The origin and evolution of entrepreneurship policies: the case of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to answer two questions: (1) where do a country's entrepreneurship policies come from? (2) How do they evolve and shape entrepreneurial activities? Design/methodology/approach Drawing upon the comparative political economy literature and the institutional perspective, this paper proposes a theoretical model of the origin and evolution of entrepreneurship policies. We use China as a case study to apply the theoretical model and demonstrate the evolution of entrepreneurship policies in three stages during the period 1978 to 2012. Findings The case analysis of China provides evidence and support for our theoretical model and unpacks the process by which entrepreneurship policies originate and evolve as the result of the interplay among constantly changing policymaking, production, and knowledge regimes. Research limitations/implications Because of the research context, findings may lack generalisability. Additional studies on policymaking and production regimes of different kinds and their respective roles in shaping entrepreneurship policies are encouraged to further advance this line of research. Practical implications This paper offers important implications concerning entrepreneurship policy and activities for policymakers, practitioners and other stakeholders in emerging economies. Originality/value Our study fills a gap in the entrepreneurship literature by expanding scholarly understanding of the origin and evolution of entrepreneurship policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".