TY - JOUR
T1 - Muppets and gazelles
T2 - Political and methodological biases in entrepreneurship research
AU - Nightingale, Paul
AU - Coad, Alex
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank, without implicating, Martin Binder, Marc Cowling, Sven-Olov Daunfeldt, Mike Hobday, Werner Ho00lzl, Dan Johansson, Mariana Mazzucato, Piera Morlacchi, Charles Dannreuther, Josh Siepel, Erik Stam, David Storey, Marco Vivarelli, Karl Wennberg, Sid Winter, and participants at a SPRU internal seminar (University of Sussex), DRUID Winter conference (Aalborg, January 2011), and the RATIO workshop on high-growth firms (Stockholm, May 2011), as well as two referees. Nightingale and Coad gratefully acknowledge support from the ESRC-TSB-NESTA-BIS IRC research grants RES-598-25-0054 and ES/J008427/1. Any remaining errors are ours alone.
PY - 2014/2
Y1 - 2014/2
N2 - Despite an almost universally accepted belief outside academia that entrepreneurial activity is a positive driving force in the economy, the accumulated evidence remains largely inconclusive. This article positions the increased interest in entrepreneurship since the 1980s within its historical context and highlights the significant methodological problems with its analysis. Taking these problems into account it reevaluates the performance of entrepreneurial firms in terms of innovation, job creation, economic growth, productivity growth, and happiness to show how both positive and negative interpretations can emerge. A pattern of increasingly positive interpretation is observed as one moves from analysis to policy. To address this bias, the article suggests the single category "entrepreneurial firms" be broken up along a continuum from the large number of economically marginal, undersized, poor performance enterprises to the small number of high performance "gazelles" that drive most positive impact on the economy. This would allow a more realistic evaluation of the impact of entrepreneurs by avoiding a composition fallacy that assigns the benefits of entrepreneurship to the average firm.
AB - Despite an almost universally accepted belief outside academia that entrepreneurial activity is a positive driving force in the economy, the accumulated evidence remains largely inconclusive. This article positions the increased interest in entrepreneurship since the 1980s within its historical context and highlights the significant methodological problems with its analysis. Taking these problems into account it reevaluates the performance of entrepreneurial firms in terms of innovation, job creation, economic growth, productivity growth, and happiness to show how both positive and negative interpretations can emerge. A pattern of increasingly positive interpretation is observed as one moves from analysis to policy. To address this bias, the article suggests the single category "entrepreneurial firms" be broken up along a continuum from the large number of economically marginal, undersized, poor performance enterprises to the small number of high performance "gazelles" that drive most positive impact on the economy. This would allow a more realistic evaluation of the impact of entrepreneurs by avoiding a composition fallacy that assigns the benefits of entrepreneurship to the average firm.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892540433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892540433&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/icc/dtt057
DO - 10.1093/icc/dtt057
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84892540433
SN - 0960-6491
VL - 23
SP - 113
EP - 143
JO - Industrial and Corporate Change
JF - Industrial and Corporate Change
IS - 1
ER -