Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
zlem zdemir
Esra Karadeniz
1. Introduction
276
represent more than 99.8 percent of the total number of Turkish enterprises
in the manufacturing sector (Bayhan and Ozdemir, 2009).
The entrepreneur; being a founder, a transformer, a producer, and a
reproducer of the organization with its norms and values, is a central and
vital factor of SMEs (Yetim and Yetim, 2006). The success of a small
business depends on the initiatives of the individual entrepreneur to create a
viable business. There are at least three important contributions of an
entrepreneurial activity to a nation (Reynolds, et al. 2004): (1) the absolute
scope of effort devoted to entrepreneurial initiatives which mobilize
resources for change and growth in a country, (2) the impact on job creation
provided by new firms which increase national economic wellbeing, and
(3) the positive relationship between entrepreneurial activity and national
economic growth. Therefore, a nationwide study on discovering the general
entrepreneurial activities that the members of the society involve is very
useful for the international traders in the world to understand their
prospective business partners better.
In fact, interest in the determinants of entrepreneurship has grown
over the last decade. It becomes crucial to understand the determinants of
entrepreneurial activities that is found to boost up the economy (e.g.,
Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). Previous studies examine the
entrepreneurship taking into account the socioeconomic variables (e.g.
Arenius and Minniti, M., 2005; Bosma and Harding, 2007; Grilo and
Irigoyen, 2005; Smallbone and Welter, 2001; Arenius and De Clercq, 2005)
and the perceptual variables (e.g., Gatewood et al., 1995; Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000; Landier, 2004). Yet, they have found some mixed
results about the relationships between some socioeconomic factors and
the entrepreneurial activities. For example, Blanchflower (2004) finds
education level and selfemployment to be positively correlated in U.S. and
negatively in Europe. The contradictory findings are also seen in some of
the perceptual variables as well. While entrepreneurial failure is highly
dishonored in Europe (European Commission, 2003). Failure is considered
to be a part of the learning process in USA (Saxenian, 1994). These mixed
results ask for further research about the relationship between
socioeconomicperceptual variables and entrepreneurship activities. In
addition, most of these studies have taken some of the variables, not all of
them together and also considerable number of them has used the data from
a developed country.
The aim of the current study is to investigate the effects of both
demographic characteristics of individuals (such as age, gender, income
level, education level, and work status) and their perceptions (such as
networking, fear of failure, alertness to opportunities, selfconfidence) on
their involvement to the total entrepreneurial activities (TEA hereafter) of
an emerging country, Turkey. The current study differs from the previous
work through examining the effects of both socioeconomic and perceptual
factors together on TEA and using a developing countrys data to do this,
277
2. Literature review
Entrepreneurship is a multidimensional phenomenon spanning
different units of observation ranging from the individual to the nation
(Wennekers and Thurink, 1999). Due to this, the conceptual and theoretical
approaches have built on a variety of disciplines such as economics,
sociology, and psychology to understand why some individuals start a new
business. According to Verheul et al. (2002), psychology has studied
motives and characteristics of potential entrepreneurs, sociology has
focused on collective background of entrepreneurs, and economics has
emphasized the impact of economic climate.
Turkey has taken part in the GEM project in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010.
278
279
280
3. Methodology
The data used in this paper are collected by means of the national
adult population survey (APS) from the Global Entrepreneurship monitor
(GEM) project (Reynolds et al., 2005) conducted in Turkey covering years
200620072008 and 2010. The combined dataset consist of 9601
281
The vendor company is Akademetre which has ISO 90002001 quality certification,
member of European Society of Opinion and Marketing Researchers (ESOMAR) and
Turkish Association of Marketing and Opinion Researchers and has honour
agreement with Association of Researchers was founded in 2000.
282
4. Results
Table 1 report the descriptive statistics of our data in general.
Accordingly, 54% of the respondents are female, the average age is around
38, almost half of the respondents have middle 33% income level, and only
40% of the respondents are working. While 9% of the respondents have no
education, another 9% of them have graduate degree (meaning university
degree or more). It is important to note that the participation rate of TEA
for the fouryear pooled data is only 5.8%. So, only 559 of 9601
respondents are involved in TEA. Through using crosstabulation, we find
that out of this 559, 27% are female. Only 6% have no education and 12%
have graduate level education (university or higher), the rest 82% have
primary or high school education level. This is contrary to Grilo and
Irigoyen (2005) finding stating that entrepreneurship and education level
have a Ushaped relation. Further, 86% of them state their work status as
working and almost 70% are between 2545 years old, which is
consistent with the results of Storey (1994), and Grilo and Thurink (2005).
Table 2 presents the correlation between variables. When we look at
the correlation matrix, all independent variables have significant but weak
correlation with TEA. More specifically, male respondents are shown to be
more likely to involve in entrepreneurial activity (r 0.133). There is a
negative correlation between age and TEA (r 0.063). As expected,
283
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std.dev.
Minimum
Maximum
Frequency (%)
1=working
2=not working
3= retired/student
Minimum
Maximum
Frequency (%)
1=lower 33%
2=middle 33%
3=upper 33%;
Minimum
Maximum
Frequency (%)
0=no education
1=some secondary
2= secondary
3= postsecondary
4= graduate
Frequency (%)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Frequency (%)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Frequency (%)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Frequency (%)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Frequency (%)
0 = No
1 = Yes
54
27
18
64
37.74
12.859
18
64
34.48
10.535
1
3
1
3
40.1
40.1
19.8
85.9
10.2
3.9
1
3
1
3
31.7
44.7
23.6
22.6
37.0
40.4
0
4
0
4
8.8
29.1
29.6
23.3
9.2
6.38
20.6
28.8
32.0
12.3
67.4
32.6
35.8
64.2
64.3
35.7
43.7
56.3
49.9
50.1
12.8
87.2
67
33
79.4
26.6
94.2
5.8
0.041
0.000
0.092
0.000
0.234
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.087
0.000
0.048
0.000
0.048
.000
0.237
0.000
0.167
0.000
0.179
0.000
0.093
0.000
0.257
0.000
0.102
0.000
0.133
0.000
Income
Work Status
Education
Knowing
entrepreneurs
Opportunity
perception
Self Confidence
Fear of Failure
Total
entrepreneurship
activity (TEA)
0.206
0.000
0.037
0.004
0.041
0.000
0.098
0.000
0.231
0.000
0.087
0.000
0.148
0.000
0.023
0.024
Work
status
0.129
0.000
0.079
0.000
0.142
0.000
0.159
0.000
0.099
0.000
Income
0.060
0.000
0.045
0.001
0.147
0.000
0.097
0.000
0.182
0.000
Education
0.179
0.000
0.083
0.000
0.259
0.000
0.200
0.000
Knowing
entrepreneurs
0.122
0.000
0.071
0.000
0.211
0.000
Opportunity
perception
0.197
0.000
0.219
0.000
Self
Confidence
0.070
0.000
Fear of
Failure
For all correlations except the one for gender and age, the pvalues (presented as the second numer in the cell) are smaller than 0.05, indicating statistical
significance at 0.05 level.
0.063
0.000
0.163
0.000
0.019
0.063
Age
Age
Gender
Gender
Correlation Matrix
TEA
284
zlem ZDEMR Esra KARADENZ
Undergraduate&
graduate degree
None
Middle 33 %
Retired or Student
Upper 33 %.
Lower 33 %
Working
Not Working
Male
Variable
Categories
.132
(.244)
.029
(.181)
.025
(.169)
.305 *
(.168)
.420****
(.135)
.589****
(.116)
Model 1
Coefficient
(std. error)
.022***
(.005)
.365****
(.122)
1.823****
(.176)
2.388****
(.239)
1.440
.978
Exp()
7.383 *
1.142
.555
.657
26.557****
9.675
25.757
.092
99.574
187.976****
.161
107.456
8.918
21.190
Wald
.036
(.187)
.405**
(.162)
Model 2
Coefficient
(std. error)
.020***
(.007)
.422**
(.176)
1.158****
(.229)
1.936****
(.321)
.296
.267
(.332)
.130
.971
.025
Education
Some secondary
(.290)
.313
1.026
.023
Secondary degree
(.263)
.636**
1.357
3.288
Post secondary
(.261)
1= yes
.711****
Knowing entrepreneurs
2=no
(.149)
1= yes
.401***
Opportunity perception
2=no
(.142)
1= yes
1.258****
Confidence in ones skill
2=no
(.210)
1= yes
.278
Fear of failure
2=no
(.175)
Percentage Correct
94.3%
92.5%
Nagelkerke R Square
.167
.244
**** significant at p 0.001; *** significant at p 0.01**; significant at p 0.05; * significant at p 0.10
Household
Income
Work status
Gender
Age
Variables
.144
.965
36.451
6.911**
.037
1.367
1.889
1.414
5.952
.670
.284
1.321
8.029
35.928
2.525
.491
1.139
.202
22.769
1.305
.645
9.563**
.667
.314
6.259
1.524
5.707
.981
Exp()
55.240****
25.604
8.349
Wald
.841****
(.127)
.551****
(.124)
1.636****
(.184)
.270*
(.154)
92.5%
.151
Model 3
Coefficient
(std. error)
3.075
79.211
19.660
43.877
Wald
1.310
.195
.576
.431
Exp ()
Results of the logistic regression analyses: Dependent variable: Total Entrepreneurial Activity in Turkey
286
287
addition, the higher the income level for the individual, the higher the
likelihood for that person being involved in TEA (B= 0.420, pvalue=
0.002 for lower 33%; B= 0.589, pvalue= 0.000 for middle 33%)4. In terms
of the role of work status, individuals with an active work status are more
likely to involve entrepreneurial activity compared to those that are
unemployed or students and retired (B= 1.823, pvalue= 0.000 for not
working, B= 2.388, pvalue= 0.000 for retired/student)5.
In Model 2, both demographic variables and perceptual variables are
included as independent variables in the model. The model predicts 92.8%
of the responses correctly and explains 24% of the variance in the
likelihood of being involved in TEA (Nagelkerke R square= 0.244). Males
are more likely involved in TEA than females (B= 0.422, pvalue= 0.017)
and younger individuals are found to be more likely involved in TEA (B=
0.020, pvalue= 0.004). Income level also affects the likelihood of being in
TEA; individuals that have upper 33% income level are more likely
involved in TEA than the individuals that have middle 33% income level
(B=0.405, pvalue=0.012) and the lower 33% income level seems to have
no significant effect on being in TEA (pvalue= 0.847). As for education,
only postsecondary level (university or higher degree education level) is
found to be statistically significant (B=0.636, pvalue= 0.015). That is
individuals holding vocational school degree are more likely to be involved
in TEA than the individuals with no education. Work status is found to be
significant at all categories that is working individuals are more likely be in
TEA than both not working and student/retired individuals (B= 1.158, p
value= 0.000 for not working, B= 1.936, pvalue= 0.000 for
retired/student). For the perceptual variables, we find that believing to have
the required knowledge/skill to start a business (B= 1.258, p=0.000),
knowing someone who has started a business in the 24 months (B= 0.711,
p=0.000), and seeing good opportunities for starting a business in the next 6
months (B= 0.401, p= 0.005) are statistically significant factors that
positively influence being involved in TEA. However, interestingly,
perceiving that fear of failure would prevent someone from starting a new
business is not found to be a statistically significant explanatory variable
(B= 0.278 p=0.112).
Model 3 includes only perceptual variables as the independent
variables to explain the individuals likelihood of being in TEA. The model
predicts 92.5% of the responses correctly and explains 15% of the variance
in the likelihood of being involved in TEA (Nagelkerke R square= 0.151).
As in model 2, believing to have the required knowledge/skill to start a
business (B= 1.636, p=0.000), knowing someone who has started a business
4
The base is upper 33% so middle and lower 33% are compared with upper 33%, that makes
the coefficients negative.
5
The base is working so not working and retired/student are compared with working that makes
the coefficients negative.
288
in the 24 months (B= 0.841, p=0.000), and seeing good opportunities for
starting a business in the next 6 months (B= 0.551, p= 0.005) are
statistically significant factors that positively influence being involved in
TEA. However, interestingly, perceiving that fear of failure would prevent
someone from starting a new business is not found to be a statistically
significant explanatory variable (B= 0.270, p=0.079) at 0.05 significance
level (which can be considered to be significant at 0.10 significance level
and interpreted as a perceptual factor that has a weaker effect than the other
three).
Finally, it is important to note that when we examine the interaction
effects between the demographic and perceptual variables, the most
interesting finding is about the interaction between gender and fear of
failure. Thus, the fear of failure has a larger and negative effect on being
involved in TEA when it interacts with gender. In fact, when we look at the
fear of failure effect on TEA separately for females and males (through
dividing the data into two according to gender classification), while fear of
failure is a significant factor that affects the likelihood of being involved in
TEA for males, it has no statistically significant effect on the likelihood of
being involved in TEA for females.
289
290
an emotion that prevents them from starting a new business. Most probably,
they see failure as a weakness and a reduction from their masculine power.
However, women may perceive failure as a learning process and so the
fear of failure becomes not much deterrent factor to start a new business.
This finding needs further investigation. In addition, a longitudinal study is
necessary to understand the behaviors of entrepreneurs better and to explore
the relationship between economic growth and entrepreneurship.
ACS, Z. and AUDRETSCH, D.B. (1993), Small firms and entrepreneurship: an EastWest
perspective, Cambiridge University Press.
AKOMAK, S. and TAYMAZ, E. (2004), Assessing the Effectiveness of Incubators: The Case of
Turkey, ERC Working Papers in 04/12.
ALDRICH, H. E. and MARTINEZ, M. A. (2001), Many are Called, but Few are Chosen: An
Evolutionary Perspective for the Study of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 25: 4156.
ALLEN, I.E., LANGOWITZ, N. and MINNITI, M. (2007), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2006
Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, The Center for Womens Leadership, Babson
College and London Business School, Babson Park, MA., and London, U.K.
ALPKAN, L., YILMAZ, C., KAYA, N. (2007), Market Orientation and Planning Flexibility in
SMEs: Performance Implications and an Empirical Investigation, International Small
Business Journal , 25 (2): 152172,
ARENIUS, P. and De CLERCQ, D. (2005), A networkbased approach on opportunity recognition,
Small. Business Economics, 24: 249265.
ARENIUS, P., and MINNITI, M. (2005), Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship,
Small Business Economics, 24:233247.
BAYHAN, D. and ZDEMIR, A. H. (2009), Technology Based Entrepreneurship and Incubation in
Turkey in Models for National Technology and Innovation Capacity Development in
Turkey, in cooperation with State Planning Organization (SPO), and Technology
Development Foundation of Turkey (TTGV).
BLANCHFLOWER, D.G. (2004), Selfemployment: More may not be better. Working Paper 10286.
Cambridge, MA:. National Bureau of Economic Research.
BOSMA, N. and HARDING, R. (2007), Global Entrepreneurship: GEM 2006 Summary Results,
Babson College and London Business School, London, U.K., and Babson Park, MA.
BOYD, N.G. and VOZIKIS, G.S. (1994), The influence of selfefficacy on the development of en
trepreneurial intentions and actions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (4), 6377.
CHOW, I.H. (2006), The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm
performance in The Peoples Republic of China, Advanced Management Journal,
71(3), 1120.
DAVIDSSON, P. and HONG, B. (2003), The Role of Social and Human Capital among Nascent
Entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 301331.
DELMAR, F., DAVIDSSON, P. (2000), Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics
of nascent entrepreneurs , Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(1): 123.
DRNOVSEK, M. (2004), Job Creation Process in a Transition Economy, Small Business Journal,
23: 179188.
ECKHARDT, J. T., and SHANE, S. A. (2003), "Opportunities and Entrepreneurship." Journal of
Management, 29(3): 333349.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2003), Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe, Communication from
the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (03) 27.
291
EVANS, D.S. and JOVANOVIC, B. (1989), An Estimated Model of Entrepreneurial Choice Under
Liquidity Constraints, Journal of Political Economy 97(4): 808827.
GATEWOOD, E.J., SHAVER, K.G., and GARTNER, W.B. (1995), A longitudinal study of cognitive
factors influencing startup behaviors and success at venture creation, Journal of Business
Venturing. 10: 371391
GRILO, I and A. R. THURINK, (2005), Latent and actual entrepreneurship in Europe and the US:
Some recent developments, International Entrepreneurship and Management 1(4).
GRILO, I, and J,M, IRIGOYEN,(2005), Entrepreneurship in the EU: to wish and not to be, Papers on
Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy no012005, Max Planck Institute of
Economics, Jena, Germany.
KARADENIZ, E. (2008), Entrepreneurial Economy in Turkey, Yaln Publisher, Istanbul.
KRIZNER, I. M. (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago University of Chicago Press.
KOELLINGER, P., MINNITI, M., and SCHADE, C, (2005) I think I can, I think I can: Overconfidence
and Entrepreneurial Behavior, DIW, Discussion Papers No.501, Berlin, Germany.
KOZAN, M.K., OKSOY, D. and OZSOY, O. (2006) Growth Plans of Small Businesses in Turkey,
Journal of Small Business Management 44 (1): 114129.
LANDIER, A. (2004) Entrepreneurship and the stigma of failure, paper presented at the MIT
Finance, Development and Macro Workshops, http://ssrn.com/abstract=850446
LEVESQUE, M, and MINNITI, M. (2006) The effect of Aging on Entrepreneurial Behavior
Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2): 177194
LIGHT, I. and ROBENSTEIN, C. (1995) Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America,
Aldine De Gruyter, New York, NY.
MAIR, J. (2002) Entrepreneurial Behaviour in a Large Traditional Firm: Exploring Key Drivers.
IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Research paper no. 466
MARKMAN, G.D., BALKIN, D.B, and BARON R.A., (2002) Inventors and New Venture Formation:
the Effects of General SelfEfficacy and Regretful Thinking Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 27(2): 149165.
MINNITI, M. (2005) An empirical assessment of entrepreneurial behaviour: the case of Italy,
Global Business and Economics Review, 7( 1):3146.
MUSLOMOW, A., GLER, A. and CENKTAN, O. (2005) Macroeconomic Stabilization Programs
and Financial Performance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in Turkey Journal of
International Business and Entrepreneurship, 11(1): 1940.
NAHAPIET, J. and GHOSHAL, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage Academy of Management Review, 23, 242268.
OZCAN, G. (1995), "Small Business Networks and Local Ties In Turkey", Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 7:26582.
PETERS, M., CRESSY, R.C. and STOREY, D.J., (1999), The Economic Impact of Ageing on
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Warwick Business School/EIM, Warwick/Zoetermeer.
REYNOLDS, P.D., HAY, M. and CAMP, S.M. (1999), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999
Executive Report, BabsonCollege, London Business School and the Kauffman Center
for entrepreneurial leadership.
REYNOLDS, P. D. BYGRAVE, W.D., AUTIO, E., COX, L, W. and HAY, M. (2002), Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2002 Executive Report, Bobson College/London Business
School.
REYNOLDS, P.D., BYGRAVE, W.D. and AUTIO, E. (2004), GEM 2003 Executive Report, Babson
College, London Business School, and the Kauffman Foundation.
REYNOLDS, P., BOSMA, N., AUTIO, E., HUNT, S., BONO, N.D., SERVAIS, I., LOPEZGARCIA, P. and
CHIN, N. (2005), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: data collection design and
implementation 19982003, Small Business Economics, 24.
SAXENIAN, A.(1994), Regional Advantage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
EKER, M. and CORREA, P.G. (2010), Obstacles to Growth for Small and Medium Enterprises in
Turkey. The World Bank WPS 5323.
SHANE, S., and VENKATARAMAN, S. (2000), "The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of
Research." Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217226.
292