Advertisement

Regional Disparities in Entrepreneurship in Turkey with Respect to Gender Using a Regression of Pooling Cross Sections: 2006–2015

  • Esra KaradenizEmail author
  • Ahmet Özçam
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

Entrepreneurship is an important process in regional economic development. However, there is no dedicated research to determinants of entrepreneurship in relation to all regions of Turkey. The main objective of chapter is to find the extent to which the level of entrepreneurial activity varies between regions in Turkey. This chapter also contributes to the field of entrepreneurship studies by presenting, for the first time, the entrepreneurship data of women over the regions of Turkey and by analyzing the regional variations with respect to gender in the early stage of entrepreneurial activity.

Our findings support the fact that the entrepreneurial activity in the West Marmara, the Mediterranean, the West Black Sea and the West, Southeast and the Central Anatolia Regions, are no different from the base Region of Istanbul. The general entrepreneurship pursuit in Aegean, the East Marmara, the East Black Sea, the Northeast Anatolia and the Central East Anatolia Regions are found to be about 2% lower compared to the Region of Istanbul, on the average. On the other hand, the likelihood of being an entrepreneur among women is highest in the Aegean Region which is 9.4%. This likelihood is even higher than that in the Region of Istanbul which is 8.1%. Hence, the probability of being a woman entrepreneur ranges from 5.8 to 10.6% in Turkey. When the same probabilities are considered at the age of 45, they are lower and range from 5.4 to 9.7%.

Moreover, while the entrepreneurial attitudes, i.e. fear of failure in starting business, and education have a negative effect, the perceptions on start-up opportunities and believed to have knowledge, skill and experience have a positive effect on the probability of being an entrepreneur.

The data used in this study were collected by means of the national adult population Survey (APS) from the Global Entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) project conducted in Turkey covering the years of 2006–2015 (except for the year of 2009). The dataset consisting of 56,142 interviews with a representative sample of adults (18–64 years old) covering 12 regions.

Keywords

Probability of being an early-stage entrepreneur Regional effects Women and men entrepreneurship Turkish population Distribution of age Logistic model 

References

  1. Aldrich HE, Martinez MA (2001) Many are called, but few are chosen: an evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 25:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen E, Elam A, Langowitz N, Dean M (2007) Report on women and entrepreneurship, global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) [online], GEM website. www.gemconsortium.org
  3. Arenius P, Minniti M (2005) Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 24:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchflower DG (2004) Self-employment: more may not be better. NEBE working paper 10286Google Scholar
  5. Bosma N (2009) The geography of entrepreneurial activity and regional economic development. A-D Druk B.V, ZeistGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosma N, Harding R (2007) Global entrepreneurship: GEM 2006 summary results. Babson College, Babson ParkGoogle Scholar
  7. Brachert M, Hyll WT (2017) On the simultaneity bias in the relationship between risk attitudes, entry into entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial survival. Appl Econ Lett 24(7):477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delmar F, Davidson P (2000) Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrep Reg Dev 12(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans DS, Jovanovıc B (1989) An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. J Polit Econ 97(4):808–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritsch M, Mueller P (2004) The effect of new firm formation on regional development over time. Freiberg working papers, 01Google Scholar
  11. Gibb F, Nielsen K (2014) Entrepreneurship within urban and rural areas individual creativity and social network. DRUID working paper no 11-01Google Scholar
  12. Grili I, Irigoyen JM (2006) Entrepreneurship in the EU: to wish and not to be. Small Bus Econ 26(4):305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grilo I, Thurik R (2004) Determinants of entrepreneurship in Europe. Max Planck Institute discussion paper on entrepreneurship growth and public policy, 3004. Max Planck Institute of Economics, JenaGoogle Scholar
  14. Kautonen T, Down S, Minniti M (2014) Ageing and entrepreneurial preferences. Small Bus Econ 42(3):579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koellinger P, Minniti M, Schade C (2005) I think I can, I think I can: overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. DIW discussion papers no 501, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamotte O, Colovic A (2013) Do demographics influence aggregate entrepreneurship? Appl Econ Lett 20(13):1206–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levesque M, Minniti M (2006) The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. J Bus Ventur 2(1):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Özdemir Ö, Karadeniz EE (2011) Investigating the factors affecting total entrepreneurial activities in Turkey. METU Stud Dev 38:275–290Google Scholar
  19. Smallbone D, Welter F (2001) The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. Small Bus Econ 16(4):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tamásy C (2006) Determinants of regional entrepreneurship dynamics in contemporary Germany: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Reg Stud 40(4):365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Verheul I, Wennekers ARM, Audretsch DB, Thurik AR (2002) An eclectic theory of entrepreneurship. In: Audretsch DB, Thurik AR, Verheul I, Wennekers ARM (eds) Entrepreneurship: determinants and policy in a European-US comparison. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 11–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Verheul I, Uhlaner LM, Thurik AR (2003) Business accomplishments, gender and entrepreneurial self-image. Scales paper; N2003 12, EIM, ZoetermeerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsYeditepe UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations