The controversial link between entrepreneurial activity and inequality

  • Andreea Apetrei
  • José Luis Sánchez-García
  • Juan SapenaEmail author


This study illustrates how entrepreneurship may contribute to enhancing economic growth and prosperity by reducing inequality and exclusion. Assessing relationships between new ventures and reduction of inequalities enables us to disentangle the mechanisms through which entrepreneurial processes may contribute to societal transformations. The proposed theoretical model is estimated by using fsQCA. The findings suggest that one crucial root of sustainable development through entrepreneurial attitude is strongly linked to the existence of inclusive institutions, and avoidance of extractive ones. The findings contribute to showing the importance of institutions to favour prosperity through entrepreneurship. This research can provide crucial implications and applications for both academics and practitioners such as policymakers. In sum, this paper provides a framework for understanding the connection between entrepreneurship and societal development.


Entrepreneurship Inequality Institutions fsQCA 



  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Testing the schumpeterian hypothesis. Eastern Economic Journal, 14(2), 129–140.Google Scholar
  4. Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.Google Scholar
  5. Ades, A., & Di Tella, R. (1997). The new economics of corruption: A survey and some new results. Political Studies, 45(3), 496–515.Google Scholar
  6. Ades, A., & Di Tella, R. (1999). Rents, competition, and corruption. American Economic Review, 89(4), 982–993.Google Scholar
  7. Ades, A., & Tella, R. D. (1997). National champions and corruption: Some unpleasant interventionist arithmetic. The Economic Journal, 107(443), 1023–1042.Google Scholar
  8. Apetrei, A., Kureshi, N. I., & Horodnic, I. A. (2015). When culture shapes international business. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1519–1521.Google Scholar
  9. Apetrei, A., Paniagua, J., & Sapena, J. (2016). Do financial crises moderate entrepreneurial recipes? A comparative fuzzy analysis. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(4), 482–495.Google Scholar
  10. Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Illusions in regression analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 3(28), 689–694.Google Scholar
  11. Arrow, K. J. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 343–362.Google Scholar
  12. Astebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.Google Scholar
  13. Atkinson, A. B. (2003). Income inequality in oecd countries: Data and explanations. CESifo Economic Studies, 49(4), 479–513.Google Scholar
  14. Audretsch, D. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. In: New Frontiers in Entrepreneurship (pp. 95–105). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Autor, D. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent”. Science (New York, N.Y.), 344(6186), 843–851.Google Scholar
  16. Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and development: A review of issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3), 1320–1346.Google Scholar
  17. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5 (part 1)), 8932–8921.Google Scholar
  18. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Entrepreneurship, management, and the structure of payoffs. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Baumol, W. J. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Benavides-Espinosa, M. d. M., & Roig-Dobón, S. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in transferring knowledge through human resource management and joint venture. International Journal of Manpower, 32(1), 117–131.Google Scholar
  21. Botha, M., & Bignotti, A. (2017). Exploring moderators in the relationship between cognitive adaptability and entrepreneurial intention: Findings from South Africa. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(4), 1069–1095.Google Scholar
  22. Cagetti, M., & De Nardi, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship, frictions, and wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 114(5), 835–870.Google Scholar
  23. Carsrud, A. L., & Johnson, R. W. (1989). Entrepreneurship: A social psychological perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(1), 21–31.Google Scholar
  24. Catholic Church. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004. Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  25. Cowell, F. A., & Fiorio, C. V. (2011). Inequality decompositions - a reconciliation. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(4), 509–528.Google Scholar
  26. Cronqvist, L., 2011. Tosmana, Version 1.3. 2.0 [Computer Program]. University of Trier, Trier 88.Google Scholar
  27. Cronqvist, L., & Berg-Schlosser, D. (2009). Multi-value QCA (mvQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 69–86). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Djankov, S., McLiesh, C., & Ramalho, R. M. (2006). Regulation and growth. Economics Letters, 92(3), 395–401.Google Scholar
  29. Epstein, J., Duerr, D., Kenworthy, L., & Ragin, C. (2008). Comparative employment performance: a fuzzy-set analysis. In: Method and substance in macrocomparative analysis (pp. 67–90). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Fiss, P. C. (Oct. 2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.Google Scholar
  31. Fiss, P. C. (Apr. 2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.Google Scholar
  32. Freytag, A., & Thurik, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a cross-country setting. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 117–131.Google Scholar
  33. Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 271–303.Google Scholar
  34. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2010). Class analysis and the reorientation of class theory: The case of persisting differentials in educational attainment. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(s1), 311–335.Google Scholar
  35. Hamilton, B. H. (2000). Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 604–631.Google Scholar
  36. Harvey, A. M. (2005). Becoming entrepreneurs: Intersections of race, class, and gender at the black beauty salon. Gender & Society, 19(6), 789–808.Google Scholar
  37. Hayhurst, L. M. (2014). The “girl effect”and martial arts: Social entrepreneurship and sport, gender and development in Uganda. Gender, Place & Culture, 21(3), 297–315.Google Scholar
  38. Hsu, S.-Y., Woodside, A. G., & Marshall, R. (2013). Critical tests of multiple theories of cultures’ consequences: Comparing the usefulness of models by Hofstede, Inglehart and Baker, Schwartz, Steenkamp, as well as GDP and distance for explaining overseas tourism behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 679–704.Google Scholar
  39. Jakovčević, D., Dumičić, K., & Anđelinović, M. (2017). Measuring recent changes of insurance gross premiums distribution using ten inequality measures: Case study of Croatia. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30(1), 661–675.Google Scholar
  40. Kedmenec, I., & Strašek, S. (2017). Are some cultures more favourable for social entrepreneurship than others? Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30(1), 1461–1476.Google Scholar
  41. King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance, entrepreneurship and growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 513–542.Google Scholar
  42. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  43. Lassala, C., Apetrei, A., & Sapena, J. (2017). Sustainability matter and financial performance of companies. Sustainability, 9(9), 1498.Google Scholar
  44. Leo XIII, 1891. Rerum Novarum. Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  45. Lijphart, A. (Sep. 1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review, 65(3), 682–693.Google Scholar
  46. Longest, K. C., & Vaisey, S. (2008). Fuzzy: A program for performing qualitative comparative analyses (QCA) in Stata. Stata Journal, 8(1), 79–104.Google Scholar
  47. Lortie, J., & Cox, K. C. (2018). On the boundaries of social entrepreneurship: A review of relationships with related research domains. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–10.Google Scholar
  48. Macrae, J. (1982). Underdevelopment and the economics of corruption: A game theory approach. World Development, 10(8), 677–687.Google Scholar
  49. Mas-Verdu, F., Ribeiro, D., & Dobón, S. R. (2010). Government policies and services: An approach to the international context. The Service Industries Journal, 30(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  50. Minniti, M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor. 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, Babson Park, MA: Babson College and London Business School.Google Scholar
  51. Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1991). The allocation of talent: Implications for growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 503–530.Google Scholar
  52. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance (Vol. 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. North, D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review, 84(3), 359–368.Google Scholar
  54. North, D. C. (1997). Cliometrics–40 years later. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 412–414.Google Scholar
  55. North, D. C. (2005). The contribution of the new institutional economics to an understanding of the transition problem. In: Wider Perspectives on Global Development (pp. 1–15). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  56. Quadrini, V. (1999). The importance of entrepreneurship for wealth concentration and mobility. Review of Income and Wealth, 45(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  57. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.Google Scholar
  59. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond (Vol. 240). Wiley Online Library.Google Scholar
  60. Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2014). fs/QCA: Fuzzy-set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis, versión 2.5 [computer program]. Irvine: Department of Sociology, University of California.Google Scholar
  61. Rey-Marti, A., Tur Porcar, A., & Mas-Tur, A. (Apr. 2015). Linking female entrepreneurs’ motivation to business survival. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 810–814.Google Scholar
  62. Rezazadeh, A., & Nobari, N. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of cooperative entrepreneurship: A conceptual model and empirical investigation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 479–507.Google Scholar
  63. Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Zeng, J. (2018). Some issues in recent entrepreneurship approaches: Joining previous and current theories. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  64. Robinson, J. A., & Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. New York: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  65. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ruttan, L. (2006). Sociocultural heterogeneity and the commons. Current Anthropology, 47(5), 843–853.Google Scholar
  67. Sanandaji, T., & Leeson, P. T. (2013). Billionaires. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 313–337.Google Scholar
  68. Schmitz, J. A., Jr. (1989). Imitation, entrepreneurship, and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 97(3), 721–739.Google Scholar
  69. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. Shane, S. (2009). Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics, 33(2), 141–149.Google Scholar
  72. Soriano, D. R., Dobón, S. R., & Tansky, J. (2010). Guest editors’ note: linking entrepreneurship and human resources in globalization. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 217–223.Google Scholar
  73. Stam, E. (2013). Knowledge and entrepreneurial employees: A country-level analysis. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 887–898.Google Scholar
  74. Steckel, R. H., & Moehling, C. M. (2001). Rising inequality: Trends in the distribution of wealth in industrializing New England. The Journal of Economic History, 61(1), 160–183.Google Scholar
  75. Tanzi, V., Davoodi, H., 1997. Corruption, public spending and growth. Tech. rep., IMF working paper, WP/97/139.Google Scholar
  76. Urry, J. (Oct. 2005). The complexities of the global. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5), 235–254.Google Scholar
  77. Weber, M. (1904). The Protestant ethic and the Spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  78. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (Aug. 1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27–56.Google Scholar
  79. Woodside, A. G. (Apr. 2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472.Google Scholar
  80. Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace perform model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessCatholic University of ValenciaValenciaEspaña

Personalised recommendations