As the three authoritative databases of entrepreneurship research, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED), and Chinese Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (CPSED) have greatly contributed to the contextualization and independent development of entrepreneurship research. However, the existing research findings are far from enough, lacking the integrated framework that can fully reflect the contribution of three entrepreneurship databases. In view of this, this paper systematically combs the entrepreneurship research themes and three major database deficiencies, and then constructs a comprehensive analytical framework to promote the flourishing of entrepreneurship research. Firstly, this paper provides an overall introduction to the three major entrepreneurship databases, and compares and analyzes their design ideas and data structures, thus helping scholars further identify what can be used in the three major databases. Secondly, by adopting the method of bibliometric analysis, this paper reviews 219 entrepreneurship literatures which use the three databases and are published in top journals, and analyzes their publication years and journals to understand the basic distribution. Thirdly, this paper summarizes the development of research themes and constructs an integrated framework to understand the unique advantages of the three databases that provide important guidance for the evolution of entrepreneurship research. Among them, this paper focuses on six hot research themes, including entrepreneurs and teams, entrepreneurial opportunities, entrepreneurial financing, entrepreneurial decision-making, entrepreneurial impact, and entrepreneurial environment. Finally, based on the above analysis, this paper summarizes the five main shortcomings of the three major databases, namely, lack of effective long-term tracking, vague variable measurement, subjective variable measurement, scattered research themes, and insufficient sample size, and proposes suggestions for the construction of large-scale databases in the future. This paper innovatively reveals the great value of the three major entrepreneurship databases in advancing entrepreneurship research, proposes the innovative requirements for research data for the development of entrepreneurship research, provides important theoretical support for the construction of entrepreneurship databases, and emphasizes the significant role of entrepreneurship contextualization and its close connection with databases. The study has certain theoretical significance for further promoting entrepreneurship research and achieving a better construction of entrepreneurship databases.
The Three Major Databases of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship Research
Foreign Economics & Management Vol. 44, Issue 08, pp. 3 - 23 (2022) DOI:10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20220516.106
Dong B B. Entrepreneurship research in China: Review and prospects[J]. Foreign Economies and Management, 2014, 36(01): 73-81.
Song Y Y, Zhao J X. A study on the effect of regional trust diversity on individual entrepreneurial entry decision—Empirical evidences from 33 countries[J]. Management Review, 2020, 32(9): 118.
Tian L, Zhang Y L. Work-family conflict in an entrepreneurship context: A role transition perspective[J]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2018, 21(5): 90-110.
Yang J, Zhang Y L, Han W, et al. Can top management team shape new ventures’ competitive advantages through business model innovation? Empirical evidence from CPSED Ⅱ database[J]. Management World, 2020, 36(7): 55-76.
Ye W P, Yang X R, Zhu H. Do entrepreneurial activity affect happiness? A comparative study on national cultural and Institutional environment[J]. Nankai Business Review, 2018, 21(04): 4-14.
Zhang X E, Wang C, Li S. Institutional environment, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention[J]. Science Research Management, 2021, 42(10): 1-17.
Zhang Y L, Yan L P, Hu W B. Growth aspiration of the entrepreneurs in the new venture creation[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2010, 7(10): 1448-1454+ 1471.
Zhou D M, Chen X L, Yang J, et al. Entrepreneurial research: A review and prospects[J]. Management World, 2020, 36(1): 206-225.
Acs Z J, Estrin S, Mickiewicz T, et al. Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective[J]. Small Business Economics, 2018, 51(2): 501-514.
Álvarez C, Urbano D, Amorós J E. GEM research: achievements and challenges[J]. Small Business Economics, 2014, 42(3): 445-465.
Bosma N, Sanders M, Stam E. Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Europe[J]. Small Business Economics, 2018, 51(2): 483-499.
Boudreaux C J, Nikolaev B N, Klein P. Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2019, 34(1): 178-196.
Chen H S, Mitchell R K, Brigham K H, et al. Perceived psychological distance, construal processes, and abstractness of entrepreneurial action[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2018, 33(3): 296-314.
Crawford G C, Skorodziyevskiy V, Frid C J, et al. Advancing entrepreneurship theory through replication: A case study on contemporary methodological challenges, future best practices, and an entreaty for communality[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2022.
Dau L A, Cuervo-Cazurra A. To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-market institutions[J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2014, 29(5): 668-686.
Du K, O’Connor A. Entrepreneurship and advancing national level economic efficiency[J]. Small Business Economics, 2018, 50(1): 91-111.
Hechavarría D M, Brieger S A. Practice rather than preach: cultural practices and female social entrepreneurship[J]. Small Business Economics, 2022, 58 (2): 1131-1151.
Lim Y, Suh C S. Where is my partner? The role of gender in the formation of entrepreneurial businesses[J]. Small Business Economics, 2019, 52(1): 131-151.
Naudé W, Amorós J E, Cristi O. “Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken”: entrepreneurship and happiness[J]. Small Business Economics, 2014, 42(3): 523-540.
Pindado E, Sánchez M. Researching the entrepreneurial behaviour of new and existing ventures in European agriculture[J]. Small Business Economics, 2017, 49(2): 421-444.
Thébaud S. Business as plan B: Institutional foundations of gender inequality in entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2015, 60(4): 671-711.
Urbano D, Alvarez C. Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: an international study[J]. Small Business Economics, 2014, 42(4): 703-716.
Yusuf J. A tale of two exits: nascent entrepreneur learning activities and disengagement from start-up[J]. Small Business Economics, 2012, 39(3): 783-799.
Cite this article
Ye Wenping, Pan Shimin, Yang Jun. The Three Major Databases of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship Research[J]. Foreign Economics & Management, 2022, 44(8): 3-23.
Previous: Conservative or Radical: The Influence of Managers’ Military Experience on the Company’s Risk-Taking