Entrepreneurship and Economic Freedom: Do Objective and Subjective Data Reflect the Same Tendencies?

Abstract

Objective: The research question is whether the same tendencies on entrepreneurship, innovation and economic freedom can be captured by subjective (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) and objective (Index of Economic Freedom) data – and to which extent one can classify countries by different data sources in a theoretical framework based on the national competitiveness of each country.

Research, Design & Methods: Main method used is the direct discriminant analysis. Since this approach has shortcomings, selected variables from an exhaustive CHAID analysis were used to predict the degree of economic freedom of the country based on the answers of experts.

Findings: To determine the degree of economic freedom in a country, the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights legislation and quick access to utilities are the two variables with the most informational content. 86,8% of the original grouped cases was classified correctly – this is above the widely accepted threshold of 75%.

Implications & Recommendations: A new trend in entrepreneurial research is to build compound indices based on different data sources. It is important to understand whether parts of a compound index reflect the same tendencies. This paper gives formal empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Contribution & Value Added: Coduras and Autio (2013) define a research program on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, where they suggest that GEM shall be tested against objective data sources such as Index of Economic Freedom. This was the main aim of the analysis, which closes a research gap defined in this research program.

Keywords

entrepreneurship, economic freedom, innovation, discriminant analysis

Supplementary File(s)

Author Biography

Burak Erkut

Lecturer at the Professorship of Managerial Economics, Department of Economics

References

1. Ahlstrom, D., & Burton, G. (2010). International management: Strategy and culture in the emerging world. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
2. Audretsch, D.B., & Thurik, A.R. (2000). Capitalism and democracy in the 21st Century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, 17-34.
3. Bosma, N., Coduras, A., Litovsky, Y., & Seaman, J. (2012). GEM Manual: A report on the design, data and quality control of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
4. Brown, J.D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement? Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 15 (1), 10-14.
5. Coduras, A., & Autio, E. (2013). Comparing subjective and objective indicators to describe the national entrepreneurial context: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Competitiveness Index contributions. Investigaciones Regionales, 26, 47-74.
6. Diaz-Casero, J.C., Diaz-Aunion, D.A.M., Sanchez-Escobedo, M.C., Coduras, A., & Hernandez-Mogollon, R. (2012). Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurial Activity. Management Decision, 50 (9), 1686-1711.
7. Erkut, B. (2016a). Structural similarities of economies in competition and innovation - a decision tree based approach. Studia Oeconomica Posnaniensia, forthcoming.
8. Erkut, B. (2016b). From perceptions to new product development: product innovation & market shaping. 2016 NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference Proceedings, 34.
9. Gustafson, J.W. (1992). Entrepreneurship, Ideology and Economic Theory: An Appraisal. The Journal of Economics, 18, 1-7.
10. Hanke, S.H., & Walters, S.J.K. (1997). Economic freedom, prosperity and equality: A survey. Cato Journal, 17(2), 117-146.
11. Hayek, F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in the society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519-530.
12. Hayek, F.A. (1989). The pretence of knowledge. The American Economic Review, 79(6), 3-7.
13. Heckelman, J.C., & Stroup, M.D. (2000). Which economic freedoms contribute to growth? Kyklos, 53(4), 527-544.
14. Heritage Foundation (2016). 2016 Index of Economic Freedom. Retrieved on June 30, 2016 from http://www.heritage.org/index/about
15. Holmes, K.R., Feulner, E.J., & O'Grady, M.O. (2008). 2008 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
16. Kelley, D.J., Bosma, N., & Amoros, J.E. (2011). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010 Global Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
17. Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60-85.
18. Kuckertz, A., Berger, E.S.C., & Mpeqa, E. (2016). The more the merrier? Economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1288-1293.
19. Lehmann-Waffenschmidt, M. (2008). Strukturähnlichkeiten und –ungleichheiten evolvierender Ökonomien. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Technischen Universität Dresden, 57, 105-109.
20. McMullen, J.S., Bagby, D.R., & Palich, L.E. (2008). Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(5), 875-895.
21. Miller, T., & Holmes, K. (2010). 2010 Index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
22. Miller, T., & Kim, A.B. (2010). Defining economic freedom. In T. Miller & K. Holmes (Eds.), 2010 Index of economic freedom (pp. 58-62). Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
23. Ockey, J.R. (2011). Economic freedom and fiscal performance: A regression analysis of indices of economic freedom on per capita GDP. Undergraduate economic review, 8(1), Article 9.
24. Porter, M.E. (1990a). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
25. Porter, M.E. (1990b). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73- 93.
26. Snodgrass, D. (2008). Alternative business enabling environment rankings - a review. Washington: United States Agency for International Development.
27. Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small business economics, 24, 335-350.