Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 10 No. 1 (2022)
March 2022

Articles

Exploring the institutional pressures that affect international new ventures

https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100107

Published 2022-01-18

Jurgita Butkeviciene
Kaunas University of Technology

Jurgita Sekliuckiene
Kaunas University of Technology

Abstract

Objective: This article aims to identify the link between institutional pressures and strategic responses of international new ventures (INVs).

Research Design & Methods: This article reviews and theoretically synthesises extensive literature from the institutional and international entrepreneurship theories. The discussion leads to the formulation of four research propositions.

Findings: The relationship between institutions and entrepreneurial firms’ activities remains lacking in relevant research. Thus, given the constraints of INVs, the suggested propositions assist in identifying the nature of the institutional pressures exerted on entrepreneurial firms. Through the breakdown of the institutional pressure determinants, three groups of pressures are discussed. The text suggests that coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures evoke more active strategic responses of INVs, as internationally oriented, entrepreneurial, technology-driven firms. The institutions and INVs strategic responses may have a bidirectional relationship. At the same time, legitimacy constraints to INVs may involve more than one scenario of how the INVs behave, which converts to a set of various responses to institutions, which lead to embedded relationships with institutions.

Implications & Recommendations: The formulated research propositions illuminate numerous practical implications, leading to future research agendas. Researchers studying international entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs will benefit from reflecting on the proposed framework’s dimensions and interactions. International new ventures need to legitimise themselves in various institutional environments. However, they can be active partners in forming their institutional context through progressive involvement. Another input is aimed at policymakers looking to shape the institutional environment.

Contribution & Value Added: The theoretical contribution of this article lies in its introduction of a set of research propositions that explain the relationship between the institutional pressures and strategic responses of INVs and set a future research directions. The value-added consists in exploring institutional pressures that lead to more active responses of INVs because of entrepreneurial firms’ specifics and emphasising the role of INVS in the building of institutions.

                   

Keywords

Institutional pressures, Strategic responses, International new ventures

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Jurgita Butkeviciene

Jurgita Butkevičienė is a Ph.D. student at School of Economics and Business, Kaunas Technology University, Lithuania, and is a Director of international software development and digital marketing company.  She earned a two Masters of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management (in 2000 and 2015 respectively) from Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania. Prior to current positions, Jurgita gathered over 15 years of experience in a senior management position in a governmental export promotion agency, where she has served to identify, develop, and implement export promotion strategies for the key industries in Lithuania. Her research focuses on institutional change and institutional entrepreneurship, digitalization and INV export strategies in a global context.

Jurgita Sekliuckiene

Professor of International Business and head of International Entrepreneurship research cluster at the Kaunas University of Technology. She received her PhD in Management and Business Administration from the Kaunas University of Technology. Her research interests are in the area of internationalisation, international entrepreneurship and innovation, networks, export strategies with a special interest in transition market INVs and multinationals. She is the author and co-author of conference contributions, over 40 peer-reviewed publications, and several books and monographs chapters in the field of international business, strategic management and emerging markets. She is a a board member of  AIB-CEE, member of Academy of International Business (AIB), and European International Business Academy (EIBA).

 

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. Handbook of economic growth, 1(A), 385-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3
  2. Ahern, D. M. (2018). Regulatory Arbitrage in a FinTech World: Devising an Optimal EU Regulatory Response to Crowdlending (March 1, 2018). European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2018 (24). http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3163728
  3. Ahlstrom, D., Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Qian, G., Ma, X., & Faems, D. (2020). Managing technological, sociopo-litical, and institutional change in the new normal. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 411-437, http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12569
  4. Ahlstrom, D., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2018). New methods of entrepreneurial firm financing: Fintech, crowdfunding and corporate governance implications. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(5), 310-313, http://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12258
  5. Aksom, H., & Tymchenko, I. (2020). How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33 (7), 1223-1252. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2019-0130
  6. Aldrich, H. E., & Baker, T. (2001). Learning and legitimacy: Entrepreneurial responses to constraints on the emergence of new populations and organizations. The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of entrepre-neurship and the evolution of industries, 1, 207-35.
  7. Bag, S., & Omrane, A. (2021). The relationship between the personality traits of entrepreneurs and their decision-making process: the role of manufacturing SMEs’ Institutional Environment in India. Forum Sci-entiae Oeconomia, 9(3), 103-122. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL9_NO3_7
  8. Baumol, W.J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921, http://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00014-X
  9. Baruta, I. (2018). Disruptive Innovation in an Institutionalized Environment: Space-based ADS-B in the Air Traffic Management Industry. Transportation research procedia, 35, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.12.030
  10. Benazzouz, N.M. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and Innovation Intensity: A synthetic literature
  11. review. International Entrepreneurship Review (previously published as International Entrepreneurship | Przedsiębiorczość Międzynarodowa), 5(2), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2019.0502.02
  12. Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., Samoliuk, N., & Mishchuk, V. (2020). Gender discrimination and its links with com-pensations and benefits practices in enterprises. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(3), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080311
  13. Boutinot, A. & Mangematin, V. (2013). Surfing on institutions: When temporary actors in organizational fields respond to institutional pressures. European management Journal, 31 (6), 626-641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.03.001
  14. Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H. L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34(3), 421-440, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x
  15. Bula, H. O. (2012). Evolution and theories of entrepreneurship: A critical review on the Kenyan perspective. International Journal of business and Commerce, 1(11), 81-96. Retrieved from http://ir-library.ku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/9389 on June 3, 2020.
  16. Bundy, J., Shropshire, C., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2013). Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an expla-nation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 352-376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0179
  17. Bunz, T., Casulli, L., Jones, M. V., & Bausch, A. (2017). The dynamics of experiential learning: Microprocesses and adaptation in a professional service INV. International Business Review, 26(2), 225-238, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.07.001
  18. Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3-16, http://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.62
  19. Chang, S. J., & Wu, B. (2014). Institutional barriers and industry dynamics. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1103-1123, http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2152
  20. Chen, D., Kavuri, A.S. & Milne, A.K. L. (2019), Growing Pains: The Changing Regulation of Alternative Lending Platforms. Forthcoming Palgrave Handbook of Alternative Finance. Version of Jan 14th, 2018 http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3315738
  21. Cheng, H. L., & Yu, C. M. (2012). Adoption of practices by subsidiaries and institutional interaction within internationalised small-and medium-sized enterprises. Management International Review, 52(1), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0117-9
  22. Cieślik, A., Michałek, J. J., & Szczygielski, K. (2019). What matters for firms? participation in Global Value Chains in Central and East European countries? Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Econom-ic Policy, 14(3), 481-502. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2019.023.
  23. Clemens, B., Bamford, C. E., & Douglas, T. J. (2008). Choosing strategic responses to address emerging envi-ronmental regulations: Size, perceived influence and uncertainty. Business Strategy and the Environ-ment, 17(8), 493-511, http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.601
  24. Clemens, B., & Douglas, T. J. (2005). Understanding strategic responses to institutional pressures. Journal of Business Research, 58 (2005) 1205-1213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.04.002
  25. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Gaur, A., & Singh, D. (2019). Pro-market institutions and global strategy: The pendulum of pro-market reforms and reversals. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(4), 598-632, http://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00221-z
  26. Dambrin, C., & Valck, K. D. (2007). Look who’s talking! Technology-supported impression formation in virtual communities. ACR North American Advances. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/9465454/Look_whos_talking_Technology_Supported_Impression_Formation_in_Virtual_Communities on 3 June, 2021
  27. Digdowiseiso, K., & Sugiyanto, E. (2021). How effective is institutional quality for the creation of small & medium enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia?. Economics and Sociology, 14(1), 263-274. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-1/17
  28. Dorozynski, T., Dobrowolska, B., & Kuna-Marszalek, A. (2020). Institutional Quality in Central and East Euro-pean Countries and Its Impact on FDI Inflow. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review (EBER), 8(1), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080105
  29. Durand, R., Hawn, O., & Ioannou, I. (2019). Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 299-320, http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0107
  30. Ebert, C., & Duarte, C. H. C. (2018). Digital Transformation. IEEE Softw., 35(4), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.2801537
  31. Elango, B., & Pattnaik, C. (2007). Building capabilities for international operations through networks: a study of Indian firms. Journal of international business studies, 38(4), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400280
  32. Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2017). Entrepreneurship and institutions: a bidirectional relationship. Founda-tions and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 191-263, http://doi.org/10.1561/0300000073
  33. Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship prompts institutional change in developing economies (No. 1313). IFN Working Paper. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/iuiwop/1313.html on June 3rd, 2021
  34. Etherington, L. D., & Richardson, A. J. (1994). Institutional pressures on university accounting education in Canada. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10(S1), 141-162, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00426.x
  35. Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. (2004). Facilitating development: The role of business groups. World Development, 32(4), 609-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.08.012
  36. Fox, G., Clohessy, T., van der Werff, L., Rosati, P., & Lynn, T. (2021). Exploring the competing influences of privacy concerns and positive beliefs on citizen acceptance of contact tracing mobile applications. Com-puters in Human Behavior, 121, 106806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106806
  37. Gancarczyk, M. (2019). The performance of high-growers and regional entrepreneurial ecosystems: a re-search framework. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review (EBER), 7(3). https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070306
  38. Głodowska, A., Pera, B., & Wach, K. (2016). The International Environment and Its Influence on the Entre-preneurial Internationalization of Firms: The Case of Polish Businesses. Problemy Zarządzania – Man-agement Issues, 14(3), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.7172/1644-9584.62.7
  39. Gorączkowska, J. (2020). Enterprise innovation in technology incubators and university business incubators in the context of Polish industry. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(4), 799-817. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.032.
  40. Greenwood, R. & Hinings, B. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism, Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-55, http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071862
  41. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Meyer, R. E. (Eds.). (2017). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage. Retrieved from https://epub.wu.ac.at/6131/ on June 3rd, 2021
  42. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organisational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371. https://org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299
  43. Grøgaard, B., Colman, H. L., & Stensaker, I. G. (2019). Legitimizing, leveraging, and launching: Developing dynamic capabilities in the MNE. Journal of International Business Studies, 1(21), http://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00245-5
  44. Gurses, K., & Ozcan, P. (2015). Entrepreneurship in regulated markets: Framing contests and collective action to introduce pay TV in the US. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1709-1739, http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0775
  45. Hitt, M. A., Arregle, J. L., & Holmes Jr, R. M. (2020). Strategic Management Theory in a Post‐Pandemic and Non‐Ergodic World. Journal of Management Studies. 58(1) 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12646
  46. van den Hoed, R., & Vergragt, P. J. (2004). Institutional change in the automotive industry: or how fuel cell technology is being institutionalised. Greener Management International, (47), 45-61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/greemanainte.47.45
  47. Hoskisson, R. E., Covin, J., Volberda, H. W., & Johnson, R. A. (2011). Revitalizing entrepreneur-ship: The search for new research opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1141-1168, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00997.x
  48. Hwang, H., & Powell, W. W. (2005). Institutions and entrepreneurship. In Handbook of entrepreneurship research (201-232). Springer, Boston, MA.
  49. Khaki, A. R., & Akin, A. (2020). Factors affecting the capital structure: New evidence from GCC countries. Journal of International Studies, 13(1), 9-27. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-1/1
  50. Khalilov, L., & Yi, C.-D. (2021). Institutions and entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for OECD countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090208
  51. Knight, E., & Wójcik, D. (2020). FinTech, economy and space: Introduction to the special issue. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1490-1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20946334
  52. Knight, G. A., & Liesch, P. W. (2016). Internationalization: From incremental to born global. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 93-102, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.011
  53. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corpo-rations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of management journal, 45(1), 215-233, http://doi.org/10.5465/3069293
  54. Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C. A. M., Prochotta, A.,… & Berger, E. S. (2020). Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing In-sights, e00169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00169
  55. Kuivalainen, O., Saarenketo, S., Torkkeli, L., & Puumalainen, K. (2015). International entrepreneurship among finnish SMEs. In Handbook of Research on International Entrepreneurship Strategy. Edward Elgar Publish-ing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471584.00025
  56. Latoszek, E. (2021). Fostering sustainable development through the European Digital Single Market. Eco-nomics and Business Review EBR 21(1), 68-89 DOI: 10.18559/ebr.2021.1.5
  57. Lawrence, T., Phillips, N., & Tracey, P. (2012). From the guest editors: Educating social entrepreneurs and social innovators. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 319-323. http://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0224
  58. Lewis, A. C., Cordero, A. M., & Xiong, R. (2021). Too Red for Crowdfunding: The Legitimation and Adoption of Crowdfunding Across Political Cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(3), 471-504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720915574
  59. Li M.H., Cui L., Lu J. (2018) Varieties in State Capitalism: Outward FDI Strategies of Central and Local State-Owned Enterprises from Emerging Economy Countries. In: Cuervo-Cazurra A. (eds) State-Owned Multi-nationals. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51715-5_8
  60. Lobo, C. A., Fernandes, C. I., Ferreira, J. J., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2020). Factors affecting SMEs’ strategic decisions to approach international markets. European Journal of International Management, 14(4), 617-639.
  61. Luo, Y. (2005). Transactional characteristics, institutional environment and joint venture contracts. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2), 209-230, http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400125
  62. Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangla-desh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006
  63. Marks-Bielska, R., Lizińska, W., Wojarska, M., & Babuchowska, K. (2020). Institutional efficiency versus stabil-ity of local governments in basic areas of activity: the case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(3), 463-487. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.021.
  64. McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths. Academy of management Journal, 43(5), 902-906, http://doi.org/10.5465/1556418
  65. Meyer, N. (2019). South African female entrepreneurs’ business styles and their influence on various entre-preneurial factors. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 7(2), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL7_NO2_2
  66. Mishchuk, H., Bilan, S., Yurchyk, H., Akimova, L., & Navickas, M. (2020). Impact of the shadow economy on social safety: The experience of Ukraine. Economics and Sociology, 13(2), 284-298.doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-2/19
  67. Narooz, R., & Child, J. (2017). Networking responses to different levels of institutional void: A comparison of internationalizing SMEs in Egypt and the UK. International Business Review, 26(4), 683-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.12.008
  68. Naumann, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial mindset: A synthetic literature review. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(3), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1924381
  69. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 (1), 97-112, http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.97
  70. Nowiński, W., & Rialp, A. (2013). Drivers and strategies of international new ventures from a Central Euro-pean transition economy. Journal of East European Management Studies, 18(2), 191-231. Retrieved July 11, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23608400Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institu-tional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179, http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
  71. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 25(1), 45-64, http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74228-1_2
  72. Ozcan, P., & Gurses, K. (2018). Playing cat and mouse: Contests over regulatory categorization of dietary supplements in the United States. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1789-1820, http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1221
  73. Rao, R. S., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2008). The fruits of legitimacy: Why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 58-75, http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.4.058
  74. Rask, M., & Servais, P. (2015). Models of international entrepreneurship. In Preparing for the unexpected: Design of the future global enterprise (237-254). Djøf Forlag.
  75. Sadeghi, V. J., Nkongolo-Bakenda, J. M., Anderson, R. B., & Dana, L. P. (2019). An institution-based view of international entrepreneurship: A comparison of context-based and universal determinants in develop-ing and economically advanced countries. International Business Review, 28(6), 101588, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101588
  76. Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and society, 37(5), 427, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z
  77. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities. (Fourth edition)
  78. Sekliuckiene, J., Pisoni, A., Onetti, A., Cannone, G. & Matiusinaite. A. (2017). Early internationalizing firms: the age effect on entrepreneurial behavior. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sus-tainable Development, 13 (5/6), 707-733, http://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2017.086344
  79. Smolka, K. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2020). The emergence of proto‐institutions in the new normal business landscape: dialectic institutional work and the Dutch drone industry. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 626-663, http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12540
  80. Sohns, F., & Wójcik, D. (2020). The impact of Brexit on London’s entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case of the FinTech industry. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(8), 1539-1559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20925820
  81. Solesvik, M.Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial competencies and intentions: the role of higher education. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 7(1), 9-23. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL7_NO1_1
  82. Szyliowicz, D., & Galvin, T. (2010). Applying broader strokes: Extending institutional perspectives and agen-das for international entrepreneurship research. International Business Review, 19(4), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.01.002
  83. Świadek, A., & Gorączkowska, J. (2020). The institutional support for an innovation cooperation in industry: the case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(4), 811-831. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.035.
  84. Torkkeli, L., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kuivalainen, O. (2012). The effect of network competence and environmental hostility on the internationalization of SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 25-49, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-011-0083-0
  85. Tracey, P., Dalpiaz, E., & Phillips, N. (2018). Fish out of water: Translation, legitimation, and new venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1627-1666.
  86. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management. 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  87. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., & Audretsch, D. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneur-ship, and economic growth: what has been learned?. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 21-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0038-0
  88. Wardrop, R., Zhang, B., Rau, R., & Gray, M. (2015). Moving mainstream. The European Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report, 1, 43. Retrieved from: http://www.iberglobal.com/files/2015/2015-uk-alternative-finance-benchmarking-report.pdf on on June 3, 2021
  89. Welter, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in differing environments. In Local heroes in the global village (pp. 93-112). Springer, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23475-6_6
  90. Wijethilake, C., Munir, R., & Appuhami, R. (2017). Strategic responses to institutional pressures for sustain-ability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, http://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2144 Wil-liams, C., & Spielmann, N. (2019). Institutional pressures and international market orientation in SMEs: Insights from the French wine industry. International Business Review, 28(5), 101582.
  91. Zahra, S. A. (2005). A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research. Journal of international Business studies, 36(1), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400118.
  92. Zajkowski, R., & Domańska, A. (2019). Differences in perception of regional pro-entrepreneurial policy: does obtaining support change a prospect?. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(2), 359-384. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2019.018.
  93. Zygmunt, J. (2020). The effect of changes in the economic structure on entrepreneurial activity in a transi-tion economy: the case of Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 15(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.003.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.