Comparative International Entrepreneurship

Journal Outlets

The four journals publishing the most CIE research articles are SBE, ET&P, JBV, and E&RD. CIE research is predominantly published in entrepreneurship journals (80%), with only 17% published in international business journals. This probably relates to the fact that most CIE studies (82%) examine cross-country differences in domestic entrepreneurship, while research on cross-country comparison of internationalization by entrepreneurial firms (i.e., CIE) is limited (18%). While the number of publications has recently increased in both international business and management journals, the academic conversation on CIE is largely confined to entrepreneurship. The isolated nature of the field may indicate that CIE research is a niche that is not well communicated to scholars outside entrepreneurship departments. This is problematic because by nature, CIE is interdisciplinary and scholars should have open lines of communication in order to share and build upon related findings.

Although the majority of CIE research is published in entrepreneurship journals, the most impactful CIE studies appear in various journals. To understand journal outlet impact on the CIE field, we explore our sample’s citation counts. ⁶ The 10 most cited articles are Baumol (1996; over 2,800 citations); Oviatt and McDougall (1994; over 1,000); McDougall and Oviatt (2000; over 400); Sapienza, Manigart, and Vermeir (1996; over 400); and with over 200 citations each, Mueller and Thomas (2000); Carree et al. (2002); Loveman and Sengenberger (1991); Mitchell, Smith, Seawright, and Morse (2000); Antoncic and Hisrich (2001); and Thomas and Mueller (2000). In contrast to Davidsson’s (2013) findings that the top 20 most cited papers in entrepreneurship are dominated by North American scholars, we find that the most cited CIE articles are split nearly equally between North American and European scholars. The most cited articles are published in JBV, AMJ, JIBS, and SBE and thus not strictly confined to entrepreneurship journals. The cross-disciplinary focus of research is encouraging, indicating the promise and prominence of CIE. Furthermore, these articles constitute key, often seminal, contributions across multiple fields, including culture, economic growth and development, entrepreneurial firm internationalization, psychological capital, and venture capital. Leading articles utilize a wide variety of data (including surveys and secondary data) and methods (e.g., case studies) and are exemplary in integrating literature from different disciplines and cross-validating methodological tools.

While the “infancy” feature of CIE research is reported in prior review studies (e.g., Aldrich, 2000; Coviello & Jones, 2004; Keupp & Gassmann, 2009), we find that research output has increased dramatically over the past two decades and that 45% of CIE articles were published in the past 5 years, indicating that the field of CIE is rapidly transitioning into an “adolescence” stage.

Geographic Analysis of Authorship Origin and Data Focus

We identify 582 authors from institutions in 45 countries, dominated by the United States, with substantial contributions from the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, and Belgium. Despite the diversity of countries, 61% are written by an author or author team based in one country, compared to 30% in two countries and 9% in three countries. Furthermore, when countries are examined in the context of their home regions, ⁷ one region is dominant (74%), followed by two regions (24%) and three regions (2%). ⁸ This finding that only a fraction of CIE research involves a truly global author team is surprising, given the abundance of international research networks and available technologies to aid cross-country collaboration. Our findings, however, do suggest progress since Aldrich’s (2000) assessment that few non–North American scholars form collaborative relationships or research teams with U.S. scholars. There remains significant opportunity for global research collaboration.

In terms of geographic coverage by empirical data, the number of countries covered in CIE articles ranges from 2 to 76 countries, with a mean of 9.3, mode of 2, and median of 3. Although not nearly as dominant as the geographic authorship pattern discussed above, developed countries are the most commonly studied (66%). The number of countries studied has increased in the past 5 years (mean = 14.1 countries and 2.9 regions in 2005 to 2010, compared to 4.1 and 1.9 in 1989 to 1994), possibly reflecting the increased public availability of international comparative data sets covering many countries. Historically, articles with coauthors from 2 or 3 countries utilize primary data gathered from their respective countries. More recently, authors work with data from outside their countries; it is not uncommon to find two scholars, from the same country, publishing results from regression analyses using a sample of 40 countries.

Taken together, the geographic analyses demonstrate great asymmetry: Our sample includes data from 78 countries, but authors hail from only 45 countries. Despite the recent growth in the study of transitioning/emerging markets, only 6% of studies include the fast-growing BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies. Furthermore, BRIC authors constitute less than 1%, indicating that scholars in these countries are largely left out of published conversations.

Individuals

Individual-level studies shed light on the existence and characteristics of various types of entrepreneurial individuals. The vast majority (82%) of individual-level CIE research examines characteristics of entrepreneurs, especially their gender, social capital, human capital, and psychological capital. In terms of gender, a uniform finding across countries is that women are less involved in entrepreneurial activities than their male counterparts (Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000; Verheul, van Stel, & Thurik, 2006), grow their ventures more slowly (Liedholm, 2002), and face similar start-up motivations and challenges (Lituchy & Reavley, 2004). Regarding social capital, there are common patterns across countries (and gender) as well as cross-country diversity. An early analysis of Italy and the United States shows that women’s networks contain mostly men, while men’s networks contain almost no women, and network density in terms of strangers is similar across both genders and countries (Aldrich, Reese, & Dubini, 1989). A separate study finds that compared to entrepreneurs in Hungary, Irish entrepreneurs are more likely to be acquainted with other entrepreneurs (Acs, O’Gorman, Szerb, & Terjesen, 2007). CIE studies of entrepreneurs’ human capital focus mainly on their education and work experience and indicate significant cross-country variation. Irish entrepreneurs, for example, have higher formal education qualifications than their Hungarian counterparts (Acs et al., 2007). With respect to psychological capital, some studies on individuals’ attitudes, aspirations, and motivations report cross-country similarities among entrepreneurs, especially when compared to managers. For example, Del Junco and Brás-dos-Santos (2009) find that compared to managers, entrepreneurs share a similar pattern of personal values. McGrath and MacMillan (1992) show that even among culturally very different societies, there is a core set of perceptions that entrepreneurs hold about others. Specifically, entrepreneurs feel that others in their society are unwilling to determine their own destiny and to work hard to earn social rewards and are less likely to enjoy what they are doing. Other studies describe cross-country differences among entrepreneurs in terms of internal locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity, autonomy, risk-taking propensity, and energy levels. For example, Thomas and Mueller (2000) report that entrepreneurial characteristics, such as internal locus of control, moderate risk-taking propensity, and high energy level, decrease in frequency as cultural distance from the United States increases. Tajeddini and Mueller (2009) indicate that characteristics associated with entrepreneurial success (e.g., autonomy, propensity for risk taking, and locus of control) are more prevalent among British than among Swiss entrepreneurs, while need for achievement, tolerance for ambiguity, innovativeness, and confidence are more likely to be found among Swiss than among British entrepreneurs.

In addition to entrepreneurs, other “entrepreneurial” individuals studied are informal investors, venture capitalists (VCs), and immigrant/transnational entrepreneurs. Three studies on informal investors describe a similar profile across countries: predominately male, entrepreneurial background, and financially comfortable but differences in terms of investment behavior, performance, and satisfaction. In an early study, Harrison and Mason (1992) find that compared to U.S. investors, U.K. informal investors have more investment opportunities brought to their attention, seriously consider more proposals, operate independently with syndication and joint investments relatively uncommon, have a higher rate of return and capital gains expectations, are slightly less patient investors, and are rather less satisfied with the overall performance of their portfolios. Landström (1993) reports differences along professionalism in investment activity (United Kingdom, low; United States, moderate; Sweden, high), investment portfolio risks (United Kingdom, moderate; United States, high; Sweden, low), and extent of involvement in portfolio firms (United Kingdom, low; United States, high; Sweden, moderate). The 15 comparative VC studies, possibly due to the premature VC industry in many countries, report a mix of commonalities and differences. VCs in rules-based market economies tend to rely more on market information than their counterparts in emerging economies (Zacharakis, McMullen, & Shepherd, 2007). Despite the high prevalence rate of immigrant/transnational entrepreneurship, especially in high technology and growth-oriented sectors (Wadhwa, Saxenian, Rissing, & Gereffi, 2007), the phenomenon is understudied. We identify one empirical cross-country study indicating that transnational entrepreneurs utilize economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital to navigate multiple institutional environments (Terjesen & Elam, 2009).

A limited body of CIE work explicitly examines individual-level factors as antecedents (e.g., human capital and demographics) and outcomes (e.g., autonomy, wealth creation, and quality of life) of entrepreneurship—11 studies and 1 study, respectively, making it difficult to draw any general conclusions and clearly marking uncharted CIE territory. The lack of individual-level antecedent studies is particularly striking as the entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship literature emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurs’ characteristics and experiences for start-up and other strategic decisions.

Firms

Firm-level research composes the largest portion (42%) of the existing CIE field, with the primary foci on characteristics and outcomes of entrepreneurial firms. We identify only 10 studies of firm-level antecedents. The diverse nature of this research makes it impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions. Our discussion below focuses on the characteristics of entrepreneurial firms and outcomes at the firm level.

In terms of characteristics, CIE studies of “entrepreneurial” firms generally report cross-country differences in entrepreneurial orientation (EO; Hansen, Deitz, Tokman, Marino, & Weaver, 2011; Kemelgor, 2002; Slevin & Terjesen, 2011). Although ventures across countries adopt similar technology and business profiles (Johannisson, 1995), there is variance in how technologies contribute to venture survival and growth (Roper, 1997). The three VC firm characteristic studies suggest great cross-country differences in discounted cash flow–based measures, price/equity comparators (Wright, Manigart, Sapienza, Desbrieres, & Hommel, 2004), and use of networks (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2006) but lack insight on the source of these differences and the implications for VC-backed firms.

CIE research on firm-level outcomes is rather extensive (49 studies) but diverse and can be categorized into venture performance and venture internationalization. Venture performance is mainly studied in terms of financial performance (such as profitability, sales growth, and cost reduction) and innovation performance. Regarding financial performance, there is mixed evidence on the effect of characteristics of owners/managers and ventures. Across countries, venture/SME success depends on management skill (Gebert & Steinkamp, 1991; Yusuf, 1995), self-employment experience (Kessler, 2007), R&D activity (Goedhuys & Sleuwaegen, 2010; Hölzl, 2009), and ownership structure (Bruton, Filatotchev, Chahine, & Wright, 2010). Regarding innovation performance, we know much about the cross-country pattern of venture/SME innovation performance in Europe (e.g., Boter & Holmquist, 1996) but little about patterns and differences in other regions.

With respect to venture internationalization, national culture has a small role in determining firm internationalization, especially compared to the effects of industry characteristics (e.g., Boter & Holmquist, 1996; Perks & Hughes, 2008). Internationalization decisions are based on features of the entrepreneur/manager, firm, and external environment. Entrepreneur/manager features include global vision (Johnson, 2004), international knowledge and experience (Terjesen & Elam, 2009), and personal/business networks (Gassmann & Keupp, 2007; Johnson, 2004; Loane & Bell, 2006). Venture/SME features include intangible assets (Loane, Bell, & McNaughton, 2007) and niche-focused international strategy (Gassmann & Keupp, 2007). External environment aspects include intellectual property protection (Gassmann & Keupp, 2007), policy changes (Bell, McNaughton, & Young, 2001), and international trade (De Clercq, Hessels, & van Stel, 2008). Research on ventures’ export performance has a greater diversity in geographic regions covered but is also focused mostly on Europe. Oviatt and McDougall’s (1994) seminal study spurred interest in new ventures’ internationalization timing, export support (Seringhaus & Botschen, 1991), entry modes (Brouthers & Nakos, 2004), and related decisions. While the number of CIE studies on venture internationalization has increased to 22% of all CIE studies in the past 5 years (compared to 14% of CIE articles published in 1989 to 2004), the number of studies and countries examined is still limited and prevents us from drawing meaningful conclusions regarding cross-country patterns.

Industries

Industry-level CIE research is limited. Only six studies explore characteristics of industries of entrepreneurial firms, SMEs, VC, and the informal sector, with no consistent findings. The paucity of research may be explained by the difficulty in obtaining comparable industry data. With respect to the VC industry, there is substantial variance across countries and regions. For example, compared to the United States, European countries’ VC industries have distinct structures, institutions, policies, and characteristics (Ooghe, Manigart, & Fassin, 1991). This study reports that only 14% of European investments are in seed or start-up companies, much less than the 30% in the United States. Bruton and Ahlstrom (2003) highlight vast differences in the VC industry between East Asia and the West, specifically that East Asian VC firms are more likely than their Anglo-Saxon-based counterparts to use networks to replace formal institutions.

Industry-level antecedents are largely absent, with only two studies. We identify one study of industry-level outcomes: Leleux and Surlemont (2003) examine the development of the VC industry across 15 European countries, finding that public involvement serves as a signal to the market and leads to greater investment amounts.

Countries

One quarter of country-level CIE research is characteristics based and describes extensive cross-country variety in entrepreneurial activity and cultural, political, environmental, social, technological, ecological, and legal institutions, albeit with varied definitions and measurements. Although this descriptive work offers interesting comparisons, it provides limited insight into the mechanisms driving and resulting from these differences. The majority of research in this category was conducted during the 1980s and early 1990s. While the theoretical exploration of cross-country differences has been limited, this research provides a solid foundation for the later development of CIE field, for example, by offering insight into the prevalence of (different types of) entrepreneurs across countries and the institutional contexts in which they operate.

Although research on country-level antecedents (e.g., regulatory, political, economic, cultural, and social institutions) has considerably matured and progressed, there remain varied definitions and institutions. A large body of culture research reports significant associations between culture indicators and entrepreneurial activity (Autio, Pathak, & Wennberg, in press). A consistent finding is that individualism contributes to start-up activity (Baughn & Neupert, 2003; Mitchell et al., 2000) and corporate entrepreneurship (Morris, Davis, & Allen, 1994). Uncertainty avoidance and femininity explain participation of entrepreneurs/firms in collaboration agreements (Steensma, Marino, & Weaver, 2000; Steensma, Marino, Weaver, & Dickson, 2000). Social status of entrepreneurship at the cultural level predicts interest in entrepreneurship better in East Asian than in Anglo-Saxon countries (Begley & Tan, 2001).

The 28 country-level antecedent CIE studies on legal, political, and economic dimensions present mixed evidence. A growing stream investigates the impact of legal system quality on VC activity (Bruton, Fried, & Manigart, 2005; Cumming, Fleming, & Schwienbacher, 2009; Cumming, Schmidt, & Walz, 2010). Specific regulations as antecedents include bankruptcy law (S.-H. Lee, Peng, & Barney, 2007), taxes, and business regulations (Acs, Desai, & Hessels, 2008; Ho & Wong, 2007; van Stel, Storey, & Thurik, 2007). For example, across OECD countries, lower taxes stimulate self-employment (Fölster, 2001) and the perception of administrative complexities affects entrepreneurial drive (Grilo & Irigoyen, 2006). Moreover, the 5 studies on political institutions and lack of empirical investigation inhibit generalizations. For example, Ireland, Tihanyi, and Webb (2008) propose that a social movement advocating capitalism in central and southern European countries facilitates an entrepreneurial culture but that social democratic movements lead to a moderate decline in entrepreneurial culture. Pure economic indicators research has been conducted in the past 5 years, generating disconnected findings from the 5 studies in part due to the diversity of measures of entrepreneurial and economic activity; for example, GDP per capita is negatively associated with necessity-motivated entrepreneurship (Hessels, van Gelderen, & Thurik, 2008; McMullen, Bagby, & Palich, 2008) and unemployment rates negatively impact male but not female entrepreneurship (Verheul et al., 2006).

Regarding country-level outcomes, we observe an increase in CIE research on the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research indicates that entrepreneurship contributes to economic growth, at least in higher-income countries (Acs & Amorós, 2008; Carree & Thurik, 2008; Minniti & Lévesque, 2010; Valliere & Peterson, 2009). However, not all new firms promote economic growth. Baumol (1996) distinguishes productive entrepreneurial activities (e.g., innovation) from unproductive ones (e.g., rent seeking) and suggests that policies influence the allocation of these types and subsequent economic growth (Baumol & Strom, 2007). High-expectation or high-growth-potential entrepreneurship, rather than necessity-based entrepreneurship, generates country wealth and growth (Valliere & Peterson, 2009; Wong, Ho, & Autio, 2005). Although this research is mostly based on a small number of countries, these types of studies clearly suggest, based on empirical analyses, that entrepreneurial activity, particularly in the form of ambitious high-technology start-ups, drives economic growth.

Characteristics

Initial CIE studies were characteristics-based at individual, firm, and country levels. As the CIE field evolves to examine more causal influences in terms of antecedents and outcomes, characteristic-based research remains of particular relevance for new phenomena. We urge scholars to pursue, in our view, the following important phenomena.

First, although the prevalence and contribution of social entrepreneurship is increasingly acknowledged, there are few quantitative studies analyzing who these entrepreneurs are, what drives them, and how they perform, especially across countries (Lepoutre, Justo, Terjesen, & Bosma, 2013; Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009). Addressing this knowledge void is important because a seminal CIE study can determine whether there are cross-country similarities or differences in social entrepreneurs’ backgrounds, venture activities, and contributions to society. A second key knowledge gap is entrepreneurial firms’ alliances with established firms. Advancements in this area will provide critical managerial insight into the benefits and pitfalls of alliance partnerships, especially with intermediaries. Third, with respect to corporate entrepreneurship, corporate VC and technology transfer offer promising directions related to the venture internationalization process, including choice of country markets and product strategies over time. Fourth, there are ample opportunities for characteristics-based and case study industry-level research, particularly for high-value, knowledge-intensive industries characterized by high degrees of uncertainty. Research in these dynamic industries has great potential to inform decisions by firm managers, industry associations, and policy makers.

Characteristics research is also relevant for assessing how entrepreneurship-related features and phenomena develop over time in different countries, for example, with respect to individuals (e.g., entrepreneurs’ accumulation of human and social capital over time), firms (e.g., change in importance of social goals), industries (e.g., decline and emergence of industries), and countries (e.g., institutional development). Current CIE research is largely static and therefore, we believe that from the viewpoint of describing developments over time, characteristics-based research offers ample opportunities for future research, and the examples given between brackets illustrate some ideas that could be pursued. Such research may be particularly relevant for the subsequent development of theories to explain the antecedents and outcomes of developments at different levels over time.

Antecedents

A substantial body of CIE research is devoted to identifying antecedents of entrepreneurship at the country level in particular institutions. Although the volume of this group of CIE research is large and some consensus has been reached, this area is still fragmented, usually considering only one or a few types of institutions. Future research should examine different types of institutional influences to shed more light on their relative importance. As most research investigates direct linkages between institutions and some form of entrepreneurship, research on indirect linkages will help to develop more detailed theories. For example, institutions may shape attitudes, intentions, or skills, which in turn may impact whether or not someone starts a business. Furthermore, most antecedent CIE studies take a static perspective with no attention to institutional convergence, divergence, and other types of institutional development across countries and time and to how these dynamics may impact entrepreneurship. Addressing this knowledge void is important, considering the evolving membership of economic and political unions, such as the European Union.

There is an urgent need for antecedent CIE research at individual, firm, and industry levels that can contribute to our understanding of what leads to entrepreneurial activity. At the individual level, researchers could explore what human capital (e.g., knowledge, work experiences) and social capital (e.g., relationships, networks) are most likely to lead to particular types of entrepreneurial activity (e.g., technology-based entrepreneurship) in certain countries. Advancing our understanding of this knowledge gap is essential to policy makers who can then best direct resources toward certain capital-building initiatives (e.g., special training, entrepreneurial networks). This line of enquiry is particularly interesting with respect to immigrant/transnational entrepreneurs who start businesses in their home and host countries. For example, Ahlstrom, Chen, and Yeh (2010) note the success of ethnic Chinese entrepreneurs inside and outside China and suggest that theories and constructs should be developed in the indigenous Chinese context and subsequently tested in Western contexts. Through this research, scholars will be able to determine what types of capital are most beneficial to immigrant/transnational entrepreneurs in different national contexts and to develop and test new non-Western theories. Given the potential impact that firms operating in a similar environment have on one another, future research should investigate how a firm’s entrepreneurial strategies are shaped by other firms. At the industry level, cross-country comparisons should explore how industry development (or lack thereof) impacts regional, national, and international policies as well as individual and firm entrepreneurial behavior.

Considering the multi-level nature of entrepreneurship phenomenon, multi-level investigation of entrepreneurship antecedents is especially promising (Elam & Terjesen, 2010). This is important not only to establish the relative importance of antecedents at different levels but also to investigate whether and how antecedents at different levels may interact. For example, individual entrepreneurial characteristics (e.g., entrepreneurial ability) could interact with country-level institutional characteristics (e.g., economic freedom) to determine outcomes at various levels (e.g., firm growth or national economic growth).

There are two recent theoretical articles of note. Baker et al.’s (2005) “comparative discovery, evaluation, and exploitation” framework proposes that a country’s social context influences the characteristics of opportunities and the individuals who discover, exploit, and evaluate them. Bruton et al. (2005) develop testable propositions related to how national institutions affect VC industries. These two articles illustrate the richness of antecedents at various levels and the complexities of entrepreneurship processes. Furthermore, the classic debate in the strategic management literature on the impacts of strategy, structure, and environment has not blossomed in CIE, and country comparison along these research dimensions is nonexistent. The evolutionary path of the strategy literature offers an exemplar for advancing CIE research. This research on cross-country differences in the co-evolution of venture strategy and structure would offer insights into optimal venture creation and management in different countries and the strategic management literature in general.

Outcomes

CIE research on outcomes focuses on firm (e.g., internationalization, financial performance) and country (e.g., economic growth) levels, but there are many gaps in our understanding of the consequences of entrepreneurship.

While CIE research on firm-level outcomes is abundant, the few cross-country investigations of venture internationalization have a regional focus with two or three countries, likely due to data availability issues. CIE research on internationalization outcomes is greatly needed to enrich our understanding of the increasing diversity of internationalizing ventures. Furthermore, as the Internet has dramatically changed the landscape of doing business, and there is great cross-country variation in usage, future studies should explore the role of technology in facilitating new venture creation and development.

One of the greatest contributions of existing CIE research is the examination of the relationships between some manifestation of entrepreneurial activity and country-level output indicators, such as economic growth and innovativeness. Scholars can extend this research base to more countries, longer time periods, and different types of entrepreneurship. Furthermore, when exploring the relationship between entrepreneurship and development, we encourage researchers to consider subjective and non-income dimensions. Our literature review documents limited understanding and empirical evidence of how entrepreneurship may shape institutions. This relationship is complex, as institutions may drive entrepreneurship, institutions and entrepreneurship may drive macro-level growth, and entrepreneurship may shape how institutions evolve. We encourage scholars to explore integrated frameworks that consider different types of institutions simultaneously, while also taking into account the impact of institutions on entrepreneurship and macro-economic output. Researchers should also examine the possible moderating effects of macro-level institutions on the relationship between entrepreneurship and macro-economic growth and other development indicators; for example, entrepreneurs’ potential to contribute to growth may depend on the favorability of institutions in the environment. Our study reveals a paucity of CIE research on individual-level outcomes, which is surprising given anecdotal evidence from entrepreneurs about beneficial outcomes, such as autonomy, wealth creation, and quality of life. Future research can explore outcomes in terms of the entrepreneur’s well-being (e.g., happiness, health) and stakeholder value (e.g., customers’ demand for/access to a new product). Insights from this work have the potential to substantially contribute to the overall well-being of societies. At the industry level, as countries differ in the extent to which entrepreneurial activities are allocated toward mature versus new industries, research could explore entrepreneurial performance across industries. Addressing this knowledge void is important to best direct resources to the most promising industries.

Integrate Research Into Characteristics, Antecedents, and Outcomes

As described earlier, characteristics, antecedents, and outcomes are mainly investigated in isolation from one another, and there is little effort toward a comprehensive analysis. We urge researchers to integrate research into antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurship and to explore the potential mediating role of entrepreneurship on different types of outcomes. For example, institutions that facilitate firm growth could spur ambitious entrepreneurship, which in turn may positively affect a country’s growth rate. Future research could also investigate critical global events and their impact on entrepreneurship. At present, there are approximately 30 ongoing conflicts/wars in four continents, affecting the livelihoods of millions (Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2012). In parallel, the world is characterized by high levels of terroristic activity, which is often linked to limited labor opportunities (Sayre, 2009). Entrepreneurship could be a model of productive growth. Furthermore, the global financial crisis’s disintegration of existing institutions (e.g., large multi-national banks and national economies) may impact entrepreneurial activity, and new entrepreneurial activity may have the potential to stimulate certain national and regional economies.

Sample Selection

There are three critical challenges related to sample selection. First, the existing body of CIE research covers a limited number of countries and regions. National contexts compared are chosen for various reasons, including data availability, successful entrepreneurship experience, or contrast between developing and developed countries. While the growing diversity of geographic coverage is encouraging, scholars should be motivated by theory-based rationale for the inclusion of countries. Although the majority of articles using qualitative and/or quantitative approaches specify some sort of sample criteria, it is usually only one criterion, which is insufficient for valid sampling design for any theory-driven CIE study.

A second, and related, challenge is that comparison and generalization of findings across national borders is limited, as the majority of CIE research does not specify sample selection equivalence criteria. Equivalent sample selection is the first step to a meaningful comparison of entrepreneurship across countries. Consideration of sample equivalence can contribute to the extension of theoretical frameworks. For instance, as national educational systems shape beliefs about work, gathering samples of entrepreneurs with the same educational background enables in-depth enquiry based on human capital and institutional theories. Future research should also be more systematic in terms of the sample criteria and its equivalence, as this will help scholars to understand, for example, if some aspects are especially critical in certain countries. We urge researchers to exercise great care in selecting key informants and to cross-verify data collection by using multiple informants.

Third, researchers should be aware of and address issues regarding sample selection bias. For instance, researchers may select only those individuals who succeeded in becoming entrepreneurs or only those ventures with international sales. To address issues of sample selection bias, research should use two-stage models (e.g., Heckman selection) where possible and thus take into account the multiple decision-making process stages. For example, a first stage focuses on the decision to become an entrepreneur or not, and a second stage focuses on strategic decisions made after firm establishment, such as to export or not.

Data Collection

We encourage scholars to access entrepreneurship data through existing organizations as well as to develop new data sets. Existing robust sources of publicly available data include COMPENDIA, Eurobarometer, Eurostat, GEM, Observatory of European SMEs, OECD Entrepreneurship Indicators Project (EIP), Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, ¹⁰ World Bank Doing Business Data, World Bank Group Entrepreneurship Survey, Community Innovation Survey, and WVS. The Eurobarometer and GEM data sets contain individual and country levels. Utilizing such standardized data sets aids data collection and sample equivalence, which extant CIE research lacks. Several of these data sets offer opportunities to explore entrepreneurial activity across time, a critical gap in the CIE field. Historically, there is limited availability of internationalizing firm data; however, new resources exist through EIP, GEM, and the Observatory of European SMEs.

Scholars can develop data sets through cooperation with supra-national agencies, such as the UN and OECD, industry associations, and government agencies at local and national levels. Such efforts aid the relevance of scholarship, as these stakeholders are interested in directing resources to the most pressing policy and practice concerns. One instance of the development of a global professional research network is the GEM project, which began in 1999 with a network of 30 scholars in 10 countries and has blossomed into long-standing research initiatives and exchanges among approximately 500 scholars in 80 countries (personal communication, P. Reynolds, 2012).

To address critical questions on processes, the innovative technique of experience sampling methodology (ESM) may be helpful. ESM “requires participants to provide reports of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors at multiple times across situations as they happen in the natural environment” (Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010: 31). Although this sampling/data collection method is likely to be expensive when implemented across countries, it is promising in capturing the dynamic aspect of entrepreneurial activities in their “natural” national contexts.

Analytical Tools

We recommend scholars pursue more diverse and sophisticated analytical techniques and offer examples of potential methods: content analysis of secondary sources, qualitative research, meta-analysis, and multi-level methodologies. First, content analyses of secondary data sources may be useful, as new ventures’ information is not as well documented as that pertaining to their large, established, and especially, public counterparts. New firms that go public in the United States are captured in large databases; however, this is not true for other countries with very limited financial databases and/or stock exchanges. Yet, media reporting on local economies is likely to document successful ventures and even struggling ventures. Such information can be invaluable in CIE research, particularly in understudied countries.

Second, although case studies have been frequently adopted in CIE research, other qualitative research methods (in addition to content analysis) offer great potential to yield unique insights. Scholars could explore methods such as life history calendar, ethnography, repertory grid, and experiments. In the cross-country context, qualitative methods can serve as a solid foundation for the development of possible quantitative measures, enable the collection of rich information for process studies, and potentially trigger the development of grounded theories. Furthermore, research that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative approaches can offer complementary insights.

Third, “infancy stage” CIE research may not seem to be a munificent area for meta-analysis, which requires a large number of studies on similar topics; however, our review uncovered a great quantity of work on factors related to firm performance outcomes. A meta-analysis of existing studies would enable scholars to determine which factors affect various aspects of firm performance. As the institutional and cultural streams continue to develop, there is potential for a meta-analysis here too. Meta-analyses may reveal general patterns of country similarity and dissimilarity and specific geographic patterns of antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial activities, all of which can advance CIE-related knowledge.

Fourth, while it is encouraging to observe the examination of constructs at multiple levels in CIE research, multi-level methodologies are rarely adopted. That is, multi-level conceptual models have been frequently discussed implicitly or explicitly in the CIE literature, but there are few empirical tests. Multi-level methodologies enable scholars to better analyze entrepreneurship activities in a comprehensive and integrative manner, generate more precise estimates, and mitigate ecological fallacy problems. We urge scholars to incorporate determinants and outcomes of certain stages and types of entrepreneurship into one model, considering the potential mediating role of entrepreneurship and the effect of moderators. This is relevant from a methodological standpoint, as error terms explaining entrepreneurship and some outcome may be correlated and therefore generate biased estimates. It is therefore critical to estimate determinants and outcomes of entrepreneurship in one model while accounting for (potential) correlation of error terms across both equations.