many organizations in the Netherlands creates plenty of space for intrapreneurship.
3.4 Conclusions
This chapter reported on entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions and intentions in
the Netherlands over time, also highlighting some demographic and occupational
characteristics and comparing the Dutch performance with three groups of
benchmark countries. The results illustrate that attitudes towards entrepreneurship in general and perceptions of one's own entrepreneurial potential are quite
positive in the Netherlands. Entrepreneurial intentions have risen in recent years
but are, by international comparison, nonetheless still lower than what could be
expected from the favorable entrepreneurial attitudes and perceptions. The next
chapter moves the focus to actual entrepreneurial activity.
1
More precisely, the overall World Bank Doing Business ranking covers the topics starting a business, dealing with construction permits, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors,
paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and closing a business.
2
This is also known as intrapreneurship. For an extensive analysis of the rate of intrapreneurship
in eleven countries, see Bosma, Stam and Wennekers (2010). For a study focusing on individual
intrapreneurial behavior in The Netherlands, see De Jong, Parker, Wennekers and Wu (2011).
37
4
Entrepreneurial activity
This chapter focuses on entrepreneurial activity, or more precisely, on earlystage and incumbent entrepreneurial activity. These are the phases in the entrepreneurial process that follow potential and prospective entrepreneurship (see
figure 2). Early-stage entrepreneurial activity covers individuals in the adult
population (18-64 years of age) that are either actively engaged in setting up
their own business (nascent entrepreneurship) or are the owner and manager of
a business that is less than 3.5 years old (young business entrepreneurship). Incumbent entrepreneurship in this report refers to business owners in the private
sector excluding agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing. 1 In this chapter, figures on entrepreneurial activity are presented for the Netherlands over time and
are set in an international perspective. This international comparison mainly concerns a comparison with innovation-driven economies, OECD countries and EU
Member States.2
4.1 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA)
GEM's well-known Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity, abbreviated to TEA,
represents new firm activity in a country; the extent to which new businesses
are launched by the population aged 18-64 years. TEA captures the percentage
of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that is actively involved in setting
up a business that they will (partly) own and manage and/or currently own and
manage a business that is less than 3.5 years old. The threshold of 3.5 years has
been chosen based on a combination of theoretical and operational grounds.3 The
transition from nascent to young business entrepreneurship occurs at the 'firm
birth', for which GEM takes the moment that payments of any wages to anybody
(including the founders) have been made for more than three months.4
1
The prevalence of incumbent entrepreneurship as a percentage of the total labor force is taken
from EIM’s COMPENDIA data base. This dataset is available at www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
See also Van Stel (2005) and Van Stel, Cieslik and Hartog (2010).
2
Unless specified otherwise, EU and OECD averages presented in this chapter are based on the EU
and OECD countries that participated in GEM in the year(s) concerned. EU and OECD countries
participating in GEM 2010 are reported in table 2.
3
Most new businesses do not survive beyond three or four years. This is the main rationale for the
choice of 3.5 years as threshold. However, the choice of 3.5 years also reflects operational issues. According to Reynolds et al. (2005), "the relevant interview question asked only for the
year when salary and wage payments were initiated and most surveys occurred in the summer
months; so the alternatives for choosing a "new firm age" were 1.5 years, 2.5 years 3.5 years,
etc. The shortest time frame that would provide enough cases for stable prevalence rates with a
total sample of 2,000 seemed to be 3.5 years. Conceptually, any time period under five years
seemed satisfactory so this age was considered an appropriate trade-off between conceptual and
operational considerations in the early years of the project. There has been no compelling reason
to adjust this criteria and a desire for a stable time series has led to its continued use. It should
be considered a procedure to capture existing firms less than three or four years old". (Reynolds,
Bosma, Autio, Hunt, De Bono, Servais, Lopez-Garcia and Chin, 2005, p. 228).
4
This criterion was chosen for the purpose of international comparisons.
39
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
The development in nascent entrepreneurship, young business entrepreneurship
and Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) is presented in table 12 for
the Netherlands over time (2001-2010). In line with the TEA rate in 2009, the
year 2010 also reveals a TEA rate of 7.2%. However, the shares of nascent and
young business entrepreneurship underlying total early-stage entrepreneurial activity changed completely. In 2010, 4.0% of the Dutch adult population (18-64
years of age) is actively committing resources, arranging an office etc. to start a
business that they expect to (partly) own and manage themselves. This is a
higher nascent entrepreneurship rate than in 2009. The share of new/young
business owners, however, slightly declined from 4.1% in 2009 to 3.4% in 2010.
The increase in Dutch early-stage entrepreneurial activity since 2009 epitomizes
the emergence of an entrepreneurial society in the Netherlands as hypothesized
in chapter 2.
Table 12
Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in the Netherlands, 2001-2010,
percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
Item
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
4.9*
4.6
3.6
5.1
4.4
5.4
5.2
5.2
7.2
7.2
2.3*
2.6
1.7
3.0
2.5
3.6
2.7
2.1
3.1
4.0
2.8*
2.1
1.9
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.6
3.2
4.1
3.4
TEA:
Aggregate of nascent and young
business entrepreneurship
Nascent entrepreneurship:
You are actively involved in setting
up a business that you will (partly)
own
Young business entrepreneurship:
You currently own and manage a
business that is less than 3.5
years old
* Revised figure.
Source: EIM/GEM.
M a i n em p loy m ent s ta tus
The main employment status of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs in 2010 is provided in figure 12. Not all early-stage entrepreneurs are mainly self-employed.
In fact, this holds for only half of them. A relatively large share is either full-time
(31%) or part-time (16%) involved in wage employment. This confirms the
emergence of the phenomenon 'hybrid entrepreneurs'. Hybrid entrepreneurs are
entrepreneurs with full-time or part-time jobs who are also (becoming) engaged
in entrepreneurial activity (Folkeringa and Hartog, 2010). As such, hybrid entrepreneurship might be seen as part-time entrepreneurship where the advantages
of wage employment - in particular fixed income, pension rights and social security - reduce the risks associated with starting a business. Once an individual's
business is (sufficiently) successful, the owner-manager may be willing to
(gradually) give up his/her wage job. In addition to wage employees and selfemployed, early-stage entrepreneurs also include non-employed people who are
seeking employment, are retired or disabled or are students.
40
Figure 12 Main employment status of early-stage entrepreneurs, the Netherlands, 2010,
n=169
Not employed: retired or
disabled
1%
Student
Seeking employment
1%
2%
Employed in full-time
work
31%
Self-employed
49%
Employed in part-time
work
16%
Source: EIM/GEM.
O p po rtu n it y a n d ne ce ssi t y en tr e pr en eu r sh ip
The motives underlying the choice for becoming engaged in entrepreneurial activity can roughly be divided into improvement-driven motives and nonopportunity driven motives. Improvement-driven motives include drivers such as
seeking independence and improving (and not just maintaining) personal income. Non-opportunity motives include drivers such as maintaining income and
pure necessity motives. GEM identifies these types of motives in two steps.
First, each respondent of the GEM Adult Population Survey that is involved in
early-stage entrepreneurial activity is asked whether he/she is involved in this
start-up or business to take advantage of a business opportunity (opportunity
motive) or because he/she has no better choice for work (necessity motive). If
neither of these motives is applicable the respondent may also indicate that
he/she is involved in this start-up or business because of a mixed motive (i.e. a
combination of both opportunity and necessity motives or the motive of 'having a
job but am seeking better opportunities'). If neither of the above motives applies, the respondent may specify another motive (e.g. running a business as a
pleasant pursuit). This is illustrated in the diagram in figure 13.
Second, respondents who indicate being driven by opportunity or necessity motives are asked a subsequent question in order to refine the classification of motives. Many people start a new business because they identify a business opportunity which makes it attractive for them to start their own business. Some are
forced into entrepreneurship because they have no better alternatives for work,
e.g. unemployed who cannot find a job in wage employment. Entrepreneurship is
their last resort for making a living. Since people operating somewhere in between these extremes tend to indicate the opportunity motive, those who chose
recognition of an opportunity are asked what is the most important motive for
pursuing this business opportunity: to have greater independence and freedom
in his/her working life, to increase his/her personal income or just to maintain
41
his/her personal income. The latter category is not considered as a genuine opportunity. Together with the necessity motive this option is labeled as nonopportunity motive. The purely opportunity motives 'gaining independence' and
'increasing income' are labeled as improvement-driven motives.
Figure 13 Definitions of major motives for the decision to be involved in TEA, derived from
the GEM Adult Population Survey (APS)
Improvementdriven
motives
Independence
(obtain greater independence and freedom in
working life)
Total early-stage
Entrepreneurial Activity
Opportunity
Increase income
(take advantage of business opportunity)
(increase personal income)
Necessity
Maintain income
(no better choices for work)
(just maintain personal income)
Nonopportunity
motives
Mixed motive
(combination of opportunity and necessity, or
‘have a job but seek better opportunities’)
Other motive
(specified by the respondent)
Source: EIM/GEM.
An overview of the major motives for the decision to be entrepreneurially active
in the Netherlands is provided in table 13 for the years 2002-2010. This shows
that while 6.1% of the Dutch adult population is involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity because they take advantage of a business opportunity (5.0%
in 2009), 0.6% starts a business because they have no better choice for work
(0.7% in 2009). Over time, the majority of early-stage entrepreneurs indicate
being primarily driven by opportunity motives (including mixed motives).
Table 13
Major motives for the decision to be entrepreneurially active (TEA), the Netherlands, 2002-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
Item
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Opportunity-driven motivation*
4.0
3.0
4.3
3.9
4.9
3.9
4.3
5.0
6.1
Necessity-driven motivation
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
Other motivation
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
1.4
0.5
Total (TEA)
4.6
3.6
5.1
4.4
5.4
5.2
5.2
7.2
7.2
* In the GEM dataset referred to as opportunity motive, but technically including the mixed
motive and the maintain income motive.
Source: EIM/GEM.
42
Probing more deeply into the opportunity-driven motivation of early-stage entrepreneurs (see figure 14) reveals that in 2010 nearly 64% is improvement-driven.
More precisely, just over 38% is primarily motivated by independence and about
26% launched their own business with the aim to increase personal income. The
remaining opportunity-driven entrepreneurs (as included in the figures presented
in table 13) are either driven by a mix of opportunity/necessity motives (16%) or
just aim to maintain personal income (5%). Furthermore, 8% of the early-stage
entrepreneurs are pushed into self-employment because they have no other
means of making a subsistence living. The remaining 7% of the Dutch earlystage entrepreneurs are driven by other motives.
Figure 14 Major motives for the decision to be involved in TEA, the Netherlands, 2010,
percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
TEA
0%
26
10%
38
20%
Increase income
30%
Independence
40%
16
50%
Mixed motive
60%
70%
Maintain income
5
80%
Necessity
8
7
90%
100%
Other motive
Source: EIM/GEM.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
Figure 15 depicts Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rates for innovation-driven economies in 2010. Besides the national rate of TEA, the figure
also presents 95% confidence intervals. If the vertical bars on either side of the
point estimates for TEA for any two countries do not overlap, this means that
they have statistically different TEA rates. As such, this figure facilitates benchmarking the Netherlands and other innovation-driven economies.
With a TEA rate of 7.2% in 2010, the Netherlands obtained a pole position
among EU Member States. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture
and Innovation set the aim for the Netherlands to be among the EU's five topscoring Member States by 2010 in terms of early-stage entrepreneurship, a goal
that had already been achieved in 2009. In 2010, however, the Netherlands even
outperformed all other EU Member States that participated in GEM and conquered the first place.
An international comparison among all innovation-driven economies (figure 15)
demonstrates that two European countries have a higher TEA rate than the
Netherlands: Iceland (10.6%) and Norway (7.7%). Moreover, when also looking
at countries outside Europe, early-stage entrepreneurial activity is somewhat
more prevalent in Australia (7.8%) and the United States (7.6%). Nevertheless,
only Iceland's rate is considerably higher, even though this country experienced
a decline in early-stage entrepreneurial activity in 2010.
43
Figure 15 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in innovation-driven economies,
2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Iceland
Australia
Norway
United States
Ireland
NETHERLANDS
Korea
United Kingdom
France
Finland
Israel
Greece
Sweden
Switzerland
Slovenia
Portugal
Spain
Germany
Denmark
Belgium
Italy
Japan
0%
Source: Kelley, Bosma and Amorós (2011), as elaborated by EIM.
Widening our view to include factor-driven and efficiency-driven economies
brings us to figure 16, which plots TEA rates against per capita income adjusted
for purchasing power parity for all countries that participated in the GEM 2010
Adult Population Survey. This figure reflects the well-known U-shaped relationship between the level of economic development and the rate of early-stage entrepreneurial activity (Wennekers, Van Stel, Carree and Thurik, 2010). In other
words, TEA rates are highest for low-income countries, declining rapidly and then
leveling out in the efficiency stage, with low levels continuing into the innovation
stage until they turn upward at increasing levels of wealth. This process is also
known as a shift from the 'managed economy' towards the 'entrepreneurial
economy' (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001) or as a shift from the Schumpeter Mark
II regime back to the Schumpeter Mark I regime (related to respectively Schumpeter, 1950 and Schumpeter, 1934).
This 'shift' can also be explained in terms of differences in proportions of opportunity and necessity TEA at different stages of economic development. In factordriven economies, which are based primarily on the extraction of natural resources, the proportion of necessity entrepreneurship in TEA is, on average,
higher. Agricultural and extractive firms, as well as small shops and other consumer-based local businesses, dominate the economy. Since the demand for jobs
in these sectors is higher than employers can meet, many people are forced to
set up their own business in order to generate income. As a consequence, prevalence rates of early-stage entrepreneurial activity are high out of necessity.
In efficiency-driven economies the major drivers of development are industrialization and increased scale-intensity. The macroeconomic and political stability as
well as the growth in the productive sectors lead - via the emergence of strong
institutions that organize and govern the functions of society and its economy -
44
to a shift from many small businesses towards larger and more established firms.
These firms increase their role in the economy by taking advantage of economies
of scale and satisfying the appetites of growing markets. As such, the employment capacity expands, providing people with stable jobs in large industrial enterprises. The need to start one's own business therefore diminishes, leading to a
lower rate of early-stage entrepreneurship in general and a lower proportion of
necessity-based entrepreneurship in particular. New businesses that do thrive
are particularly opportunity-driven businesses, enabled by the improvements in
wealth and in basis requirements (infrastructure, economic stability, education).
Nevertheless, large firms dominate although supply chain niches open up for
small and medium sized enterprises.
In innovation-driven economies, basic requirements and efficiency enhancers are
well enforced. At this stage of economic development, individuals have access to
entrepreneurial finance, open markets, R&D knowledge and other entrepreneurship-specific conditions. Since the resources necessary to start one's own business can be accessed by more people, early-stage entrepreneurship rates increase, particularly in knowledge intensive and service-oriented sectors. Simultaneously, opportunity-driven entrepreneurship as a proportion of TEA increases
(Kelley, Bosma and Amorós, 2011).
Figure 16 Relationship between Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) and per
capita income, 2010*
Percentage of 18–64 population involved in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity
35
GH
ZM
UG
AO: Angola
AR: Argentina
AU: Australia
BA: Bosnia and
Herzegovina
BE: Belgium
BR: Brazil
CL: Chile
CN: China
CO: Colombia
CR: Costa Rica
DE: Germany
DK: Denmark
EC: Ecuador
EG: Egypt
AO
30
PE
25
EC
CO
20
BR
GT
15
JM
10
CN
CR
IR
5
UY
MX
LV
IS
SA
MK
TR
MY
TN
SA: Saudi Arabia
SE: Sweden
SI: Slovenia
SW: Switzerland
TN: Tunisia
TR: Turkey
TT: Trinidad and
Tobago
TW: Taiwan
UG: Uganda
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States
UY: Uruguay
ZA: South Africa
ZM: Zambia
AR
ZA
BA
EG
JP: Japan
KR: Korea
LV: Latvia
ME: Montenegro
MK: Macedonia
MX: Mexico
MY: Malaysia
NL: Netherlands
NO: Norway
PE: Peru
PK: Pakistan
PT: Portugal
RO: Romania
RU: Russia
TT
ME
TW
PK
CL
ES: Spain
FI: Finland
FR: France
GH: Ghana
GR: Greece
GT: Guatemala
HR: Croatia
HU: Hungary
IE: Ireland
IL: Israel
IR: Iran
IS: Iceland
IT: Italy
JM: Jamaica
RO
HU
HR
RU
AU
KR
IL
PT
GR
FR FI
SI
UK
NL
IE
SE
ES DE
JP BE DK
NO
US
SW
IT
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parities ($), in thousands
* Bolivia and Vanuatu are not showed in this figure, because their TEA rates are outliers.
Source: EIM/GEM (Kelley, Bosma and Amorós, 2011).
To summarize the proportion of necessity TEA at different stages of economic
development, figure 17 plots the rate of necessity-based TEA against per capita
income adjusted for purchasing power parity for all countries that participated in
the GEM 2010 Adult Population Survey. This shows that the shift from the 'managed economy' towards the 'entrepreneurial economy' coincides with a very rap-
45
idly decreasing rate of necessity-based TEA as economies develop from factordriven to efficiency-driven economies. Then, when countries move further to innovation-driven economies, the level of necessity-based entrepreneurship gradually levels off with a further increase in GDP per capita. However, as per capita
income increases, opportunity-based entrepreneurship increases.
Figure 17 Relationship between necessity-based Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA) and per capita income, 2010
Percentage of 18-64 population involved in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity by Necessity
20
VU
16
UG
14
GH
12
EG: Egypt
ES: Spain
FI: Finland
FR: France
GH: Ghana
GR: Greece
GT: Guatemala
HR: Croatia
HU: Hungary
IE: Ireland
IL: Israel
IR: Iran
IS: Iceland
IT: Italy
JM: Jamaica
AO: Angola
AR: Argentina
AU: Australia
BA: Bosnia and
Herzegovina
BE: Belgium
BO: Bolivia
BR: Brazil
CL: Chile
CN: China
CO: Colombia
CR: Costa Rica
DE: Germany
DK: Denmark
EC: Ecuador
18
AO
JP: Japan
KR: Korea
LV: Latvia
ME: Montenegro
MK: Macedonia
MX: Mexico
MY: Malaysia
NL: Netherlands
NO: Norway
PE: Peru
PK: Pakistan
PT: Portugal
RO: Romania
RU: Russia
SA: Saudi Arabia
SE: Sweden
SI: Slovenia
SW: Switzerland
TN: Tunisia
TR: Turkey
TT: Trinidad and
Tobago
TW: Taiwan
UG: Uganda
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States
UY: Uruguay
VU: Vanuatu
ZA: South Africa
ZM: Zambia
ZM
10
CO
8
BO
CN EC
PE
6
JM
4
PK
GT
2
0
0
EG
BR
MK
ME
IR
CR
ZA
BA
UY
TW
MX
TN
MY
10
AR
CL
TR
LV
RO
TT
HR
RU
HU
SA
20
KR
IL GR
PT
SI
JP
ES
IT
30
FR
IE
FI DEIS AU
SE NL
UK
BE
DK
US
NO
SW
40
50
60
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parities ($), in thousands
Source: EIM/GEM (Kelley, Bosma and Amorós, 2011).
The distribution of early-stage entrepreneurial activity over opportunity-driven,
necessity-driven and other motives is presented in table 14 for innovation-driven
economies as well as for OECD countries, EU Member States and the Netherlands. Not only is the Dutch share of the adult population that is involved in
early-stage entrepreneurial activity (7.2%) significantly higher than the average
in EU Member States (5.3%) it is also slightly higher than the OECD-average
(6.4%). The Dutch rate of opportunity-driven TEA (6.1%) is significantly higher
than the EU-average (4.0%) and the OECD-average (4.8%). In addition the rate
of necessity-driven TEA in the Netherlands is considerably lower than both EUaverage (1.1%) and OECD-average (1.4%).
46
Table 14
Major motives for the decision to be involved in TEA international comparison
(unweighted average), 2010, percentage of adult population (18-64 years of
age)
Innovation-driven
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
Opportunity-driven motivation*
4.2
4.8
4.0
6.1
Necessity-driven motivation
1.1
1.4
1.1
0.6
Other motivation
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
Total (TEA)
5.5
6.4
5.3
7.2
* In the GEM dataset referred to as opportunity motive, but technically including the mixed
motive.
Source: EIM/GEM.
D e mo g ra p h ic st ru ctu r e o f ea r ly -s ta g e en tr e pr en eu rs
The demographic structure of early-stage entrepreneurial activity is presented in
table 15, both for the Netherlands and for countries with similar levels of economic development. To start with, women's participation in early-stage entrepreneurial activity is found to be about twice as low as men's participation in entrepreneurship. In the Netherlands, 4.4% of the female adult population (18-64
years of age) is involved in TEA as opposed to 10.1% of the male population, a
statistically significant difference. The lower entrepreneurship participation rates
for women may be related to their entrepreneurial perceptions. Women are generally less willing to take the risk associated with starting a business, are much
less convinced of their own entrepreneurial capabilities and usually perceive
fewer business opportunities in the area in which they live (e.g. Langowitz and
Minniti, 2007; Minniti and Nardone, 2007). These entrepreneurial perceptions
may be translated into a relatively higher preference for wage employment over
self-employment and, as such, find their expression in a lower female participation rate.
As far as the age distribution is concerned, a society can benefit from entrepreneurs of all ages. Young people lack start-up capital and experience, but often
have fresh ideas, are more familiar with new information and communication
technologies and are, on average, more highly educated than their parents. In
addition, they are less likely to have responsibilities such as mortgages and
families which could make them more cautious. Older people however, although
they may be more risk averse, have built up relevant experience, a professional
network and financial capital. In addition, many people of 50 years and older are
nowadays also familiar with information and communication technologies, making home-based start-ups an interesting occupational option for them. As follows
from table 15, involvement in early-stage entrepreneurial activity shows a bellshaped distribution over age, implying that entrepreneurship is most prevalent in
the age groups in between these two extremes. Policy makers might, however,
look to harness the entrepreneurial potential on either side of these seemingly
most likely prospects.
47
Table 15
Demographic structure of Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA), by
stage of economic development (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of the
adult population (18-64 years of age)
Innovation-driven
Education
Age
Gender
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
Male
7.2
8.2
7.0
10.1
Female
3.8
4.6
3.7
4.4
18-24 years
3.7
4.2
3.9
6.9
25-34 years
6.9
7.9
7.6
11.3
35-44 years
7.0
8.0
6.6
7.6
45-54 years
6.0
6.9
5.2
6.8
55-64 years
3.1
3.8
2.4
3.4
Some secondary degree
3.6
4.1
3.2
0.7
Secondary degree
4.2
5.3
4.5
4.6
13.3
15.6
14.2
10.9
Post-secondary degree and/or
graduate experience
Source: EIM/GEM.
S ect o r d ist r i bu ti on o f ea r ly -s ta g e en tr e pr en e urs
Businesses can be set up in a variety of sectors each of which requires its own
method of enterprising. GEM distinguishes four major sectors: (i) extractive sectors, including agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining; (ii) transformative sectors, including construction, manufacturing, transportation, communication, utilities and wholesale; (iii) business services, including finance, insurance, real estate and all other business services; and (iv) consumer services, including retail,
motor vehicles, accommodation, restaurants, personal services, health, education and social services and recreational services.
The development of the sector distribution of early-stage entrepreneurship in the
Netherlands over time (2001-2010) is shown in table 16. The large majority of
early-stage entrepreneurs is active in the services sector. Nearly half of the
early-stage entrepreneurs in 2010 owns and manages a business in business
services and 37% operates an enterprise in consumer services.
48
Table 16
Sector distribution of early-stage entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, 20012010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
Item
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Extractive sectors
10
9
12
11
5
4
9
2
10
4
Transformative sectors
16
24
30
30
24
12
22
35
24
13
Business services
47
32
29
27
28
32
40
34
21
47
Consumer services
27
35
29
31
42
52
28
28
45
37
Source: EIM/GEM.
The sector distribution differs between factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven economies. While extractive businesses (agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining) are most prevalent in factor-driven economies, businessoriented services are most prevalent in innovation-driven economies. Interestingly, the share of early-stage entrepreneurs active in transformative sectors
(mainly construction and manufacturing) is about 20% in each of the three major
stages of economic development. Noticeable as well, is that the prevalence of
consumer-oriented services declines by stage of economic development. Comparing the Netherlands to groups of countries with similar levels of economic development (figure 18) shows that the Netherlands reveals a higher share of earlystage entrepreneurs in business services and a lower share in the transformative
sector and in consumer services.
Figure 18 Sector distribution of TEA internationally compared (unweighted average),
2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
0%
10%
20%
Innovation-driven
economies
5
20
OECD
4
20
EU
5
NETHERLANDS
4
30%
50%
60%
70%
32
100%
42
47
Transformative sectors
90%
46
31
13
80%
43
30
22
Extractive sectors
40%
37
Business services
Consumer services
Source: EIM/GEM.
4.2 Incumbent entrepreneurship
We use the business ownership rate from EIM's COMPENDIA data base to measure the rate of incumbent entrepreneurship. This measures the number of business owners in the private sector excluding agriculture, hunting, forestry and
fishing as a percentage of the total labor force in 30 OECD countries. On the ba-
49
sis of macro-economic characteristics, these countries can be classified into five
distinct groups, including Mediterranean countries, Northern European countries,
Western European countries, Anglo-Saxon countries and Central and East European countries (Van Stel, Cieslik and Hartog, 2010; Wennekers, Van Stel, Carree
and Thurik, 2010). The development in the business ownership rate in each of
these five groups of countries for the period 1973-2009 is illustrated in figure
19.
Mediterranean countries - including Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and, from
1988 onwards, Turkey - have relatively high business ownership rates combined
with a relatively low level of per capita income as compared to other OECD countries. Northern European countries - including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden - reveal the lowest share of business owners (except for the
years 1989-1993) while having a high level of GDP per capita. Western European
countries - including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland - on average have a moderately low business ownership
rate. However, the Netherlands now has the highest business ownership rate of
these countries. In addition, these countries have a proportionally low share of
new and young business owners.
In contrast, Anglo-Saxon countries - including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States - combine a high level of
GDP per capita with both a high business ownership rate and a high share of new
and young business entrepreneurs (Wennekers, Van Stel, Carree and Thurik,
2010; Hartog and Wennekers, 2009). Finally, due to different policies related to
the private sector under Communism, business ownership rates in Central and
East European countries - including Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak
Republic - were catching up quickly from 1989 onwards (Van Stel, Cieslik and
Hartog, 2010). Business ownership rates increased from nearly zero at the beginning of the transition in 1989 to 11.9% in 2009. The rapid emergence of entrepreneurship in Central and East European countries caused the business ownership rate to exceed that of Northern European and Western European countries
in a relatively short period of time. In 2009, the business ownership rate in Central and East European countries is at a level comparable to that in Anglo-Saxon
countries (11.8%).
50
Figure 19 Business ownership rates in the private sector excluding agriculture, hunting,
forestry and fishing in five groups of countries, 1972-2009, percentage of the
total labor force
18%
17%
16%
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
Mediterranean countries (i)
Northern European countries (ii)
Western European countries (iii)
Anglo-Saxon countries (iv)
Central and East European countries (v)
(i)
Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain; including Turkey from 1988;
(ii) Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden;
(iii) Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland;
(iv) Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States;
(v) Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic (from 1989).
Source: COMPENDIA 2009.1.
4.3 Entrepreneurial exits
Entry and exit are closely related features of business dynamics (Robinson,
O'Leary and Rincon, 2006). On one side of the spectrum, these dynamics find
their expression in the emergence of new businesses that introduce novel ideas
into the economy. On the other side of the spectrum, businesses that no longer
create value for their stakeholders may be forced to close and sometimes businesses are sold for profit. These businesses could include both young or established businesses. Individuals that are transferring or closing their business may
breathe new life into their entrepreneurial career by re-engaging in a new entrepreneurial activity. Re-entering the entrepreneurial process may be beneficial for
society as the entrepreneurs concerned are likely to have accumulated entrepreneurial human capital, financial capital and a network of (professional) contacts.
Recognizing the importance of exiting and re-engaging entrepreneurs, GEM
tracks the number of individuals who have exited a business in the past year.
More precisely, respondents of the Adult Population Survey (APS) are asked
whether they had, in the past year at the time of survey, sold, shut down, discontinued or quit a business they owned and managed. If so, a distinction is
made between exits with business continuance and exits without business continuance (business closure).
51
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
The development in entrepreneurial exits in the Netherlands over time (20022010) is presented in table 17. As shown, the number of business exits in 2010
dropped sharply as compared to the year before. In 2010, significantly fewer
Dutch respondents recently exited and discontinued a business (0.9%) as opposed to 2009 (1.8%). Furthermore, 0.5% exited a business that continued (e.g.
because it was transferred to another business owner) as opposed to 0.7% in
2009. As such, the number of business exits experienced a peak in 2009, which
can be attributed to the economic crisis.
Table 17
Entrepreneurial exits in the Netherlands, 2002-2010, percentage of the adult
population (18-64 years of age)
Item
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1.7*
1.6*
1.2*
1.5*
0.8*
0.5
1.0
1.8
0.9
.
.
.
.
.
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
Exit + business closure:
Exited a business in the past
year, business did not continue
Exit + business continuance:
Exited a business in the past
year, business continued
* Prior to 2007, no data were available concerning exiting entrepreneurs of businesses that
continued their activities. In the GEM Adult Population Survey it was then only asked whether
the respondent had, in the past twelve months, shut down, discontinued or quit a business
they owned and managed; businesses that were sold were not included.
Source: EIM/GEM.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
The share of individuals that recently exited a business is significantly lower in
the Netherlands (1.4%) compared to innovation-driven economies (2.3%), OECD
countries (2.7%) and EU Member States (2.3%), see table 18. In particular the
prevalence rate of individuals that recently closed a business is, on average, 1.5
to 2 times higher in countries with comparable levels of wealth. So, despite the
increased rate of early-stage entrepreneurial activity in the Netherlands the
share of individuals that recently exited a business remains rather low, while it is
to be expected that business dynamics will increase with the rate of early-stage
entrepreneurial activity and hence lead to a higher exit rate.
Table 18
Entrepreneurial exits internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010,
percentage of adult population (18-64 years of age)
Innovation-driven
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
Exit + business closure
1.5
1.8
1.5
0.9
Exit + business continuance
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
Source: EIM/GEM.
M a i n ex it rea son s
It is important to note that not all business closures are failures. They also include healthy businesses that are forced to close because of a lack of successors
or opportunities to sell the business. In order to obtain better insight into the
52
exit motives of closures and non-closures, survey respondents who exited a
business in the year prior to survey were also asked to state the most important
reason for doing so. An overview of the main exit reasons in the Netherlands and
groups of countries with similar levels of economic development are given in figure 20 for 2010. In the Netherlands, 21.9% of those who exited a business in
2010 did so for personal reasons, 16.8% was forced to exit as the business was
not profitable and 14.5% exited because of an opportunity to sell the business.
Another job or business opportunity was the main reason for exiting for 10.4% of
the individuals who exited a business. Compared to countries with similar levels
of economic development Dutch adults (18-64 years of age) that exited a business in the past year seem to exit more often because of an opportunity to sell
or for personal reasons. Relatively less frequently mentioned reasons include
'business not profitable' and 'problems obtaining finance'.
Figure 20 Main reasons for exiting a business internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that exited
a business in the past year
0%
10%
20%
Innovation-driven
economies
5.4
OECD
5.0
29.7
EU
4.3
32.0
NETHERLANDS
30%
40%
32.4
14.5
50%
60%
9.3
9.0
12.4
16.8
Opportunity to sell
Problems getting finance
Exit was planned in advance
Personal reasons
3.6
5.4
8.7
14.5
70%
5.0
9.1
10.4
80%
100%
5.7
16.2
3
5.2
16.1
3
4.7
2
90%
6.4
13.9
2
21.9
Business not profitable
Another job or business opportunity
Retirement
An incident
Source: EIM/GEM.
4.4 Conclusions
This chapter reported on entrepreneurial activity, including early-stage entrepreneurial activity and incumbent entrepreneurship, in the Netherlands over time
and from an international perspective. The results illustrate that the Netherlands
conquered the first place in 2010 among all EU Member States concerning Total
early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (7.2%). Moreover, the Dutch business ownership rate in the private sector excluding agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing as a percentage of the total labor force (11.9% in 2009) is the highest of
Northern and Western European countries. Focusing on entrepreneurial exits reveals that Dutch exit rates are relatively low from an international perspective.
The next chapter moves to entrepreneurial aspirations.
53
5
Entrepreneurial aspirations
This chapter pays attention to entrepreneurial aspirations. Entrepreneurial aspirations cover growth ambitions, ambitions to innovate and ambitions to internationalize. Entrepreneurs have different aspirations for their businesses and differ
in the extent to which they aspire for growth, innovation and internationalization. Each entrepreneur has his/her own beliefs or ambitions about the growth
prospects of his/her business. And if entrepreneurs introduce new products or
services, this can be innovative in terms of the newness of the product, the newness to the market and the low level of competing alternatives for their offerings. Entrepreneurs also differ in the extent to which they provide their products
and services to international markets. Entrepreneurial aspirations are beneficial
for economies as they may translate into employment creation and comparative
advantages.
5.1
High-growth entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs aspiring high growth for their business receive much attention
from policy makers as fast growing businesses account for a disproportionate
share of employment and revenue growth in the economy (Acs, 2008). GEM
tracks (expected) high-growth entrepreneurship by asking each respondent involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity how many employees (other than
the owner-manager(s)) he/she expects to have within five years time. Those who
expect their business to grow with at least 20 people in five years time are referred to as High-growth expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (HEA).
The percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) that is involved in
TEA and expects their business to grow with 5-19 people in five years time are
referred to as Moderate-growth expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(MEA).
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
The share of high-growth entrepreneurs within the group of nascent and young
business entrepreneurs (HEA) for the Netherlands over time (2002-2010) is presented in table 19. Over the past nine years, the rate of HEA in the Netherlands
fluctuated around a level of just below 10%, showing lows of 5.8% in 2005 and
of 4.1% in 2008. After 2008, the share of high-growth entrepreneurs within TEA
increased to 8.2% in 2009 and to 12.9% in 2010.
55
Table 19
High-growth expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (HEA) in the Netherlands, 2002-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
involved in TEA
Item
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
13.9
12.3
12.0
5.8
11.0
8.1
4.1
8.2
12.9
HEA:
You are actively involved in nascent
and/or young business entrepreneurship and you will grow with at
least 20 people in five years' time
Source: EIM/GEM.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
Putting the Dutch growth expectations of early-stage entrepreneurs in an international perspective (figure 211) shows that growth ambitions in the Netherlands
are modest. When it comes to moderate growth ambitions (creating 5-19 jobs in
five years time), the Netherlands takes a medium position with an average share
of 22% over the years 2008-2010. But for the share of early-stage entrepreneurs expecting to create at least 20 jobs in five years time, the Netherlands is
positioned sixth from bottom with an average share of 8.8% over the years
2008-2010. Growth aspirations of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs, however,
seem to be improving. Looking at the year 2010 only, shows that Dutch earlystage entrepreneurs (12.9%) outperform average innovation-driven (9.8%),
OECD (9.8%) and EU (9.1%) countries when it comes to the expectation of
growing with at least 20 jobs in five years time.
1
56
For this figure, GEM data are combined for the years 2008-2010 in order to make a more accurate assessment of growth ambitions of early-stage entrepreneurs.
Figure 21 Moderate-growth expectation (5-19 jobs in five years) and High-growth expectation (≥20 jobs in five years) early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (MEA and
HEA) in innovation-driven economies, average 2008-2010, percentage of the
adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Job Expectation: 20 or More Jobs
Iceland
Israel
Ireland
Korea
United States
Denmark
Slovenia
Belgium
United Kingdom
France
Norway
NETHERLANDS
Germany
Italy
Spain
Finland
Greece
0%
Job expectations: 5-19 Jobs
Source: Kelley, Bosma and Amorós (2011), as elaborated by EIM.
Growth expectations (at least 5 jobs in five years time) of nascent and young
business entrepreneurs are presented separately in figure 22. In most innovation-driven economies nascent entrepreneurs have growth expectations that are
comparable to young business entrepreneurs. As the figure shows, in some countries, notably Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, Norway and Korea, nascent
entrepreneurs have higher growth expectations compared to young entrepreneurs. Since nascent entrepreneurs are in the process of starting a business, it
may be that their expectations are over optimistic (Koellinger, Minniti and
Schade, 2007). Perhaps the realized growth rate of their businesses will not be
as high as they believed in the start-up phase. In other countries, including Israel, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Belgium, young business entrepreneurs have on average somewhat higher growth ambitions than
nascent entrepreneurs, resulting in a ratio smaller than one.
57
Figure 22 Growth expectations (≥5 jobs in five years) of nascent and young business entrepreneurs in innovation-driven economies, average 2008-2010, percentage of
the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in nascent/young business
entrepreneurship
60%
2.0
50%
1.5
40%
30%
1.0
20%
0.5
10%
Nacent entrepreneur (1)
Young business entrepreneur (2)
Korea
Norway
France
United Kingdom
Denmark
Iceland
Germany
Italy
United States
Finland
Belgium
Netherlands
Slovenia
Greece
Ireland
Spain
0.0
Israel
0%
Ratio (1) to (2); right axis
Source: Kelley, Bosma and Amorós (2011), as elaborated by EIM.
5.2
Innovative entrepreneurship
Innovation and entrepreneurship are tightly interwoven. Schumpeter (1934) argued that entrepreneurs distort the market equilibrium by introducing new product-market combinations or innovations which drive less productive firms out of
the market and advance the production frontier. Whether new entrepreneurs
drive out less efficient ones, or whether their innovations are copied by incumbents, the effect is the same: higher productivity and economic growth.
In order to track innovative entrepreneurs GEM asked all early-stage entrepreneurs to rate the novelty and unfamiliarity of their products/services relative to
customers' current experience (product innovation), as well as the degree to
which other businesses offer the same new product (business innovation). A
product or service that is considered novel and unfamiliar to some or all customers and that is offered by few or no other businesses is referred to as a new
product/market combination. Finally, early-stage entrepreneurs were asked to
indicate the newness of the technology used in the business (technology innovation).
58
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
Figure 23 exhibits the product, business and technology innovativeness of earlystage entrepreneurs in the Netherlands over time (2002-2010).
Figure 23 Innovativeness of Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in the Netherlands, 2002-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA*
100%
90%
Product innovation
80%
70%
60%
69
75
66
70
16
12
59
60
59
59
29
21
20
21
20
17
2010
64
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10
18
15
21
0%
2002
10
2003
18
18
12
18
21
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
53
49
46
39
41
New to none of the customers
New to some customers
New to all customers
100%
90%
Business innovation
80%
47
42
39
43
14
15
12
2002
2003
2004
45
70%
52
47
36
42
12
11
8
10
16
13
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
83
84
15
10
6
2008
2009
57
60%
50%
40%
30%
43
38
30
20%
10%
0%
Many businesses offer the same product
Few businesses offer the same product
No businesses offer the same product
100%
Technology innovation
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
79
89
88
88
9
9
10
11
2002
2003
2004
2005
83
80
13
13
76
40%
30%
20%
10%
10
0%
7
2006
2007
17
8
2010
No new technology is used
New technology is used
The very latest technology is used
* One of the answers a respondent of the GEM APS might have given concerning product
innovation was 'new to some customers'. One of the answers that might have been given concerning business innovation was 'few businesses offered the same product'. How many 'some
customers' or a 'few businesses' are is not precise, this is implicitly judged by the respondent
only.
Source: EIM/GEM.
59
Concerning product and business innovation, the level of innovation slightly
crumbled in 2010. Overall, 23% of the Dutch adult population involved in earlystage entrepreneurship reported (some) new product/market combination in
2010, as opposed to 31% in 2009 (not shown in figure 23). Both the novelty and
unfamiliarity of the products and services offered was weakened, and the degree
of competition by businesses offering the same type of products increased. Progress was made in the field of technology innovation, however. Compared to
2009, an increased share of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs indicated making
use of new technology (available in the last 1-5 years) or the very latest technology (available only since the previous year). Overall, Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs show a modest degree of innovation (Kelley, Bosma and Amorós,
2011).
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
Comparing the level of innovation by early-stage entrepreneurs in the Netherlands with that in innovation-driven economies, OECD countries and EU Member
States further illustrates the modest Dutch rate of innovativeness (figure 24).
Whereas the share to which Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs perceive their
product or service as novel and unfamiliar to all customers is comparable to
countries with similar levels of economic development, somewhat more earlystage entrepreneurs provide products or services that are novel or unfamiliar to
none of the customers. A similar observation holds for the degree of competition
by businesses offering the same type of products and for the degree of technology innovation of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs.
Figure 24 Innovativeness of Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of the adult population
(18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
0%
Product innovation
Innovation-driven
economies
OECD
EU
NETHERLANDS
10%
15
20%
30%
17
50%
60%
70%
25
17
15
40%
60
26
57
25
18
61
64
New to all customers
New to some customers
New to none of the customers
60
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
12
35
54
OECD
11
35
54
EU
12
NETHERLANDS
13
Business innovation
Innovation-driven
economies
35
80%
90%
100%
80%
90%
100%
53
30
57
No businesses offer the same product
Few businesses offer the same product
Many businesses offer the same product
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
11
OECD
10
16
74
EU
10
16
74
Technology innovation
Innovation-driven
economies
NETHERLANDS
8
16
70%
73
17
76
The very latest technology is used
New technology is used
No new technology is used
Source: EIM/GEM.
5.3
International entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial aspirations may also find their expression in internationalization.
GEM tracks internationally-oriented early-stage entrepreneurs by asking each respondent involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity what percentage of customers from outside the country they serve. This also includes selling products
to foreign customers who buy online or visit the country as tourists or for work
purposes.
D e ve l o pm ent s i n t he N et he r la n d s o ve r t im e
Table 20 presents the extent to which Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs sold
products to customers from other countries in the period 2002-2010. In 2010,
half of the early-stage entrepreneurs had no customers abroad at all and served
only the domestic market. The remaining share of early-stage entrepreneurs
was, to some extent, internationally oriented. About 35% of the early-stage entrepreneurs primarily focused on the domestic market and served up to a quarter
of their customers abroad. Finally, 15% of the early-stage entrepreneurs were
61
quite internationally oriented as they provided products and services abroad to
at least 26% of their customers.
Table 20
Internationalization of Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in the
Netherlands, 2002-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of
age) involved in TEA
Item
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
No customers abroad
52
43
53
51
63
47
52
45
50
1-25% of customers abroad
31
40
26
28
24
34
34
40
35
26-100% of customers abroad
16
17
21
20
13
19
15
15
15
Source: EIM/GEM.
A n int e rna t i ona l c om pa r i s on
In comparison with factor-driven and efficiency-driven economies, innovationdriven economies have, on average, the highest share of early-stage entrepreneurs with an international orientation. As economies become wealthier and
move to higher stages of economic development, entrepreneurs often face more
intensely competitive environments, leading to a focus beyond the domestic market only (Kelley, Bosma and Amorós, 2011). Additionally, country size is assumed to affect the degree of internationalization of entrepreneurs in a negative
way.
Figure 25 Internationalization internationally compared (unweighted average), 2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age) involved in TEA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Innovation-driven
economies
43
41
15
OECD
43
41
16
EU
NETHERLANDS
45
50
37
100%
18
35
15
No customers abroad
1-25% of customers abroad
26-100% of customers abroad
Source: EIM/GEM.
However, compared to countries with similar levels of economic development,
the Netherlands reveals a relatively higher share of early-stage entrepreneurs
without any customers abroad, see figure 25. The fraction of early-stage entrepreneurs serving up to a quarter of their customers abroad is slightly lower. The
group of Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs with more than 25% of their customers
outside the country is comparable to countries with similar levels of wealth.
62
5.4
Conclusions
This chapter reported on aspirations of early-stage entrepreneurs in the Netherlands over time, focusing on ambitions for (rapid) employment growth, ambitions
to innovate and ambitions to internationalize. The results show that Dutch business growth aspirations of early-stage entrepreneurs seem to have improved recently. In 2010, relatively more Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs expect their
business to grow with at least 20 jobs in five years time compared to early-stage
entrepreneurs in countries with similar levels of economic development. Concerning the level of innovativeness, the Netherlands reveals a modest degree of
product, business and technology innovation as compared to countries at similar
stages of economic development. Finally, as far as internationalization is involved, Dutch early-stage entrepreneurs have rather similar achievements to
those of their counterparts in economically comparable countries.
63
6
Informal investment activity in the Netherlands
One of the most important challenges for owner-managers of new and young
businesses is to find external finance for their business. Since new businesses
lack a track record proving their viability, the risk of investing in these businesses is often considered high. Moreover, expected returns are often low in the
early stages of the business and new businesses often lack collateral to secure a
possible bank loan. Therefore, many banks are reluctant to lend money to new
and young businesses and even more so since the onset of the financial and economic crisis a few years ago. Another group of possible sources of finance, the
institutional investors or venture capital funds, usually invest in larger businesses at later stages of the business.
Contrary to institutional investors, informal investors more often focus on ventures in the early stages of the business life cycle. Therefore, this group of investors is becoming increasingly important in filling the market gap for start-up and
early-stage equity finance. In GEM, informal investors are defined as individuals
who "in the past three years, personally provided funds for a new business
started by someone else, excluding any purchases of stocks or mutual funds".
Informal investors are further divided into a group of investors investing in ventures owned by friends, family or colleagues and a group investing in ventures
owned by strangers. The latter group are called business angels. They form a
minority of informal investors but, on average, the invested amount per business
angel is considerably higher (Burke et al., 2010a).
This chapter consists of two parts. In the first part, we present recent developments in informal investment activity in the Netherlands, using data from GEM's
Adult Population Survey. In the second part, we pay attention to empirical findings in two recent research papers which suggest that market forces to some extent naturally reduce equity gaps faced by entrepreneurs (Burke et al., 2010a,
2010b).
6.1
Recent developments in informal investment activity in the
Netherlands
Figure 26 shows the informal investor prevalence rate1, defined as the number of
informal investors as a percentage of the adult population between 18-64 years
of age, for the Netherlands versus the average of the innovation-driven economies, a group of countries identified by the World Economic Forum as countries
whose economic development is mainly driven by knowledge-based activities.2
We can see that in 2010 the informal investor prevalence rate increased spectacularly in the innovation-driven economies and even more so in the Nether-
1
In this chapter we use the terms informal investor prevalence rate and informal investment activity interchangeably.
2
The innovation-driven economies for which the average informal investor prevalence rate is presented in Figure 26 are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the
United States. For some countries, data are missing for one or two years and hence they are excluded from the average for the concerning years.
65
lands. In fact, informal investment activity in the Netherlands almost doubled,
from 1.8% in 2009 to 3.4% in 2010. For both the group of innovation-driven
economies and for the Netherlands, informal investment activity in 2010 reached
its highest point in the last ten years, emphasizing the increased importance of
this type of finance.
Figure 26 Informal investor prevalence, the Netherlands versus innovation-driven economies, 2001-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
Netherlands
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Innovation-driven economies
Source: EIM/GEM.
The high prevalence of informal investors in 2010 likely reflects an increased
demand for external finance in 2010. In 2009 the demand for products and services of firms decreased sharply and many small firms did not feel the need to
invest (European Commission, 2010), while the early-stage entrepreneurial activity rate increased. Together these developments may explain an almost unchanged informal investment rate in 2009 relative to 2008. Indeed, in 2009, real
GDP growth was -4.1% in the Euro area and -3.5% in the total OECD area
(OECD, 2011). However, real GDP growth in 2010 was 1.7% and 2.9% for these
respective areas, indicating that the demand from the product market has been
increasing again.1 Even though the overall demand for finance by Dutch SMEs
was still relatively low in 2010 (Verhoeven and Smit, 2011), the increased demand from the product market (relative to 2009) may have led to an increased
demand for finance by some businesses in order to attract additional working
capital and/or to finance new investments.2 In addition, early-stage entrepreneurial activity in 2010 was high again. And since banks are still cautious about providing loans to new and small businesses, the demand for external finance may
have shifted to some extent to informal investment finance. What is remarkable
though, is that the increased demand for informal investment finance has apparently been matched by an increased supply, witness the higher prevalence rates
of informal investors. In the second part of this chapter, we will pay attention to
66
1
For the Netherlands real GDP growth was -3.9% in 2009 and 1.8% in 2010 (OECD, 2011).
2
Verhoeven and Smit (2011) report that, of those Dutch SMEs that were looking for finance in
2009 and 2010, the financing goal in 2010 was less often refinancing or restructuring debts and
more often attracting additional working capital, relative to 2009.
some newly found empirical mechanisms suggesting that, to some extent, the
demand for informal investment finance tends to generate its own supply (Burke
et al., 2010a, 2010b).
Figure 27 shows that, despite a spectacular increase in the number of informal
investors in 2010, the Netherlands is still only an average performer within the
group of innovation-driven economies. However, in the Netherlands, the average
invested amount per investor tends to be relatively high compared to other innovation-driven economies (Hessels, 2005). This is likely to be related to the
higher share of business angels among informal investors in the Netherlands
(see table 25), whose investment volumes are on average higher, compared to
other informal investors.
Figure 27 Informal investor prevalence in innovation-driven economies, 2010, percentage
of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
6.6
5.2
5.4
6.0
United States
6.0%
5.8
Iceland
7.0%
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.2
3.6
3.0
3.3
2.8
Denmark
Italy
France
United
Kingdom
Spain
Finland
NETHERLANDS
Slovenia
Germany
Belgium
Ireland
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.9
Sweden
Greece
Norway
Japan
0.0%
Source: EIM/GEM.
Table 21 to table 26 show some structural characteristics of informal investment
activity in the Netherlands over the period 2008-2010. 1 To evaluate developments over time, these characteristics will be compared with the corresponding
characteristics for the period 2001-2004, reported by Hessels (2005). Table 21
shows that the informal investor prevalence rate is higher among males than
among females. This was also the case in the period 2001-2004. However, the
gender gap has become somewhat smaller: while the percentage of female informal investors was about 27% over the period 2001-2004, it was 33% in 20082010.
Table 22 shows that informal investor prevalence is almost identical among the
different age groups. This pattern is similar to the period 2001-2004 (Hessels,
2005).
Table 23 shows that informal investment activity is highest among highlyeducated individuals. This was also the case in the period 2001-2004 but, similar
1
Table 25 deals with the period 2007-2009. Furthermore, in tables 21-23 and 27, the aggregate
informal investor rates are not exactly the same due to rounding.
67
to the gender gap, the gap between the different education levels decreased over
the last ten years.
Table 21
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by gender, average 20082010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
Relative distribution
Gender
Informal investor prevalence
(% of informal investors)
Male
3.0%
67%
Female
1.5%
33%
Total
2.3%
100%
Source: EIM/GEM.
Table 22
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by age group, average 20082010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
Relative distribution
Age group
Informal investor prevalence
(% of informal investors)
18 to 34 years
2.1%
31%
35 to 44 years
2.3%
25%
45 to 64 years
2.3%
45%
Total
2.2%
100%
Source: EIM/GEM.
Table 23
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by education level, average
2008-2010, percentage of the adult population (18-64 years of age)
Relative distribution
Education level*
Informal investor prevalence
(% of informal investors)
Low
2.2%
11%
Medium
1.9%
48%
High
2.9%
40%
Total
2.2%
100%
* The low educational level includes GEM's classifications 'no education' and 'some secondary
education', the medium category corresponds to GEM's 'secondary education' and the high
educational level covers GEM's classifications 'post-secondary education' and 'graduate experience'.
Source: EIM/GEM.
Table 24 presents the distribution of informal investors according to the relationship the investor has with the entrepreneur of the business in which he or she
invests. Over the period 2008-2010 the share of business angels among informal
investors is 15%. This percentage is somewhat higher compared to the period
2001-2004, when 12% of the informal investors in the Netherlands did not personally know the entrepreneur of the business he or she invested in (Hessels,
2005). However, it is lower than the corresponding percentage over the period
2007-2009, when the share of business angels or professional informal investors
68
was 19% (see table 25). Hence, the share of business angels among informal investors decreased in 2010. We conclude that the spectacular increase in informal
investment activity in the Netherlands in 2010, reported in figure 26, is mainly
due to an increase in the number of informal investors investing in businesses of
family members, friends or colleagues. Table 25 further shows that the percentage of business angels among the group of informal investors is higher in the
Netherlands compared to other innovation-driven economies.
Table 24
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by relationship with investee,
average 2008-2010, percentage of informal investors
Relationship with investee
Relative distribution (% of informal investors)
Family member
51%
Friend or colleague
34%
Stranger or someone else
15%
Total
100%
Source: EIM/GEM.
Table 25
Informal investor prevalence, by relationship with investee, Netherlands versus
innovation-driven economies, average 2007-2009, percentage of informal investors
Relationship with investee
Relative distribution,
Relative distribution,
the Netherlands
innovation-driven economies
Family member
49.2%
54.5%
Friend or colleague
31.9%
34.9%
Stranger or someone else
18.8%
10.6%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Source: EIM/GEM.
Finally, table 26 shows the distribution of informal investors according to the
sector of economic activity of the business in which he or she invests. A minority
(10%) invests in businesses which are active in the extractive sectors (agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining). The shares of informal investors investing in
the transformative sectors (construction, manufacturing, transport and wholesale), business services (including financial services, insurance companies and
real estate) and consumer services (including. retail, restaurant and hotels,
health care, education and recreation) are considerably higher. The share of investments in consumer services has decreased remarkably since 2004, when this
share was 37% (Hessels, 2005).
69
Table 26
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by sector of investment, average 2008-2010, percentage of informal investors
Relative distribution (% of informal investors)
Extractive sectors
10%
Transformative sectors
38%
Business services
28%
Consumer services
24%
Total
100%
Source: EIM/GEM.
6.2
Determinants of informal investment activity
In this section we focus on empirical findings in two recent research papers
(Burke et al. 2010a, 2010b) that investigate the determinants of the prevalence
and investment volumes of informal investors in more than twenty highly developed countries over a recent period of time (2002-2006). The papers make use
of individual level data from GEM's Adult Population Survey and both apply multinomial logit models and Heckman selection models to investigate what determines the probability that an individual is an informal investor and what determines the investment volumes of such individuals. The papers focus on both micro level determinants and macro level determinants.
One highly interesting finding presented in these two papers is that to some extent the demand for informal investment finance tends to generate its own supply. This finding holds both at the micro and macro level. Furthermore, this effect seems to differ between men and women. These findings are discussed in
some detail.
R e la t io nsh i p b et we en de ma nd a n d s u p p ly o f inf o rma l i nv es tm ent a c t i v ity a t th e m ic r o l ev e l
At the micro level we find that the probability that an individual informally invests is significantly positively related to his or her engagement in past, present
and future (i.e. planned) entrepreneurial activities. Holding constant a range of
other factors, it was found that being involved in owning-managing a business,
being involved in starting up a new business (possibly on behalf of the individual's employer), expecting to start a new business within the next three years,
self-perceived skills to start a business and having exited a business recently, all
contribute to the probability of being an informal investor.
Although the empirical studies were carried out for a group of highly developed
countries, table 27 illustrates that this finding also holds specifically for the
Netherlands. It is shown that, among the group of individuals who are involved
in early-stage entrepreneurial activity (either nascent or young business activity), the prevalence rate of informal investors is much higher (6.4%) compared
to the group of individuals who are not involved in early-stage entrepreneurial
activity (2.0%).
70
Apparently, entrepreneurial activity and informal investment activity are complementary rather than competing.1 Burke et al. (2010b) explain this as follows:
"Our results indicate that the attributes of successful informal investors namely, wealth (finance to invest), entrepreneurial management skills (helping
ventures with innovation and entrepreneurial strategy as well as small business
management), reputation (in order to attract other co-investors and other resource providers to back target investments/ventures) and the ability to spot
profit opportunities (either based on past success or from the lessons learnt from
failure, i.e. the 'school of hard knocks') - can be fostered by the 'learning by doing', wealth creation and reputation enhancement when one is involved in entrepreneurship. We argue that if these effects are sufficiently strong then, notwithstanding the presence of time and wealth constraints, they lead to a net positive
effect on the supply of informal investors." (p. 43).
Table 27
Informal investor prevalence in the Netherlands, by mode of entrepreneurial
activity, average 2008-2010, percentage of the corresponding group of the
adult population (18-64 years of age)
Relative distribution
Entrepreneurial activity mode
Informal investor prevalence
(% of informal investors)
TEA
6.4%
18%
Non-TEA
2.0%
82%
Total
2.3%
100%
Source: EIM/GEM.
R e la t io nsh i p b et we en de ma nd a n d s u p p ly o f inf o rma l i nv es tm ent a c t i v ity a t th e ma c r o l ev el
At the macro level we find that the prevalence of informal investors is higher in a
country with a higher rate of entrepreneurial activity compared to a country with
a lower rate of entrepreneurial activity. This is found holding constant a range of
other factors - including determinants at the individual level. The finding is consistent with a particular application of Keynesian economics that demand will
generate its own supply. In this case, entrepreneurial activity creates a demand
for informal investment finance. A high rate of entrepreneurial activity at the
country level goes together with many investment opportunities for informal investors, as many entrepreneurs are in need of finance. This availability of opportunities encourages an increase in the number of informal investors who want to
exploit these opportunities (Burke et al., 2010b).
Although the result was found using a data sample of countries in the period
2002-2006, the positive correlation between entrepreneurial activity and a country's prevalence of informal investors is well illustrated by figure 28, which uses
data of 2010 only. On average, countries with higher rates of entrepreneurial activity also have higher numbers of informal investors.
1
These activities can also be mutually competing. For instance, assuming the presence of wealth
and time constraints, starting up or running a business requires financial investments which then
cannot be used to invest informally in businesses of others. Similarly, running a business requires time investments which cannot be used to devote to investing in other businesses.
71
Figure 28 Total opportunity-based early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate versus Informal investor prevalence, 2010
7%
SE
6%
US
IS
Informal investment activity
GR
R2 = 0.38
NO
5%
4%
BE
IE
DE
ES
3%
IT
SI
FI
FR
NL
UK
DK
2%
1%
BE: Belgium
DE: Germany
DK: Denmark
ES: Spain
FI: Finland
FR: France
GR: Greece
IE: Ireland
IS: Iceland
JP
IT: Italy
JP: Japan
NL: Netherlands
NO: Norway
SE: Sweden
SI: Slovenia
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States
0%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Opportunity TEA
Source: EIM/GEM.
D i ff e r enc es b e tw ee n d et e rm i na nt s of i nf or ma l in ve st me nts by wo me n
v e rs us me n
Building on the finding that the demand for informal investment finance to some
extent generates its own supply, Burke et al. (2010a) find that this relationship
is actually much stronger for women than for men. They provide a possible explanation by hypothesizing that female investors have a preference to invest in
female businesses (see e.g. Moore, 1990, and Ruef et al. 2003). If this is true,
then the higher elasticity between entrepreneurial activity and a country's investment volume by female investors (compared to males) can be explained by
the well-known stylized fact that entrepreneurial activity rates are lower for
women than for men. Lower levels of (female) entrepreneurs imply fewer investment opportunities for (female) investors and fewer opportunities to spread
risk by building an investment portfolio of (female-led) businesses. Once female
entrepreneurial activity increases, investment opportunities and possibilities to
spread risk by building a portfolio increase much faster compared to a similar increase in male entrepreneurship. This is because the base (network) of female
entrepreneurs is smaller - possibly below a certain critical mass - so that a rise
in female entrepreneurs creates relatively more profit opportunities for (female)
investors than does the same rise in male entrepreneurs.
6.3
Conclusions
In 2010 informal investment activity increased spectacularly in the innovationdriven economies. In the Netherlands, the prevalence rate of informal investors
rose from 1.8% in 2009 to 3.4% in 2010, where the rise in 'amateur' investors
(investing in businesses of friends, family or colleagues) was somewhat stronger
than the rise in 'professional' investors or 'business angels' (investing in businesses of strangers). The rise in informal investment activity may be explained
72
by an increased demand from the product market (raising the demand for external finance) as well as a higher level of early-stage entrepreneurial activity in
2010 and 2009 as compared to earlier years, combined with a continued hesitance of banks to provide loans to new and young businesses, possibly shifting
finance demand to some extent towards informal investors.
Furthermore, in the Netherlands prevalence rates of informal investors are still
higher among men and more highly-educated individuals but the gender gap and
(in particular) the education gap in informal investment activity has been decreasing over the last decade.
Finally, the demand for informal investment finance to some extent generates its
own supply, as entrepreneurs relatively often turn out to be informal investors as
well, when compared to non-entrepreneurs and because higher entrepreneurship
rates at the country level create more investment opportunities for informal investors. The latter relation was found to be stronger for female investors than
for male investors, possibly reflecting the preference of female investors to invest in businesses led by women.
73
7
Role models and entrepreneurship
Many factors may influence the decision to become an entrepreneur. One of
these factors is that one individual may be inspired by another entrepreneur or
by another business when making his/her decision to set up his/her own business. Thus, entrepreneurs or businesses may serve as role models for others.
This chapter will address such role models for entrepreneurship. The information
presented in the chapter is based mainly on telephone surveys that were held in
2009 and 2010 with Dutch nascent entrepreneurs and young business owners,
identified earlier by the GEM Adult Population Survey (APS) in respectively 2007
and 2008 (for the interviews held in 2009), and 2009 (for the interviews held in
2010). The surveys concentrated on whether entrepreneurs were inspired by role
models in taking the decision to set up their firm.
Role models may have a profound influence on career decisions, including the
decision to become an entrepreneur. However, so far, little is known about the
extent to which entrepreneurs are influenced by role models in the decision to
set up a firm, who their role models are and what their function is. In the next
sections we present some descriptive results based on these follow up interviews. We tried to contact 330 individuals who agreed to participate in a follow
up survey during the 2007, 2008 or 2009 APS. Once follow up interviews had
been initiated at least one year after the APS it appeared that 40 of these addresses were not usable (address not correct or fax was reached). We were not
able to conduct interviews with the full remaining sample because some individuals refused to participate or did not answer the telephone. In total 219 individuals were interviewed. Here we will report only results for people who were
still involved in the business of which they were owners-managers or which they
were trying to set up during the first interview (172).
7.1
Presence of role models
Career decisions involve the decision to become an employee or self-employed.
Such decisions are influenced by various factors, including individual traits and
preferences, and the institutional and cultural context. Role models may have a
profound influence on career decisions, including the decision to become an entrepreneur. Role models may be individuals who have a certain 'role' (e.g. a specific organizational position) that someone else would like to 'model' or copy. The
conventional idea of a role model is that this is a person who has an influential
position and provides an example for people to imitate. Parents, teachers and
other mentoring figures, for example, constitute such role models. However, role
models can be much more than mentoring figures. They can help in learning new
tasks and they can motivate other people to attain a certain goal.
In the follow up interviews respondents were asked whether they were influenced by another (ex-) entrepreneur or business in the decision to become an
entrepreneur themselves. Of all respondents almost a quarter (24%) answered
that they were influenced by another entrepreneur. 16% indicated being influenced by only one role model entrepreneur, while 8% had more than one role
model. As indicated not only other entrepreneurs, but also their businesses, can
function as role models. For 20% of the respondents a business served as role
75
model, in most cases this concerned only one business. In total 58 entrepreneurs
(34% of all respondents) indicated having had one or more individuals and/or
businesses as a role model.1 Of these individuals 41% only had one or more individuals as role model, 31% had both one or more individuals and one or more
businesses as role model, and 28% had only one or more businesses but no individual as role model (these percentages are not reported in the table). In another survey among Dutch entrepreneurs the share of entrepreneurs with a role
model was even higher (54%) (Bosma et al., 2011). The difference may be explained by the fact that this latter survey concentrated on entrepreneurs with
businesses in selected sectors: retail, hotel and restaurant sector, business services and other services.
Table 28
Did another (ex-) entrepreneur or business influence you in your decision to become an entrepreneur? n=172
%
Yes, one other entrepreneur
16
Yes, more than one entrepreneur
8
No
76
Total
100
Yes, one other business
16
Yes, more than one business
4
No
80
Total
100
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
7.2
Significance of role models
7 . 2 . 1 R ea so ns fo r ha v i ng r o le mo d e ls
Individuals can have various reasons as to why their decision to become selfemployed was influenced by another entrepreneur, see table 29. The most common reason for being influenced by another entrepreneur in the decision to start
their own business for the 42 entrepreneurs in our sample to which this applies,
was because of the personal capabilities or knowledge of the role models. This
seems to indicate that role models are often individuals who have specific knowledge or skills that the individual values, admires and/or lacks and would like to
learn (Gibson, 2004). The second most important reason for being influenced by
another entrepreneur as a role model was because the role model offered or presented concrete business opportunities.
1
76
Apart from being influenced by role models, the presence of many entrepreneurs may also indirectly stimulate new business start-ups (see literature cited in Bosma et al., 2011).
Table 29
Reasons for having a role model (more than one answer allowed), n=42
Your decision to become an entrepreneur was influenced by
% agree or
this entrepreneur because of…
strongly agree
his/her personal capabilities or knowledge
62
concrete business opportunities offered by him/her
60
his/her knowledge about certain market-/sector-specific conditions
52
certain information he/she had
52
certain resources he/she possessed
36
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
7 . 2 . 2 F unc t ion s of r o le m od e ls
Role models can have different functions (Gibson, 2004). They can simply give
practical help with setting up a firm or provide awareness of entrepreneurship as
a viable career choice. Their role, however, can also be to inspire e.g. by motivating or encouraging others to try to achieve certain goals. They can also help
individuals to define their self-concept or enhance their self-efficacy by increasing the confidence such an individual has in his/her own abilities and skills
(Lockwood and Kunda, 1997). More specifically, if an individual observes that
someone with similar skills and capabilities has succeeded in setting up and running a (successful) business it may give this person confidence that he/she can
also do this him-/herself. The results in table 30 reveal that role models in particular play an important role in terms of increasing self-efficacy in the sense
that they make people confident that they also can achieve a certain goal and as
motivators to start.
Table 30
Function of role model (more than one answer allowed), n=42
In what way has this entrepreneur influenced your decision to start?
% yes
Provide confidence
31
Motivation/inspiration
31
Practical (information, support, advice)
21
Inspiration to develop a specific business idea
21
Parents/partner/family as example
17
Awareness (of advantages of entrepreneurship)
12
Other
19
Do not know
2
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
7 . 2 . 3 I nf lu en ce o f ro l e mo d e ls
Role models can influence business start up decisions in various ways. For 81%
of the respondents the entrepreneurial role model served as a positive example.
Please note that role models are not necessarily all positive examples. It is also
77
possible that, as a negative example, a role model made certain mistakes that
the person influenced would like to avoid or correct and thus is a negative example. Also, 69% indicated that the role model was helpful in starting the business.
It was indicated before that role models can be influential in affecting the decision to become an entrepreneur. Of our respondents, 62% indicated that they
the idea to set up their own business originated from the role model. Role models can provide living evidence that certain achievements are possible. In the follow up survey 60% of the respondents who were influenced by another entrepreneur indicated that the role model helped them to believe that they could also
set up a business themselves.
Table 31
Type of influence of role model (more than one answer allowed), n=42
% agree or
Statement
strongly agree
This entrepreneur served as a positive example when setting up my firm
81
This entrepreneur helped me with starting my own firm
69
This entrepreneur provided me with the idea to set up my own business
62
With this entrepreneur I thought: if he/she can do it, I can do it as well
60
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
In order to assess whether role models are influential in affecting start-up decisions it is important to know whether those who are influenced by a role model
would have started the firm anyway or whether they would have abstained from
starting the firm without the role model. Of the respondents in our sample that
were influenced by another entrepreneur 43% indicated that they probably would
not have started their own firm without the role model.
The influence of the role model may, of course, stretch further than the decision
to become an entrepreneur. In the telephone interviews it was asked whether
any changes had been made to the original business plan as a result of the influence of the role model. This was indeed the case for 29% of the respondents
who were influenced by other entrepreneurs.
7.3
Relationship with role model
A role model is not necessarily a person that someone knows personally. It can,
for example, also be an entrepreneur who is generally known through exposure
in the media and with whom the person who is influenced has no personal relationship. Thus, entrepreneurial role models may range from remote 'icons' such
as Steve Jobs to next-door examples. In our sample, however, all entrepreneurs
indicate having had personal contact with their role model. This supports that
role models tend to be next-door examples, which is in line with results of another survey among Dutch entrepreneurs (Bosma et al., 2011). Furthermore, almost all individuals who were influenced by role models (98%, except for one individual) had personal contact with their role model after they started up their
business.
78
Our results therefore indicate that role models come from the entrepreneurs personal networks. This may involve "strong ties" i.e. the inner circle of family and
friends or "weak ties" meaning that the role model originates from the entrepreneur's wider environment, such as former employers or colleagues. Table 32
shows the relationship respondents had with their role model for the 42 respondents that had one or more other (ex-) entrepreneurs as a role model. It seems
that the role model comes more frequently from the network of weak ties than
from the network of strong ties. When the role model comes from the network of
strong ties, it is most often a friend, but role models are also relatively often
family of the respondents, parent(s) in particular. When the role model originates from the network of weak ties, it is most often a contact from a previous
job, and also quite often a former employer.
Table 32
Relationship with the role model (does not add up to 100% since some people
have more than one role model), n=42
%
Strong ties
Friend
26
Family (partner, parent(s), brother/sister, other)
20
Weak ties
Contact from previous job (not employer)
24
Former employer
19
Someone met during study/course
14
Someone met by coincidence
Other
2
10
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
7.4
Characteristics of individuals who are influenced by role models
7 . 4 . 1 H um a n ca p i ta l cha ra ct er i st i cs
It has been explained that role models can play a role in increasing confidence of
the individuals they influence. In this respect it could be the case that women
are more likely to be influenced by role models than men as they more often lack
confidence. The results indeed reveal that women are slightly more often influenced by another entrepreneur in their decision to start their own firm than men
(36% versus 31%), although this difference is not statistically significant.
It has been argued that role models may substitute for certain ability and skills
that the person who is being influenced lacks (Bosma et al., 2011). Then it could
be expected that younger individuals and people with lower levels of education
are more likely to be influenced by a role model. Table 33 reveals that individuals in the youngest age group (18-34) are indeed more likely to have a role
79
model. This is even more true, however, for individuals in the oldest age group
(45+). This can be explained by the fact that older entrepreneurs have less confidence in their entrepreneurial skills and tend to have larger networks (De Kok,
Ichou and Verheul, 2010). Age differences between those who have been and
those who have not been influenced by a role model are significant. In terms of
education there are no significant differences between these two groups in terms
of role model presence.
Table 33
Age, education and role model usage, n=172
Role model
No role model
(n=58)
(n=113)
All (n=171)
%
%
%
18-34
24
16
19
35-44
55
60
57
45+
29
15
25
Low
32
28
30
medium
32
36
33
high
36
36
36
Age
Education
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
Building further on the argument that role models may compensate for certain
types of knowledge and experience, one could argue that specialists may be
more likely to be influenced by a role model than all-rounders. 48% of the respondents in our sample would describe themselves as all-rounder, while 52%
indicate they are specialists. Individuals who have a role model are more likely
to describe themselves as specialists (56%) compared to those who have no role
model (49%), but this difference is not significant.
One could also argue that role models substitute entrepreneurship specific human capital e.g. by providing advice during the start-up process and by helping
to identify profitable business opportunities (Davidsson and Honig, 2003). In this
respect prior experience with setting up and owning-managing a business could
be relevant. On average 22% of the respondents in our sample indicate that, in
the past they had set up a business of which they were the owner-manager. For
those who have been influenced by a role model this is 17%, while it is 24% for
those who have no role models. However this difference is not significant.
7 . 4 . 2 E nt re p r en eu r ia l pe rf o rma nc e
Role models have the potential to offer various advantages to the persons they
influence such as practical advice and support and the demonstration of new
tasks and skills. Therefore it is interesting to investigate whether entrepreneurs
who have been influenced by a role model perform differently from those who
had no role model. Looking at the effort that entrepreneurs put into their busi-
80
ness it appears that entrepreneurs who have a role model more often spend 40
hours or more per week in their firm (64% as opposed to 43% of non role model
users; the average is 50%). This difference is significant. In terms of income it
appears that on average 37% of respondents indicates that their income is well
above modal. For those who have a role model this is 40%, while this is 35% for
those who have no role model. The difference is not significant.
With respect to motivation, on average 57% of respondents starts/started the
new business because of the desire to be one's own boss. Of those with role
models this is 66%, while it is 53% for those without role models. This difference
is significant.
E mp l oy me nt a nd ex pe cte d e m pl oy me nt g ro wt h
At the time of survey on average 39% of respondents had at least one employee.
Those with role models did not differ significantly from those who had no role
model (37% versus 41%). However, in terms of expected growth in employment,
the story is different. On average 26% of the respondents expected to grow with
at least one employee in the next five years. For the entrepreneurs with role
models this share is higher: 35%, while it is 21% for those without role models.
This difference is significant.
I nno va t i ve ne ss
Do role models contribute to nascent and young business entrepreneurs developing new products or services or identifying new markets? Table 34 reveals how
entrepreneurs with role models compare to those who have no role model on different aspects of innovation. It appears that there are no significant differences
in terms of innovativeness between those who have and those who have no role
models.
Table 34
Innovativeness, n= 172
Role model
No role model
All
(n=58)
(n=114)
(n=172)
Few or no businesses offer same product
36
44
41
Product new to all or some customers
52
41
45
Uses new technology
19
19
19
Source: EIM, Follow up surveys held in 2009 and 2010 among individuals identified as nascent
entrepreneurs or young business owners in the GEM Adult Population Survey in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
E xp o rt o r ie nta t i on
On average 38% of the respondents had at least some foreign customers. Of the
role model users 26% had foreign customers, while this was the case for 44% of
those who have no role model. This difference is significant. Thus, entrepreneurs
who have one or more role models are much less oriented on foreign customers.
81
7.5
Conclusions
This chapter provided some descriptive results from telephone surveys held in
2009 and 2010 that focused on whether the decision to set up an own a business
was influenced by role models (i.e. (an)other entrepreneur(s) and/or business(es)). It appears that about one third (34%) of the entrepreneurs was influenced in the decision to become an entrepreneur by (a) role model(s). A description was given of the type of functions that role models fulfill, of their influence
and of the reasons that entrepreneurs have for using role models. The chapter
also addresses the type of relationship that entrepreneurs have with their role
models. It appears that role models are not remote 'icons' but instead originate
from the entrepreneurs' personal network, in particular friends and contacts from
a previous job.
In addition it was explored whether there are any significant differences between
entrepreneurs who have role models and those who have no role models, in
terms of human capital and entrepreneurial performance. We find that entrepreneurs who are influenced by role models are both over-represented in the
youngest and particularly in the oldest age groups (18-34 years and 45+). Other
characteristics of entrepreneurs who are influenced by role models (as opposed
to those who have no role models) is that they put more hours in their firm, that
they more often started their own business because of the desire to be one's own
boss, that they more often expect to grow in terms of employment in the next
five years and that they are less often oriented on foreign customers.
82
References
Acs, Z.J. (2008), Foundations of High Impact Entrepreneurship, Foundations and
Trends in Entrepreneurship 4(6), 535-620.
Arenius, P. and M. Minniti (2005), Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics 24(3): 233-247.
Audretsch, D.B. and A.R. Thurik (2001), What's New about the New Economy:
Sources of Growth in the Managed and Entrepreneurial Economies, Industrial
and Corporate Change 10, 267-315.
Bal, J., A. Bruins, J. de Jonge, S. Tan, I. Verheul and S. Wennekers (2007), Ondernemerschap in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs (in Dutch), EIM Report
A200709, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Bosma, N., J. Hessels, V. Schutjens, M. Van Praag and I. Verheul (2011), Entrepreneurship and role models, Journal of Economic Psychology, forthcoming.
Bosma, N., E. Stam and S. Wennekers (2010), Intrapreneurship; An international
study, Research report H201005, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Bosma, N., H. Stigter and S. Wennekers (2002), The Long Road to the Entrepreneurial Society; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 The Netherlands, EIM
Report A200115, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Bosma, N. and S. Wennekers (2004), Entrepreneurial Attitudes versus Entrepreneurial Activities; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003 The Netherlands, EIM
Report A200316, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Burke, A.E., C.M. Hartog, A. Ichou and A.J. van Stel (2010a), What determines
the volume of informal venture finance investment and does it vary by gender?, EIM Research Report H201021, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Burke, A.E., C.M. Hartog, A.J. van Stel and K. Suddle (2010b), How does entrepreneurial activity affect the supply of informal investors?, Venture Capital 12
(1), 21-47.
CBS (2007), Het Nederlandse ondernemingsklimaat in cijfers 2007 (in Dutch),
Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
CBS (2011), Het Nederlandse ondernemingsklimaat in cijfers 2010 (in Dutch),
Den Haag/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Davidsson, P. and B. Honig (2003), The role of social and human capital among
nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing 18(3), 301-331.
De Jong, J.P.J., S.K. Parker, S. Wennekers and C. Wu (2011), Corporate Entrepreneurship at the Individual Level: Measurement and Determinants, EIM Research Report H201108, Zoetermeer: EIM.
De Kok, J., A. Ichou and I. Verheul (2010), New Firm Performance: Does the Age
of Founders Affect Employment Creation?, EIM Research Report H201015,
Zoetermeer: EIM.
EIM (2008), Meer en beter ondernemerschap; Beleidsdoorlichting ondernemerschapsbeleid Ministerie van Economische Zaken 2003-2007 (in Dutch),
Zoetermeer: EIM.
EIM (2011), Trendstudie MKB en Ondernemerschap; Ontwikkelingen, vooruitblik
en beleidssignalen (in Dutch), EIM Report A201103, Zoetermeer: EIM.
European Commission (2010), European SMEs under pressure: Annual report on
EU small and medium-sized enterprises 2009, European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, Report prepared by EIM Business
& Policy Research.
Folkeringa, M. and C.M. Hartog (2010), Inkomens van ondernemers 2010 (in
Dutch), EIM Report M201015, Zoetermeer: EIM.
83
Gibcus, P., M. Overweel, S. Tan and M. Winnubst (2010), Onderwijs en ondernemerschap: Eenmeting 2010 (in Dutch), The Hague: Agentschap NL and
Zoetermeer: EIM.
Gibson, D.E. (2004), Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research, Journal of Vocational Behavior 65, 134-156.
Hessels, J. (2005). Omvang, kenmerken en belang van informele investeerders
in Nederland (in Dutch), Research Report M200503, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Hessels, J., C. Hartog and S. Wennekers (2009), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
2008 The Netherlands: The hidden entrepreneurial forces of the Dutch economy, EIM Report A200914, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Hessels, J., A. Van Stel, P. Brouwer and S. Wennekers (2007), Social security arrangements and early-stage entrepreneurial activity, Comparative Labor Law
& Policy Journal 28: 743-774.
Katz, J.A. (1994), Modeling entrepreneurial career progressions: Concepts and
considerations, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19(2): 23-39.
Kelley, D., N. Bosma and J-E. Amorós (2011), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
2010 Global Report, Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Kihlstrom, R.E. and J.J. Laffont (1979), A general equilibrium entrepreneurial
theory of firm formation based on risk aversion, Journal of Political Economy
87(4): 719-748.
Koellinger, P.D., M. Minniti and C. Schade (2007), I think I can, I think I can:
Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior, Journal of Economic Psychology
28(4): 502-527.
Krueger, Jr. N.F., M.D. Reilly and A.L. Carsrud (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Business Venturing 15: 411-432.
Kuiper, A.A.B.H. (2010), Van defensief MKB-beleid naar offensief ondernemerschapsbeleid: Een reconstructie van de totstandkoming van deze omslag is
het op het MKB gerichte beleidsprogramma Ondernemerschap en Starters (in
Dutch), EIM Research Report H201014, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Langowitz, N. and M. Minniti (2007), The entrepreneurial propensity of women,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(3), 341-364.
Lockwood, P. and Z. Kunda (1997), Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of
role models on the self, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 91103.
Millan, J.M., E. Congregado, C. Roman, C.M. Van Praag and A. Van Stel (2011),
The value of an educated population for an individual's entrepreneurship success, Research Report H201103, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Ministry of Economic Affairs (1999), De ondernemende samenleving; Meer kansen, minder belemmeringen voor ondernemerschap (in Dutch), The Hague:
Department of Economic Affairs.
Ministry of Economic Affairs (2004), Meer actie voor ondernemers! Doelstellingen
ondernemerschapsbeleid en voortgang acties (in Dutch), The Hague: Ministerie van Economische Zaken, directie Ondernemerschap #04O08.
Minniti, M. and C. Nardone (2007), Being in someone else's shoes: The role of
gender in nascent entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics 28(2-3): 223238.
Moore, G. (1990), Structural determinants of men's and women's personal networks, American Sociological Review 55: 726-735.
Nooteboom, B. and E. Stam eds. (2008), Micro-foundations for innovation policy,
WRR Scientific Council for Government Policy, Amsterdam University Press.
OECD (2011), Economic Outlook No. 89, Paris: OECD.
84
Porter, M.E. (1990), The competitive advantage of nations, New York: Free
Press.
Reynolds, P., N. Bosma, E. Autio, S. Hunt, N. De Bono, I. Servais, P. LopezGarcia and N. Chin (2005), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection
Design and Implementation 1998-2003, Small Business Economics 24(3),
205-231.
Robinson, C., B. O'Leary and A. Rincon (2006), Business start-ups, closures and
economic churn, Report to: Small Business Service, Department of Trade and
Industry.
Ruef, M., H.E. Aldrich and N.M. Carter (2003), The structure of founding teams:
Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs, American
Sociological Review, 68: 195-222.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York:
Harper and Row.
Schwab, K. (2010). The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland.
Senor, D. en S. Singer (2009), Start-up nation; the story of Israel's economic
miracle, a Council on Foreign Relations book, New York: Twelve.
Stam, E., R. Thurik and P. van der Zwan (2010), Entrepreneurial exit in real and
imagined markets, Industrial and Corporate Change 19(4), 1109-1139.
Teruel, M. and G. De Wit (2011), Determinants of high-growth firms; why have
some countries more high-growth firms than others?, Research Report
H201107, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Tiggeloove, N. and J. Hessels (2009), Review: Internationalisering van het Nederlandse MKB; een inventarisatie van EIM-onderzoek (in Dutch), Report
A200908, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Van der Zwan, P., R. Thurik and I. Grilo (2010), The entrepreneurial ladder and
its determinants, Applied Economics 42(17): 2183-2191.
Van Praag, M., A. Van Witteloostuijn and J. Van der Sluis (2009), Returns for entrepreneurs vs. employees: the effect of education and personal control on
the relative performance of entrepreneurs vs. wage employees, Discussion
Paper No. 4628, Bonn: IZA.
Van Praag, M. and A. Van Stel (2010), The more business owners the merrier?;
the role of tertiary education, Research Report H201010, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Van Stel, A.J. (2005), COMPENDIA: Harmonizing business ownership data across
countries and over time, International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal 1: 105-123.
Van Stel, A.J., J. Cieslik and C.M. Hartog (2010), Measuring business ownership
across countries and over time: Extending the COMPENDIA data base, Research Report H201019, Zoetermeer: EIM.
Van Stel, A.J., D.J. Storey and A.R. Thurik (2007), The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics 28(2-3): 171-186.
Verheul, I. (2005), Is there a (fe)male approach? Understanding gender differences in entrepreneurship, Rotterdam: ERIM PhD Series.
Verheul, I., A.J. Van Stel and A.R. Thurik (2006), Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at the country level, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 18(2), 151-183.
Verhoeven, W.H.J. and C.K. Smit (2011), Financiering van MKB bedrijven (in
Dutch), EIM Report R201105, Zoetermeer: EIM.
85
Wennekers, S. and M. Folkeringa (2002), The development of the business ownership rate in The Netherlands 1899-1997, Paper presented at the BKERC
2002, June 2002, in Boulder Colorado.
Wennekers, S., A. van Stel, M. Carree and R. Thurik (2010), The relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development: is it U-shaped?, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 6(3), 167-237.
Westhead, P., D. Ucbasaran, M. Wright and M. Binks (2005), Novice, Serial and
Portfolio Entrepreneur Behaviour and Contributions, Small Business Economics
25(2), 109-132.
Zhang, Z., M.J. Zyphur, J. Narayanan, R.D. Arvey, S. Chaturvedi, B.J. Avolio, P.
Lichtenstein and G. Larsson (2009), The genetic basis of entrepreneurship: Effects of gender and personality, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 110, 93-107.
86
De resultaten van het Programma MKB en Ondernemerschap worden in twee
reeksen gepubliceerd, te weten: Research Reports en Publieksrapportages. De
meest recente rapporten staan (downloadable) op: www.ondernemerschap.nl.
Recente Publieksrapportages
A201107
19 mei 2011
A201106
27 april 2011
Ondernemen voor de toekomst
Trendstudie MKB en Ondernemerschap: Synthese
A201105
20 april 2011
Uitvinders in Nederland
A201104
28 april 2011
Kleinschalig Ondernemen 2010
A201103
10-3-2011
A201102
8-3-2011
A201101
5-1-2011
A201012
8-12-2010
A201011
16-11-2010
A201010
9-11-2010
A201009
14-10-2010
De arbeidsmarkt van Midden-Nederland
A201008
14-10-2010
Monitor Inkomens Ondernemers
A201007
30-9-2010
Stand van Zaken Zonder Personeel
A201006
23-6-2010
Internationale benchmark ondernemerschap
A201005
31-5-2010
Bedrijfsbeëindigingen in het kleinbedrijf
A201004
april 2010
Octrooien in Nederland
A201003
12-4-2010
Ondernemen voor anderen!
A201002
15-2-2010
Een kwestie van ondernemen
A201001
11-1-2010
Innovatief ondernemerschap in detailhandel,
A200918
1-12-2009
Slim en gezond afslanken
A200917
2-11-2009
Ondernemen in de Sectoren
A200916
30-10-2009
A200915
17-8-2009
Criminaliteitspreventie door kleine bedrijven
A200914
16-6-2009
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008
A200913
15-5-2009
A200912
20-5-2009
A200911
3-4-2009
Kopstaartbedrijven
A200910
1-4-2009
Ondernemerschap in de wijk
Trendstudie MKB en Ondernemerschap
Monitor vrouwelijk en etnisch ondernemerschap
2010
Startende ondernemers
Bedrijvendynamiek en werkgelegenheid
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009
The Netherlands
Ondernemen in de sectoren 2010 - 10 brochures
2010
horeca en ambacht
Springen over de Grens
The Netherlands
Internationale benchmark ondernemerschap
2009
Kleinschalig Ondernemen 2009
A200909
27-3-2009
A200908
half juni 2009
Van werknemer tot ondernemer
A200907
24-3-2009
Monitor Inkomens Ondernemers
A200906
19-3-2009
Bedrijvendynamiek en werkgelegenheid
A200905
17-3-2009
Afhankelijkheid in de metaalsector
A200904
12-3-2009
Beter inzicht in multicultureel ondernemerschap
A200903
5-2-2009
A200902
13-1-2009
Toekomst concurrentiepositie MKB
A200901
13-1-2009
MKB in regionaal perspectief
Review: Internationalisering van het Nederlandse
MKB
Ten years entrepreneurship policy: a global overview
87
A200815
19-12-2008
Succes met samenwerking
A200814
16-12-2008
Tijdelijke samenwerkingsverbanden in het Neder-
A200813
8-12-2008
Sociaal ondernemerschap
A200812
8-12-2008
Ondernemen in de Sectoren
A200811
28-10-2008
A200810
23-9-2008
A200809
8-9-2008
Internationale benchmark ondernemerschap
A200808
3-9-2008
Nalevingskosten van wetgeving voor startende
A200807
september 2008
A200806
18-9-2008
A200805
8-7-2008
A200804
14-7-2008
Kleinschalig Ondernemen 2008
A200803
26-6-2008
Ondernemerschap in de regio
A200802
27-3-2008
Herstructurering van winkelgebieden
A200801
25-2-2008
Bedrijvendynamiek en werkgelegenheid
A200714
21-12-2007
Technologiebedrijven in het MKB
A200713
19-12-2007
MKB in regionaal perspectief
A200712
15-11-2007
Voor het gewin of voor het gezin?
A200711
7-11-2007
A200710
25-10-2007
A200709
13-9-2007
A200708
21-6-2007
Kleinschalig Ondernemen 2007
A200707
21-6-2007
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2006 Nederland
A200706
13-6-2007
Een eigen bedrijf: loon naar werken?
A200705
10-5-2007
Internationale benchmark ondernemerschap
A200704
5-4-2007
Dat loont!
A200703
5-3-2007
Bedrijvendynamiek en werkgelegenheid
A200702
1-3-2007
Flexibele arbeid in het MKB
A200701
8-1-2007
Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands;
landse MKB
Ondernemerschap in de zorg
In- en uitstroom in de detailhandel
bedrijven
Stimulering van ondernemerschap in middelgrote
gemeenten
HRM-beleid in het MKB
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2007
The Netherlands
Van onbemind tot onmisbaar
Ondernemen in de Sectoren
Ondernemerschap in het primair en voortgezet
onderwijs
High growth enterprises; Running fast but still
keeping control
A200613
8-1-2007
Geef richting, geen regels!
A200612
januari 2007
A200611
22-9-2006
Ondernemen in de Sectoren
A200610
18-9-2006
Met ervaring aan de start
A200609
20-7-2006
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2005 Nederland
A200608
18-9-2006
Pensioen voor ondernemers
A200607
24-7-2006
MKB regionaal bekeken
A200606
19-7-2006
MKB in regionaal perspectief 2006
A200605
29-6-2006
De externe adviseur bij bedrijfsoverdrachten in
A200604
19-6-2006
Kleinschalig Ondernemen 2006
A200603
17-5-2006
Internationale Benchmark 2005
A200602
12-4-2006
Bedrijfsopleidingen geen weggegooid geld
A200601
20-3-2006
Een blik op MKB en Ondernemerschap in 2015
A200516
14-2-2006
Small Business Governance
Bedrijfsgroei in Nederland
het MKB
88