CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Economic Growth and ProductivityEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFirm Innovation and Growth

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The global technology frontier: productivity growth and the relevance of Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship

Open access
Lafuente, Esteban, Acs, Zoltan J., Sanders, Mark, Szerb, László·2020·Small Business Economics
DOI 10.1007/s11187-019-00140-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We evaluate how country-level entrepreneurship—measured via the national system of entrepreneurship—triggers total factor productivity (TFP) by increasing the effects of Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. Using a database for 45 developed and developing countries during 2002–2013, we employ non-parametric techniques to build a world technology frontier and compute TFP estimates. The results of the common factor models reveal that the national system of entrepreneurship is a relevant conduit of TFP, and that this effect is heterogeneous across countries. Policies supporting Kirznerian entrepreneurship—e.g., increased business formation rates—may promote the creation of low value-adding businesses which is not associated with higher TFP rates. Policy interventions targeting Schumpeterian entrepreneurship objectives—e.g., innovative entrepreneurship and the development of new technologies—are conducive to technical change by promoting upward shifts in the countries’ production function and, consequently, productivity growth.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11187-019-00140-1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EEs contribute to national productivity by promoting Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship.

    “EEs contribute to national productivity by promoting Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Lafuente, E., Acs, Z.J., Sanders, M., & L. (2019)

    Section 4.3 explicitly argues that entrepreneurial ecosystems contribute to national total factor productivity by promoting Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. But the empirical findings in section 4.3 and the concluding remarks attribute the observed productivity effect to Schumpeterian technical progress, not Kirznerian efficiency change. The claim omits that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Three country-level studies included in this review show a link between entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth.

    “The three country-­ level studies that are included in this review have shown a link between entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth ( Acs et  al., 2018 ; Lafuente et  al., 2016 ; Lafuente et al., 2019).”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Lafuente et al., 2019

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 73

  1. Acemoglu, D. (2002). Directed technical change. Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 781–809. · DOI
  2. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131–166. · DOI
  3. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf, Handbook of Economic Growth (pp. 385–472). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  4. Acemoglu, D., & Zilibotti, F. (2001). Productivity differences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 563–606. · DOI
  5. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms—an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78, 678–690.
  6. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289–300. · DOI
  7. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2016). National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 527–535. · DOI
  8. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. R. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Atkinson, R. D., & Lind, M. (2018). Big is beautiful: debunking the myth of small business. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. · DOI
  11. Bai, J. (2009). Panel data models with interactive fixed effects. Econometrica, 77, 1229–1279. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Barro, R. (1991). Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 407–443. · DOI
  13. Barro, R., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1997). Technological diffusion, convergence, and growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 2, 1–26. · DOI
  14. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Baumol, W. J., & Strom, R. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 233–237. · DOI
  16. Binswanger, H. P. (1974). The measurement of technical change bias with many factors of production. American Economic Review, 64, 964–976.
  17. Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2013). How strategic entrepreneurship and the institutional context drive economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 50–69. · DOI
  18. Bjørnskov, C., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what do we know and what do we still need to know? Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 292–315. · DOI
  19. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. R. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Bogetoft, P., & Otto, L. (2011). Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. New York: Springer. · DOI
  21. Boussemart, J.-P., Briec, W., Kerstens, K., & Poutineau, J.-C. (2003). Luenberger and Malmquist productivity indices: theoretical comparisons and empirical illustration. Bulletin of Economic Research, 55(4), 391–405. · DOI
  22. Caselli, F., & Coleman, W. J., II. (2006). The world technology frontier. American Economic Review, 96(3), 499–522. · DOI
  23. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R., & Diewert, W. E. (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica, 50, 1393–1414. · DOI
  24. Chudik, A., Pesaran, M. H., & Tosetti, E. (2011). Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels. The Econometrics Journal, 14(1), C45–C90. · DOI
  25. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Handbook on data envelopment analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. · DOI
  26. Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1450–1460. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Durlauf, S., Johnson, P.A., & Temple, J.R.W. (2005). Growth econometrics. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf, Handbook of economic growth (pp. 555–677). Amsterdam: North Holland. · DOI
  28. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. In MPRA Paper 17692. Germany: University Library of Munich.
  29. Eberhardt, M., Helmers, C., & Strauss, H. (2013). Do spillovers matter when estimating private returns to R&D? Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 436–448. · DOI
  30. Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2013). No mangoes in the tundra: spatial heterogeneity in agricultural productivity analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(6), 914–939. · DOI
  31. Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84(1), 66–83.
  32. Grifell-Tatjé, E., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2015). Productivity accounting: the economics of business performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  33. Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883–895. · DOI
  34. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 43–61. · DOI
  35. Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 9–15.
  36. Kapetanios, G., Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2011). Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. Journal of Econometrics, 160(2), 326–348. · DOI
  37. King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 717–737. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Kirchhoff, B. A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism. Westport CT: Praeger.
  39. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  40. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
  41. Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156. · DOI
  42. Kumar, S., & Russell, R. R. (2002). Technological change, technological catch-up, and capital deepening: relative contributions to growth and convergence. American Economic Review, 92(3), 527–548. · DOI
  43. Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2018). The entrepreneurship paradox: more entrepreneurs are not always good for the economy—the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on economic performance in Africa. In SSRN working paper available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3307617.
  44. Lafuente, E., Szerb, L., & Acs, Z. J. (2016). Country level efficiency and national systems of entrepreneurship: a data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1260–1283. · DOI
  45. Litan, R., Baumol, W., & Schramm, C. J. (2009). Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  46. Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631–652. · DOI
  48. Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica, 4, 209–242. · DOI
  49. Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 407–437. · DOI
  50. Melitz, M. J., & Ottaviano, G. I. (2008). Market size, trade, and productivity. Review of Economic Studies, 75(1), 295–316. · DOI
  51. Moll, B. (2014). Productivity losses from financial frictions: can self-financing undo capital misallocation? American Economic Review, 104(10), 3186–3221. · DOI
  52. Parente, S. L., & Prescott, E. C. (1994). Barriers to technology adoption and development. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 298–321. · DOI
  53. Parker, S. C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  54. Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 653–670. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20, 597–625. · DOI
  56. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967–1012. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312. · DOI · Paper page
  59. Pesaran, M. H., & Tosetti, E. (2011). Large panels with common factors and spatial correlations. Journal of Econometrics, 161, 182–202. · DOI
  60. Prescott, E. C. (1998). Needed: a theory of total factor productivity. International Economic Review, 49, 525–553. · DOI
  61. Prieger, J. E., Bampoky, C., Blanco, L. R., & Liu, A. (2016). Economic growth and the optimal level of entrepreneurship. World Development, 82, 95–109. · DOI
  62. Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 259–283. · DOI
  63. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71–S102. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Samuelson, P. A., & Swamy, S. (1974). Invariant economic index numbers and canonical duality: survey and synthesis. American Economic Review, 64(4), 566–593.
  66. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149. · DOI
  67. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  68. Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159. · DOI
  69. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Van Stel, A., Carree, M., & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 311–321. · DOI
  71. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  73. Young, A. (1998). Growth without scale effects. Journal of Political Economy, 106(1), 41–63. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lafuente, E., Acs, Z. J., Sanders, M., & Szerb, L.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (ES)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Pecs (HU)
Corresponding author
Lafuente, Esteban
ORCID
Venue
Small Business Economics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-03-06
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
153-178
ISSN
  • 0921-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0913
DOI
10.1007/s11187-019-00140-1
OpenAlex
W2922487421
Cited by
109
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2021-03-11)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Small Business Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • UPCommons institutional repository (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (ECO2017-86305-C4-2-R)
  • European Union through the Horizon 2020 project? Financial and Institutional Reforms to build an Entrepreneurial Society? (649378)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Firm Innovation and Growth
Keywords
entrepreneurship, total factor productivity, productivity growth, Kirznerian entrepreneurship, Schumpeterian entrepreneurship, business formation, innovative entrepreneurship, technological change

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