A Panoramic Overview of Entrepreneurship: Insights from Different Regions of the World a Note from the Guest Editor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our media is rich with reports of individuals who, in their pursuit of vision and passion, achieved impressive feats and successes. For some time now, the importance of entrepreneurship to economic development has been well recognized and accepted. Our schools teach entrepreneurship, governments encourage entrepreneurial engagements, and our society admires entrepreneurial achievers. It is becoming more evident that entrepreneurship is indeed a global phenomenon. Canada is a country that prides itself on being a mosaic of different cultures and backgrounds. It is therefore fitting that a Canadian journal presents an overview of entrepreneurial insights from different regions. This issue presents seven papers from four continents. These papers paint images of entrepreneurship from different viewpoints, presenting many similarities and differences of this global phenomenon. Three papers discuss the effect of corporate culture on entrepreneurship (France, US and Austria), two examine national level practices (Iran and Thailand), another examines entrepreneurship education (UK), and one compares developing and developed countries of Europe (Poland). Fayolle et al., Matzler et al., and Didia consider cultural effects on entrepreneurship in France, Austria and the US. Fayolle et al. makes a strong argument that founders and first actors of entrepreneurial ventures have a pronounced effect on the subsequent culture developed by a corporation. Matzler et al. find that transformational leadership, and corporate culture nurtured through it, increases innovation and SME performance. Didia discusses the effectiveness of minority owned businesses in US and finds that their performance is significantly worse than their non-minority counterparts. These papers show the impact of culture on entrepreneurship. On the other hand, papers by Feyzbakhsh et al. and Suntornpithug and Suntornpithug show some differences in government-based activities between Iran and Thailand. These differences point to the power of the awareness of entrepreneurial potential. Wasilczuk and Zieba examine the environment faced by female entrepreneurs in developing and developed countries in Europe, while Penaluna and Penaluna discuss best practices of entrepreneurship education, as evidenced in UK. These papers all show the need to be aware of entrepreneurial potential and some of the similarities and differences found across different regions of the globe. Following is brief summary of different papers in this issue. Matzler et al. discuss the relationship between leadership and performance of SMEs in Austria. Utilizing a sample of 300 SMEs from Carinthia (Austria), they show a significant direct relationship between transformational leadership, product innovation and SME performance. They also discuss the advantages of innovative pursuits, especially in the face of environmental munificence, suggesting that the results may also be regionally differentiated. Wasilczuk and Zieba examine regional aspects of entrepreneurship by studying the characteristics of female entrepreneurs in developing and developed (EU-15) economies of the EU. Specifically, they examine the characteristics of female entrepreneurs in Poland during the transition period in comparison to other transforming countries and to the EU-15 countries. Utilizing survey as well as secondary data, they find no significant regional differences. Utilizing 186 cases, this study examines food production, wood working and textile industry sectors. The authors find no significant differences between female entrepreneurs in Poland and those of EU-15, and the barriers to entry are similar to those faced by male entrepreneurs. Finally, they found no significant differences in the profile of female entrepreneurs in developed and developing countries. Examining the Middle East, Feyzbakhsh et al. evaluate entrepreneurial potential of large size organizations in Iran. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".