|
|
|
| How Does the Configuration of Institutional Environment and Entrepreneurial Cognition Drive Entrepreneurship in Different Models |
| Chen Chengmeng,Huang Yongchun,Wu Shangshuo,Hu Shiliang |
| (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Innovation and entrepreneurship are important driving forces to promote China's high-quality economic development. Facing the complex and turbulent international environment, especially the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, China must continue to promote "mass entrepreneurship and innovation". Opportunity-driven entrepreneurship has the potential to promote economic development and create new jobs, and it is conducive for transformation from an efficiency-driven economy to an innovation-driven economy. Existing studies mostly focus on the influence of psychological cognition or institutional environment on entrepreneurship, but ignore the concurrent influence of institutional environment and entrepreneurial cognition, as well as the heterogeneity of different entrepreneurial models. Therefore, based on the configuration perspective, this paper studies the concurrent influence of institutional environment and entrepreneurial cognition on different entrepreneurial models, which helps to promote the evolution from necessity-driven entrepreneurship to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship and deepen the "mass entrepreneurship and innovation" strategy.#br#Based on the neo-institutional theory and entrepreneurial cognition theory, this paper integrates the antecedent conditions in the institutional environment of regulatory, cognitive and normative level, and the antecedent conditions of the entrepreneurial cognition of capability perception, opportunity identification and fear of failure. Taking 51 countries of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor database as research samples, this paper makes the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to explore the multiple concurrent conditions and complex causal mechanisms affecting different entrepreneurial models, the differences of entrepreneurial models among different economies and the evolution paths of entrepreneurial models. #br#The results show that the driving mechanism of necessity-driven entrepreneurship can be divided into 3 categories, including the capability-driven type with lack of institutional environment, the opportunity-identification type led by normative institution and the risk-taking type with lack of institutional environment. The driving mechanism of opportunity-driven entrepreneurship can be divided into 4 categories, including the entrepreneurial cognition type with lack of normative institution, the opportunity-identification type guided by normative institution, the entrepreneurial cognition type supported by cognitive institution and the capability-opportunity type guaranteed by regulatory institution. Opportunity identification is the key condition to drive opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. There are substitution effects among regulatory, cognitive and normative institutions, which can promote people with high opportunity identification to engage in opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. Factor-driven economies are mainly necessity-driven entrepreneurship, and some of them promote opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. Efficiency-driven economies develop both necessity-driven and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship, while innovation-driven economies attach great importance to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. On this basis, the framework of “path selection—model evolution—economy transformation” is constructed to promote the evolution from necessity-driven entrepreneurship to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship and the transformation into innovation-driven economies.#br#This paper makes theoretical contributions as follows. Firstly, this paper integrates the neo-institutional theory and entrepreneurial cognition theory to explore the multiple concurrent conditions and complex causal mechanisms affecting different entrepreneurial models from a configuration perspective,and highlights the integration, relevance and systematization of the driving conditions of entrepreneurial model. Secondly, based on a sample of 51 countries from the GEM database, the study improves the reliability and generality of the findings with broader scope, and enhance our understandings of global opportunity-driven and necessity-driven entrepreneurship. Finally, the paper constructs the framework of “path selection—model evolution—economy transformation” to provide theoretical guidance and practical reference for the evolution from necessity-driven entrepreneurship to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship and economic transformation and upgrading. It is suggested for individuals, they should improve opportunity identification, capability perception and reduce fear of failure to exert the synergistic and complementary effects of entrepreneurial cognition, thereby promoting opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. The policymakers should emphasize the linkage between opportunity identification and institutional environment, the substitution effects among between institutional environment and continuously improve the institutional environment so as to promote people with high opportunity identification to pursue opportunity-driven entrepreneurship.#br#
|
|
Received: 25 October 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] NORTH D C. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.[2] BRUTON G D, AHLSTROM D, LI H L. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2010,34(3):421-440.[3] MITCHELL R K, SMITH B, SEAWRIGHT K W, et al. Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(5): 974-993.[4] 张秀娥,方卓,毛刚.基于信息生态学的创业认知边界研究[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(15):91-97.[5] 杜运周,刘秋辰,程建青.什么样的营商环境生态产生城市高创业活跃度——基于制度组态的分析[J]. 管理世界, 2020, 36(9): 141-155. [6] BEYNON M J, JONES P, PICKERNELL D. Country-level entrepreneurial attitudes and activity through the years: a panel data analysis using fsQCA[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2020, 115: 443-455.[7] 程建青,罗瑾琏,杜运周,等. 制度环境与心理认知何时激活创业——一个基于QCA方法的研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2019, 40(2): 114-131. [8] BOUDREAUX C J, NIKOLAEV B. Capital is not enough: opportunity entrepreneurship and formal institutions[J]. Small Business Economics, 2019, 53(3): 709-738.[9] 张秀娥,赵敏慧. 创新创业在效率驱动与创新驱动经济体中的作用分析——基于GEM数据分析[J]. 华东经济管理, 2017, 31(2): 36-42. [10] MARCOTTE C. Measuring entrepreneurship at the country level: a review and research agenda[J]. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2013, 25(3-4): 174-194.[11] GILAD B, LEVINE P. A behavioral model of entrepreneurial supply[J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 1986, 24(4): 45-53.[12] 张玉利, 陈寒松. 创业管理[M]．北京: 机械工业出版社，2008.[13] 黄永春,陈成梦,徐军海,等. 创业政策与创业模式匹配对创业绩效影响机制[J]. 科学学研究, 2019, 37(9): 1632-1641. [14] ARAGON-MENDOZA J, DEL VAL M P, ROIG-DOBN S. The influence of institutions development in venture creation decision: a cognitive view[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(11): 4941-4946.[15] DE CLERCQ D, LIM D S K, OH C H. Individual–level resources and new business activity: the contingent role of institutional context[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2013, 37(2): 303-330.[16] 张敬伟,杜鑫,成文,等.新企业商业模式形成过程中认知与行动的互动:一项跨案例研究[J].外国经济与管理,2019,41(2):44-57. [17] 张玉利,刘依冉,杨俊,等.创业者认知监控能改善绩效吗——一个整合模型及实证检验[J].研究与发展管理,2017,29(2):1-9. [18] SCOTT W R. Institutions and organizations[M].New York:Sage Publications, 1995.[19] 郑馨,周先波,张麟.社会规范与创业——基于62个国家创业数据的分析[J].经济研究,2017,52(11):59-73.[20] LIM D S K, OH C H, DE CLERCQ D. Engagement in entrepreneurship in emerging economies: interactive effects of individual-level factors and institutional conditions[J]. International Business Review, 2016, 25(4): 933-945.[21] 王德才,赵曙明.创业制度与公司企业家精神关系——基于珠三角高科技企业的实证研究[J].科技进步与对策,2013,30(19):83-88.[22] YOUSAFZAI S Y, SAEED S, MUFFATTO M. Institutional theory and contextual embeddedness of women's entrepreneurial leadership: evidence from 92 countries[J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 2015, 53(3): 587-604.[23] LI T. Institutional environments and entrepreneurial start-ups: an international study[J]. Management Decision, 2021, 59(8): 1929-1953.[24] 伯努瓦·里豪克斯，查尔斯 C·拉金．QCA设计原理与应用: 超越定性与定量研究的新方法[M]．杜运周,等,译. 北京: 机械工业出版社，2017．[25] FISS P C. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(2): 393-420.．[26] 唐鹏程,杨树旺.企业社会责任投资模式研究: 基于价值的判断标准[J]. 中国工业经济, 2016,33(7):109-126.[27] 鞠伟,周小虎.学术创业与制度环境——制度激励下的大学科研人员创业意愿实证研究[J].南京社会科学,2021(4):41-50. [28] 孙永波,丁沂昕,杨阳.基于国家(地区)的创业活动驱动模式研究[J]. 管理科学, 2020, 33(3): 78-96.[29] PUENTE R, GONZLEZ ESPITIA C G, CERVILLA M A. Necessity entrepreneurship in Latin America: it's not that simple[J]. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2019, 31(9-10): 953-983.[30] 张秀娥,祁伟宏,方卓.美国硅谷创业生态系统环境研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(18): 59-64. |
|
|
|
