Linking female entrepreneurs' motivation to business survival.

Analysis of entrepreneurs' motives in the framework of organizational behavior theory is a popular research area regarding female entrepreneurship. This study analyzes women entrepreneurs' motives (propensity for risk, finding a work-life balance, desire to develop business skills, need to seek self-employment, and desire to earn more than in paid employment) to achieve survival of their businesses through crisp set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA). Analysis yields the following results: 1) women whose motive is to pursuit a better work-life balance are less likely to success; and 2) women whose motive is risk-taking are more likely to success

Female-driven social entrepreneurship in service business

The United Nations has stated that to meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda, analysis of the development and impact of women entrepreneurship is needed. Based on data from the Web of Science, an initial analysis of research on both women entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship was performed. Although the frst published article date back to 2004, it was not until 2014 when scholars began to study women social entrepreneurship more systematically. This special issue covers these two areas in conjunction, with an added emphasis on service business

What to avoid to succeed as an entrepreneur

[ES] El emprendimiento es motor del crecimiento económico y del desarrollo. En esta investigación se resalta la importancia del emprendimiento en los países emergentes, detallando algunas de las particularidades de los emprendedores de este tipo de regiones. En particular, se observa qué no ha de hacer un emprendedor cuyo objetivo es tener éxito en Latinoamérica. Para ello, se analizan los efectos del asesoramiento formal e informal, del nivel educativo del emprendedor, del grado de innovación de la empresa creada y de variables demográficas como el género y la edad del emprendedor sobre el fracaso empresarial para el caso de El Salvador, uno de los países latinoamericanos con menor índice de éxito empresarial. Mediante el uso de la base de datos del GEM 2012 y de la metodología csQCA, se observa que tanto la innovación como el asesoramiento de profesionales y la educación juegan un papel esencial en el éxito de la empresa.[EN] Entrepreneurship is a driver of economic growth and development. This paper highlights the importance of entrepreneurship in emerging countries and examines characteristics of entrepreneurs in this type of region. In particular, the paper explains what entrepreneurs should strive to avoid if they wish to succeed in Latin America. To do so, an empirical study analyzes the effects of factors that relate to businesses and entrepreneurs in El Salvador, one of the Latin American countries with the lowest rates of business success. In the study, business factors consist of the use of formal and informal advisory services, and degree of innovation. Variables that relate to the entrepreneur are educational attainment, and the demographic variables gender and age. Results from analysis of 2012 GEM data using csQCA methodology show that degree of innovation, advisory services of professionals, and educational attainment play key roles in business success.Mas-Tur, A.; Pinazo-Dallenbach, P.; Tur-Porcar, AM.; Sánchez-Masferrer, M. (2015). What to avoid to succeed as an entrepreneur. Journal of Business Research. 68(11):2279-2284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.01122792284681

What to avoid to succeed as an entrepreneur

Entrepreneurship is a driver of economic growth and development. This study highlights the importance of entrepreneurship in emerging countries and examines entrepreneurs' characteristics in these countries. In particular, the study explains what entrepreneurs should avoid to succeed in Latin America. An empirical study analyzes factors that relate to businesses and entrepreneurs in El Salvador, one of the Latin American countries with the lowest rates of business success. In the study, business factors consist of the use of formal and informal advisory services and the degree of innovation. Variables that relate to the entrepreneur are educational attainment and the demographic variables sex and age. Results from analysis of 2012 GEM data using csQCA methodology show that degree of innovation, professional advisory services, and educational attainment play key roles in business success

Una experiència de treball davant la conducta antisocial a l’escola

Abstract not availabl

Using high-potential firms as the key to achieving territorial development

[EN] This study examines which entrepreneurial antecedents like education, gender, motivation, and age; and environmental variables like citizen insecurity enable high-potential firms to establish themselves and act as the key to territorial development. The inclusion of the variable citizen insecurity is unusual, but several authors note how a violent context can affect entrepreneurial activity in Latin America. Insecurity generates massive expenses for entrepreneurs, who must invest to protect themselves against violence and cover the extraordinary expenses arising from this violence. The data analysis technique is fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), a powerful technique for analyzing complex causal relationships. The results highlight that policies should focus on reducing levels of citizen insecurity, among others, to lead to the creation of high-potential firms in countries similar to El Salvador.Pinazo-Dallenbach, P.; Mas-Tur, A.; Lloria, B. (2016). Using high-potential firms as the key to achieving territorial development. Journal of Business Research. 69(4):1412-1417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.1171412141769

A Bibliometric history of the Journal of Psychology between 1936 and 2015

The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied is a leading international journal in psychology dating back to 1935. This study examines its publications since its creation utilizing a bibliometric analysis. The primary objective is to provide a complete overview of the key factors affecting the journal. This analysis includes such key issues as the publication and citation structure of the journal, its most cited articles, and the leading authors, institutions, and countries referenced in the journal. The work uses the Scopus database to classify the bibliographic material. Additionally, the analysis provides a graphical mapping of the bibliographic data by using visualization of similarities viewer software. This software uses several bibliometric techniques including co-citation, bibliographic coupling and cooccurrence of keywords. The Journal of Psychology is strongly connected to most of the current leading journals in psychology, and currently has a 5-year impact factor of 1.77 (Thomson Reuters, 2015 Journal Citation Reports)

Regional innovation system research trends: toward knowledge management and entrepreneurial ecosystems

[EN] The regional innovation system (RIS) is a popular way of explaining a region¿s development and competitiveness based on innovation activities and processes. In this paper, bibliometric techniques are used to analyze all RIS studies indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS CC) database as of December 2017. The goal of the analysis is to identify the main trends in RIS research. The evolution of the total number of publications and citations per year indicates that this research field has garnered considerable attention from the scientific community, public administrations, and international organizations. Analysis of the most common keywords and their co-occurrence sheds light on the conceptual framework of RIS research, where knowledge, innovation, clusters, policy, networks, systems, R&D, firms, and industry are key concepts. The 17 most influential RIS articles indexed in WoS CC are identified according to the total number of citations and the ratio of number of citations per year. Reviewing these 17 articles reveals 3 groups of underlying research trends: (1) research on innovation systems, which was mainly conducted in the 1990s, (2) research on knowledge management since the beginning of the 2000s, and (3) research on entrepreneurial ecosystems in recent years. Finally, analysis of citations to these 17 most influential RIS articles reveals strong interconnections according to the number of times they are cited together.Norat Roig-Tierno wish to thank Project GV/2019/063, funded by the Generalitat Valenciana, for supporting this research.López-Rubio, P.; Roig-Tierno, N.; Mas-Tur, A. (2020). Regional innovation system research trends: toward knowledge management and entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Journal of Quality Innovation. 6:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-020-00038-xS1166Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter PublishersLundvall BA (1992) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, LondonNelson RR (1993) In: Nelson RR (ed) National innovation systems. a comparative analysisIsard W (1975) Introduction to regional science. Prentice Hall, New YorkCooke P, Uranga MG, Etxebarria G (1998) Regional systems of innovation: an evolutionary perspective. Environ Plan A 30:1563–1584. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301563Forrest JE (1991) Models of the process of technological innovation. Tech Anal Strat Manag 4(3):439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329108524070Cooke P, Uranga MG, Etxebarria G (1997) Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. Res Policy 26(4–5):475–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5Cooke P (1992) Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum 23(3):365–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(92)90048-9Asheim BT, Smith HL, Oughton C (2011) Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy. Reg Stud 45(7):875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.596701Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2004). Regional innovation systems: a critical synthesis. United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies, Discussion Paper Series #2004-17.Asheim BT, Coenen L (2005) Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Res Policy 34(8):1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013Borrás S, Jordana J (2016) When regional innovation policies meet policy rationales and evidence: a plea for policy analysis. Eur Plan Stud 24(12):2133–2153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1236074Buesa M, Heijs J, Pellitero MM, Baumert T (2006) Regional systems of innovation and the knowledge production function: the Spanish case. Technovation 26(4):463–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.11.007Isaksen A, Normann RH, Spilling OR (2017) Do general innovation policy tools fit all? Analysis of the regional impact of the Norwegian Skattefunn scheme. J Innov Entrep 6(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-017-0068-xMytelka LK (2000) Local systems of innovation in a globalized world economy. Ind Innov 7(1):15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/713670244Freeman C (1995) The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Camb J Econ 19:5–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309Edler J, Fagerberg J (2017) Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 33(1):2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001European Commission (2014). The European Union explained: research and innovation. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.2775/74012.OECD (2015) The innovation imperative: contributing to productivity, growth and well-being. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239814-enLundvall BA, Johnson B, Andersen ES, Dalum B (2002) National systems of production, innovation and competence-building. Res Policy 31(2):213–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8Sharif N (2006) Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Res Policy 35(5):745–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.001Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School PressTodtling F, Trippl M (2005) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Res Policy 34(8):1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018Uyarra E (2010) What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy. J Evol Econ 20:115–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0135-yMetcalfe JS (1995) Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Camb J Econ 19:25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035307Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap, CambridgeDosi G (1988) The nature of the innovative process. In: Dosi G et al (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, LondonKline S, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. Reprinted. In: Edquist C, McKelvey M (eds) Systems of innovation: growth, competitiveness and employment. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamEdquist C, Johnson B (1997) Institutions and organisations in systems of innovation. In: Edquist C (ed) , pp 41–63Edquist C (ed) (1997) Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organisations. Pinter, LondonBoschma R (2004) Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Reg Stud 38(9):1001–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000292601Iammarino S (2005) An evolutionary integrated view of regional systems of innovation: concepts, measures and historical perspectives. Eur Plan Stud 13(4):497–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500107084Asheim B, Coenen L, Moodysson J, Vang J (2007) Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage: implications for regional innovation policy. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 7(2-5):140–155. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2007.012879Asheim B, Moodysson J (2017). Innovation policy for economic resilience: the case of Sweden (No. 2017/5). Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliographic or bibliometrics? J Doc 25(4):348–349Lawani S (1981) Bibliometrics: its theoretical foundations, methods and applications. Libri 31(4):294–315. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1981.31.1.294Thelwall M (2008) Bibliometrics to webometrics. J Inf Sci 34(4):605–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102Small H (1999) Visualizing science by citation mapping. J Am Soc Inf Sci 50(9):799–813 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:93.0.CO;2-GNoyons ECM, Moed HF, Van Raan AFJ (1999) Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics 46(3):591–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459614Callon M, Courtial P, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Soc Sci Inf 22(2):191–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901883022002003Kessler MM (1963) Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am Doc 14:10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24:265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406White HD, Griffith BC (1981) Author co-citation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. J Am Soc Inf Sci 21:163–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320302Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 62(7):1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525Merigó JM, Yang JB (2016) A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega 73:37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004Acs ZJ, Anselin L, Varga A (2002) Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Res Policy 31(7):1069–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00184-6Muller E, Zenker A (2001) Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Res Policy 30(9):1501–1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00164-0Rodriguez-Pose A, Crescenzi R (2008) Research and development, spillovers, innovation systems, and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Reg Stud 42(1):51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654186Ter Wal ALJ, Boschma RA (2009) Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic issues. Ann Reg Sci 43(3):739–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0258-3Cooke P (2005) Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation. Exploring ‘Globalisation 2’ – a new model of industry organization. Res Policy 34(8):1128–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.005Fritsch M, Franke G (2004) Innovation, regional knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Res Policy 33(2):245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00123-9Hansen HK, Niedomysl T (2009) Migration of the creative class: evidence from Sweden. J Econ Geogr 9(2):191–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn046Yam RCM, Lo W, Tang EPY, Lau AKW (2011) Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Res Policy 40(3):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.013Spigel B (2017) The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrep Theory Pract 41(1):49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167Oh DS, Phillips F, Park S, Lee E (2016) Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation 54:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.004Audretsch DB, Belitski M (2017) Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: establishing the framework conditions. J Technol Transfer 42(5):1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8Gaviria-Marin M, Merigó JM, Baier-Fuentes H (2019) Knowledge management: a global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 140:194–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006Huber F (2011) Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers. J Econ Geogr 12(1):107–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq058Miles I, Kastrinos N, Bilderbeek R, Hertog PD, Flanagan K, Huntink W, Bouman M (1995) Knowledge-intensive business services: users, carriers and sources of information. European Innovation Monitoring System (EIMS) Reports, European Commission, BrusselsNonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14Acs ZJ, Autio E, Szerb L (2014) National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Res Policy 43(3):476–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016Autio E, Kenney M, Mustar P, Siegel D, Wright M (2014) Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Res Policy 43(7):1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.01

Institutional factors affecting entrepreneurship: A QCA analysis

A country's institutional framework plays a crucial role in promoting entrepreneurship, which drives economic growth. Encouraging a minimum level of certainty in ambiguous environments characterized by risk taking is important. Aware of this importance, we analyze the influence of institutional factors on entrepreneurship development. Specifically, we analyze political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, a robust rule of law, the ease of starting a new business, and the ease of obtaining credit. We develop two models to explain the presence and absence of entrepreneurship. To do so, we apply qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to a sample of 48 countries using data sourced from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Global Innovation Index. The results show that the effect of institutional factors on the level of entrepreneurship varies according to the socioeconomic characteristics of each country. They suggest that a wide range of institutional configurations lead to the presence or absence of entrepreneurship. Although entrepreneurship can be found in unfavorable institutional environments, future research should examine how to formalize such environments as a standardized institutional configuration to shift from necessity to opportunity entrepreneurship. Achieving this shift is relevant for innovation and economic development