This Invited Editorial introduces the Entrepreneurship Research Journal Special Issue focused on discussing entrepreneurship in Europe as a complex, multilevel phenomenon. Building on the evidence offered by the four articles and related commentaries in this issue, we discuss entrepreneurial phenomena at different micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Our analysis suggests that the diffusion of entrepreneurial initiatives in Europe is an important challenge that should be high on the agenda of entrepreneurship scholars, with important implications for policy-makers. We conclude with some research questions for future studies at the European level, which may contribute to move the debate in the proposed direction.
Baumol, William, Litan Robert, and Schramm Carl. 2007. Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.10.2139/ssrn.985843Search in Google Scholar
Baumol, William. 2011. “Innovation: Meager Private Gains, Enormous Social Gains.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1(4), Article 1.Search in Google Scholar
Clinton, Eric A., Salvatore Sciascia, Rishi Yadav, and Roche Frank. 2013. “Resource Acquisition in Family Firms: The Role of Family Influenced Human and Social Capital.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3(1):44–61.10.1515/erj-2012-0014Search in Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald H., and Ning Wang. 2011. “The Industrial Structure of Production: A Research Agenda for Innovation in an Entrepreneurial Economy.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1(2), Article 1.Search in Google Scholar
Felin, Teppo, and Zenger Todd. 2009. “Entrepreneurs as Theorists: On the Origins of Collective Beliefs and Novel Strategies.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3:127–46.10.1002/sej.67Search in Google Scholar
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2012. “Global Report.” http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/2645/gem-2012-global-reportSearch in Google Scholar
Pittino, Daniel, and Paola A.M. Mazzurana. 2013. “Alliance Governance and Performance in SMEs: Matching Relational and Contractual Governance with Alliance Goals.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3(1):62–83.10.1515/erj-2012-0007Search in Google Scholar
Schillaci, Carmela E., Marco Romano, and Nicotra Melita. 2013. “Territory’s Absorptive Capacity.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3(1):109–26.10.1515/erj-2012-0001Search in Google Scholar
Van Teeffelen, Lex, and Lorraine M. Uhlaner. 2013. “Firm Resource Characteristics and Human Capital as Predictors of Exit Choice: An Exploratory Study of SMEs.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3(1):84–10810.1515/erj-2012-0008Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Mike, and Shaker Zahra. 2011. “The Other Side of Paradise: Examining the Dark Side of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 1(3), Article 1.Search in Google Scholar
Zoltan, Acs, Autio Erkko, and Laszlo A. Szerb. 2013. “Entrepreneurship and Policy: The National System of Entrepreneurship in the European Union and in its Member Countries.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 3(1):9–34.Search in Google Scholar
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project is an annual assessment of the entrepreneurial activity, aspirations and attitudes of individuals across a wide range of countries. Permission to use Figure 2.3 from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 Global Report, which appears here as Figure 1, has been granted by the copyright holders. The GEM is an international consortium and this report was produced from data collected in, and received from, 69 economies in 2012. Our thanks go to the authors, national teams, researchers, funding bodies and other contributors who have made this possible (GEM 2012 Global Report).
GEM assumes the nature and contribution of entrepreneurship changes across countries’ subsequent stages of development. At the so-called factor‐driven stage, production is based upon the mobilization of primary factors of production: land, primary commodities and unskilled labor. For factor‐driven economies, economic development is primarily driven by improvements of basic requirements: development of institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability and health and primary education. In efficiency-driven economies, at the next stage, government focus is (or should be) on getting labor and capital markets working more properly, attracting foreign direct investment and educating the workforce to successfully adopt technologies developed elsewhere. The key processes in moving from the first to the second stage are capital accumulation and technological diffusion. Finally, countries whose economic development is primarily innovation‐driven, innovate at the global technological frontier in at least some sectors. This stage also implies higher per capita income (GEM 2012 Global Report).
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston