A framework for investigating new firm entry: The (limited) overlap between informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurship

IF 7.7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Saul Estrin , Maribel Guerrero , Tomasz Mickiewicz
{"title":"A framework for investigating new firm entry: The (limited) overlap between informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurship","authors":"Saul Estrin ,&nbsp;Maribel Guerrero ,&nbsp;Tomasz Mickiewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.jbusvent.2024.106404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We analyse entrepreneurial entry along the dimensions of informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurship, distinguishing between them yet considering them jointly. While the dominant view in the literature conflates necessity with informal entry, and opportunity with formal entry, we hypothesise that informal entrepreneurship may be attractive to higher-income individuals as a testing ground for entrepreneurial ideas. We also explain why higher-income individuals may undertake necessity entrepreneurship. We utilise individual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data from Chile (2019–2021), which identifies informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurial entry modes, to test hypotheses on the role of individuals´ income in the four types of entrepreneurial entry. We also consider changes in entrepreneurial entry during a crisis and a non-crisis periods. Our results confirm that the patterns in the data are consistent with hypotheses derived from our proposed theoretical framework.</p></div><div><h3>Executive summary</h3><p>Emerging markets economies have very large informal sectors, and their entrepreneurial entry is often motivated by economic necessity rather than by business opportunity. But neither informal nor necessity entrepreneurship are usually expected to generate the positive benefits for growth and development predicted for formal and opportunity entrepreneurship. We argue that the dominant stream in the literature actually conflates informal and necessity entrepreneurship, both of which have been associated with low human and financial capital and productivity. We propose that the appropriate typology is more complex than this because there are examples of successful and dynamic informal firms. This leads us to identify four categories of entrepreneurial entry: informal-necessity (Type 1), formal-opportunity (Type 2), informal-opportunity (Type 3), and formal-necessity (Type 4). While necessity entrepreneurship has typically been associated with low-income individuals, we propose that formal-necessity entrepreneurship may be an entry path for both low- and high-income individuals, though for different reasons. Informal opportunity entry may likewise be an option for people with low-income as well as high-income.</p><p>We therefore seek to disentangle the analysis of opportunity-necessity and of formal-informal entry and to demonstrate that the two less explored entry modes - informal-opportunity, and formal-necessity - are of considerable theoretical and practical significance in emerging economies. We test our framework in the emerging market economy setting of Chile, one of the more prosperous and open economies in Latin America. We use Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data which uniquely for Chile allow us to distinguish between individuals along both the formal-informal and the necessity-opportunity dimensions. On this basis, we distinguish empirically between these four categories of entrepreneurial entry and explain how higher-income individuals may use informal-opportunity entrepreneurial entry as a “seed bed” to test their new business ideas. At the same time, we show that necessity entrepreneurship may be attractive to both lower- and higher-income individuals.</p><p>We also show that the interplay between individuals´ income groups and four entrepreneurial entry modes is stable over “normal times” versus “crisis periods”. We observe that in response to a crisis, individuals with lower-incomes are likely to engage more in informal-necessity entrepreneurship while opportunity-informal entry by higher-income individuals will decline. These changes represent a more complex adjustment pattern than has been identified for developed economies, where entrepreneurial activity has been found to be countercyclical. Thus, in emerging markets, informal-necessity entrepreneurship plays a stabilizing role for those individuals with a more marginal position in the labor market during the crisis. In contrast, for those individuals who have access to higher household income, all forms of entrepreneurship become a less attractive option. We interpret this as indicating that these individuals have the option to wait for higher return opportunities to re-emerge. This is one of the first papers to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship in an emerging market economy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51348,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Venturing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902624000260/pdfft?md5=2522ca6068eb831105cee9073a15a7a0&pid=1-s2.0-S0883902624000260-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Venturing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902624000260","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We analyse entrepreneurial entry along the dimensions of informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurship, distinguishing between them yet considering them jointly. While the dominant view in the literature conflates necessity with informal entry, and opportunity with formal entry, we hypothesise that informal entrepreneurship may be attractive to higher-income individuals as a testing ground for entrepreneurial ideas. We also explain why higher-income individuals may undertake necessity entrepreneurship. We utilise individual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data from Chile (2019–2021), which identifies informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurial entry modes, to test hypotheses on the role of individuals´ income in the four types of entrepreneurial entry. We also consider changes in entrepreneurial entry during a crisis and a non-crisis periods. Our results confirm that the patterns in the data are consistent with hypotheses derived from our proposed theoretical framework.

Executive summary

Emerging markets economies have very large informal sectors, and their entrepreneurial entry is often motivated by economic necessity rather than by business opportunity. But neither informal nor necessity entrepreneurship are usually expected to generate the positive benefits for growth and development predicted for formal and opportunity entrepreneurship. We argue that the dominant stream in the literature actually conflates informal and necessity entrepreneurship, both of which have been associated with low human and financial capital and productivity. We propose that the appropriate typology is more complex than this because there are examples of successful and dynamic informal firms. This leads us to identify four categories of entrepreneurial entry: informal-necessity (Type 1), formal-opportunity (Type 2), informal-opportunity (Type 3), and formal-necessity (Type 4). While necessity entrepreneurship has typically been associated with low-income individuals, we propose that formal-necessity entrepreneurship may be an entry path for both low- and high-income individuals, though for different reasons. Informal opportunity entry may likewise be an option for people with low-income as well as high-income.

We therefore seek to disentangle the analysis of opportunity-necessity and of formal-informal entry and to demonstrate that the two less explored entry modes - informal-opportunity, and formal-necessity - are of considerable theoretical and practical significance in emerging economies. We test our framework in the emerging market economy setting of Chile, one of the more prosperous and open economies in Latin America. We use Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data which uniquely for Chile allow us to distinguish between individuals along both the formal-informal and the necessity-opportunity dimensions. On this basis, we distinguish empirically between these four categories of entrepreneurial entry and explain how higher-income individuals may use informal-opportunity entrepreneurial entry as a “seed bed” to test their new business ideas. At the same time, we show that necessity entrepreneurship may be attractive to both lower- and higher-income individuals.

We also show that the interplay between individuals´ income groups and four entrepreneurial entry modes is stable over “normal times” versus “crisis periods”. We observe that in response to a crisis, individuals with lower-incomes are likely to engage more in informal-necessity entrepreneurship while opportunity-informal entry by higher-income individuals will decline. These changes represent a more complex adjustment pattern than has been identified for developed economies, where entrepreneurial activity has been found to be countercyclical. Thus, in emerging markets, informal-necessity entrepreneurship plays a stabilizing role for those individuals with a more marginal position in the labor market during the crisis. In contrast, for those individuals who have access to higher household income, all forms of entrepreneurship become a less attractive option. We interpret this as indicating that these individuals have the option to wait for higher return opportunities to re-emerge. This is one of the first papers to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship in an emerging market economy.

新公司进入调查框架:非正规-正规创业与必需-机会创业之间的(有限)重叠
我们从非正规-正规创业和必要性-机会创业两个维度来分析创业者的进入,将两者区分开来,但又将两者结合起来考虑。虽然文献中的主流观点将必要性与非正规创业混为一谈,将机会与正规创业混为一谈,但我们假设,非正规创业作为创业理念的试验场,可能对高收入人群具有吸引力。我们还解释了为什么高收入人群可能会进行必要性创业。我们利用智利的全球创业监测(GEM)个人数据(2019-2021 年)来检验关于个人收入在四种创业模式中的作用的假设。我们还考虑了危机和非危机时期创业者进入市场的变化。我们的结果证实,数据中的模式与我们提出的理论框架中的假设是一致的。内容提要 新兴市场经济体拥有非常庞大的非正规部门,他们创业的动机往往是经济需要而非商业机会。但无论是非正规创业还是必要性创业,通常都不会像正规创业和机会创业那样为经济增长和发展带来积极效益。我们认为,文献中的主流观点实际上是将非正规创业与必要性创业混为一谈,而这两种创业都与低人力资本、低金融资本和低生产率有关。我们认为,适当的分类比这更复杂,因为非正规企业也有成功和充满活力的例子。因此,我们将创业分为四类:非正规-必需型(第 1 类)、正规-机会型(第 2 类)、非正规-机会型(第 3 类)和正规-必需型(第 4 类)。必要性创业通常与低收入者有关,但我们认为,正式必要性创业可能是低收入者和高收入者的创业途径,只是原因不同而已。因此,我们试图将机会-必要创业与正式-非正式创业的分析区分开来,并证明非正式-机会创业和正式-必要创业这两种较少探讨的创业模式在新兴经济体中具有重要的理论和实践意义。我们以智利这一新兴市场经济国家为背景,对我们的框架进行了检验,智利是拉丁美洲较为繁荣和开放的经济体之一。我们使用《全球创业观察》(GEM)的数据,这些数据是智利独有的,使我们能够从正规-非正规和必要性-机会两个维度对个人进行区分。在此基础上,我们根据经验区分了这四类创业者,并解释了高收入人群如何利用非正规机会创业作为 "苗床 "来测试他们的新商业理念。同时,我们还表明,必要性创业可能对低收入和高收入人群都有吸引力。我们还表明,在 "正常时期 "和 "危机时期",个人收入群体与四种创业进入模式之间的相互作用是稳定的。我们发现,为了应对危机,收入较低的个人可能会更多地参与非正规-必需型创业,而收入较高的个人的机会-非正规创业则会减少。这些变化代表了一种比发达经济体更复杂的调整模式,在发达经济体,创业活动被认为是反周期的。因此,在新兴市场中,非正规-必要创业对那些在危机期间处于劳动力市场边缘地位的个人起着稳定作用。相反,对于那些家庭收入较高的人来说,所有形式的创业都变得不那么有吸引力。我们认为,这表明这些人可以选择等待高回报机会的重新出现。这是首批探讨 COVID-19 大流行对新兴市场经济体创业影响的论文之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.70
自引率
6.90%
发文量
59
审稿时长
77 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Venturing: Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Finance, Innovation and Regional Development serves as a scholarly platform for the exchange of valuable insights, theories, narratives, and interpretations related to entrepreneurship and its implications. With a focus on enriching the understanding of entrepreneurship in its various manifestations, the journal seeks to publish papers that (1) draw from the experiences of entrepreneurs, innovators, and their ecosystem; and (2) tackle issues relevant to scholars, educators, facilitators, and practitioners involved in entrepreneurship. Embracing diversity in approach, methodology, and disciplinary perspective, the journal encourages contributions that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in entrepreneurship and its associated domains.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信