Skip to main content

Methodology and Data Description

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2017

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Economics ((BRIEFSECONOMICS))

  • 770 Accesses

Abstract

In previous GEI publications, we have described the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index methodology in detail. Here we describe the structure of the dataset, and a short summary of the GEI methodology. As compared to the previous versions the institutional components of the GEI have been reviewed and changed. Here, we provide a description of the changes. As a result, the previous scores and rankings cannot be compared to this version.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Acs & Szerb 2009, 2012; Acs, Szerb, & Autio 2013, 2014, 2016.

  2. 2.

    See Acs, Szerb, & Autio, 2014 p. 480.

  3. 3.

    Based on our experience, when a country eventually joins GEM, the actual data produced tends to be very similar to our estimates. We have collected those 11 countries that joined GEM over the 2012–2015 time period for which we previously estimated their data points. Out of the 11 countries GEI scores were within the 10% range of differences including Botswana, Burkina Faso, Estonia, Malawi, Namibia, Qatar and Senegal. Three countries—Cameroon, El Salvador and Ethiopia—are within the 20% range, and the only large difference in calculation is Bulgaria. Bulgaria has proved to be a major outlier in the European Union, just as nearly every data set has outliers. It seems that we did provide fair estimations for all the African countries. When you evaluate these estimation results do not forget that all data collection has an error term since we use samples and not the full population. In fact the error term in Bulgaria, based on the Total Early-phased Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA), appears to be very high. For more information on the application of estimated data see our website https://thegedi.org/the-value-of-estimation-creating-reference-points-for-countries-with-missing-data/.

  4. 4.

    For detailed policy analysis see Autio & Levie 2015, Estonia report 2015.

  5. 5.

    Groh et al. 2012.

  6. 6.

    Some may not consider the West Bank and Gaza Strip an independent country. Tonga and Vanuatu are tiny countries, and Yemen and Syria have been engaged in civil war over the last few years.

  7. 7.

    In order to check potential bias, the index was calculated without these countries; however, the GEI values and the rank order of the involved countries were basically unchanged.

  8. 8.

    OECD (2008).

  9. 9.

    The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures for the original pillar values are 0.94 and 0.96 for the PFB-adjusted pillars, well above the critical value of 0.50. The Bartlett test is significant at the 0.000 level, excluding the possibility that the pillars are not interrelated.

  10. 10.

    We have calculated the c-alpha values for each of the three sub-indices. Using the PFB-adjusted pillar values, the c-alpha scores are 0.92 (ATT pillars), 0.91 (ABT pillars), and 0.93 (ASP pillars).

  11. 11.

    Acs, Rappai & Szerb 2011, Acs, Autio & Szerb 2014.

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Rappai, G., &Szerb, L.. (2011, October 17). Index-building in a system of interdependent variables: The penalty for bottleneck. GMU School of Public Policy Research Paper No. 2011-24. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1945346

  • Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2009). The global entrepreneurship index (GEINDEX). Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5, 341–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2012). Global entrepreneurship index (p. 400). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2013). Global entrepreneurship index (p. 352). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2014). The global entrepreneurship index 2014. Seattle, WA: CreateSpace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2016). The global entrepreneurship index 2015. Cham: Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., & Levie, J. (2015). Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Mimeo: Imperial college Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estonia Report. (2015). Towards a more entrepreneurial Estonia: Call for action. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. https://thegedi.org/estonia-regional-facilitation-report/

  • Groh, A., Liechtenstein, H., & Lieser, K. (2012). The global venture capital and private equity country attractiveness index. http://blog.iese.edu/vcpeindex/about/

  • OECD/European Commission/Joint Research Centre. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Acs, Z.J., Szerb, L., Lloyd, A. (2017). Methodology and Data Description. In: Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2017. SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65903-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics