The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market
Open accessAbstract
Equity crowdfunding (ECF) offers entrepreneurs an online social media marketplace where they can access numerous potential investors who, in exchange for an ownership stake, may supply them with finance. In this paper, we describe the evolution of this market in the UK. Using an inductive qualitative longitudinal research design, we analyse the emerging views of entrepreneurs and investors towards ECF. Our interviewees include large and small-scale investors, as well as market participants who have chosen not to invest or raise funds via ECF. We find that the large financial flows to entrepreneurs in the UK via the ECF platforms, nearly half a billion GBP since 2011, have probably been largely incremental to traditional sources of early stage entrepreneurial finance. Moreover, our research indicates that for the most part, investors appear to understand and appropriately evaluate the risks that they are bearing; ECF investments are perceived as a high risk, high return component within individuals’ portfolios. Investors also use their communication with peers and entrepreneurs via the ECF platform as a learning tool. On the entrepreneurs’ side, ECF allows them to test their products, to develop their brand, to build a loyal customer base and to turn customers into investors. We conclude that policymakers, with the support of a locally appropriate regulatory framework, could support equity crowdfunding as one of the market choices available for entrepreneurs looking to start or grow their ventures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information
Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981) · Columbia University · doi:10.7916/d8v12ft1 · Cited by 12,769
Quality in Qualitative Research
Seale, C. (1999) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/107780049900500402 · Cited by 1,743
Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310758 · Cited by 1,426
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Cited by
Bollaert, H., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Schwienbacher, A. (2021) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101941 · Cited by 521
Short video marketing strategy: evidence from successful entrepreneurs on TikTok
Chen, H., Ma, D., & Sharma, B. (2024) · Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1108/jrme-11-2022-0134 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Estrin, S., Gozman, D., & Khavul, S.
- Venue
- Small Business Economics
- Published
- 2018-02-28
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 425-439
- ISSN
- 0921-898X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0913
- OpenAlex
- W2790548905
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 40.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11187-018-0009-5
- The paper
- Estrin, S., Gozman, D., & Khavul, S. (2018). The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0009-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.