Suchergebnisse

Studies of entrepreneurship focus on one of three areas: entrepreneurship as an engine to drive national economic growth, CE as an instrument to facilitate corporate performance, and individual EI as the source of entrepreneurial behavior. There has been rapid development and corporate catching-up in emerging economies, such as BRIC, but there are few studies of entrepreneurship in this environment. In the context of China, the largest emerging country in the world, this dissertation addresses the research question: How does entrepreneurship develop in China at the national, corporate, and individual levels? Entrepreneurship has played a significant role in China's rapid growth; Huang (2010) presented evidence for this. However, China's entrepreneurship development cannot be isolated from its transitional environment, which has involved political and economic reforms. To explore entrepreneurship development in the recent economic transition stage, in chapter 2, I first asked: what stage has entrepreneurship in China reached? To answer this question, one must select the transitional pillars that are important in the context of Chinese reform. As explained in Chapter 2, I chose four: GDP per capita to reflect the standard of living and poverty reduction, educational resources to reflect reform in the national institutional system (the heavy investment in higher education), FDI to reflect the open economy, and the unemployment rate to reflect the consequences of reform in state-owned sectors. Before evaluating the impact of these four factors on entrepreneurial activities in China, I discussed the Chinese entrepreneurship environment, beginning at the start of the economic reform at the end of the 1970s. I then showed the evolution of entrepreneurial development, with its lower-case-v shape. GDP per capita increased from 1996 (the year that private entrepreneurship was formally acknowledged) to 2008. This corresponds to China's economic transition: from the factor-driven phase to a transitional stage between the factor-driven and efficiency-driven phases, and then to the efficiency-driven stage. Taking this into account, I focused on the most recent transition stage (the efficiency-driven stage) and analyzed the impact of economic transition (in terms of the four pillars) on entrepreneurship development. The results reveal the positive impact of China's economic transition on entrepreneurship development. Typically, GDP per capita has a significant inverted-U-shaped impact on entrepreneurship, which reflects the government's focus on state sectors and urban infrastructure since 2007 (to reduce the marginal rate of increase in self-employment). Educational resources and economic openness are positively related to entrepreneurship (and have a positive interactive impact economic growth), corresponding to GEM's report (GEM Global Report, 2008), which states that Chinese entrepreneurs are likely to be highly educated. Unemployment has a positive push effect and a negative interactive effect on GDP per capita, demonstrating that China's entrepreneurship had developed (by 2008) into a transitional phase between necessity-based and opportunity-based. Unemployed people are likely to prefer wage employment to self-employment, which is consistent with the efficiency-driven development stage of that time. This study contributes to empirical studies on the relationship between the economic-development stage and entrepreneurship development. It provides another view of entrepreneurship development in a transitional economy. Moreover, this study contributes to the debate on the Beijing consensus versus the Washington consensus. In terms of the former, this study indicates that entrepreneurship development in China is government-led and owes much to the governmental initiation of institutional transition. However, the results suggest that the ex ante dimensions of entrepreneurship development correspond to the requirements of the Washington consensus (at least in terms of economic openness). Hence, I take a middle position in this lively debate: I believe that China's development is driven by both scenarios. At the political level, which I argue is the framework level, China follows the Beijing consensus, because it has long-term political decision-making (by a single political party) and experimentation-based policy development (defined by Deng Xiaoping). At the micro level however, economic development is driven by the Washington consensus. China is trying to build up a formal institutional framework that supports private property rights, economic openness, financial reforms, macroeconomic stability, and political liberalization. There is a contradiction between the political liberalization defined by the Washington consensus and the current situation in China. However, I still argue that, as a result of the government's proactive behavior, quiet progress is being made on every disputed issue (including liberalization). Chapter 2 investigated Chinese entrepreneurship development at the macro level. I explored corporate entrepreneurial development and its impact on corporate catching-up. The catching-up concept originated in the economics field at the national level. The investigation of corporate catching-up, especially for emerging countries, is challenging because there is a theoretical deficit. National catching-up theory indicates that innovation is essential for catching-up and social advance is a necessary precondition for catching-up (Abramovitz, 1986). I assumed that similar arguments would apply to corporate catching-up, and I wanted to explore the underlying mechanism. I used CE theory, resource-based theory, dynamic-capability theory, and network theory to explain my corporate catching-up framework. I tested the framework in chapter 3 with a case study of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. The results show that social capability helps a firm to acquire social capital, diffuse technology and knowledge, improve its social status, address resource gaps, and explore opportunities. Moreover, the results indicate that catching-up firms are similar to entrepreneurial firms in terms of growth-orientation, innovation, and alertness. CE strategies, particularly collaboration-based networks, facilitate corporate catching-up. Huawei's growth indicates that networking improves social capability and allows a company to exploit and explore new technologies and new opportunities. I also made peripheral findings. For instance, the integration of the three network layers is an overall approach for corporate catching-up. This is because of the structural, relational, and cognitive social capital gained from networks for knowledge acquisition, transfer, sharing, and creation internally and externally. Structurally, a sparse interfirm network with increased network composition and strong ties can coexist with a cohesive intrafirm network. This facilitates external opportunity exploration and internal opportunity exploitation. Moreover, the industrial-district network provides a snapshot of intrafirm and interfirm networks in a particular location. Theoretically, this work supports corporate catching-up theory, enriches social network theory, and provides support for the aggregation of strategic alliances, M&As and corporate venturing in an open-innovation paradigm. This study provides empirical evidence for the process by which people exploit opportunities within existing organizations (Shane, 2012). Practically, this work has many strategic implications for latecomer catching-up firms. Chapters 2 and 3 presented a partial picture of China's entrepreneurship development. Chapter 2 indicated that China's entrepreneurship is moving from necessity-based to opportunity-based, and higher education now plays a role. Chapter 3 showed that corporate catching-up is closely associated with individual EI and behavior. Any entrepreneurial behavior can be traced down to the individual level. Krueger (1993) indicates that intentionality is a predictor of entrepreneurial behavior. Therefore, it is important to understand the determinants of EI endogenously and exogenously. Given the results of chapters 2 and 3 and the observation that the emerging generation of entrepreneurs has more education, I predicted that there would be several influential factors. These are the perceived desirability, the perceived feasibility, and the entrepreneurship cognition developed through education or exposure to entrepreneurial activity. Therefore, chapter 4 aimed to identify the role of education in shaping individual entrepreneurial intention. It indirectly contributes to the discussion about whether entrepreneurs are born or made. I used a conceptual framework (Fig. 4.1) based on Ajzen's TPB and Shapero's EEM. The data were collected via a survey of ten Chinese universities. The results show that education is the major source of entrepreneurship knowledge and has a significant positive impact on EI. However, exposure to entrepreneurial activity has a negative impact on EI in China. More interestingly, the results show that males and students with technological backgrounds have higher EI than females and those without this background. These results are strengthened by the moderate impact of entrepreneurship education, which indicates that such education is more likely to have positive consequences for technological universities and majors than for other universities and majors. This work makes contributions in two areas. (1) By adapting the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) and the EEM (Shapero & Sokol, 1982), this study contributes theoretically by integrating the two streams of theory. I have shown the role of entrepreneurial knowledge in the EI model and compared the impact of different variables on EI. (2) This study contributes to empirical knowledge by providing supporting evidence. Entrepreneurship research should focus (Mitchell et al., 2007) on person, situation, cognition, and motivation. This study provides evidence for the source of individual entrepreneurial cognition in the Chinese context. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) argue that entrepreneurship should be seen as a process and not as the embodiment of a type of person. Following this, I argue that in terms of opportunity identification, evaluation, and exploitation this process is important not only at the individual level but also at the corporate and national levels. Recently, Shane (2012) has claimed that existing studies of entrepreneurship do not provide a sufficient understanding of how the context influences the identification and exploitation of opportunities. However, we do have a better understanding of the process by which people exploit opportunities within existing organizations. I have provided evidence for and insight into this topic in the context of emerging and transitional economies. Regarding the process perspective of entrepreneurship (Shane, 2012), the three core chapters of this dissertation loop as a reciprocal process between (1) the EI-formation process, which can be the ex ante step of identifying and exploiting high-potential opportunities (Chapter 4), (2) the process of identifying and exploiting catching-up opportunities in existing organizations (Chapter 3), and (3) the process of understanding the impact of institutions and corporate characteristics on entrepreneurship (Chapter 2). This loop can be explained as follows: first, process (2) cannot work without process (1), because corporate identification and exploration are carried out by individuals. Secondly, process (1) depends on process (2), because process (2) involves actors in process (1). The relationship between process (3) and process (2) is similar, meaning that if process (3) at the national level is entrepreneur-friendly, the development of process (2) is facilitated, and this leads to more efficient entrepreneurial progress. Meanwhile, process (2) helps to drive process (3) at an aggregate level.

The scholarship of entrepreneurship has identified the significance of institutional and social factors in accounting for entrepreneurial activity and firm innovation, especially in emerging economies and transitional societies. However, the lion's share of the existent literature focuses on entrepreneurs' characteristics and psychological traits and firms' structures and strategies. In this study, I develop a relatively comprehensive analytic framework to study the interactive relationships between economic actors' institutional trust, risk-taking activities and their risk-sharing with social and political actors in shaping firm innovativeness. By analyzing a nationally representative sample of Chinese private companies, I find that entrepreneurs' legal confidence, risk-taking and risk-sharing activities are positively associated with firm innovativeness, respectively. Entrepreneurs' risk-taking and risk-sharing activities can substitute for the role of entrepreneurs' trust in China's legal system in shaping firm innovativeness. Entrepreneurs' social ties serve as the most salient factor that modulates the association between entrepreneurs' institutional trust and innovative activities.

1. Introduction -- 2. Conceptualisation -- 3. Methods and methodology -- 4. Research settings -- 5. Family orientation, market orientation -- 6. Opportunity and Innovation -- 7. Ability and motivation -- 8. Discussion and conclusion

In recent years, the "China model" of development has been proposed and. - promoted. Some proponents of the China model even suggest that there emerges. - a "Beijing Consensus" which has a high possibility of replacing the Washington. - Consensus. This article argues that there exist at least two China models, which. - have contrasting features with distinctive roles played by entrepreneurs within. - China's local governments. In the earlier years of the reform era, the role of market. - was expanding, and local governments mainly played an enabling role in. - facilitating the growth of non-state sectors and in following the demand-driven. - growth path to expand local tax bases under the revenue-sharing system. After. - 1998 onwards, the current government-led investment-driven development model. - gradually emerged with local governments' focus evidently shifting towards. - rent-seeking and monopolising financial resources for their own investment. - projects. The article discusses the incentive compatibility issues associated with. - local governments under the two China models and documents in detail local. - governments' entrepreneurship in investment financing. (China/GIGA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS ii LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv INTRODUCTION 1 1\. Statement of the Problems 1 2\. Purpose of the Study and Approach 4 2.1 Purpose of the Study and the Research Questions 4 2.2 The Introduction of the Interaction of Social Capital/Culture, Institutions and Entrepreneurship 5 2.3 Approach Introduction 7 3\. Content Introduction 8 4\. Significance of the Study 9 CHAPTER ONE: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 11 1.1 Key Concepts and Perspectives on the Theory of Entrepreneurship 11 1.1.1 Literature Review on the Key Concepts of the Theory of Entrepreneurship 11 1.1.2 The Definitions of Various Types of Entrepreneurship 13 1.2 Entrepreneurship Definitions and Perspectives 14 1.3 Understanding of Entrepreneurial Activity 14 1.4 Literature Review of the Environmental Determinants of Entrepreneurship 16 1.4.1 The Theories of the Environmental Determinants of Entrepreneurship 16 1.4.2 Conceptions and Perspectives on Economic Environment 18 1.4.3 Conceptions and Perspectives on Political Environment 18 1.4.4 Definitions and Perspectives on Socio–Cultural Environment 20 1.5 Conceptions and Perspectives on Institutions 20 1.5.1 Definitions of Institutions and the Introduction on New Institutional Theory 20 1.5.2 Institutional Subversion and Conversion 23 1.6 The Conceptions of Culture and Social Capital and their Perspectives 24 1.6.1 The Definition and Perspectives of Culture 24 1.6.1.1. The Values of Culture and its Impact on Entrepreneurship 25 1.6.1.2 The Discussion on Dominant Culture and Regional Culture 26 1.6.2 The Conceptions of Social Capital and its Perspectives 27 1.6.2.1 The Definiton of Network and its impact on Entrepreneurial Activity 27 1.6.2.2 Trust System and the Introduction of Trust Forms 28 CHAPTER TWO: GENERAL INTRODUCTION on CHINA'S INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT at the END of the 20th CENTURY 30 2.1 Introduction of the Five Arenas of "Consolidated Democracy" 30 2.2 Political Environment: Political Freedom, the Rule of Law and Property ...

Bringing technologies to the market, thereby creating profits, high-qualified jobs and industrial upgrading is one of the means by which China can fuel its brand new growth model based on innovation and sustainability. Much is known about the mechanisms of technological entrepreneurship. But how does this happen in China? Who is doing what? Is there a 'Chinese way' to do technological entrepreneurship? This thought-provoking book provides readers with a closer look at these issues and clarifies them through a number of case studies discussed from the perspectives of both Chinese and international contributors. -- Technological Entrepreneurship in China offers a comprehensive and practical assessment of technological entrepreneurship in China. Exclusively based on cases, the book tackles the issues of technological entrepreneurship in China from a systemic view. In so doing the book provides an account of the main factors at work behind Chinese technological entrepreneurship and their interplay, the past and present transitions facing Chinese technology-based enterprises, and how those transitions were and are being dealt with. It offers a glimpse in a huge natural experiment that will prove insightful for both scholars and policymakers.

Economic growth over the past three decades in China has captured the interest of the whole world. Many nations, governments, business and science look admiringly to "Chinese miracle". The performance of this country is the more remarkable as it includes, besides the effort to go beyond a developing country and the transition from a communist economy to the market economy. "Chinese development model", whereof spoken more and more in this period is unclear due to some nuances not really classical approach to development paradigm, which focuses on promoting democracy, human rights privatization, liberalization and the fight against corruption. Through the new model, some authors, starting from high authority of the state over property and finances, assigns to it a key role in economic growth. From their point of view, the strong boom of the private sector in China is the result of the opening provided by the state and not as a prerequisite for development. This perception is unpopular but other authors who argue that "the Chinese success had as basic ingredients exactly private entrepreneurship, private property, financial and even political reforms, though not always apparent at first glance." This study made a brief foray into Chinese entrepreneurship development, opening new possibilities of deepening towards understanding how it managed to contribute to the development and growth of the country.

While local government entrepreneurship has long been regarded as one of the main drivers of China's economic growth, it has increasingly been recognised as a potential source of a set of harmful policy consequences in recent years, such as rising government debt crises, pervasive corruption and environmental degradation. These criticisms have prompted questions about what types of entrepreneurship might be more desirable, and which incentive structures might be necessary to pave the way for the right kind of local government entrepreneurship. The articles in this special issue focus on new developments in local government entrepreneurship from a public policy perspective. Collectively, they explore the normative dimensions of local government entrepreneurship in China, with an emphasis on necessary policy changes to shape local government entrepreneurship in contributing to economic growth as well as other key policy objectives. (China/GIGA)

What is the real driver of China's technological entrepreneurship? Are the United States' science parks the most efficient model for achieving a successful government policy regarding high‐technology research, development, and commercialization? This essay sheds light on the important role that central governments play and highlights limitations within each system. It also looks to the future, considering the newly evolving governance model for China's innovation strategy.