www.elsevier.es/brq
BRQ
Business
Research
Quarterly
ARTICLE
The
impact
of
educational
levels
on
formal
and
informal
entrepreneurship
Alfredo
Jiménez
a,∗,
Carmen
Palmero-Cámara
b,
María
Josefa
González-Santos
b,
Jerónimo
González-Bernal
b,
Juan
Alfredo
Jiménez-Eguizábal
baDepartmentofBusinessManagement,UniversityofBurgos,C/Parralilloss/n,09001Burgos,Spain bDepartmentofEducationalScience,UniversityofBurgos,Spain
Received21May2013;accepted17February2015 Availableonline29March2015
JELCLASSIFICATION
L26; M13; I2
KEYWORDS
Formal
entrepreneurship; Informal
entrepreneurship; Secondaryeducation; Tertiaryeducation; Educationenrolment
Abstract Thispaperstudiestheimpactofformal educationonentrepreneurship rates.We proposethatdifferentlevelsofeducationnotonlyvarybetweeneachotherintermsoftheir impact,butalsoaccordingtowhetherweanalysiseitherformalorinformalentrepreneurship. Ourresultsshowthattertiaryeducationincreasesformalentrepreneurshipasaconsequence ofthehigherself-confidence,lowerperceivedriskandenhancedhumancapital.Atthesame time,tertiaryeducationalsohasanegativeeffectoninformalentrepreneurshipasitincreases awarenessofandsensitivitytothepossiblenegativerepercussionsofthiskindofactivities.In addition,weshowthattheimpactofsecondaryeducationonformalentrepreneurshipispositive aswell,althoughinthiscasetheeffectoninformalentrepreneurshipisnotsignificant.Even thoughsecondaryeducationalsoincreasesawarenessofthepotentialnegativerepercussions ofinformalentrepreneurship,thiseffectiscounteractedbyalackofmanagementskills. ©2013ACEDE.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
∗Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+34947250676.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](A.Jiménez), [email protected](C.Palmero-Cámara),[email protected] (M.J.González-Santos),[email protected](J.González-Bernal), [email protected](J.A.Jiménez-Eguizábal).
Introduction
The concept of entrepreneurship,which encompasses the creation of ideas, companies, and patents as well as the thoughtprocessbehindthesecreations,evenincaseswhere theyarenotputintopractice,hasbeenidentifiedby var-ious authors as one of the key components of economic growth and development (Agarwal et al., 2007; Baumol, 2004; Baumol and Strom, 2007; Zacharakis et al., 2000). Entrepreneurshipisintimatelylinkedtoinnovation,growth
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002
inproductivity,competitiveness,economicgrowth,the cre-ationofemployment,andevensuccessatapersonallevel (GriloandThurik,2005).
Along with the significant increase in rates of entrepreneurship over recent decades, with estimates even as high as 500 million people per year involved in thecreation ofnewfirms(Moya, 2008), scholarlyinterest has also increased notably. On the one hand, it seeks to examine our understanding of this phenomena in greater depth and, on the other, to offer advice and guidance for usersand regulators(for a review,see Dimitratosand Jones,2005;SzyliowiczandGalvin,2010).
Entrepreneurship is a multidimensional subject, the study of which involves approaches at an individual, regional, sectoral, or, asin this case, at a national level (WennekersandThurik,1999;Davidsson,2004).Giventhat alarge partofentrepreneurialactivityat thislevelis not explainedifonlyeconomicvariablesareconsidered(Freytag andThurik,2007;UhlanerandThurik,2007),thisstudyaims tobroadentheanalysis,byfocusingontheimpactof edu-cationonentrepreneurshiprates.AsCodurasetal.(2010) underline,individuals tend toacquire knowledgethat can provideentrepreneurswithusefulabilitiesandskillsthrough (especially formal) education. Our study, therefore, con-tributestotheliteratureonInstitutionalEconomy (North, 1990),byconductinganin-depthanalysisoftheimpactof education,whichis oneofthefactorsthat definessocial, economic andpolitical interactionswithinacountry, and, byexplaininghowdifferenteducationallevelscanhavevery differentrepercussionsforeachformofentrepreneurship.
Supportedbytheresultsofnumerousstudies,the main-stream view has traditionally assumed that higher rates ofeducationwilllead tohigherrates of entrepreneurship (see, for example, Bates, 1995; Reynolds, 1997; Delmar andDavidsson,2000).However,tothebestof our knowl-edge,thereare nostudiesexploring theparticular effect of differenteducationallevels onentrepreneurshiprates, distinguishingbetween formaland informal entrepreneur-ship.Wepropose thattheeffectofeacheducationallevel will vary according to whether its impact on either for-mal or informal entrepreneurship is investigated. This is not only because the determinants of each educational level often differ, but alsobecause each one has itsown peculiarities,methods,objectivesandresources.Thus,we alsocontributetotheliteraturefocusedon entrepreneur-ship,bylendingattentiontothedistinctionbetweenformal andinformalentrepreneurship,andbyprovidingtheoretical argumentsand empiricalevidencethat educationallevels have differenteffectsoneach oneofthem. Todoso,we use multi-country data on enrolment rates in secondary andtertiaryeducationtakenfromtheWorldDevelopment Indicators of the World Bank and on formal and infor-malratesofentrepreneurship,takenfromtheWorldBank Group EntrepreneurshipSnapshots(WBGES) andthe Infor-mal Entrepreneurship Index or IEI, respectively (Dau and Cuervo-Cazurra,2009).
Inparticular,ourresultsshowthatsecondaryandtertiary education increase formal entrepreneurship as a conse-quenceofthehigherself-confidence,lowerperceivedrisk and enhanced human capital (Schultz, 1959; Shane and Venkataraman,2000;DavidssonandHonig,2003;DeTienne andChandler,2004).Bycontrast,tertiaryeducationhasa
negativeeffectoninformalentrepreneurshipasitincreases awarenessofandsensitivitytothepossiblenegative reper-cussions of this kind of activities (Gössling, 2003; Bitros andKarayiannis,2010).However,secondaryeducationdoes notinfluence informalentrepreneurshipsignificantly. Even thoughsecondaryeducationalsoincreasesawarenessofthe potentialnegativerepercussionsofinformal entrepreneur-ship,thiseffectiscounteractedbyalackoforganizational, planning,administrative,bureaucratic,leadershiporhuman resourcemanagementskills(Lazear,2005;LevieandAutio, 2008),forcingsomeentrepreneurstojointheinformal sec-torasalastresort(GüntherandLaunov,2012).
Theremainderofthispaperisstructuredasfollows.The secondsectionsetsoutareviewoftheliteratureandlays thegroundworkforthehypothesisontheimpactofdifferent educationallevelsonformalandinformalentrepreneurship rates.Thethirdsectiondescribesthemethodologyusedin theempiricalsectionofthisstudy,detailingthedependent, independent and control variables, as well as the multi-collinearity diagnosis and the model. The fourth section presents the results and the robustness tests that were applied.Finally,in the fifthsection, the principal conclu-sionsaredrawn,andthelimitationsandpossiblefuturelines ofresearcharediscussed.
Literature
review
and
hypotheses
Formalandinformalentrepreneurship
Aspreviouslystated,entrepreneurshipisacomplexconcept encompassingthecreationofideas,companies,andpatents aswellasthethoughtprocessbehindthesecreations. Lit-erature has traditionally relied on quantifiable variables such as patents and rates of firm creation to measure entrepreneurship.Wealsoadoptthisapproachandconsider entrepreneurshipin itsfunctional formasthecreation of newfirms(DauandCuervo-Cazurra,2009).
Differentmodalitiesof entrepreneurshipcan be distin-guished.Formalentrepreneurshipreferstothecreationof legallyregistered newfirms in a country (Klapper etal., 2007),whereasinformalentrepreneurshipfocusesonthose firmsthatarenotlegallyregisteredandarelargely unregu-lated(Nystrom,2008).
Entrepreneurs from developed economies mainly cre-atefirmsintheformalsector(AhlstromandBruton,2006; Brutonet al.,2008). Consequently, moststudies focus on formalentrepreneurship (Dauand Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009). Inaddition,thedatalimitationandtheproblemstoobtain reliablemeasuresabout theweightoftheinformalsector inagiveneconomy,contributetoexplainitsmarginalrole inacademicresearch.Onthecontrary,itmustbe acknowl-edgedthattheinformalsectorexists,toagreaterorlesser extent, in every country (Webb et al., 2013). In fact, it representsmore than half of the total economy in some countries,beinginformalentrepreneurshiponeofitsmain components(ILO,2002;Fiessetal.,2010).
Theimpactofeducationonformal entrepreneurshiprates
Theimportance ofeducationin occupationalemployment hasbeenunderlinedonseveraloccasions,bothin pioneer-ing studies (Blau and Duncan, 1967) and in more recent ones (Uhlaner and Thurik, 2007). Despite the literature havingoften found a positive relation between education andformalentrepreneurship(seeforexampleBates,1995; Reynolds, 1997; Delmar and Davidsson, 2000), the com-plexity of this relation should be acknowledged, because opportunitycostsmayintervene.Inotherwords,those indi-vidualswith a higher level of education may also have a greaterprobabilityofachievingsuccessandthefulfillment of their personal goals, not only as owners of firms, but alsoasemployees(Campbell, 1992;Gimenoetal.,1997). Thiscouldexplaintheresultsfromcertainstudiesinwhich educationdoesnot appearasasignificant determinantin thechoice of becomingan entrepreneur(DeWit and Van Winden,1989;Uhlaneretal.,2002).Nevertheless,certain studiessuggestthathigherlevelsofeducationleadtobetter performanceinentrepreneurialactivitiesthanwhen work-ingasan employee (EvansandLeighton,1989).Moreover, a higher level of education can create a set of possible entrepreneursattractedbythenon-materialadvantagesof entrepreneurshipsuchasgreaterautonomy (VanGelderen andJansen,2006) andpersonalachievement (McClelland, 1975).
Traditionally,it has been argued that thoseindividuals thathave a better training, starting fromsecondary edu-cation,acquirespecificknowledgeanddevelopcapabilities thatfacilitatepersonaldevelopmentincertainprofessions andhelpthem startentrepreneurial activitieswhere they maybeputintopractice(WEF,2009;Codurasetal.,2010). Thisevenoccursregardlessofwhethertheeducationaimsto beofavocationalnatureorismoregeneralist,asthe objec-tiveofboth istodevelop manyof thenecessary qualities to conduct a professional activity, such as problem solv-ing,initiative,creativityinthedesignofnewprocessesand activities,theuseofmoderncommunicationtechniquesand teamwork(UNESCO,2005;Gauthier,2006).
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) underline that entrepreneurship is composed of two interrelated pro-cesses:thediscovery ofopportunitiesandtheexploitation ofthoseopportunities.Peoplewithhigherlevelsof educa-tionmaybeatanadvantageinbothprocesses.Inthefirst place,ahigherlevelofeducationcanprovidethenecessary cognitiveskills sothat the individualcan better evaluate the opportunities as they arise (Schultz, 1959), which leadstoagreaterpotentialforproductivityandefficiency (Becker, 1964; Mincer, 1974). Moreover, once committed toabusinessactivity,entrepreneurswithahigherlevelof education are better equipped to exploit those opportu-nities successfully (Davidsson and Honig, 2003). A higher levelofeducationalsoincreaseslevelsofself-confidence, facilitating their exploration of entrepreneurial activity. Perceived risk may also be reduced, as those individuals usuallyconsiderthattheywillfindemploymentmoreeasily inthe labormarket,should theirbusinessfail(Shaneand Venkataraman,2000).
Theadvantagesmentioned abovesuggesttheexistence of a relation with a positive sign between secondary
educationandformalentrepreneurship,which leadsusto formulatethefollowinghypothesis:
H1. Ahigherrateofenrolmentinsecondaryeducationwill haveapositiveimpactontherateofformal entrepreneur-ship.
As secondary education, tertiary education does also provide individuals with skills to detect and assess busi-nessopportunities(DeTienneandChandler,2004)andplays a crucialroleontheattitudes andbehavioral dispositions (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Walter and Dohse, 2009) throughsimilarmechanismstothosepreviouslydescribed. While the importance of education starts from the very beginning,alltheeducationalstagesplayasignificantrole on entrepreneurship (WEF, 2009; Coduras et al., 2010). Moreover,someauthorsclaimthattertiaryeducationhasthe greatestoneasitprovides,inadditiontotechnical exper-tise, a broad set of business managementand leadership skills needed toaccessand mobilizethe resources neces-saryforlaunchingthenewventure(LevieandAutio,2008). Consequently, we alsoexpecta positive relation between tertiaryeducationandformalentrepreneurshipand, there-fore,formulatethefollowinghypothesis:
H2. Ahigherrateofenrolment intertiaryeducationwill haveapositiveimpactontherateofformal entrepreneur-ship.
Theimpactofeducationoninformalratesof entrepreneurship
Therearevariousargumentstosupporttheexistenceofa relationwithanegativesignbetweeneducationand infor-mal entrepreneurship. Individuals with a higher level of educationaremoreawareofthepossiblesanctionsandfines thatmayensuefromcarryingoutan informalprofessional activitiesand,furthermore,theyaremoreawareofmorality andthenegativeimpactontheirsocialstatusthatsociety associates with activities that take placein the informal economy(Gössling,2003;BitrosandKarayiannis,2010).
theirexpertknowledgethatismoredirectlyrelatedtotheir occupation,withlesscomplexrequirementsandobligations (Honig,1996).
Despite the existence of contrasting arguments, this positive impact of secondary education on informal entrepreneurship1asafeasiblealternativetothosewhoare
unabletorun a formalventure leads ustoformulate the followinghypothesis:
H3. Agreaterenrolmentrateinsecondaryeducationwill haveapositiveimpactontherateofinformal entrepreneur-ship.
In contrast, the arguments supporting a positive rela-tionbetweeneducationandinformalentrepreneurshipare lesslikelytoapplyinthecaseoftertiaryeducation,asthis typeofeducationprovidestotheindividualwithknowledge andskillsbothoftechnicalandmanagerialnature(Lazear, 2005;LevieandAutio,2008),whichminimizesthecasesof entrepreneursbeingforcedtoconducttheiractivities infor-mally (Günther and Launov, 2012). These individuals are alsomoreawareof andsensitive tothepossible negative outcomesthat may arisefromconducting business activi-ties in an informal way, both at an economic level (fines and sanctions)andfor theirsocial status (Gössling,2003; BitrosandKarayiannis,2010).Moreover,atpresent, numer-ouscountriesarestarting tolend greaterattentiontothe inclusionofethicalandciviccontentinthedesignoftheir curricula,whichalsohasanegativeinfluenceonthecreation ofinformalfirms(Jiménez-EguizábalandPalmero-Cámara, 2007;UNESCO,2009).Anegativesign,therefore,between tertiary education and informal entrepreneurship may be expected.Thisleadsustoformulatethefollowing hypoth-esis:
H4. SA greater enrolment rate in tertiary education will have a negative impact on the rate of informal entrepreneurship.
Methodology
Dependentvariables
First,tomeasureformalentrepreneurship,weusetheWorld Bank Group Entrepreneurship Snapshots (WBGES) as our dependent variable,whichobtain datathroughsurveysof business registers, aswell as other governmental sources fromeachcountry.Thesemeasuresareexplicitlydesigned tocaptureformalentrepreneurship,byrecording‘‘anyunit fromtheformalsector incorporatedasa legalentityin a publicregister’’(Klapperetal.,2007,p.4).Inparticular,
1Note that this positive effect of education on the rates of
informal entrepreneurship is, at the sametime, not incompati-ble with a simultaneous positive effect on the rates of formal entrepreneurship.Forexample,anincreaseintheeducationallevel mightfacilitate,atthesametime,thecreationofbothformaland informalfirms(accordingtowhethereachindividualpossessesthe knowledge,abilitiesandresourcesneededforit),byindividualsina segmentofthepopulationthathadbeenunemployedorhadworked asemployees.
weusetheentrydensityrateasadependentvariable.This measureis calculated asthe number of newly registered firmsasapercentageofthepopulationofaworking-agein thousandsofpeople.Weanalyzedatafrom2000to2007to avoidanydistortionoftheresults,duetosuchdecisionsas abandonedordelayedentrepreneurialactivitiescausedby thesubsequentfinancialcrisis(Jiménezetal.,2014). More-over,theresultsobtainedbyusingtheentryratepercapita arealsoofferedasarobustnesstest.Thismeasureis calcu-latedasthepercentageofnewfirmsregisteredamongthe populationinthousands.
Second,andtakingintoaccountthedifficultiesinvolved in sourcing reliable data for informal entrepreneurship, weusethemeasures preparedbyDauandCuervo-Cazurra (2009).These authorsprovide twoestimates ofthe Infor-mal Entrepreneurship Index(IEI) from 2003 to 2005. This calculationis doneby eitherusinga specificindexonthe sizeoftheinformaleconomywithsecondarydatainKlapper etal.(2007),fromtheGlobalEntrepreneurshipMonitoror GEM(2008)oranInformalEconomy Indexpreparedbythe authorsthemselves.2Theformerestimatesareusedinthe
mainmodels,whereasthelatterareusedfortherobustness tests.
Annex1showsthedescriptivestatisticsforthe depend-ent, independent and control variables included in the model.Annex2offersthelistofcountriesincludedinthe sample.Regardingformalentrepreneurship,dataaboutthe dependent and independent variables is available for 84 countrieswhenusingtheentry densityrate asdependent variable.However,only70countriesqualifywhenusingthe entryratepercapita.Regardinginformalentrepreneurship, thesampleincludes30countriesforwhichthereisavailable datainbothestimations.
Independentvariables
Inordertoanalyzetheimpactofthedifferenteducational levelsontheratesofformalandinformalentrepreneurship, the total enrolment rates in secondary and tertiary edu-cationareusedasindependentvariables.Theseratiosare calculatedasthetotalnumberofenrolledstudentsdivided by the total population in the corresponding age range. Enrolmentineducationallevelsarefrequentlyanalyzedin researchfocused onaspectsrelated toeducationalissues (Sopoaga etal.,2013;Hengsadeekuletal.,2014;McEwen andTrede,2014)anditrepresentsagoodmeasureofthe students´levelofmotivationthroughatwo-foldmechanism, first because it provides access to the teaching---learning processes and, second, because it increases the learn-ing expectations (Rinaudo et al., 2003; Valle et al., 2007; Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2008). Furthermore, enrolment rates are particularly useful for educationalpolicy-makersastheyexercisegreatercontrol overthembybeingabletomodifytheacademicand eco-nomic accessrequirements. Performance and educational success,onthecontrary,depend heavilyontheindividual
2SeeDauandCuervo-Cazurra(2009)foramoredetailed
effort and other variables of different nature (González, 2004;Feito-Alonso,2009).Finally,byfollowing this proce-durewe areabletotake intoaccounttheknowledgeand skillacquisitionandthemotivationalincreaseofthose indi-vidualswhoenrollbutdonotfinishtheeducationallevelin whichtheyhaveregistered.Thisdeterminesthatjust start-inganeducationaldegreeentailspositiverepercussioneven ifit is notcompleted, asthese processestake placein a progressivewaythroughoutthedevelopmentofthedegrees (OCDE,2008;PozoandPérezEcheverría,2009).
Obviously, the contents at each educational level vary fromcountrytocountry.Nevertheless,thesourceconsulted, theWorldDevelopment Indicators database(World Bank), describessecondaryeducationasthatwhichcompletesthe basic education offered at primary level, the purpose of whichis toestablishthe fundamentalsfor life-long learn-ingandhumandevelopmentthroughtrainingthatismore orientedtoward abilities anda morespecialized teaching staff.Moreover,tertiaryeducationisalsodescribedasthat which requires a minimum admission condition of having successfully passed secondary level education, regardless of whether or not it is intended to provide an advanced qualificationinresearch.Although thereisnoofficial def-initionfor theseterms, thedefinitions usedby the World Bankappeartobe in harmonywiththoseof UNESCO, for whichsecondaryeducationisthestageatwhichthefuture worker,citizenandpersonshouldbetrained,whereas ter-tiaryeducationcentersontransmittingmoreadvancedand specializedknowledge(Gauthier,2006).
Controlvariables
ThelogarithmofpercapitaGDPandthegrowthofGDPare includedin themodel ascontrol variables,giventhatthe greaterquantityofavailableresourcesfavorsthecreation of firms, and higher growth rates offer more investment opportunities.
Thelogarithmofinwardforeigndirectinvestment(FDI)is alsoincluded,althoughitsimpactexantemaynotbe fore-seen.Ontheonehand,higherrates offoreigninvestment canprovokelowerfirmcreationratesbyincreasinglevelsof marketcompetition.However,ontheotherhand,thearrival offoreignfirmsinasectorcanimplyarevitalizationoftheir associatedsectors,increasingtherateoffirmcreation con-nectedtotheinputsandoutputs(suppliersandclients)of theforeignfirms.
AccordingtoDjankovetal.(2002)andDauand Cuervo-Cazurra (2009), it is necessary to incorporate the impact ofinstitutionsand structuralreformsonentrepreneurship rates,taking intoaccountthat itseffectsarevery differ-entinformalandininformalentrepreneurship.Therefore, followingtherecommendationoftheseauthors,ameasure for economic liberalization and anotheron the qualityof national governance, are included in the model as con-trol variables. The measure of economic liberalization is the score on the Index of Economic Freedom, prepared by the Heritage Foundation. This index, made up of 10 sub-indices,measurestheindependenceofthejudicial sys-tem,theabilityoffirmsandindividualstoensurethatthe contracts are fulfilled, corruption that exists in the judi-cialsystem,thedegree towhich thegovernmentprotects
propertyrights,andthedegreeoffreedomthatexistsfor business,commerce andinvestment.The scores fluctuate between0and100(FernándezandGonzález,2005).
Themeasureofnationalgovernanceistheaveragescore ofeachcountryassignedbytheWorldGovernanceIndicators (Kaufmannetal.,2007),whicharein turnmadeupofsix indices.3Thesemeasurethequalityoftheregulationswhich
applyto economic transactions, aswell asthe waythose regulationsareputintopracticeandtheirapplication.
Finally,asiscommonlydoneintheliterature,aseriesof temporal‘‘dummies’’areincludedtocontrolfortheimpact of historic events. We control for unobserved country-specificfactorsbyusingpanelmodelsthattakethesefactors intoaccount.
The sourcesconsulted toobtain the data included the World Bank, UNCTAD and the Heritage Foundation. When thesourcesofferednodataontheexplanatoryvariablesfor certainyears,thevalueswereestimatedastheaverageof theadjacentyears.
Model
The statisticaltechniqueofpanel datawaschosen, which allowsustocarryoutalongitudinalstudybyincorporating thetemporaldimension.Inparticular,andfollowingthe rec-ommendationofGreene(2000)andDauandCuervo-Cazurra (2009),GeneralizedLeastSquares(GLS)estimateswere per-formed withheteroskedasticityandautocorrelationAR(1). The decision betweenthe use ofa fixed effects(FE) or a randomeffects(RE)modelrequirestoperformaHausman test, in orderto determine whetherthe specific common effects are correlated with the explanatory variables, in which case a fixed-effects model shouldbe chosen. How-ever,inourmodel,theHausmantestdidnotrejectthenull hypothesisofnocorrelationbetweenthespecificcommon effectsandtheregressors,sotherandomeffectsmodelis moreappropriate.
With regard to the causality of the model, following standard practicein the literature, one-year delays were appliedtoalltheexplanatoryvariables---boththe indepen-dentandthecontrolvariables---inthemodel,withtheaim ofanalyzingtheirimpactonthedependentvariableinthe followingyear.
Therefore,ourempiricalanalysisisbasedonthe estima-tionofthefollowingbalancedpanelmodel:
ENTREPRENEURSHIP(formalorinformal)t =0+1SECONDARYEDUCATIONt−1
+2TERTIARYEDUCATIONt−1+3GDPperCÁPITAt−1
+4GDPGROWTHt−1+5INWARDFDIt−1
+6ECONOMICFREEDOMt−1
+7WORLDGOVERNANCEINDICATORSt−1+εij
3Thetitlesoftheseindicesare:voiceandaccountability,
Diagnosisofmulticollinearity
Annex3showsthecorrelationandcovariatesmatrixandthe Variance InflationFactor(VIFs)for theindependent varia-blesasanadditionalvariableofcollinearity.VIFsmeasure howmucha variablecontributestothe standard errorof theregression.Giventhatallthecorrelationcoefficientsare underthelimitof10recommendedbyNeteretal.(1985), Kennedy(1992)andStudenmund(1992),andalsounderthe strictestlimitof5.3proposedbyHairetal.(1999),weare confidentthatnoseriousmulticollinearityproblemsexistin ourdata.
Results
and
discussion
Annex4showstheresultswhentheentrydensityratefor formalentrepreneurship(‘‘a’’models)andthefirst estima-tionoftheIEIsuggestedbyDauandCuervo-Cazurra(2009) for informal entrepreneurship (‘‘b’’ models)aretaken as thedependentvariablesinthemodels.Inthefirstplace,the modelincludesonlythecontrolvariables.Insecondplace, each independent variable (secondary education and ter-tiary) is separately introduced. Finally, both independent variablesareincludedinthesamemodelatthesametime. Regardingformalentrepreneurship,theresultsofmodels 2a and 4a demonstrate that higher secondary education ratessignificantlyfavorthecreationofformalfirms, verify-inghypothesis H1. Moreover,models3a and4a show that tertiary education rates are also significant and positive, supportinghypothesisH2.
Inaddition,models3band4bshowthathighertertiary educationratessignificantlyreduceinformal entrepreneur-ship,verifyinghypothesisH4.Onthecontrary,inmodels2b and4b, itmaybeseenthatsecondaryeducationratesare notsignificantforthecreationofinformalfirms.Therefore, hypothesisH3isnotsupported.
In accordance with these results, the tertiary educa-tion rate is revealed to be a factor that not only favors the creation of formal firms, but also works against the creation of informalfirms.The positiveimpact onformal entrepreneurshipisduetothistypeofeducationproviding thenecessary capabilities todetect, evaluateand exploit businessopportunitiesbetter,increaseself-confidenceand reduce perceived risk, as it fosters a broader awareness of employment possibilities, should the business venture fail.Thisresultsuggeststhatthoseindividualsthatattaina higherlevelofeducation,motivatedbynon-material advan-tagessuchasgreaterautonomy(VanGelderenandJansen, 2006)orself-fulfillment(McClelland,1975),consider them-selves better trained to start a formal entrepreneurial activity.
Besides, in addition to this positive impact on formal entrepreneurship,tertiaryeducationalsoexercises a neg-ativeeffectoninformalentrepreneurship.Thisisowingto theethicalandciviccontentprovidedinthecurricula,which increasetheawarenessofthepotentialnegative repercus-sion,botheconomicandrelatedtothesocialstatusofthe individual.
Thesecondaryeducationratewasonlysignificantforthe creationofformalfirms,butnotforinformal entrepreneur-ship. Those individuals that reach this educational level
enjoy,incomparisonwiththosewithlesstraining,thesame advantages asin the case of tertiary education(although toa lesser extent), with regard to the identification and valuationof businessopportunities,knowledge acquisition andskills, increasedself-confidenceandreductionofrisk. However,althoughsuchindividualsalsoperceivethe possi-blenegativerepercussionsof informalactivities, theyare unable,onoccasions,tocopewithallthe obligationsand complexitiesinvolvedinformalfirmsduetothelackof man-agementskills.Someindividualswillthereforehavenoother alternativethantodedicatethemselvestotheinformal sec-tor,inordertoputtheirknowledgeandtechnicalskillsinto practice.
Inconsequence,theseresultsshowtherelevanceofan appropriate training of the population, at both the sec-ondary and tertiary level, in order to improve rates of nationalentrepreneurship. Tertiaryeducation, in addition toitsclearpositiveimpactonthecreationofformalfirms, canalsohelpcounterthecreationofinformalfirms.Besides, apolicyofqualitysecondaryeducationcanbehighlighted asanecessarycondition,notonlybecauseitincreasesthe chancestosucceedintertiaryeducation,butalsobecause ithasapositivedirectimpactonformalentrepreneurship. However,giventhatitsrelationwithinformal entrepreneur-shipisnotsignificant,italsoappearsadvisabletounderline, at this level of education, the negative repercussions of informalactivities, aswellas toreinforceand emphasize curricularcontentofanethicalandcivicnature.
Withregardtothecontrolvariables,bothGDPpercapita aswellasthequalityofnationalgovernanceandeconomic freedom had a positive and significant effect on formal entrepreneurship.Theseresultsdemonstratethatahigher quantityofavailableresources,betterqualityregulations, thereductionoftransactioncostswithinstitutionsand eco-nomic liberalization act asincentives for the creation of formalfirms.
GDPpercapitaalsohasasignificantandnegative coef-ficientintheinformalentrepreneurshipmodel,suggesting thatfeweravailableresourcesleadentrepreneurstodecide onthecreationofinformalfirms,tobenefitfromtheless stringentrequirementsthatareassociatedwiththem.The GDPgrowthrateisalsonegativeinthismodel,showingthat worsemacroeconomic conditionsare an incentivefor the population to embark on informal entrepreneurial activi-tiesduetotheabsenceofotheralternatives.In addition, largerinflows offoreigndirect investmentdohave a pos-itiveimpactonthe creationof entrepreneurialactivities, althoughthe greater competitivenessof foreignfirmscan forceentrepreneurstoruninformalbusinessactivities.
informalfirmsfailtoperforminthemorecompetitive mar-ket and areobliged to adjustto itsnew conditionsor to abandonit.Finally,nationalgovernancequalityhasa pos-itivebuthardlysignificanteffect,whichevendisappeared intherobustnesstests.
Annex5showstheresultsforotheralternative depend-ent variables, such as the per capita entry rate for formalentrepreneurship(‘‘c’’models)andthesecond esti-mation suggested by Dau and Cuervo-Cazurra (2009) of informalentrepreneurship(‘‘d’’models).Theserobustness models yield very similar results to those described ear-lier, supporting the same hypotheses. As regards formal entrepreneurship,ahigherrateofsecondary(models2cand 4c)andtertiary education(models3cand 4c)onceagain significantlyfavorthecreationofformalfirms.Likewise,a higher rate of tertiary education, significantivelyreduces thecreationofinformalfirms(models3dand4d),whereas secondaryeducationratesarenotsignificant(models2dand 4d). The controlvariables alsoobtained similarresults to thosedescribedearlier,althoughnowGDPgrowthshowsa negativeandsignificantrelationwithformal entrepreneur-ship.This maybeduetoexistingfirmsthatcontractlarge numbersofworkersandofferbetterconditionsattimesof economicexpansion,inordertorespondtogreaterdemand ortoenternewmarkets,makingtheoptionofbecomingan entrepreneurrelativelylessattractive.
Finally, asan additionalrobustnesstest, wecontrolled whethertheresultsmightbeduetoaneffectarisingfrom theregioninwhichthecountryislocated.Todoso, mutu-allyexclusivedichotomous variableswere introduced into themodelstocontrolfortheeffectofformingpartofthe EuropeanUnion,NorthAmerica,LatinAmerica,Asia,Africa andtheMiddleEast(theothercountriesintheworld serv-ing as a reference category). The results show, however, thattheseadditionalvariablesarenotsignificantwhilethe other variables remainunchanged.4 Finally, we confirmed
thatthe resultsfromthe formalentrepreneurship models remainunchainedwhenusingasasamplethecountriesfor whichinformalentrepreneurshipdataisavailable.5
Conclusions
Thisstudyhasanalyzedtheroleofeducationenrolmenton entrepreneurship rates. The results confirm the proposed hypothesesandsuggestthatbothsecondaryeducationand tertiaryeducationhave avery differenteffect,according towhetherformalorinformalentrepreneurshipis investi-gated.In particular, formalentrepreneurship is positively associated to secondary and tertiary education, whereas informalentrepreneurshipisonlynegativelyaffectedby ter-tiaryeducation.
Theresult,consistentwithpreviousliterature(Levieand Autio,2008),pointstothefundamentalroleofeducational levelsasthestagesinwhichentrepreneursaretrainedand an adequate mindset toward entrepreneurship is created (WEF, 2009; Coduras et al., 2010). In addition, they also
4Resultsavailableonrequestfromtheauthors.
5Wearegratefultoananonymousreviewerforthissuggestion.
Resultsavailableonrequestfromtheauthors.
underlinetheimportanceofotherinstitutionalfactorssuch as economic liberalization and national governance qual-ity in the creation of formal enterprises (Djankov et al., 2002; Dau and Cuervo-Cazurra, 2009). Finally, the results alsoshowanegativerelationbetweenmacroeconomic mag-nitudesandthecreationofinformalfirms,consistentwith thecounter-cyclicalcharacterofinformalentrepreneurship (LoayzaandRigolini,2006;Fiessetal.,2010).
Webelieve thatthese results have somerelevant aca-demicandpracticalimplicationsforscholars,policy-makers andentrepreneurs.First,giventhateducationisoneofthe factors that defines social, economic and political inter-actionswithacountry, wecontribute totheliteratureon the impactof institutions(North, 1990) on entrepreneur-ship, by demonstrating that different educational levels do not affect all the modalitiesof firm creation equally. It does so by showing the different impact of educa-tionallevelsnotonlyonformalentrepreneurship,whichis morerelevantindevelopedcountriesandhastraditionally receivedmostattentionfromresearchers,butalsoon infor-malentrepreneurship,whichplaysakeyroleindeveloping countries(Honig,1996).
Inaddition,theevidenceobtainedofthepositiveimpact ofsecondaryandtertiaryeducationonformal entrepreneur-shipaswellasofthenegativerelationshipbetweentertiary educationandinformalentrepreneurshipcontributestothe growing literature devotedto the study of entrepreneur-ship in generaland totherole of educationasoneof its main determinants (Béchardand Grégoire, 2005; Coduras etal.,2010)inparticular.Inparticular,thispaperhighlights themechanismsthroughwhichsecondaryandtertiary edu-cation encourage the creation of formal firms.Education providesentrepreneurswithcognitiveskillstobetter evalu-ateandexploitentrepreneurialopportunities,increasesthe level ofself-confidenceandreducesperceived risk. More-over,andperhapsmorerelevantascontributionsgiventhe relativelymorescarcestudythatinformalentrepreneurship hasreceivedtodate,tertiaryeducationprovidesethicaland civicvalues anda higherawareness of the potential neg-ativerepercussionsofinformalactivitiesintermsoffines, sanctionsandsocialstatus.Consequently,tertiaryeducation exercises a negative influence on informal entrepreneur-ship. However, in the case of secondary education, the effectofthenegativerepercussionofinformalactivitiesis offsetbythelackofarangeofnecessaryskillstodealwith theadministrativeandmanagementcomplexitiesattached toformalactivities,forcingsomeentrepreneurstooptfor thecreationofinformalenterprisesastheonlyviable alter-native. Asafurthercontribution, ratherthanconstraining the specific reality of one particular country, this study includes awiderangeof differentcountries,avoiding the problemofextrapolatingtheconclusionsthatwould other-wiseapply.
policy,notonlytoincreasethechancesofsuccessinhigher education,but alsotoreinforce andemphasize curricular contentof an ethicaland civicnature at this level, asis currently done in several countries at the tertiary level. By following this procedure, it may be possible to better endowindividualstoincreasetheiropportunitiesand,atthe sametime,increase theattractiveness offormalizationof entrepreneurialactivities(GüntherandLaunov,2012).
Third, as practical implications at the individual level, this work highlights the relevance for potential entrepreneursofprovidingthemselvesthebesteducation, giventhekeyroleofsecondaryandtertiaryeducationinthe creationoffirms.Despitethecasesoccasionallyreportedin themediaofsuccessfulentrepreneursthatabandonedtheir studiesatanearlystage,ourresultsshowthatahigherlevel of education can help entrepreneurs, by enhancing their capabilitiestodetectandevaluatebusinessopportunities, increasingtheirknowledgeandcapabilities,improvingtheir levelofself-confidenceandreducingrisk.
In summary, the present study contributes to a better understandingoftheimpactofdifferentlevelsofeducation ontherateofformalandinformalfirm creationin differ-ent countries. It is subjectto limitation nonetheless. For instance, we are only able toanalyze a sample of three yearsinthecaseofinformalentrepreneurship,duetodata unavailability.Inaddition,anddespitethedefinitionsused inthedatasourcebeingconvergentwiththoseusedbyother international institutions,itis notpossible toensure that theeducationallevelsarecompletelyhomogeneousacross countries.Futureresearchcouldcontinuealongtheselines by analyzing such questions asthe impact of educational levels,notonlyenrolmentratesbutalsoattainmentor edu-cational success, onsurvival rates andthe profitabilityof createdfirms,therebydeepeningourunderstandingofthe entrepreneurialphenomenon.
Acknowledgements
The authors aregrateful toProfs. Álvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, LuisAlfonso Dau,PetraChristmannandJuanBautista Del-gado, to participants of the XXIII Congreso Nacional de ACEDEandtoassistantstothedepartment seminars orga-nizedbyKoreaUniversityBusinessSchool,UniversitádiPavia andESPAEGraduateManagementSchool,fortheirvaluable commentsandsuggestions.Inaddition,authorsaregrateful forthefinancialsupportreceivedfromtheSpanishMinistry ofEconomyandCompetitiveness(Ref. EDU2012-39080-C07-06)andCajadeBurgos.
Appendix
A.
Supplementary
data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.brq.2015. 02.002.
References
Agarwal,R.,Audretsch,D.B.,Sarkar, M.B.,2007. Theprocessof creativeconstruction:knowledgespillovers,entrepreneurship, andeconomicgrowth.Strateg.Entrep.J.1(3/4),263---286.
Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G.D., 2006. Venture capital in emerging economies. Networks and institution change. Entrep. Theory Pract.30(2),299---320.
Bates,T.,1995.Self-employmententryacrossindustrygroups.J. Bus.Ventur.10(2),143---156.
Baumol,W.J.,2004.TheFree-marketInnovationMachine:Analyzing the GrowthMiracleof Capitalism.PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton.
Baumol,W.J.,Strom,R.J.,2007.Entrepreneurshipandeconomic growth.Strateg.Entrep.J.1(3/4),233---237.
Béchard, J.P., Grégoire, D., 2005. Entrepreneurship education researchrevisited:thecaseofhighereducation.Acad.Manag. Learn.Educ.4(1),22---49.
Becker,G.S., 1964. Human Capital. University ofChicago Press, Chicago.
Blau,P.M.,Duncan,O.D.,1967.TheAmericanOccupational Struc-ture.Wiley,NewYork.
Bitros, G.C., Karayiannis, A.D., 2010. Entrepreneurial morality: someindicationsfromGreece.Eur.J.Int.Manag.4(4),333---361. Bruton,G.D.,Ahlstrom, D.,Obloj,K.,2008. Entrepreneurshipin emergingeconomies:wherearewetodayandwhereshouldthe researchgointhefuture.Entrep.TheoryPract.32(1),1---14. Campbell,C.A.,1992.Adecisiontheorymodelforentrepreneurial
acts.Entrep.TheoryPract.(Fall),21---27.
Coduras,A.,Levie,J.,Kelley,D.J.,Saemundsson,J.R.,Schott,T., 2010.GlobalEntrepreneurshipMonitorSpecialReport:AGlobal PerspectiveonEntrepreneurshipEducationandTraining.Global EntrepreneurshipResearchAssociation,Wellesley,MA. Davidsson,P., 2004. Researching Entrepreneurship. International
StudiesinEntrepreneurship.SpringerScienceInc.,Boston. Davidsson,P.,Honig,B.,2003.Theroleofsocialandhumancapital
amongnascententrepreneurs.J.Bus.Ventur.8(3),301---331. Dau, L.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., 2009. Structural reform and
entrepreneurship.In:Workingpaperpresentadoenel35thEIBA AnnualConferenceenValencia,Spain.
Delmar,F.,Davidsson,P.,2000.Wheredotheycomefrom? Preva-lenceandcharacteristicsofnascententrepreneurs.Entrep.Reg. Dev.12(1),1---23.
DeTienne,D.,Chandler,G.,2004.Opportunityidentificationandits roleintheentrepreneurialclassroom:apedagogicalapproach andempiricaltest.Acad.Manag.Learn.Educ.3(3),242---257. DeWit,G.,VanWinden,F.A.A.M.,1989.Anempiricalanalysisof
self-employment inthe Netherlands. Small Bus.Econ. 1 (4), 263---272.
Dimitratos,P.,Jones,M.,2005.Futuredirectionsforinternational entrepreneurshipresearch.Int.Bus.Rev.14(2),119---128. Djankov,S.,LaPorta,R.,Lopez-de-Silanes,F.,Shleifer,A.,2002.
Theregulationofentry.Q.J.Econ.117(1),1---37.
Evans, D.S., Leighton, L., 1989. Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship.Am.Econ.Rev.79,519---535.
Feito-Alonso, R., 2009. Éxito escolar para todos. Rev. Iberoam. Educ.50,131---151.
Fernández,A.I.,González,F.,2005.Howaccountingandauditing systemscancounteractrisk-shiftingandsafety-netsinbanking: someinternationalevidence.J.Financ.Stab.1(4),466---500. Fiess, N.M., Fugazza, M., Maloney, W.F., 2010. Informal
self-employmentandmacroeconomicfluctuations.J.Dev.Econ.91, 211---226.
Freytag,A.,Thurik,A.R.,2007.Entrepreneurshipandits determi-nantsinacrosscountrysetting.J.Evol.Econ.17(2),117---131. Gauthier,J.F.,2006.TheContentofSecondaryEducationaroundthe World: PresentPositionandStrategicChoices. UnitedNations Educational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization,Geneva. GEM, 2008. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. http://www.
gemconsortium.org
González,I.,2004.Realizacióndeunanálisisdiscriminante explica-tivodelrendimientoacadémicoenlauniversidad.Rev.Invest. Educ.22(1),43---59.
Gössling,T.,2003.Thepriceofmorality.AnAnalysisofpersonality, behaviour,andsocialrulesineconomicterms.J.Bus.Ethics45, 121---131.
Greene,W.H.,2000.EconometricAnalysis,fourthed.Prentice-Hall, UpperSaddleRiver,NJ.
Grilo,I.,Thurik,R.,2005.Latentandactualentrepreneurshipin Europe and the US: somerecent developments. Int. Entrep. Manag.J.1(1),441---459.
Günther,I.,Launov,A.,2012.Informalemploymentindeveloping countries:opportunityorlastresort?J.Dev.Econ.97(1),88---98. Hair,J.F.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.,Black,W.,1999.Análisis
Multivariante,fifthed.PrenticeHall,Madrid.
Hengsadeekul,C.,Koul, R.,Kaewkuekool, S.,2014. Motivational orientation and preference for English-medium programs in Thailand.Int.J.Educ.Res.66,33---44.
Honig,B.,1996.EducationandselfemploymentinJamaica.Comp. Educ.Rev.40,177---193.
ILO,2002.WomenandMenintheInformalEconomy:AStatistical Picture.InternationalLaborOffice,Ginebra.
Jiménez,A.,Luis-Rico,I.,Benito-Osorio,D.,2014.Theinfluence ofpoliticalrisk onthe scope ofinternationalization of regu-latedcompanies:insightsfromaSpanishsample.J.WorldBus., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.06.001.
Jiménez-Eguizábal,A.,Palmero-Cámara,C.,2007.Newapproaches touniversityinSpain:academicchange,creativedimensionsand ethicalcommitmentintheestablishmentoftheEuropeanHigher EducationArea.J.Educ.Adm.Hist.39(3),227---237.
Kaufmann,D.,Kraay,A.,Mastruzzi,M.,2007.Governancematters VI:aggregateandindividualgovernanceindicators,1996---2006. In:TheWorldBank,PolicyResearchWorkingPaperSeries4280. Kennedy,P.A.,1992.GuidetoEconometrics.MITPress,Cambridge,
MA.
Klapper,L.A.R.,Guillén,M.F.,Quesada,J.M.,2007. Entrepreneur-shipandfirmformationacrosscountries.In:TheWorldBank, PolicyResearchWorkingPaperSeries4313.
Lazear, E.P., 2005. Entrepreneurship. J. Labor Econ. 23 (4), 649---680.
Levie,J.,Autio,E.,2008.Atheoreticalgroundingandtestofthe GEMmodel.SmallBus.Econ.31(3),235---263.
Loayza,N.,Rigolini,J.,2006.Theeconomicsoftheinformalsector: asimplemodelandsomeempiricalevidencefromLatinAmerica. CarnegieRochesterConf.Ser.PublicPolicy45,129---162. McClelland, D.C.,1975. Power: TheInnerExperience. Irvington,
NewYork.
McEwen,C.,Trede,F.,2014.Thevalueofworkplacelearninginthe firstyearforuniversitystudentsfromunder-representedgroups. Asia-Pac.J.Coop.Educ.15(1),55---67.
Mincer,J.,1974.SchoolingExperienceandEarnings.Columbia Uni-versityPress,NewYork.
Moya,M.,2008.WorldwideBusinessStartups.http://www.moyak. com/researcher/resume/papers/businessstartups.html Neter,J.,Wasserman,W.,Kutner,M.H.,1985.AppliedLinear
Statis-ticalModels:RegressionAnalysisofVarianceandExperimental Designs,seconded.Irwin,Homewood.
North,D.C.,1990.InstitutionsInstitutionalChangeandEconomic Performance.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge. Nystrom, K., 2008. The institutions of economic freedom and
entrepreneurship:evidencefrompaneldata.PublicChoice136 (3/4),269---282.
OCDE, 2008. FourFuture Scenarios for Higher Education. OCDE, Paris.
Peterman,N., Kennedy,J.,2003. Enterpriseeducation: influenc-ingstudents‘perceptionsofentrepreneurship’.Entrep.Theory Pract.28,129---144.
Pozo,J.I.,PérezEcheverría,M.P.,2009.Psicologíadelaprendizaje universitario:laformaciónencompetencias.Morata,Madrid. Reynolds, P.D., 1997. Who starts new firms? Linear additive
versus interaction based models. Small Bus. Econ. 9 (5), 449---462.
Rinaudo,M.C.,Chiecher,A.,Donolo,D.,2003.Motivaciónyusode estrategiasenestudiantesuniversitariosSuevaluaciónapartir delMotivatedStrategiesLearningQuestionnaire.An.Pscol.19 (1),107---119.
Schultz,T.,1959.Investments inman:aneconomist’s view.Soc. Serv.Rev.33(2),69---75.
Shane,S.,Venkataraman,S.,2000.Thepromiseof entrepreneur-ship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 (1), 217---226.
Sopoaga,F.,Zaharic,T.,Kokaua,J.,Ekeroma,A.J.,Murray,G.,van derMeer,J.,2013.Pacificstudentsundertakingthefirstyear ofhealthsciencesattheUniversityofOtago,andfactors asso-ciatedwithacademicperformance.N.Z.Med.J.126(1384), 96---108.
Studenmund,A.H.,1992. UsingEconometrics:APracticalGuide. HarperCollins,NewYork.
Szyliowicz,D.,Galvin,T.,2010.Applyingbroaderstrokes: extend-ing institutional perspectives and agendas for international entrepreneurshipresearch.Int.Bus.Rev.19(4),317---332. Uhlaner, L., Thurik, R., 2007. Postmaterialism influencing total
entrepreneurial activityacrossnations. J.Evol.Econ.17(2), 161---185.
Uhlaner, L.M., Thurik, A.R., Hutjes, J., 2002. Postmaterialism: A Cultural Factor Influencing Entrepreneurial Activity Across Nations.ERIMReportERS2002-62-STR.ErasmusResearch Insti-tuteforManagement,Rotterdam.
UNESCO, 2005. Secondary Education Reform,Towards a Conver-genceofKnowledgeAcquisitionandSkillsDevelopment.United NationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization,Paris. UNESCO, 2009.WorldConference onHigherEducation: TheNew DynamicsofHigherEducationandResearchforSocietalChange andDevelopment.CommuniquéUnitedNationsEducational, Sci-entificandCulturalOrganization,Paris.
Valle,A.,Rodríguez,S.,Cabanach,R.G.,Nú˜nez,J.C., GonzálezPi-enda,J.A.,2007.Elestudianteeficaz.CCS,Madrid.
VanGelderen,M.,Jansen,P.,2006.Autonomyasastart-upmotive. J.Bus.Enterp.Dev.13(10),23---32.
Walter,S.G.,Dohse,D.,2009.TheInterplayBetween Entrepreneur-ship Education and Regional Knowledge Potential in Forming EntrepreneurialIntentions.KielInstitutefortheWorldEconomy, no.1549,Kiel,Germany.
Webb, J.W., Bruton, G.D., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R.D., 2013. Researchonentrepreneurshipintheinformaleconomy:framing aresearchagenda.J.Bus.Ventur.28(5),598---614.
Wennekers, S.,Thurik, A.R., 1999.Linking entrepreneurshipand economicgrowth.SmallBus.Econ.13(1),27---55.
World Economic Forum, 2009. Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs:UnlockingEntrepreneurialCapabilitiestoMeet the Global Challenges of the 21st Century: A Report of the GlobalEducationInitiative.WorldEconomicForum,Switzerland www.heritage.org
Zacharakis, A.L., Bygrave, W.D., Shepherd, D.A., 2000. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: National Entrepreneurship Assess-ment: United States of America. Kauffman Center for EntrepreneurialLeadership,KansasCity.
Zimmerman,B.J.,2008. Investigatingself-regulationand motiva-tion:historicalbackground,methodologicaldevelopments,and futureprospects.Am.Educ.Res.J.45,166---183.
