Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs' networks in private and public spheres: a global study focusing on China and Denmark

Abstract

Global studies have found tendencies: traditional culture promotes entrepreneurs' networking in the private sphere, impeding innovation, whereas secular-rational culture facilitates networking in the public sphere, benefiting innovation. This embeddedness is here scrutinised in contrasting societies, China and Denmark. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor has surveyed entrepreneurs in China, Denmark and elsewhere. Analyses reconfirm the global tendencies and show that, China in contrast to Denmark, public sphere networking is sparser, but private sphere networking is denser. Innovation is negatively affected by private sphere networking and positively affected by public sphere networking, but innovation is less promoted by public sphere networking in China than in Denmark.

Judicial Efficiency and Immigrant Entrepreneurs

“…Just to cite a few, there are studies on the decisions to become and stay self‐employed, focusing on women and gender issues (Cramer et al ; Noseleit ; Patrick, Stephens, and Weinstein ), personality characteristics (Caliendo, Fossen, and Kritikos ; Ciavarella et al ; Fairlie and Holleran ), age (Lévesque and Minniti ; Minola, Criaco, and Obschonka ), and education (Bergmann, Hundt, and Sternberg ; Hoppe ). Other works focus on the success of immigrants’ entrepreneurial activities investigating, for example, ethnic and business networks (Basu and Altinay ; Rezaei ; Schøtt et al ) or multicultural and multi‐linguistic competences (Light, Rezaei, and Dana ).…”

Global Innovational Networks: Sense and Role in Development of Global Economy

“…Transnational businesses strive to place their production in countries with the cheapest natural and human resources (Porter, 2014), through which the least developed countries receive investments and opportunities for development (Lee, Ryu, & Kang, 2014). This research is based on studies by modern authors in the spheres of studying the sense of the phenomenon of global innovational networks, their differences from other players in the international markets, the specifics of the organization of their activities and the cooperation of members in such networks and studying the issues of cooperation in global innovational networks with the governments of the countries in which they are represented and specific aspects of their activities, including taxation, crediting, and investments (Chaminade & Plechero, 2015;Cooke, 2013;Herstad, Aslesen, & Ebersberger, 2014;Liu, Chaminade, & Asheim, 2013;Ribeiro et al, 2014;Schøtt, Cheraghi, Rezaei, & Vang, 2014;Silva & Klagge, 2013;van Egeraat & Kogler, 2013).…”