Entrepreneurship Rates: the Fuzzy-set Approach



Paulo Ferreira, Andreia Dionísio


Ferreira P, Dionísio A. 2016. Entrepreneurship Rates: the Fuzzy-set Approach. Eastern European Business and Economics Journal 2(2): 111-128.


Full text




António CALEIRO, Universidade de Évora, Portugal;

Cornel IONESCU, Institute of National Economy, Romania;

Raimi LUKMAN, Yaba College of Technology, Nigeria.



A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis is applied to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for higher entrepreneur rates. Based on Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data, it is shown that the most relevant conditions are Media Attention to Entrepreneurship, as well as Perceived Capabilities and Perceived Opportunities. The non-existence of Fear of Failure is also an important factor in determining higher entrepreneurship rates. When the sample is split, this condition is more important for most developed countries. This can be viewed as relevant information for policymakers to better define their policies to promote entrepreneurship, which is a key to more sustainable growth in countries.



fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, necessary conditions, sufficient conditions, entrepreneurship rates






Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (2010). Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. New York: Springer.

Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics. 24(3), 233–247.

Audretsch, D. (2003). Entrepreneurship: a survey of the literature. European Directorate-General European Commission. Retrieved May 25, from http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/2977.

Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17, 165–190.

Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A. (2009). Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs–new evidence from an experimentally validated survey. Small Business Economics, 32, 153-167.

Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général.  London: Fetcher Gyler. Also edited in an English version, with other material, by Henry Higgs, C.B., London: MacMillan (1931).

Chien-Yun, D., & Duen-Huang, H. (2015). Causal complexities to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial instruction. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 894–899.

Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship.  New York: Harper Collins.

Fiss, P. (2011). Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.

Gartner, W. (1988). Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11–32

GEM. (2015). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – 2014 Global Report. Retrieved February 24, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/report.

Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.

Hornaday, R. (1992). Thinking About Entrepreneurship: A Fuzzy Set Approach. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(4), 12–23.

Khefacha, I., & Belkacem, L. (2015). Modeling entrepreneurial decision-making process using concepts from fuzzy set theory. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 5(13).

Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Koellinger. P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). ‘I think I can, I think I can’: overconfidence and entrepreneurial behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 502–527.

Kwon, S., & Arenius, P. (2010). Nations of entrepreneurs: A social capital perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 315–330.

Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

Hoshino, M. (2013). Relationship between Entrepreneurial Indicators among Innovation-Driven Economies and Its Implications for Japan. Journal of business and economics, 93(3), 21–38.

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.

Muñoz, P., & Kibler, E. (2016). Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1314–1318.

Ragin, C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C.  (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and courage. Political Analysis, 14, 291–310.

Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Say, J. (1816). Treatise on Political Economy. Sherwood, Neely and Jones, London.

Schneider, M., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. (2010). Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 246–266.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK:: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.

Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London.

Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Cord-Christian, D. (2015). Understanding motivations for entrepreneurship: A review of recent research evidence. Birmingham: Enterprise Research Centre.

Vis, B. (2012). The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(1), 168–198.

Vis, B., Woldendorp, J., & Keman, H. (2007). Do miracles exist? Analyzing economic performance comparatively. Journal of Business Research, 60, 531–538.

Wagemann, C., & Schneider, C. (2010). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-sets: Agenda for a Research Approach and a Data Analysis Technique. Comparative Sociology, 9, 376–96.