The Changing Face of Entrepreneurship in Germany

Abstract

This paper explains individual start-up activities on the basis of both person-related characteristics and the regional context. The analysis is based upon micro data from the GEM adult population survey. Both individual and regional variables have an influence on the decision to become self-employed. There are considerable differences between nascent opportunity entrepreneurship and nascent necessity entrepreneurship. Whereas the results for opportunity entrepreneurship are in line with theoretical predictions the factors influencing necessity entrepreneurship are far more difficult to determine. The most significant change between 2001 and 2003/2004 is the reversal of the influence of a change in the regional rate of unemployment on nascent entrepreneurship activities. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007Entrepreneurship, regions, Germany, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, R12, L26, J23,

Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs and Their Duration in Self-employment: Evidence from German Micro Data

“…Using German micro data, we analyze whether an individual who stepped into self-employment voluntarily (an opportunity entrepreneur) remains selfemployed substantially longer than an individual who started self-employment for necessity reasons (a necessity entrepreneur). This question is particularly relevant from a German policy perspective because necessity entrepreneurship has increased strongly over the last few years due to policy measures taken by the federal government (e.g., Bergmann and Sternberg, 2007;Wagner, 2005).…”

The influence of entrepreneurs’ social referents on start-up size

“…Specifically, the degree and intensity of entrepreneurial activity in a certain area is related to the conditions of the environment (Bosma et al 2012). As such, the literature on entrepreneurial action has revealed that the stock of entrepreneurs (social references) is a key factor in explaining new firm formation rates at the regional level (Bergmann and Sternberg 2007;Contín-Pilart and Larraza-Kintana 2015;Sternberg 2009).…”

“…This relative lack of attention is even more salient if we take into consideration the fact that previous studies have reported the existence of a positive relationship between start-up size and key outcomes of new ventures, such as the survival of the firm (Colombo et al 2004) or its subsequent growth (Capelleras et al 2008). In contrast, prior research has mainly focused its attention on the study of the determinants of new firm formation rates (Bergmann and Sternberg 2007;Bosma et al 2012;Capelleras et al 2013;Sternberg 2009). …”

Social progress orientation and innovative entrepreneurship: an international analysis

“…While some authors have studied the impact of education (Acs et al 2009;Arenius and Minniti 2005;Bergmann and Sternberg 2007;Blanchflower 2004;Block et al 2013;Davidsson and Honig 2003;De Clerq and Arenius 2006;Koellinger 2008;Lee et al 2004;Levie and Autio 2008;Robinson and Sexton 1994;Shane, 2000) and the effects of social security entitlements related to welfare on innovative entrepreneurial activity (Freytag and Thurik 2007;Henrekson 2005;Hessels et al 2007Hessels et al , 2008Parker and Robson 2004), a substantial part of the existing research has been devoted to economic determinants (Acs and Szerb 2007;Carree et al 2002Carree et al , 2007Gries and Naudé 2010;Wennekers et al 2005;Wennekers et al 2007;Wong et al 2005). In this sense, extant research suggests a relationship between earlystage entrepreneurial activity and the level of economic development (Carree et al 2002;Prieger et al 2016;Wennekers et al 2005).…”