The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship

Abstract

Innovative entrepreneurship is considered an important pillar for economic development and has sparked a lively discussion in academia and practice alike. Oftentimes, however, the debate is not sufficiently grounded on solid empirical evidence. The academic literature is growing but very scattered and is separated into several disciplines. We provide a summary that takes stock of the academic knowledge about innovative entrepreneurship and summarizes the evidence from 102 empirical studies published in the primary economics and management journals on the antecedents, behavior, and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Based on this state-of-the-art literature review, directions for future research are discussed.

Equity crowdfunding in Germany and the United Kingdom: Follow‐up funding and firm failure

“…Making the factors that contribute to the success and failure of ECF more salient not only benefits various investor types but also helps stabilize and establish a new market segment of entrepreneurial finance. In this way, our results more generally add to the recent literature in entrepreneurial finance (Block, Colombo, Cumming, & Vismara, ; Block, Fisch, & van Praag, ). Moreover, follow‐up funding and especially firm survival are important factors that help policy makers evaluate whether ECF is an efficient and worthwhile form of financing.…”

Taxes, start-up costs, and innovative entrepreneurship

“…The most recent discussion is in the USA, where the corporate tax rate is relatively high and has not been changed for the past 30 years. Our results suggest that a cut in corporate tax rates may indeed favor innovative entrepreneurship, which is an important source of economic growth (Schumpeter 1934;Block et al 2017). This result of our study is in line with two recent papers calculating the impacts of the proposed tax reform of the US government.…”

“…This is an important oversight, as we believe that the distinction between innovative and non-innovative entrepreneurship is an important one. While many policy-makers and scholars use the terms innovation and entrepreneurship interchangeably (Dreher and Gassebner 2013;Autio et al 2014) and even try to stimulate one in the hope of getting more of the other, only very few entrepreneurs innovate (Reynolds et al 2005;Block et al 2017). Yet, prior research shows that, in particular, such innovative entrepreneurs are responsible for economic growth and development (Autio et al 2014;Block et al 2017).…”

Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research

“…However, after having developed a more concise research question (see suggestion 1), developing clear inclusion and exclusion criteria (see suggestion 2), focusing on breadth instead of depth (see suggestion 3) and on concepts rather than studies (see suggestion 4), the task became doable. The whole process took many iterations and was very work-intensive, but we managed to deliver a literature review at the intersection of innovation and entrepreneurship or vice versa (see Block et al 2017). 4.…”