1、1999 Executive ReportGLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITORPaul D. Reynolds Michael Hay S. Michael CampTABLE OF CONTENTSPageList of Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Project Directors, Research Teams and Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . .
2、. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3I. Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5II. Why Entrepreneurship? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7III. Understanding Entrepreneurship: The GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9IV. Levels of Entrepreneurial Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13V. Entrepreneurship and
4、 Economic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16VI. What Makes a Country Entrepreneurial? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Entrepreneurial Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Entrepreneurial Capacity . . . . . .
5、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Education. . . . . . .
6、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29VII. National Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7、. 32VIII. Entrepreneurship and Public Policy: Ten Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39IX. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43End NotesPAUL D. REYNOLDS Babson CollegeMICHAEL HAY London Business SchoolS. MICHAEL CAMP Kau
8、ffman Center for Entrepreneurial LeadershipGLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR1999 Executive ReportCopyright 1999, Paul D. Reynolds, Michael Hay andKauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at theEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation. All rights reserved.LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES1Figures:Figure 1: Conv
9、entional Model of National Economic GrowthFigure 2: Model of Entrepreneurial Processes Affecting National Economic GrowthFigure 3: Consolidated Model of Processes Affecting National Economic GrowthFigure 4: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:A Detailed Model of Entrepreneurial Processes and Economic Gr
10、owthFigure 5: National Prevalence of Start-Ups: All, Independent, Firm-Sponsored and GrowthFigure 6: National Prevalence of Personal InvestorsFigure 7: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Growth in GDPFigure 8: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and EmploymentFigure 9: Level of Entrepreneurial Acti
11、vity and Perception of OpportunityFigure 10: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Entrepreneurial CapacityFigure 11: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Infrastructure SuitabilityFigure 12: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Demographic FactorsFigure 13: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and E
12、ducational EmphasisFigure 14: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Cultural FactorsTables:Table 1: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity: Three GroupsTable 2: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Economic Well BeingTable 3: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Age and GenderTable 4: Level of Entrepre
13、neurial Activity and Gender and CountryTable 5: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Percentage of Mid-Career AdultsTable 6: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and National Educational EmphasisTable 7: Level of Entrepreneurial Activity and Educational AttainmentPROJECT DIRECTORS, RESEARCH TEAMS AND
14、SPONSORS2Unit Location Members Financial SponsorshipGEM Project Directors Babson College Bill Bygrave Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial LeadershipKauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Michael CampLondon Business School Michael HayGEM Project Coordinator Babson College andLondon Business S
15、chool Paul ReynoldsGEM COORDINATION Babson College Bill BygraveTEAM Paul ReynoldsLondon Business School Erkko Autio EU TMR (DG12)Michael Hay Foundation for Jonathan Levie Entrepreneurial ManagementPaul ReynoldsNATIONAL TEAMSCanada York University Rein Peterson Office of the Dean Alessandro Cefis Sch
16、ulich School of BusinessAlfred Chung York UniversityCharles ConradWalter LiuDale TingleyRobert WanlessDenmark Southern Denmark Jan Warhuus Danish Agency for Develop-Business School Poul Rind Christensen ment of Industry and TradeFinland Helsinki University Erkko Autio Finnish Ministry of Trade Culmi
17、natum OyFrance Ecole du Gilles Copin Management Lyon Alain Fayolle Isabel ServaisGermany Universitat zu Koeln Rolf Sternberg Apax Partners average level of entrepre-neurial activity is 6.9 percent); Medium (Italy, United Kingdom; average level of entrepre-neurial activity is 3.4 percent); and Low (D
18、enmark, Finland, France, Germany and Japan;average level of entrepreneurial activity is 1.8 percent). In the most active countries (i.e., U.S., Canada and Israel) entrepreneurial activity is an inte-gral and accepted feature of economic and personal life. In the remaining GEM countries, however, ent
19、repreneurship through enterprise creation remains a structural andcultural anomaly. In such countries it may take decades of sustained changes in manynational, cultural, political and economic institutions if they are to join the “elite” ofentrepreneurial economies.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY4GEM provides a r
20、obust framework within which national governments can evolve aset of effective policies for enhancing entrepreneurship. Ten propositions resulting fromthis years study are highlighted below. Proposition 1: Promoting entrepreneurship and enhancing the entrepreneurial dynamic of a country should be an
21、 integral element of any governments commitmentto improving economic well being. Proposition 2: Government policies and programs targeted specifically at the entrepreneurial sector will have a more significant, direct impact than programs simply aimed at improving the national business context. Prop
22、osition 3: To be effective, government programs designed to encourage and support entrepreneurial activity must be carefully coordinated and harmonized so asto avoid confusion and to enhance their utilization by those for whom such programsare designed. Proposition 4: Increasing entrepreneurial acti
23、vity in any country will entail raisingthe participation level of those outside the most active age group of 25-44 years old. Proposition 5: For most GEM countries, the greatest and most rapid gain in firmstart-ups will be achieved by increasing the participation of women in the entrepreneurial proc
24、ess. Proposition 6: Long-term, sustained enhancement of entrepreneurial activity requiresa substantial commitment to and investment in education at the post-secondary level(i.e., college, university or graduate programs). Proposition 7: Developing the skills and capabilities required to start a busi
25、nessshould be integrated into specific educational and vocational training programs at alleducational levels. Proposition 8: Regardless of education level, emphasis should be placed on developing an individuals capacity to recognize and pursue new opportunities. Proposition 9: The capacity of a soci
26、ety to accommodate the higher levels of incomedisparity associated with entrepreneurial activity is a defining feature of a strongentrepreneurial culture. Proposition 10: Government and public policy officials and opinion leaders from allspheres have a key role to play in creating a culture that val
27、idates and promotes entre-preneurship throughout society.The purpose of the following report is to provide a brief overview of the GEM initiative, to present key findings for all 10 countries and to provide support for the principal public policy implications. In addition to the 1999 Executive Repor
28、t, GEM haspublished a full Research Report, which provides a more detailed examination of theresearch design and in-depth findings, and an Operations Manual, which outlines thetechnical procedures for how the project is conducted. Individual country reports arealso available from each of the GEM Nat
29、ional Teams.5Entrepreneurship is now center stage inthe public policy arena of most countries.The ascendance of entrepreneurship in thelast decade is reflected in several major poli-cy initiatives around the world. Considerthe following illustrative examples: At the end of 1998 the United Kingdomgov
30、ernments white paper, OurCompetitive Future: Building theKnowledge Driven Economy, focused ona series of initiatives designed toenhance entrepreneurship.1 Germany has an increasing number ofprograms designed to provide financialsupport for new firms, to ease theprocess of start-up and to encourage t
31、he participation of women. In the past decade approximately 200 innova-tion centers have been established providing space and other resources to start-up companies. In 1995 the Decennium ofEntrepreneurship was launched inFinland. Coordinated by the FinnishMinistry of Trade and Industry, the aimwas t
32、o bring together under one umbrel-la a host of individual initiatives in threebroad areas: creating an entrepreneurialsociety, promoting entrepreneurship as asource of employment and fostering thegrowth of new ventures. In Israel, partly in response to the chal-lenge to assimilate an increasing numb
33、erof immigrants, a range of small businessmeasures have been enacted by theTechnological Incubators Programmer.More than 500 businesses have beenestablished in 26 incubators. The SmallBusiness Authority of Israel was createdin 1994 with a wide mandate encom-passing training and the provision ofadvic
34、e centers and financial resources.In addition, there has been an explosivegrowth of venture capital in Israel, andmore than 100 Israeli companies are nowquoted on NASDAQ. In France, major initiatives are underway to promote the teaching ofentrepreneurship in universities, particularly to engineering
35、 students.University-based incubators are beingcreated, a national competition for newhigh-tech companies was launched, andthe Foundation of the Academy ofEntrepreneurship was established.Around the world, interest in entrepre-neurship extends beyond national govern-ments. The subject has attracted
36、attentionfrom many multi-national organizations aswell. Again, consider the following: In 1998 the Paris-based Organization forEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) published areport, Fostering Entrepreneurship: A Thematic Review, with the explicitaim of understanding the state ofentrepreneurs
37、hip in all OECD countriesand identifying which policies might bemost successful in fostering it.2 In 1998, the European Commission presented a report to the Council ofMinisters, Fostering Entrepreneurship:Priorities for the Future. Among theproposals was a commitment to simplifying the start-up proc
38、ess for companies, improving access to financing and developing a “spirit ofenterprise and risk taking.”Underpinning this program was the con-viction that, “Europes place as an economic power depends on its futureentrepreneurs and the competitiveness ofits enterprises. They will be the motorof the m
39、arket economy.”I. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND PUBLIC POLICY: AN OVERVIEW6Turning to another domain the creation of capital markets for entrepreneurial businesses we see more indications of increasing interest. The launch of EASDAQ, a pan-Europeanstock market, was modeled in large part onthe success of NASD
40、AQ, the stock marketfavored by technology companies in the U.S.A series of other new capital markets soonsprang forth in principal European countries; these include EURO.NM which isfacilitating cooperation between some of theEuropean markets such as the Neuer Marktand Le Nouveau Marche.Other domains
41、 reflect a strong interestin entrepreneurship. The World EconomicForum, sponsor of the annual DavosConference for the worlds leading multi-national businesses, has recently adopted“Entrepreneurship in the global public interest” as its motto and is currentlyextending its membership categories toincl
42、ude “Global Growth Companies.”3Also, business schools throughout Europe, NorthAmerica and Asia report an acute shortage offaculty capable of teaching entrepreneurship.All such developments point to the factthat entrepreneurship is at the top of thepublic policy agenda in many countriesaround the wor
43、ld. The question is, “Why?”7II.WHY ENTREPRENEURSHIP?For many countries, the answer to thisquestion lies in the greatest example ofnational commitment to entrepreneurshipand economic progress: the United States. In addition to thousands of state, local andprivate initiatives designed to encourage and
44、 support entrepreneurship, the U.S. government annually spends hundreds ofmillions on business support programs.Because of their relative success, many ofthese programs are viewed as models byother countries looking to increase theirlevel of entrepreneurial activity. This isillustrated by the United
45、 Kingdom govern-ments creation of a Small Business ServicesAgency in 1999 modeled on the U.S. SmallBusiness Administration. But how signifi-cant are the entrepreneurial activities andthe resulting economic gains in the U.S.?The data are startling:4Level of Entrepreneurial Activity andEconomic Progre
46、ss Since 1980, Fortune 500 companies havelost more than five million jobs, butmore than 34 million new jobs have been created. In 1996 small businesses created 1.6 million new jobs. Fifteen percent ofthe fastest-growing new firms (i.e.,“gazelles”) accounted for 94 percent of the net new job creation
47、, and lessthan one-third of these gazelles are inhigh technology. Small businesses (i.e., those with fewerthan 500 employees) employ 53 percentof the private workforce and account for 47 percent of sales and 51 percent of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Sixteen percent of all U.S. firms
48、 havebeen in existence for less than one year.Looking more generally at the U.S. economy, a similarly healthy picture emerges:5 U.S. GDP grew at an annualized rate of4.5 percent in the first quarter of 1999,the ninth time in the last 10 quartersthat the growth rate has been 3 percentor higher. Perso
49、nal consumption expenditures roseat an annual rate of 6.7 percent in thefirst three months of 1999. The U.S. has enjoyed eight years ofeconomic growth, the longest period ofsustained growth this century.From an outsiders perspective, the conjunction of intense entrepreneurialdynamism and rapid economic growth coupled with low unemployment and lowinflation seemingly points to only one conclusion: entrepreneurship fuels economicgrowth, creating employment and prosperity.The buoyancy of the U.S. economy appearsto be a function, at least in part, of t
