• 55 •
Anduli
Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales
ISSN: 1696-0270 • e-ISSN: 2340-4973
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL
INNOVATION FACTORS IN 25 NATIONAL STATES
ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LOS FACTORES DE
INNOVACIÓN EMPRESARIAL EN 25 ESTADOS NACIONALES
Anca Elena Lungu
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Romania
Ancalungu01@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5086-8789
Abstract
At the base of entrepreneurship lies the
challenge that individuals with entre-
preneurial skills (entrepreneurs) must
accept at the outset in an increasingly
dynamic environment dominated by un-
certainty. Innovation and the innovative
process have to be constant in entrepre-
neurial actions. Building on this hypoth-
esis, one cannot ignore the essentiality
of the entrepreneur’s adaptability to mar-
ket requirements and demands. The
assumption of risks and uncertainty evi-
dently generates a motivation at an indi-
vidual level in entrepreneur-actors. Action
in a dynamic environment leads to the ur-
gent necessity of adopting new technolo-
gies in business. From the perspective of
implementing and using innovation, this
study uses quantitative methods to illus-
trate the challenges related to innovation
in the business environment. Our sample
comprises 25 national states, selected
according to their rank on the Global En-
trepreneurship Index. Taking as a starting
point the inuence exerted by innovation
and the innovative process within com-
panies, we identify certain elements that
justify the development level of entrepre-
neurship. Using Principal Component
Analysis, we conrm that innovation, in
its various forms (process, product, etc.);
can signicantly affect discrepancies
among the countries. The three factorial
axes resulting from the analysis of the
main components (competition, product
innovation and process innovation) ex-
plain the positioning of States on either
side of the international hierarchy.
Keywords: entrepreneurship; challeng-
es; business innovation; Global Entre-
preneurship Index, Principal Component
Analysis.
Resumen
En la base del espíritu empresarial se
encuentra el reto que los individuos con
capacidades empresariales (empresa-
rios) se proponen aceptar, en un entorno
cada vez más dinámico y dominado por
la incertidumbre. La innovación y el pro-
ceso innovador han de ser constantes en
las acciones empresariales. Partiendo
de esta hipótesis, no se puede ignorar la
esencialidad de la adaptabilidad del em-
presario a las exigencias y demandas
del mercado. La asunción de riesgos e
incertidumbre genera evidentemente
una motivación a nivel individual en los
empresarios-actores. La actuación en un
entorno dinámico lleva a la imperiosa ne-
cesidad de adoptar nuevas tecnologías
en la empresa. Con el n de identicar
los retos a los que se enfrenta el entorno
empresarial desde el punto de vista de
la aplicación y el uso de la innovación,
este estudio utiliza métodos cuantitativos
Cómo citar este artículo/citation: Lungu, Anca Elena (2022). Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurial Innovation
Factors in 25 National States. ANDULI 21 (2022) pp. 55-73. Doi: https://10.12795/anduli.2022.i21.03
Recibido: 14.10.2020 Aprobado: 20.08.2021 Publicado: 03.01.2022
Doi: https://10.12795/anduli.2022.i21.03
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 56 •
1. Introduction
At the core of any entrepreneurial activity lies an individual, i.e. the entrepreneur.
Starting from this, we can agree on the unique and subjective character of each
entrepreneurial activity. Literature observations on entrepreneurial activity can
be addressed from different perspectives and, in this context; we aim to build a
complementary approach to existing ones, illustrating the link between entrepreneurial
activity and innovation. In order to ll a gap in the literature, we aim to offer some
explanations for discrepancies between countries based on dissimilar attitudes
towards innovation in the entrepreneurial activity.
At the base of entrepreneurship lies the challenge that individuals with entrepreneurial
skills (entrepreneurs) set out to accept, in an increasingly dynamic environment
dominated by risk and uncertainty (Knight, 1921). This action has the primary
goal of obtaining some gains, irrespective of the type thereof, whether material
or immaterial (Mises L. , 2018 [1949]) (Rothbard, 2001). The assumption of risks
makes the difference between an entrepreneur and the other actors operating on
a free marketplace, one where the rules of the game prevail. Identifying existing
opportunities on a marketplace or creating new ones are specic activities of the
entrepreneurial actor. Sooner or later, it is the consumers that will determine if the
entrepreneur and the products or services they chose to develop were more or less
inspired choices. Innovation and the innovative process have to be on-going and,
implicitly, the adaptability to consumers’ requirements and demands could give an
individual a competitive edge on the market, to the detriment of their competitors.
Performance and efcient use of available resources are goals that the entrepreneur
pursues in conducting their own activity.
Action in a dynamic environment leads to the imperativeness of adopting new
technologies in business. Even considering Vernon’s opinion on product life-cycle,
staticism can neither provide entrepreneurs with a market advantage, nor can it
be maintained indenitely. Innovation is the main tool entrepreneurs or companies
can use to face the challenges of a free – and implicitly – competitive market. The
discrepancies between countries can be explained, as our study demonstrates, by
differences in terms of innovation adoption levels in entrepreneurial activity. Innovation
and the innovative process have to be constant in entrepreneurial actions. Building on
this hypothesis, one cannot ignore the essentiality of the entrepreneur’s adaptability
to market requirements and demands. The assumption of risks and uncertainty
evidently generates a motivation at an individual level in entrepreneur-actors.
para ilustrar los retos relacionados con la
innovación en las empresas. La muestra
está compuesta por 25 estados nacio-
nales, seleccionados según su posición
en el Índice Global de Emprendimiento.
Identicamos ciertos elementos que jus-
tican el nivel de desarrollo del espíritu
empresarial, teniendo como punto de
partida la inuencia ejercida por la in-
novación y el proceso innovador dentro
de las empresas. Utilizando el Análisis
de Componentes Principales, conrma-
mos que la innovación, en sus diversas
formas (proceso, producto, etc.), puede
afectar signicativamente a las discre-
pancias entre los países. Los tres ejes
factoriales resultantes del análisis de
los componentes principales (dimensión
competitiva, dimensión de producto in-
novador y dimensión de proceso innova-
dor) explican el posicionamiento de los
Estados a uno y otro lado de la jerarquía
internacional.
Palabras clave: espíritu empresarial;
retos; innovación empresarial; Índice
Global de Emprendimiento; Análisis de
Componentes Principales
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 57 •
The foremost purpose of this paper is to reiterate the degree to which the innovation
affects the entrepreneurial activity. The main contribution of this research approach
is its highlighting of how the current business activity is driven by the adoption of
innovation for the 25 countries. This can be utilized both in practice and in theory.
On the one hand, entrepreneurs can realize that the adoption of innovation must be
a fundamental concern because this attitude makes the difference between prot
and loss, whether to stay on or leave the market. On the other hand, the study may
theoretically provide added value because the empirical analysis uses current data.
However, there are also research limits that derive from a number of issues such as:
heavier focus on explaining the impact of innovation on entrepreneurship and less so
on explaining the impact of competitiveness, a very low number of entrepreneurship-
related factors, and the limited sample. To develop the research, we aim to further
expand the analysis to a large number of countries and to look at other dimensions
that inuence entrepreneurial activity, such as competitiveness.
The results of this research bear out that the major discrepancies between the
selected study sample can be justied by differences in the area of innovation. We
identied three eloquent dimensions that affect the country hierarchy in the world
context. The rst one refers to competitiveness across the marketplace. The second
one is connected to the innovational dimension of products, and the last one is linked
to the innovational dimension of the process. As demonstrate below, innovation –
in all its forms (process, product, etc.) – can signicantly impact the discrepancies
between countries.
The paper is structured as follows: the rst part provides a concise presentation of
the most important views on entrepreneurship and innovation, based on the author’s
focus on the approach of the Austrian School of Economics. The second part explains
the research method employed, namely the Principal Component Analysis. Finally,
the results and discussions section offers some clarications for the discrepancies
between countries in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation.
2. Literature review
Innovation is one of the fundamental premises for conducting entrepreneurial activities
and for economic progress, respectively. The specialized literature often approached
the impossibility of obtaining entrepreneurial prots without accepting the innovative
element. Acting in a dynamic environment, entrepreneurs have to constantly
innovate. Below we present the opinions regarding innovation as an element of the
entrepreneurial act. The denition for ‘entrepreneur’ and the act they carry out took on
different approaches throughout the analysis periods.
Innovation emerged as a matter of novelty in the denition of entrepreneurship.
These approaches also include that of J.B. Say, who believes the entrepreneur is a
middleman between the knowledge generating/producing scientist and the worker
applying such knowledge in the industry (Say, 1821). Later on, Marshall put the
entrepreneur’s innovating function at the forefront, noting that the actor within the
company is the one constantly seeking opportunities to cut costs (Marshall, 1875).
Joseph Schumpeter’s contribution to developing a new meaning of innovation cannot
be omitted from a specialized literature review. Schumpeter’s entrepreneur does
not need to be a capital owner or even work within the limits set by a company:
the entrepreneur may, but need not, be the person who furnishes the capital
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 58 •
(Schumpeter, 1939, p. 102). He introduced the idea of movement, i.e. a business
operator that innovates. The irrationality thereof results from the lack of any economic
calculation. The entrepreneur is a player that assumes the success or loss and is
guided at the same time by a creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942). Capitalism in
itself is a change-generating system and, as such, cannot have a static dimension.
The emergence of new goods, new production and distribution methods, new
marketplaces, and new types of industrial organization is the impulse that guides
the capitalist system and sets it in motion. In this context, each company and each
entrepreneur has to adapt and innovate if they wish to survive. Creative destruction
results from a critical mass of innovation or, in other words, from the entrepreneurs’
action. Curiosity is what drives entrepreneurs to take action. The heroic character
thereof is what drives them to take on new, unprecedented, and innovative actions.
Innovation is what enables the entrepreneur to expand their business and consolidate
their market position, pushing the boundaries of their own market by setting new rules
under uncertainty conditions. Thus, Schumpeter denes entrepreneurship from an
economic perspective, emphasizing the idea of identifying market opportunities and
adapting same by means of innovation.
Largely sharing Schumpeter’s vision, Frank Knight states that innovation is a source
of prot and can only occur when investments are used to create new resources.
Knight sees the entrepreneur’s motivation as connected to the desire to excel, to
win a game, the greatest and most fascinating game that was ever invented. In
order to achieve gains, there are three tasks incumbent on the entrepreneur: (1) to
initiate change and usher in innovations; (2) to adapt to changes in the economic
environment; (3) to assume the consequences of the uncertainties they are faced
with in the activity carried out within the company. Knight’s analysis emphasizes the
intuitive and game-like nature of the entrepreneurial act, as well as the irrationality
guiding the entrepreneur. The skills required of an entrepreneur are different from
those pertaining to other individuals, conferring a prophetic characteristic upon the
entrepreneur, provided that the market is well organized. The entrepreneur assumes
the uncertainty in order to earn a prot by satisfying consumers’ needs, while acting
in an innovative manner (Knight, 1921).
Friedrich von Hayek believes that business operators make decisions in a context
dominated by uncertainty rather than in a transparent one, as postulated in the
hypothetical case of perfect competition. Entrepreneurship signies the pursuit,
discovery, and adjustment of the actions of business operators who are actively
promoting the changes dening the market process. In other words, in Hayek’s vision
entrepreneurship is the relation between competition and knowledge, rooted in the
condition that every business operator has a specic advantage in their subjective
knowledge. Discovery and innovation are the ones that ensure the market evolution
and entail benets for the entrepreneur (Hayek F. A., 1960) (Hayek F. , 1988) (Hayek
F. , 2014).
For Kirzner, the entrepreneur is not a source of ex nihilo innovation, but rather an agent
in constant pursuit of existing opportunities waiting to be identied. In the process of
economic development, the entrepreneur should be seen as one who responds to
opportunities instead of a creator thereof. The entrepreneur notices opportunities that
can generate prots (Kirzner, 1973).
In recent years, the terms innovation and entrepreneurship have gained quite the
importance in management literature. In one of his works, Peter Drucker approaches
entrepreneurship building on the philosophy according to which, in the present and
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 59 •
in the future, the entrepreneurial society may be the only one capable of supporting
the development of a welfare society. This entrepreneurial society will be the result of
an economy based on innovative entrepreneurship, combined with easy government
or, otherwise said, minimum intervention in regards to development (Drucker, 1985).
In his opinion, innovation is the specic tool of entrepreneurs, the means they use to
capitalize on change as an opportunity for a different business or a different service. It
can be presented as a discipline, and it can be learned and practiced. Entrepreneurs
need to search purposefully for the sources of innovation, the changes and their
symptoms that indicate opportunities for successful innovation (Drucker, 1985, p. 20).
He introduces the idea of systematic innovation as a framework for the exploitation
of innovative opportunities and identies several sources of innovation: (1) the
unexpected; (2) incongruity; (3) innovation based on the needs of the process; (4)
changes in the sector or in the market structure that surprise everybody; (5) changes
in the number and structure of the population; (6) changes in terms of perception,
status and signications; (7) new knowledge, both scientic and non-scientic. Peter
Drucker lays emphasis on the need for innovation and entrepreneurship in a society.
In order to achieve this, entrepreneurial executives have to transform innovation and
entrepreneurship into normal, everyday, and ongoing activities.
William Baumol states that innovation is the driving force that leads to the remarkable
progress of capitalism (Baumol W. , 2002). In the capitalist economy, innovation is
the primary dimension of the competitive process, to the detriment of prices, and less
competitive companies lose their market position in favor of their competitors. To this
end, innovation is an essential element that can ensure the survival of the company.
Moreover, Baumol developed a few ideas to prove that innovation can be integrated
in the neoclassical framework. The latter describes a process whereby companies
compete with one another based on innovation rather than prices, emphasizing that
successful companies may be ineffective from a neoclassical point of view, but they can
enjoy prots if they continue to innovate. Without innovation, even the most efcient
company will be ousted from the market by innovative competitors. Thus, the only
solution is to routinize innovation, making it a part of the activities conducted across
the company. Market incentives force companies to constantly innovate, which led to
the miracle growth of capitalism. Baumol views the entrepreneur as an independent
innovator, in the broadest sense, meaning that the activities of this individual include,
but go considerably beyond, technical inventions and their utilization (Baumol W. ,
2002, p. 114). Moreover, the importance of market institutions and the protection of
ownership rights are mandatory in order to ensure the necessary incentives for prot-
generating innovation. In Baumol’s vision, the fact that constant renement became
rather routinized seems to be the argument for the continued progress that requires
cultivating a spark of entrepreneurship, able to generate the real miracle of the free-
market innovation machine. In brief, innovation begets innovation.
Recent studies in the specialized literature bring to the foreground the role of innovation
in the process of economic development. Jorgenson’s opinion runs along the same
lines, stating that achieving economic growth is based on introducing new innovations
in the eld of technology by integrating same in different domains or elds of activity. He
emphasizes that the innovative process based on technology led to signicant growth
rates in the economic sectors (Jorgenson D. W., 2011). In small businesses, new
innovations and their related activities have contributed to an increased observance of
copyrights by large companies (Kortum, S., Lerner, J., 2000). Galindo et. al believes that
the entrepreneurs’ decisions to innovate or not are tightly connected to the achievement
of prots; implicitly, we can identify a circular process given that innovation can be
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 60 •
assimilated to the improvement of a product, granting the entrepreneur a better position
on the competitive market. The latter are relevant for obtaining increasingly higher
prots that can be applied for new innovation. This circuit also has positive effects on
economic growth (Galindo, M.A., Mendez-Picazo, M.T., 2013).
In Bhide’s view, entrepreneurial rms are in fact relatively young structures that have
the potential to grow and achieve prot over relatively short time frames (Bhide,
2000). Amit & Zott state that for a company, an innovative business model can lay
the foundation for creating a new market or can offer the possibility to introduce
and harness new entrepreneurial opportunities that already exist on an established
marketplace (Amit, R., Zott, C., 2013). Acting in such a context, these companies
should offer solutions to the problems people encounter in an ever-changing world
(Langlois, 2005).
Covin & Slevin and Chell once again bring to the fore one of the main characteristics of
an entrepreneur. Besides the risk-bearing capacity, they highlight the entrepreneur’s
ability to innovate in order to obtain new products or services, new technologies or
new processes (Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., 1986) (Chell, 2008). Brem and Voigt state
that the access to external resources supports the innovating capacity of businesses,
in particular by developing the knowledge of entrepreneurs and by increasing the
inclination to use the new (Brem, A., Voigt, K. , 2007). Lassen et al. points out that
entrepreneurs decide to develop R&D departments in order to encourage innovation
(Lassen, A.H., Gertsen, F., Riis, J.E., 2006). Knowledge helps innovation-driven
entrepreneurship in achieving economic development (Bosma, 2013) and can include
new processes, new organizational designs, or new product-market combinations
(Cliff, J.E., Jennings, D. J, Greenwood, R., 2006). To synthesize the aforementioned
opinions, we can posit that specialized literature also conrms the statement according
to which the dimension of the entrepreneurial activity is signicantly inuenced by the
degree of implementation of technologies or new technologies.
3. Methods and Materials
This research analyses the inuence of innovation on entrepreneurial activity.
Considering the goal set for this article, i.e. to identify the entrepreneurial discrepancies
between countries from the perspective of implementing and using innovation, the
research methodology employed helps prove the established hypothesis. We aim to
answer to the following research question:
Can we explain the discrepancies between the selected countries in terms of
entrepreneurial activity through innovation?
In order to achieve the purpose of the research, the article starts with a review of
specialized literature, illustrating the most important opinions on innovation and
entrepreneurship. Starting from this review, we aimed to empirically illustrate the
statements posited in the literature. For the empirical part of the research endeavor,
we sourced available data on entrepreneurship, as well as on the innovative
dimension of the activity conducted by individuals with entrepreneurial skills. Under
these circumstances and having a very low number of entrepreneurship-related
factors as the primary limitation, we used the Global Entrepreneurship Index. This
index is provided by The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (The
GEDI Institute), founded by world-leading entrepreneurship scholars from the LSE,
George Mason University, University of Pécs, and Imperial College London.
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 61 •
To have a clear view of the database, we need to make some notes regarding the
analyzed indicators. We chose two sub-indices in the componence of which we can
identify elements that are able to view the innovative phenomenon in a most evident
manner (Abilities Subindex and Aspirations Subindex). Each sub-index takes values
from 0 to 1, where 0 is the lowest and 1 is the highest.
The Abilities Sub-Index includes the following components:
• Opportunities Start-up monitors the identication of individuals that are guiding
their activity for the purpose of identifying certain quality opportunity-driven start-
ups, while also considering the effects of taxation and those related to the quality
of governmental services.
• Technology Absorption is the variable used to measure the capacity of a state
to implement and absorb new technologies via companies. This measurement
is obtained following the World Economic Forum reporting. The diffusion of new
technology, and the capability to absorb it, is vital for innovative rms with high
growth potential (Acs, Z., Szerb, L., Lloyd, A., 2018).
• The Human Capital pillar captures the quality of entrepreneurs as weighing
the percentage of start-ups founded by individuals with higher than secondary
education with a qualitative measure of the propensity of rms in a given country
to train their staff combined with the freedom of the labor market(Acs, Z., Szerb,
L., Lloyd, A., 2018).
• Competition measures whether entrepreneurs are able to create new products
and services they can subsequently introduce on the market.
The Aspiration Sub-Index includes the following components:
• Product Innovation refers to a company’s capacity to create new products that
reect the transfer capacity of a country’s technology. This indicator measures
a country’s potential to create new products or mimic existing products via
innovation.
• Process Innovation: The Process Innovation pillar captures the use of new
technologies by start-ups combined with the Gross Domestic Expenditure on
Research and Development (GERD) and the potential of a country to conduct
applied research (Acs, Z., Szerb, L., Lloyd, A., 2018).
• High Growth identies a company’s capacity to plan its growth strategy and
measures its capacity to grow, setting ambitious goals for itself in terms of gaining
prots.
• Internationalization centralizes and measures the extent to which companies
are able to identify opportunities on the international market for exporting their
products or services.
• Capital Risk refers to the availability of capital both for natural persons and
institutions.
The data collected for subsequent analysis is provided in Table 1. The analyzed
sample comprises 25 states, and the selection criterion thereof was related to their
rank on the Global Entrepreneurship Index. In their case, we aimed to identify certain
elements that justify the development level of entrepreneurship, having the inuence
exercised by innovation and the innovative process within companies as their starting
point.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 62 •
Table 1: The Global Entrepreneurship Index and Sub-Index Ranks of the First 25 Countries,
2018
Countries
GEI
Abilities
Sub-index
Opportunity
Start-up
Technology
Absorption
Human
Capital
Competition
Aspirations
Sub-index
Product
Innovation
Process
Innovation
High Growth
Internationa-
lization
Risk Capital
United
States 83.60 86.00 0.849 0.814 1.000 1.000 84.90 0.733 0.902 1.000 1.000 0.876
Switzerland 80.40 86.40 0.966 1.000 0.789 1.000 85.50 0.834 0.902 0.882 1.000 1.000
Canada 79.20 79.90 0.999 0.779 0.912 0.676 79.90 0.991 0.758 0.559 0.936 1.000
United
Kingdom 77.80 83.30 0.925 1.000 0.742 0.848 76.30 0.924 0.701 0.850 0.824 0.649
Australia 77.50 76.00 0.871 0.780 0.950 0.567 71.20 0.592 0.786 0.658 0.633 1.000
Denmark 74.30 84.50 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.989 66.50 0.988 0.723 0.594 0.390 1.000
Iceland 74.20 69.90 1.000 1.000 0.506 0.501 70.30 0.602 0.838 0.699 0.952 0.588
Ireland 73.70 78.90 1.000 0.769 0.851 1.000 75.00 1.000 0.822 0.884 0.970 0.568
Sweden 73.10 78.70 0.976 0.946 0.644 0.869 69.50 0.666 0.899 0.557 0.816 0.721
France 68.60 69.70 0.683 0.840 0.625 0.739 74.40 0.801 0.941 0.644 0.764 0.768
Netherlands 68.10 65.30 0.935 0.835 0.365 0.786 61.70 0.652 0.769 0.596 0.562 0.715
Finland 67.90 62.90 1.000 0.826 0.495 0.415 61.80 0.617 0.795 0.675 0.647 0.497
Hong Kong 67.30 62.50 0.800 0.643 0.894 0.381 70.20 0.884 0.409 1.000 0.679 1.000
Austria 66.00 66.40 0.808 0.941 0.399 0.761 64.40 0.724 0.818 0.403 0.901 0.630
Germany 65.90 67.20 0.759 0.863 0.482 0.848 69.40 0.667 0.84 0.662 0.874 0.760
Israel 65.40 60.80 0.647 1.000 0.811 0.317 72.20 0.997 1.000 0.851 0.601 0.788
Belgium 63.70 67.80 0.543 0.852 0.778 0.850 69.50 0.913 0.963 0.551 0.887 0.627
Taiwan 59.50 54.80 0.651 0.705 0.701 0.317 69.56 0.972 0.696 0.894 0.535 0.935
Chile 58.50 50.90 0.812 0.550 0.670 0.370 54.30 1.000 0.320 0.670 0.370 0.640
Luxem-
bourg 58.20 62.90 1.000 0.839 0.551 0.857 62.60 1.000 0.612 0.545 1.000 0.902
Norway 56.60 60.90 1.000 0.752 0.419 0.671 42.84 0.259 0.465 0.467 0.282 0.840
Qatar 55.00 54.50 0.754 0.339 0.882 0.603 62.20 0.856 0.516 1.000 0.529 0.956
Estonia 54.80 55.70 0.635 0.773 0.540 0.606 50.95 0.724 0.647 0.674 0.658 0.214
Korea 54.20 50.10 0.485 0.460 0.560 0.320 56.80 0.950 1.000 0.450 0.320 0.580
Slovenia 53.80 55.00 0.604 0.744 0.500 0.485 52.09 0.480 0.806 0.427 0.746 0.333
Source: own processing of data available on The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Insti-
tute (2018)
Upon the initial analysis of the data registered by the indicators/indices related to
entrepreneurship and innovation, we drew a series of logical correlations between
same and the market reality in the respective states in order to offer ideological
and theoretical justications. Moreover, we used the Principal Component Analysis
to reduce the number of variables and identify the primary components impacting
entrepreneurship and business innovation.
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 63 •
3. Results and Discussions
In order to identify the existence of correlations between variables, we considered the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olk in Measure of Sampling Adequacy. In the case of analyzed variables,
KMO >∝→ 0.608 > 0.05, which means there are correlations between the variables.
Given that KMO > 0.5, the analysis of the primary components can be applied.
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .614
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 65.749
Df 36
Sig. .002
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Opportunity_Start_up 1.000 .859
Technology Absorption 1.000 .708
Human_Capital 1.000 .799
Competition 1.000 .673
Product_Innovation 1.000 .620
Process_Innovation 1.000 .781
High_Growth 1.000 .588
Internationalization 1.000 .670
Risk_Capital 1.000 .635
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total
% of
Varian-
ce
Cumu-
lative % Total
% of
Varian-
ce
Cumu-
lative
%
Total
% of
Varian-
ce
Cumu-
lative
%
1 2.574 28.603 28.603 2.574 28.603 28.603 2.401 26.682 26.682
2 2.334 25.934 54.537 2.334 25.934 54.537 2.350 26.115 52.797
3 1.425 15.829 70.367 1.425 15.829 70.367 1.581 17.570 70.367
4 .717 7.968 78.335
5.604 6.707 85.041
6.508 5.646 90.687
7.364 4.044 94.731
8 .252 2.796 97.527
9 .223 2.473 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 64 •
Following the analysis of the data processing results, we can note that the rst three
components explain 70.36% of the total corresponding to the total variance, as follows:
The rst component (component 1) explains 28.603% of the total variance;
The second component (component 2) explains 25.934% of the total variance;
The third component (component 3) explains 15.829% of the total variance.
Each of the three components is comprised of several variables, as evidenced in the
table below:
Component Matrix
Component
123
Opportunity_Start_up .534 -.176 -.736
Technology Absorption .535 -.649 .007
Human_Capital .608 .630 .181
Competition .715 -.379 -.135
Product_Innovation .351 .526 .469
Process_Innovation .251 -.512 .675
High_Growth .455 .610 .099
Internationalization .661 -.419 .240
Risk_Capital .540 .505 -.298
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 .718 .592 .367
2-.650 .758 .049
3 .249 .273 -.929
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
In order to note the main dimensions that impact variance, we resorted to synthesizing
the information on the components. Following this process, we decided that there
were three dimensions with signicant impacts on the entrepreneurial attitude of
business actors in the analyzed sample:
The rst dimension (component 1) pertains to competitiveness across the marketplace.
This one is signicantly impacted by the human capital involved in the competitive
process, as well as by the companies’ capacity for internationalization.
The second dimension (component 2) – the innovational dimension of the product;
The third dimension (component 3) – the innovational dimension of the process.
The Principal Component Analysis generated 3 new variables that describe the
three dimensions listed above, named Fac1_1, Fac2_1, Fac3_1, which refer to
the inuence of the independent variable on the dependent variable. In our case,
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 65 •
the dependent variable is Fac2_1 which represents the innovational dimension of
the product, and Fac1_1 is the independent variable, pertaining to the competitive
dimension. The values of the new variables are highlighted in Table 2. Moreover,
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the values mentioned in table 2.
Figure 1: Component Plot in Rotated Space
Source: SPSS output for the used database
Figure 2: REGR factor score for analysis
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 66 •
Table 2: Factor Variable of the First 25 Countries, 2018
Countries
FAC1_1
(Competitive
Dimension)
Fac2_1
(Product
Innovation)
Fac3_1
(Process
Innovation)
Switzerland 1.08806 1.29629 0.14802
United States 1.48408 0.8459 0.6503
Denmark 0.40211 0.83687 0.55372
United Kingdom 0.73008 0.41649 0.3416
Canada -0.2677 0.35198 0.578
Ireland 0.32116 0.81559 1.1272
Sweden 0.7395 -0.9406 0.30345
Australia 0.97353 0.88062 0.09679
Iceland 0.99239 -0.6341 0.46418
France 0.50233 -0.06087 -0.83475
Belgium -0.01051 -1.15031 0.64261
Germany -0.2263 -1.08117 0.23343
Austria -1.41662 1.41383 0.66489
Netherlands 0.78107 -1.28558 -0.20476
Luxembourg 0.65024 -0.57017 -0.11701
Finland 0.17878 0.89441 -1.53592
Hong Kong 0.90769 0.21851 -1.6496
Japan -1.10972 0.96701 -0.66425
Norway -2.1336 0.16752 0.34597
Israel 0.54307 0.00801 0.92684
Singapore -1.33455 -1.9354 2.17666
Estonia -1.79574 1.45621 0.35854
Slovenia -0.42935 -0.92039 -1.0313
Taiwan -1.31616 -0.32428 -2.39118
Qatar -0.25386 -1.66638 -1.18342
By performing an analysis of the factorial axes obtained, we can draw the following
conclusions:
(1) On the rst factorial axis, corresponding to the competitive dimension, the highest
values are registered by countries such as the United States, Switzerland, Iceland,
Australia, and Hong Kong, and the lowest values are achieved by Norway, Estonia,
Austria, Singapore, and Taiwan. We can infer that in the case of the highest ranking
states, the behavior of business actors is one that tends towards carrying out the
entrepreneurial act and is implicitly indicative of a strong competitive process. The
status of the United States of America once again emphasizes their international
competitiveness, which evidently correlates with their economic development. On the
opposite side, in the case of countries ranking lowest in terms of the competitive
dimension, we can conclude that an analysis should be performed on the factors
determining the entrepreneurs’ lack of focus on the wish to be constantly enterprising
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 67 •
within the competitive process. Some the factors that might explain this lack of action
could be the laws in the respective country and the obstacles business actors encounter
in conducting the entrepreneurial act. Aside from this aspect, we could consider the
cultural dimension corresponding to each country, as well as its implications in terms
of entrepreneurship. Given that we have yet to see any research on the social and
political, legal or cultural conditions in the analyzed states, we cannot accurately
state the causes for such low values in the entrepreneurial behavior, focused on
participation in the market process.
(2) The dimension that refers to the innovational product corresponds to the second
factorial axis. As with the rst factorial axis, there are signicant differences in the
analyzed countries. Thus, entrepreneurs in states at the top of the hierarchy are more
motivated to innovate their product than those at the bottom. On the one hand, there
are countries where motivation and the perception of opportunity score very high
values (Estonia, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, and Finland); while in other countries
the same indicators score very low (Singapore, Qatar, Netherlands, Belgium, and
Germany). In the product innovation dimension, the Human Capital component also
has a major signicance. Considering this aspect, we can state that the different
cultural heritage is one of the factors worth mentioning in this dimension. While for
some people entrepreneurship seems to be something that comes naturally, for
others we can talk about the attempt to educate the same values. Furthermore,
the differences in terms of political regime evidently bear another type of impact on
understanding the discrepancies in terms of the motivational dimension. In studies
centered on the analysis of innovation and government intervention in Singapore and
Hong Kong, Wang and Young make similar observations regarding the innovation
(Wang, 2018) (Young, 1992).
(3) The third factorial axis can be associated with the innovative process dimension.
Singapore, Ireland, Israel, Austria, and the United States rank at the top of the list
in terms of implementing innovative strategies within processes. On the other hand,
entrepreneurs in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Finland, Qatar, and Slovenia score the lowest
values in terms of implementing new processes within companies. For this factorial
axis we can draw the same correlation regarding the national culture and the focus
towards entrepreneurship.
Starting from the observation of factorial axes, we can notice a series of interesting
aspects regarding certain states in the study sample:
The United States of America score very high values for the rst factorial axis
(the competitive dimension) and very low values for the third factorial axis (the
innovational process dimension). Opportunity start-up and Risk capital negatively
impact the last factorial axis, which means that both the innovative product dimension
and the innovative process dimension are inuenced by competition on the American
marketplace. The entrepreneur’s activity bears the mark of competitiveness, in which
we also include both Internationalization and Human Capital. The USA’s position in
international trade is well understood and, moreover, we can identify the challenges
the USA faces in starting a business, building on the idea of innovation. This idea
is also advanced by Sayton and Mangematin (Stayton, J., Mangematin, V., 2016).
Furthermore, in a VUCA world, the need for innovation is clearly highlighted and
competitiveness leads to adaptability (Schoemaker, P.J.H., Heaton, S., Teece, D.,
2018).
Switzerland presents high values for both the rst and second factorial axes,
and this data could suggest the signicant connection between the high level of
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 68 •
competitiveness and the high level of innovation in terms of products designed for
consumers. Another major aspect worth mentioning for Switzerland refers to the
value of the third variable focusing on the innovative process dimension. In spite of a
high level of competitiveness and innovation in terms of the process, the innovative
process generally scores relatively low values; we could thus infer that change is rather
difcult in major sectors that contribute to the economic development of Switzerland
(e.g.: the watchmaking industry they are notorious for, etc.). Recent studies have
demonstrated that Swiss businesses are in constant pursuit of innovation. Moreover,
the literature provides observations about the high level of competitiveness (Papula,
J., Kohnova, L., Papulova, Z., 2018) (Eker, 2016).
Singapore is located at the top of the list for the third factorial axis, which refers
to the process innovation dimension. The same state scores the lowest values in
the second factorial axis (product innovation) and relatively low values in the rst
factorial axis. Thus we can infer that Singapore innovates in terms of process, yet
without implicitly bringing about changes in terms of the nished product designed
for consumers. Moreover, competition does not appear to be stimulated on the
Singaporean marketplace. The results of previous studies have demonstrated that
Singapore promotes decentralization inside the companies and, through it, the
employees are encouraged to innovate and believe in innovation (Wan, D., Huat Ong,
C., Lee, F., 2005) (Kanter, 1988) (Damanpour, 1991) (Yam, R.C.M., Lo, W., Tang,
E.P.Y., Lau, A.K.W., 2011).
Japan registers very high values for the second axis (product innovation) and negative
values for the other two factorial axes. In a similar study, Henrekson and Sanandaji
demonstrate that this situation can indicate a predominance of large established
enterprises, old family-run businesses, or public-sector employment (Henrekson, M.,
Sanandaji, T. , 2019).
Innovation is one of the most important inuence factors in the entrepreneurial activity.
In a similar research, Avanzizi admits that innovation in business represents the
foundation for economic development (Avanzini, 2009). In conclusion, following the
empirical analysis, we have ascertained three dimensions that explain the variations
in entrepreneurship: the competitive dimension, the innovational dimension of the
product, and the innovational dimension of the process. While being a limitation for the
current research endeavor, putting together a map that illustrates the entrepreneurial
intensity and, moreover, the level of economic development in countries across the
world, will constitute a future research direction.
4. Conclusions
A literature review was undertaken and, in the second part of the paper, an empirical
demonstration has been developed in order to answer the research question. The
primary challenges that entrepreneurs and companies face are related to the capacity
to adapt to new trends by using innovation and the innovative process. By acting in an
innovative manner, entrepreneurs manage to obtain a proper positioning in the market
hierarchy and, moreover, they can hope for maximized prots. Most of the times, the
difculty in implementing the innovative process and product innovation incentivizes
entrepreneurs in their activity. We can state that the answer for the research question
was identied: we have explained the discrepancies between the selected countries
in terms of entrepreneurial activity through innovation.
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 69 •
The results obtained using the Principal Component Analysis have highlighted major
aspects in regards to differences between the countries in the study sample, and the
causes for these discrepancies should be subject to observation. We can conclude
that the highest values of the competitive dimension are registered by countries
such as the United States, Switzerland, Iceland, Australia, and Honk Kong, which
can be interpreted as a very high competitiveness in the entrepreneurial activity in
these areas. The competition drives the entrepreneurs to be highly performant in
their activities, to bear uncertainty and, most importantly, to gain prots based on
said performance. On the other hand, we note the lowest values of the competitive
dimension in countries such as Norway, Estonia, Singapore, and Taiwan, which affect
the entrepreneurs’ lack focus on the competitive process; however, we can note
that some of the aforementioned countries (such as Taiwan) also score low in terms
of process innovation. The lowest scores for product innovation suggest that the
entrepreneurs ranked at the bottom of the hierarchy are less motivated to implement
innovation in their new products. This statement offers a justication for the situation
in countries such as Qatar, the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany. Regarding the
structure of the product innovation dimension, we cannot ignore the signicance of
the human capital component, which can affect the entrepreneurial process by virtue
of the culture. The third dimension is related to the innovative process. At the top
of the list here we can rank countries such as Singapore, Ireland, and the United
States of America. On the other hand, the lowest values are registered in Taiwan,
Honk Kong, Finland, Qatar, etc. In fact, this axis illustrates the extent to which the
new process is implemented in the entrepreneurial activity. We should mention
the situation in Singapore: the country is at the top of the list in terms of process
innovation, but scores the lowest values in product innovation or in the competitive
dimension of the market. The competition is very high in the United States of America,
but the innovational process is at the opposite side of the hierarchy, which means that
American entrepreneurs must be very competitive even if they are not very innovative
in terms of process or product.
Part of the differences can be generally justied, but one should not omit the particular
aspects that generate heterogeneity. The political regime, entrepreneurial culture
(and others), and the risk susceptibility of a nation provide explanations for the
entrepreneurial activity of its actors. In the analyzed sample we can undoubtedly
notice the heterogeneity starting from their very own cultural, social, and political
differences. As was already shown, the three factorial axes resulting from the analysis
of the main components offer a series of explanations for the positioning of states
on either side of the international hierarchy, precisely by tapping already existing
information that were set in a different light.
The added value of this research resides in reiterating the importance of innovation
in any entrepreneurial activity. Therefore, the implications in theory and practice alike
can be easily discovered. Firstly, the empirical study can be used by practitioners to
highlight the vital innovativeness in their organizations. Secondly, the literature can
benet from a new demonstration of the same argument, based on recently collected
data. Finally, we acknowledge the limitations of this research, considering the limited
number of analyzed countries, the prevailing focus on innovation and less so on
competitiveness, but these limitations will constitute new research directions.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 70 •
References
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B. (1987). Innovation, market structure, and rm size. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 567–574.
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small rms: An empirical analy-
sis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678–690.
Acs, Z., Szerb, L., Lloyd, A. (2018). The Global Entrepreneurship Index. Washington: The
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute.
Acs, Z., Szerb, L., Lloyd, A. (2018). The Global Entrepreneurship Index. Technical Annex.
Washington: The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute.
Amit, R., Zott, C. (2013). Business Model Innovation: Creating Value In Times Of Change.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41-49.
ANNA. (2016, August 31). London to New York market stable at just over four million
annual pax. Retrieved from Airline Network News and Analysis: https://www.anna.
aero/2016/08/31/london-to-new-york-market-analysed/
Avanzini, D. (2009). Designing composite entrepreneurship indicators: An application
using consensus PCA. WIDER Research Paper, No. 2009/41, ISBN 978-92-9230-
212-2, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Re-
search (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki.
Baumol, W. (2002). The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing The Growth Miracle
Of Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory. American Economic Review,
58(2), 64-71.
Bhide, A. (2000). The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1930 [1889]). The Positive Theory of Capital. New York: G.E. Stechert
& Co.
Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1959 [1884]). History and Critique of Interest Theories. South Holland:
Libertarian Press - Translated by George D. Huncke and Hans F. Sennholz.
Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1962 [1881]). Whether Legal Rights and Relationships Are Economic
Goods. In E. Böhm-Bawerk, Shorter Classics of Böhm-Bawerk: Volume I . (pp. 30
-138). South Holland: Libertarian Press.
Bosma, N. (2013). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) and Its Impact on Entre-
preneurship Research. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 9 (2), 143–248.
Brem, A., Voigt, K. . (2007). Innovation Management in Emerging Technology Ventures –
The Concept of an Integrated Idea Management. International Journal of Technology
Policy and Management, 7(3), 304-321.
Brooke, G. (2010). Uncertainty, Prot and Entrepreneurial Action: Frank Knight’s Contribu-
tion Reconsidered. Journal of History of Economic Thought, vol. 32(2), 221-235.
Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. Paris: Institut Coopet.
Chell, E. (2008). The Nascent Entrepreneur, Business Development and the Role of Hu-
man Resources. In R. &. Barret, International Handbook of Entrepreneurship and HRM
(pp. 21-46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 71 •
Cliff, J.E., Jennings, D. J, Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the Game and Questioning the
Rules: The Experiences and Beliefs of Founders Who Start Imitative versus Innovative
Firms. Journal of Business Venturing 21 (5), 633-663.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P. (1986). The Development and Testing of an Organizational-Level
Entrepreneurship Scale. In R. H. Ronstadt, Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp.
628-639). Wellesley, MA: Babs.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determi-
nants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 5 (34) , 555-590.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford : Butterworth Heinemann.
Eker, A. (91-102). Intellectual Property and R&D Investment as Measures of Innovation in
Switzerland, the USA, and Singapore. International Journal of Arts & Sciences Vol. 9
(03), 2016.
Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies. The Role of
Institutions and Generational Change. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4805 .
Eurocontrol. (2018). European Aviation in 2040. Challenges of Growth. Bruxelles:
Eurocontrol.
Fetter, F. (1928 [1915]). Economic Principles. New York: The Century Co.
Foss, N.; Klein, P. J. (2012). Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment a New Approach of the
Firm. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Galindo, M.A., Mendez-Picazo, M.T. (2013). Innovation, entrepreneurship and economic
growth. Management Decision, 51(3), 501-514.
Golubetskaya, N., Koshelev, T. Kunin, V. (2017). Problems of innovative development of
an entrepreneurship in the industry in the conditions of upgrade of Economy. IOP Con-
ference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (90), 1-10.
Gordon, R. (2018). Why has economic growth sloewd when innovation appears to bo
accelereating? Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hawley, F. (1907). Enterprise and the productive process: a theory of economic producti-
vity. New York, London: G.P. Putnam’s sons.
Hayek, F. ( 1975 [1939]). Prots, Interest and Investment and others Essays on the Theory
of Industrial Fluctuations. Clifton: Augustus M. Kelly Publishers.
Hayek, F. (1988). The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Londra: Routledge.
Hayek, F. (2014). Utilizarea cunoașterii în societate. In Individualism și ordine economică
(pp. 81-93). Iași: Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Iași.
Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Henrekson, M., Sanandaji, T. . (2019). Measuring Entrepreneurship: Do Established Me-
trics Capture Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practi-
ce, 1-28.
Horwitz, S. (2019). Ludwig Lachmann as a Theorist of Entrepreneurship. Studies in Logic,
Grammar and Rethoric, vol 57(70), 19-40.
Jorgenson, D. W. (2011). Innovation and productivity growth. American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics, 93(2), 276-296.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 21 - 2022
• 72 •
Jorgenson, D. W. (2011). Innovation and productivity growth. American Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics, 93(2), 276-296.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand owers bloom: structural, collective and social con-
ditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour (10),
169-211.
Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, Londra: The University of
Chicago Press.
Kirzner, I. (1985). Discovery and the Capitalist Process. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press .
Klein, P. (2010). The Capitalist & The Entrepreneur. Essay on Organizations & Markets.
Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Prot. New York: Augustus M. Kelly Bookseller.
Knight, F. (1942). Prot and Entrepreneurial Functions . The Journal of Economic History,
Vol. 2, Supplement: The Tasks of Economic History, 126-132.
Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2000). Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innova-
tion. The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(4), 674-692.
Kortum, S., Lerner, J. ( 2000). Assessing the Contribution of Venture Capital to Innovation.
The RAND Journal of Economics, 31(4), 674-692.
Langlois, R. N. (2005). The Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the En-
trepreneurial Firm. University of Connecticut.
Lassen, A.H., Gertsen, F., Riis, J.E. (2006). The Nexus of Corporate Entrepreneurship and
Radical Innovation. Journal Compilation, 15(4), 359–372.
Marshall, A. (1875). The Pure Theory of Foreign Trade - The Pure Theory of Domestic
Value. London: London School of Economics and Polical Sciences.
McCaffrey, M., Salerno, J.T. (2014). Böhm-Bawerk’s Approach to Entrepreneurship. Jour-
nal of the History of Economic Thought (36), 435-454.
Mill, J. (1848). Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social
Philosophy. London: Longmans, Green and Co., http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/
mlP1.html.
Mises, L. (2018 [1949]). Acțiunea Umană. București: Editura Institutului Ludwig von Mises
România, Traducere: Dan Cristian Comănescu.
Mises, L. (2018 [1951]). Prot and Loss. Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Papula, J., Kohnova, L., Papulova, Z. (2018). Impact of national culture on innovation acti-
vities of companies: a case of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic.
Economic Annals-ХХI,Volume 169 (1), 26-30.
Qian, H., Acs, Z.J. . (2013). An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover entrepre-
neurship. . Small Business Economics (40) , 185–197 .
Rothbard, M. (2001). Man, Economy and State. Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Say, J. (1821). A Treatise on Political Economy or The Production, Distribution and Con-
sumption of Wealth. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, https://mises.org/sites/
default/les/A%20Treatise%20on%20Political%20Economy_5.pdf.
Artículos • Anca Elena Lungu
• 73 •
Schoemaker, P.J.H., Heaton, S., Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, Dynamic Capabilities, and
Leadership. California Management Review, 1-28.
Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistic Analysis of
the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Taylor & Francis
e-Library, 2003.
Stayton, J., Mangematin, V. (2016). Startup time, innovation and organizational emergen-
ce: A study of USA-based international technology ventures. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14, 373-409.
Taneja, N. (2002). Driving Airline Business Strategies through Emerging Technology. Bur-
lington: Ashgate Publishing Company .
Wan, D., Huat Ong, C., Lee, F. (2005). Determinants of rm innovation in Singapore. Te-
chnovation, Volume 25 (3), 261-268.
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and
Hong Kong. Research Policy, vol. 42(7), 399-412.
Yam, R.C.M., Lo, W., Tang, E.P.Y., Lau, A.K.W. (2011). Analysis of sources of innovation,
technological innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong
Kong manufacturing industries. Research Policy, 40 (3), 391-402.
Young, A. (1992). A tale of two cities: factor accumulation and technical change in Hong
Kong and Singapore. NBER Macroecon. Annu., 7, 13-51.
Zott, C., Amit, R. (2007). Business Model Design and the Performance of Entrepreneurial
Firms. Organization Science, 18 (2), 181-199.
© 2022 por la autora. Licencia a ANDULI, Editorial Universidad
de Sevilla. Este artículo es un artículo publicado en acceso
abierto bajo los términos y condiciones de la licencia Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
