Regulatory institutions and cross-country differences in high-growth entrepreneurship rates: A configurational approach

被引:1
作者
Standaert, Thomas [1 ]
Collewaert, Veroniek [2 ,3 ]
Vanacker, Tom [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ghent, Tweekerkenstr 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[2] Vlerick Business Sch, Vlamingenstr 83, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[3] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Naamsestr 69, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[4] Univ Ghent, Sint-Pieterspl 7, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[5] Univ Exeter, Rennes Dr, Exeter EX4 4ST, England
关键词
High-growth firms; Scaling; Regulatory institutions; Configurations; fsQCA; BAYH-DOLE ACT; CORPORATE-GOVERNANCE; COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE; NATIONAL SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC-FREEDOM; CREDITOR RIGHTS; FIRM RESOURCES; BANKRUPTCY LAW; PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jbusvent.2024.106469
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Regulatory institutions are double-edged swords: stricter regulations can improve entrepreneurs' access to key resources but also constrain their discretion. Past research has focused on the individual and/or independent influence of regulatory institutions, calling for stricter regulation or deregulation. However, institutional theory suggests that the full configuration of regulatory institutions, including their possibly complex interactions, drives the trade-off between resource access and the constraints imposed by resource providers. Using an inductive approach and fsQCA analysis, we aim to better understand how configurations of regulatory institutions and contextual conditions influence high-growth entrepreneurship (HGE) rates across European countries. We find that three distinct configurations explain high country-level HGE rates, which include different regulatory institutions that sometimes work in opposing ways and do not necessarily work universally across contexts. Overall, this study deepens research at the nexus of institutional theory and high-growth entrepreneurship.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 156 条
  • [1] Do country-level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relationships?
    Abdi, Majid
    Aulakh, Preet S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, 2012, 43 (05) : 477 - 497
  • [2] Labor Laws and Innovation
    Acharya, Viral V.
    Baghai, Ramin P.
    Subramanian, Krishnamurthy V.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAW & ECONOMICS, 2013, 56 (04) : 997 - 1037
  • [3] Creditor rights and corporate risk-taking
    Acharya, Viral V.
    Amihud, Yakov
    Litov, Lubomir
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2011, 102 (01) : 150 - 166
  • [4] National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications
    Acs, Zoltan J.
    Autio, Erkko
    Szerb, Laszlo
    [J]. RESEARCH POLICY, 2014, 43 (03) : 476 - 494
  • [5] Connecting the Dots: Bringing External Corporate Governance into the Corporate Governance Puzzle
    Aguilera, Ruth V.
    Desender, Kurt
    Bednar, Michael K.
    Lee, Jun Ho
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 2015, 9 (01) : 483 - 573
  • [6] Aldrich H E., 2020, Entrepreneur Innovation Exchange, DOI DOI 10.32617/443-5E13408AB0321
  • [7] FOOLS RUSH IN - THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF INDUSTRY CREATION
    ALDRICH, HE
    FIOL, CM
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1994, 19 (04) : 645 - 670
  • [8] UNICORNS, GAZELLES, AND OTHER DISTRACTIONS ON THE WAY TO UNDERSTANDING REAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
    Aldrich, Howard E.
    Ruef, Martin
    [J]. ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES, 2018, 32 (04) : 458 - 472
  • [9] Lost in translation: Cultural codes are not blueprints
    Aldrich, Howard E.
    Yang, Tiantian
    [J]. STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP JOURNAL, 2012, 6 (01) : 1 - 17
  • [10] The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship
    Aldridge, T. Taylor
    Audretsch, David
    [J]. RESEARCH POLICY, 2011, 40 (08) : 1058 - 1067