s10843-016-0193-9

J Int Entrep (2017) 15:56–84
DOI 10.1007/s10843-016-0193-9
Institutional theory and global entrepreneurship:

exploring differences between factor- versus innovation-
driven countries
José Carlos Pinho 1
Published online: 14 December 2016

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Using the lenses of institutional theory, this study examines several Entre-
preneurial Factor Conditions (National Experts Survey database) while focusing on
potential differences of several institutional dimensions between factor- (or production)
and innovation-driven countries. This study therefore examines first the extent to which
several Scott’s institutional variables (normative, regulative, and cultural-cognitive)
differ according to the economic structure of countries participating in NES-GEM.
Results indicate that the relevance of both regulative and cultural-cognitive dimensions
differ between the group of countries driven by factor (or production) versus innova-
tion, with a single exception, the normative dimension. Second, the study fine tunes the
analysis and examines the extent to which the relevance of the aforementioned
dimensions differs in two distinct institutional contexts (Portugal and Angola). Results
show that the relevance of all institutional variables is different except one, the basic
education and training. A possible explanation for these results may be associated to the
lack of and fragility of several institutions and the absence of norms and regulations
needed for a well-functioning economy, particularly in what concerns the factor (or
production)-driven countries. In terms of originality, the study addresses an area of the
GEM model that is under-researched.
Resumen A partir de la teoría institucional, este artículo examina varias condiciones

de los factores emprendedores (base de datos de encuestas de Expertos Nacionales) y se
centra en las posibles diferencias de varias dimensiones institucionales propuestas por
Scott (1995) entre países orientados a los factores de producción y orientados a la
innovación. Este estudio examina en primer lugar la medida en que varias variables
institucionales (normativa, reguladora y cultural cognitiva) difieren de acuerdo a la
estructura económica de los países que participan en NES-GEM. Los resultados indican
* José Carlos Pinho

jcpinho@eeg.uminho.pt
1
School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal
Institutional Theory and Global Entrepreneurship 57
que la puntuación media tanto de la dimensión reguladora como de la dimensión

cultural-cognitiva es diferente entre el grupo de países orientados a los factores de
producción frente al grupo de países orientados a la innovación, con una sola
excepción: la dimensión normativa. En segundo lugar, el estudio afina el análisis y
examina el grado en que la puntuación media de las dimensiones antes mencionadas
difiere en dos contextos institucionales diferentes (Portugal y Angola). Los resultados
muestran que la puntuación media de todas las variables institucionales es diferente,
excepto una: la educación y la formación básica. Una posible explicación de estos
resultados se puede asociar a la fragilidad en el funcionamiento de algunas
instituciones, tales como la ausencia de normas y reglamentos necesarios para una
economía que funcione bien, sobre todo en países impulsados por factores de
producción. Una posible limitación se basa en el hecho de que el estudio sólo aborda
los aspectos institucionales cubiertos en NES-GEM. En términos de originalidad, el
estudio aborda un área del modelo GEM que está poco investigada.
Keywords Cross-cultural management . Global entrepreneurship . GEM data
Summary highlights
Contributions: This study contributes to existing literature in three noteworthy ways:

first, this study addresses an area of the GEM model that is under-researched. Second, it
examines the relevance of several Scott’s dimensions on two different groups of
countries (factor- versus innovation-driven). Third, this study makes a relevant contri-
bution to the growing field of cross-cultural entrepreneurship including Sub-Saharan
countries.
Research questions/purpose: This article aims at analyzing the following research

questions: first, to what extent does the relevance of different institutional variables
differ according to the economic structure of countries participating on GEM. Second,
to what extent does the relevance of different institutional variables differ in the specific
case of two countries.
Basic methods: Following a quantitative approach, a survey was applied to a sample of

National Experts to empirically test the proposed research hypotheses.
Theoretical and conceptual framework: The theoretical foundations of this study rely
mainly on the institutional theory.
Results/findings: Results indicate that the relevance of both regulative and

cultural-cognitive dimensions differ between the group of countries driven by
factor (or production) versus innovation, with a single exception, the normative
dimension. Second, the study fine tunes the analysis and examines the extent to
which the relevance of the aforementioned dimensions differs in two distinct
institutional contexts (Portugal and Angola). Results show that the relevance of
all institutional variables is different except one, the basic education and
training.
58 Pinho J.C.
Limitations: A possible limitation is based on the fact that the study only addresses the
institutional dimensions covered in NES-GEM.
Theoretical and practical implications: From a theoretical implication point of view,

this study advances knowledge in an area of the NES-GEM that is under-researched.
From a practical implication perspective, this study provides a useful picture that helps
to understand the major institutional differences between two groups of countries
(factor versus innovation driven)
Future research suggestions: Future studies should consider analyzing potential causal
relationships in which the three-based institutional dimensions work as predictors of an
effective intention to create a new business.
Introduction
The study of new business creation has been considered an important factor in
explaining national economic growth and development (Baughn and Neupert 2003;
Martínez-Fierro et al. 2016). This justifies why the quest for a deeper understanding of
the factors that drive and shape entrepreneurial activity is important to different fields of
knowledge, particularly for economics, business, sociology, and psychology (Simón-
Moya et al. 2014).
Currently, the institutional view has been receiving a great deal of attention because
it helps to explain why some countries score consistently well on various indicators
while others do not (Amorós and Bosma 2014). However, rates of entrepreneurship
may vary across countries over time and are dependent upon not only of the availability
of individuals predisposed to initiate a business but also from an appropriate institu-
tional context reflected on a favorable economic, social, and political climate (Mueller
and Thomas 2000; Van et al. 2005).
Different types of entrepreneurship can arise under different institutional conditions,
thereby the institutional context offers the models, tools, and limitations that mold
individual choices and attitudes (Valdez and Richardson 2013). North (1990) argues
that a country’s institutional environment provides relatively stable rules, cultural and
social norms, and cognitive structures that set the framework for market transactions
through the definition of the Brules of the game.^ In the same line, Baumol (1996, p. 3)
argues that to understand how the entrepreneur acts at a given time and place Bdepends
heavily on the rules of the game—the reward structure in the economy—that happen to
prevail.^ As Baumol (1996) emphasized, there are two conditions in the process of
allocation of effort into productive entrepreneurship: the first condition relates to the
degree to which the rule of law is accomplished in the country whereas the second is
associated with the degree to which laws support the appropriation of returns from
entrepreneurial efforts. The institutional view summarized by Scott (2008) in his well-
known typology of three categories of institutional forces, named as regulatory,
normative, and cognitive is particularly important to frame the institutional context.
It is generally accepted that the main research stream towards the study of entrepre-
neurship relates to the entrepreneur profile and its personal characteristics, that is, a
view centered on the individual. However, the institutional context has been assuming
an increasing importance (Salimath and Cullen 2010), although, attempts to unpack the
different institutional dimensions have not been consensual in the literature.
Concerning the GEM project, it was set up by Babson College (USA) and the
London Business School (UK) in 1999 as an observatory of individuals’ attitudes
concerning entrepreneurship as well as evaluating the entrepreneurial activity in a
large number of countries. Yet, up to now, most current studies relying on the
GEM project have been mainly emphasizing data from the BAdult Population
Survey^ with very few studies addressing the National Expert Survey (NES)
either from a single national or from an international-based perspective. Based on
this, Amorós et al. (2013) claimed that there are a number of Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions (EFCs) identified by the GEM model that have been little
studied, so it is urgent to fill this gap in global entrepreneurship. Bruton et al.
(2010) maintained that an increasing number of studies/articles have been con-
sidering the institutional framework, a topic also addressed by Baumol (1996)
who observed that the institutional framework reflected on systems of cultural
values, norms of behavior, and regulations are much more important than the
resources available to the entrepreneurial activity. In the same vein, Álvarez and
Urbano (2011) claimed that both formal and informal institutions can either
foster or inhibit the decision to create a new business and opportunity percep-
tions. Therefore, this article seeks to throw more light on this issue and analyzes
the potential differences between institutional dimensions and the structural type
of an economy. In a sense, it is an original study as it aims to take a step
forward a new direction, i.e., examining several EFCs under the lenses of the
Scott’s institutional theory. To achieve such purpose, two research questions are
analyzed:
1. To what extent does the relevance of different institutional variables (normative,

regulatory, and cultural-cognitive) differ according to the economic structure of
countries participating on GEM (particularly those which are factor or innovation
driven).
2. To what extent does the relevance of different institutional variables (normative,
regulatory, and cultural-cognitive) differ in the specific case of two countries
(Portugal and Angola).
To address the first question, this study started from a sample of 176 national experts
of 62 countries grouped into two categories (factor- versus innovation-driven coun-
tries). Here, it is attempted to analyze whether the score of different institutional
dimensions vary according to each country group.
The second question fine tunes the analysis and focuses on two countries
with two distinct structural characteristics (Portugal and Angola). Here, two
countries were considered and therefore examined whether several institutional-
related dimensions differ from a factor- and innovation-driven economy (Porter
et al. 2002; World Economic Forum 2014). This study went further and also
examined potential differences between these two countries concerning the
opportunity to startup. Using the national experts’ opinions from GEM,
Martínez-Fierro et al.(2016) examined whether their views are in line with the
different stages of economic development. Specifically, they studied if there are
60 Pinho J.C.
any patterns in the expert opinions that reflect the different economic stages in
the entrepreneurial environment of their countries. Prior to this, it is important
to define a factor- and innovative-driven economy.
A factor-driven economy is mainly propelled by fulfilling basic requirements,
such as development of institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability,
health, and primary education. The international competitiveness of such an
economy is primarily based upon low factor costs and/or the existence of
abundant raw materials. Additionally, these types of economies have a heavy
reliance on (unskilled) labor and natural resources (World Economic Forum
2014). The chosen country is Angola, an African country that, according to the
World Economic Forum (2014) is positioned between stage 1 (factor-driven) and
stage 2 (efficiency-driven). Angola is the second biggest oil producer in Africa,
and its production and related activities contribute to 85 % of its GDP. Accord-
ing to Silva et al. (2015), Angola has become China’s largest strategic trade
partner in Africa. From an institutional perspective, this type of economy pre-
sents numerous institutional voids arisen from the absence of strong formal rules
of law (Khanna and Palepu 2013).
By contrast, an innovation-driven economy is characterized by being more
knowledge intensive and businesses are required to develop new (and different)
products and services using the most sophisticated processes. From an institu-
tional perspective, these types of economies provide a range of institutions that
facilitate the functioning of markets, such as good enforcement of commercial
laws, transparent judicial and litigation systems, legal protection for property
rights, developed factor markets, and efficient intermediaries (Chen et al. 2016;
North 1990). The chosen country is Portugal, an European country. Portugal
over the last few years has been severely hit by the global financial crisis
(2008–2012) although it made significant progress in addressing long-standing
imbalances and structural reforms (OECD 2014). However, strengthening busi-
ness innovation throughout improving the framework conditions for entrepre-
neurship, specifically by reducing administrative burdens on startups is viewed
as a major challenge (OECD 2014).
The rationale for selecting Portugal and Angola for this study relies on four
noteworthy motives. First, both countries present distinctive institutional envi-
ronments, particularly in what concerns the economic, political, cultural, and
social context. Although there is a secular relationship between Portugal and
Angola that can be traced back to the fifteenth century within the colonial era, in
1975, Angola became an independent country. From that period to the present,
deep and various institutional transformations have occurred in Angola and
Portugal. However, there are still numerous common cultural and social traits
that remain from colonial times. The choice of these two economies may offer a
sort of natural laboratory to understand the impact of institutional change on
entrepreneurial activity (Bruton et al. 2009). Second, there is a paucity of studies
that includes Portuguese-speaking countries. In addition, studies on global entre-
preneurship including sub-Saharan African countries are scarce and shallow.
Third, the familiarity of the author with the language and the institutional
environments provided another reason to select the aforementioned two
countries.
This paper is structured as follows: It starts by presenting the literature review and
hypotheses. A description of the research setting and the main results then follows.
Finally, some limitations and future research directions are identified.
Literature review
The studies undertaken by GEM at a macro-level, particularly at the nation-states

level help to understand the role of the state in promoting entrepreneurial activity
(Urbano and Alvarez 2014; Levie and Autio 2008). This is in line with Hardy
and Maguire (2008) who argued that there are different types of institutional
entrepreneurs that can be classified in the following categories: professions,
associations, social movements, and nation states. The nation-state is particularly
relevant in this study as the institutional framework associated with this major
actor has the power and ability to shape and to promote the institutional
transformation and change. Nation-states and governments can encourage and
foster industry creation as well as entrepreneurship by putting in place and
empowering the right institutional structures (Nasra and Dacin 2010). As collec-
tive actors Bagencies of the state can take a variety of actions, including granting
special charters, allocating key resources such as finance capital, or monopoly
status, imposing taxes, and exercising regulatory controls^ (Scott 1995, p. 94).
Ultimately, as Scott (2008) noted, the nation-states have the power to lead
institutional change with implications not only to the structure of individual
organizations but also to the structure of industry sectors.
In this line, the way how nation-states may influence and promote institutional
changes rely on three pillars: the normative, the regulatory, and the cultural-cognitive
(Scott 2008). These three pillars have been viewed as important explanatory variables
of entrepreneurial activity (Urbano and Alvarez 2014; Scott 1995). According to Scott
(1995), instead of attaching equal weight to different institutional dimensions, various
authors have stressed one or another as central. These dimensions may vary on a
number of elements (Table 1).
Before analyzing the different dimensions of the institutional theory, it is relevant to
understand what an institution means. Although there is no single or universally agreed
definition of Binstitution^ in the institutional school of thought, institutions are generally
Table 1 The pillars of institutions
Emphases Three pillars of institutions
Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive
Basics of compliance Expedience Social obligation Taken for granted

Mechanisms Coercive Normative Mimetic
Logic Instrumentality Appropriateness Orthodoxy
Basics of legitimacy Legally sanctioned Morally governed Culturally supported, conceptually correct
Source: Based on Scott (1995, p. 35)

62 Pinho J.C.
considered as Bthe humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction^ (North
1990, p. 3) comprising formal rules and laws as well as informal features like cultural norms.
Formal rules are explicitly and consciously perceived by individuals, whereas informal rules
are implicit, slowly changing, and culturally transmitted.
Scott (1995, p. 33) defined institutions as Bcognitive, normative, and regulative
structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institu-
tions are transported by various carriers—cultures, structures, and routines—and they
operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction.^ In this sense, institutions are Bmultifaceted
systems incorporating symbolic systems—cognitive constructions and normative
rules—and regulative processes carried out through and shaping social behavior^ (Scott
1995, p. 33).
Several authors view these three dimensions as separate identifiable constructs,
maintaining that each contributes differently to the explanation of entrepreneurship
activity. Although numerous attempts have been made to operationalize Scott’s (1995)
institutional dimensions, there is no consensus concerning the way how these dimen-
sions have been operationalized (see Table 2).
Although scholars tend to agree on the categories of the institutional factors that may
influence entrepreneurship, there is a difference in weight with regard to the effects that
each dimension may exercise on the perception of opportunities. For instance, there are
Table 2 Operationalization of institutional dimensions
Authors Institutional dimensions
Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive
Scott (1995) Rules, laws, sanction Certification, accreditation Prevalence, isomorphism

Kostova Regulative rules about Quality-related social norms Shared social knowledge about
(1997) quality of products and and values quality and quality
services management
Busenitz et al. Laws, regulations and Degree of admiration of Knowledge and skills for
(2000) government policies entrepreneurial activity, establishing and operating a
relating to new business value creative, and new business
innovative thinking
De Clercq Reliability and The extent to which Ability of the country’s
et al. (2010) effectiveness of a entrepreneurship is an population to start or
country’s regulations appropriate career choice manage a new business
with respect to new and
growing firms
Valdez Economic freedom based Participants’ perceptions on Participant’s perceived
and on Heritage entrepreneurship as a knowledge, skill, and
Richardson Foundation/Wall Street career, the status and experience required to start
(2013) Journal IEF respect given to those a business; the role of the
(10 components) engaged in fear of failure in starting a
entrepreneurship business
Urbano and Business legislation, Career choice, high status, Skills, fear of failure, knowing
Alvarez procedures, venture media attention the entrepreneur
(2014) capital
Source: Adapted from Urbano and Alvarez (2014)

several studies that have been emphasizing the importance of cultural and social factors
(Thai and Turkina 2014; George and Zahra 2002), others attach more importance to the
role of education and training in entrepreneurship while others stress the role of
government programs and government policies (Bruton et al. 2010; Thai and Turkina
2014).
Relying upon NES-GEM, this study proxy these three dimensions (normative,
regulative, and cultural-cognitive) by cultural and social norms, government programs
and government policies, basic (primary and secondary) education, and graduate
education. Next, a detailed analysis will be developed for each institutional dimension
and each dimension will be linked to each EFCs variable.
The normative dimension (cultural and social norms)
The normative dimension includes both societal values and societal norms. While the
former are Bconceptions of the preferred or the desirable together with the construction
of standards to which existing structures or behavior can be compared and assessed^
(Scott 1995, p. 37), the latter specifies Bhow things should be done; they define the
legitimate means to pursue the valued ends^ (Scott 1995, p. 37). Put simply, the
normative rules are those that provide the individuals with rights and responsibilities,
with limits and mandatory behaviors.
According to Valdez and Richardson (2013, p. 1157), Bthe normative dimension is
concerned with what people consider to be legitimate, acceptable ways of gaining
something that has broad societal approval.^ Urbano and Alvarez (2014) take this view
forward and associated the normative dimension with culture. Also, Valdez and
Richardson (2013) considered entrepreneur’s perceptions of societal norms regarding
entrepreneurial activity as a good indicator of the relevant normative institutions.
Aligned with these authors, this study considered the cultural and social norms towards
entrepreneurship as representative of the normative dimension.
Cultural and social norms shape human behavior and can be viewed as a collective
phenomenon because it is at least partly shared with people who live within the same
social environment (Hofstede 1991). Culture assumes a collective nature, and the
values associated with it may vary within and among nations, though there is a
considerable overlap between countries’ cultures. As Hofstede (1991, p. 5) observed,
culture is Bthe collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of
one group or category of people from another.^ To better understand the concept of
culture, several scholars divided the concept in several sub-dimensions. For instance,
Hofstede (1980) considered four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/feminism. In a later work, this author
added a fifth-dimension named long- or short-term orientation. Another typology of
culture was proposed by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effec-
tiveness (GLOBE) which includes the following dimensions: future orientation, gender
equality, human orientation, in-group collectivism, orientation for results, and uncer-
tainty avoidance (Javidan and House 2001).
Although Hofstede (1991) did not address directly the relationship between culture and
entrepreneurial activity, this link was studied by a number of authors (Mitchell et al. 2000;
Kreiser et al. 2010). Yet, results from previous studies are not consensual with regard to
this relationship. Several authors studied how culture differences, in particular
64 Pinho J.C.
individualism and power distance shape entrepreneurial awareness and influence the
capacity to start a new business (Mitchell et al. 2000). Others acknowledged that certain
types of cultures are more socially supportive oriented, having a larger impact on self-
efficacy and reciprocal support and, as a result, relying on their community to obtain
necessary resources (Stephan and Uhlaner 2010). These cultures not only evaluate the
individual success achieved through own personal efforts but also emphasizes self-
sufficiency, autonomy and personal initiative. In such cultures, individuals are often
attracted to self-employment because they expect that this will provide greater benefits,
such as a higher social status and social image (Mitchell et al. 2000; Stephan and Uhlaner
2010).
Consistent with Sambharya and Musteen (2014) who examined the link between the
institutional environment and two types of entrepreneurial activities (opportunity-
driven versus necessity-driven), this study follows a similar reasoning by assuming
that cultural and social norms towards entrepreneurship vary between factor- and
innovation-driven countries. Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested:
H1a: The relevance of the cultural and social norms (normative dimension) differs
between factor- and innovation-driven countries.
At a lower level,
H1b: The relevance of the cultural and social norms (normative dimension) differs
in Portugal and Angola.
The regulatory dimension (government programs and government policy)
The regulatory dimension Binvolves the capacity to establish rules, inspect or review
others’ conformity to them, and as necessary, manipulate sanctions—rewards or
punishments—in an attempt to influence future behavior^ (Scott 1995, p. 35). In other
words, it comprises the capacity to establish laws, regulations, and government pro-
grams to promote certain behaviors and inspect others’ conformity to them (Busenitz
et al. 2000; Bruton et al. 2010). Within the regulatory framework, social institutions
assume particular relevance as they influence individuals through regulative and
incentive mechanisms that impinge specific conditions of life and influence psycho-
logical functioning (Kohn et al. 1997). Aligned with previous authors, it is assumed that
government regulation of economic activity promotes entrepreneurial activity
(McMullen et al. 2008; Valdez and Richardson 2013). When considering the Scott
(1995) dimensions, particularly the regulative pillar of institutions, the focus is more
centered on markets or governments (collective actions) rather than individual actions
(Alvarez et al. 2015). Following these arguments and consistent with the NES-GEM
survey, the government programs and government policies were included as proxy
variables of the regulatory dimension.
Specifically, governments through their programs are expected to ensure
markets function efficiently by removing conditions that create entry barriers,
market imperfections, and unnecessarily stifling regulation (Bruton et al. 2010).
Sambharya and Musteen (2014) argue that countries vary widely in the quality
requirements that they pose on entrepreneurs in terms of licenses, capital
requirements, consumer safety, labor regulations, and procedures to start a
new startup, among others factors. That is, an unfriendly environment may
inhibit the level of capital investment, place capital under fiscal and regulatory
barriers, and decrease the entrepreneurial pre-disposition, which are characteris-
tics of certain markets and cultures (Bruton et al. 2010). With respect to this,
Khoury and Prasad (2015) claimed that country environments with formal
institutional constraints can be represented by numerous conditions including
Bineffectual rule of law, government corruption, exploitation of public funds/
resources, the selective application of enforcement of law, inequitable systems
of justice according to group-affiliation, limited access to education or public
benefits, constraint civil liberties, restricted international trade or market-entry,
presence of state-controlled media, or the ongoing risk of political hazards^
(Khoury and Prasad 2015, p. 4). By developing dedicated support programs,
governments can stimulate entrepreneurial activity while addressing gaps in
their resource and competence needs—either on a subsidized basis or by
correcting a potential failure of the market (Levie and Autio 2008).
With respect to government policy, this sub-dimension is recognized as an explicit
regulator of entrepreneurship in the GEM model (Levie and Autio 2008) because it
reflects Bthe broad policy interest towards entrepreneurship and the associated shift in
emphasis from generic Bindustrial policy^ towards specific BSME^ and BInnovation^
policies from the mid-1980s onwards^ (Levie and Autio 2008, p. 241).
In line with Sambharya and Musteen (2014) who analyzed the link between the
institutional dimensions and different types of entrepreneurship, it can be argued that in
comparison with innovation-driven countries, factor-driven countries are less open to
market forces and the monopoly power of state-owned enterprises is likely to distort
competitive forces (Sambharya and Musteen 2014, p. 319). In addition, as these authors
acknowledge, entry by entrepreneurs that seek to pursue opportunities that can poten-
tially disrupt the status quo is more difficult. Thus, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H2a: The relevance of the government programs (regulatory I dimension) differs

H2b: The relevance of the government policy (regulatory II dimension) differs
At a lower level,
H3a: The relevance of the government programs (regulatory I dimension) differs in
Portugal and Angola.
H3b: The relevance of the government policy (regulatory II dimension) differs in
Portugal and Angola.
The cultural-cognitive dimension (basic/post-graduate education and training)
The cultural-cognitive dimension encompasses the collective understandings of the

make-up of social reality and the frames through which individuals and organizations
interpret information (Urbano and Alvarez 2014; Bruton et al. 2010). As Bruton et al.
(2010, p. 423) observed, this is an important dimension to entrepreneurship research as
it relates to Bhow societies accept entrepreneurs, inculcate values, and even create a
66 Pinho J.C.
cultural milieu whereby entrepreneurship is accepted and encouraged.^ It also reflects

the cognitive structures and social knowledge shared by people in a given country
(Urbano and Alvarez 2014), a point also stressed by Busenitz et al. (2000) who
underlined the importance of knowledge and skills possessed by the people in a country
connected to establishing and operating a new business. In line with this reasoning and
consistent with the NES-GEM survey, the education and training on entrepreneurial
activity was included as a proxy variable to address the cultural-cognitive dimension.
When analyzing the impact of education and training on a country’s entrepreneurial
activity, a distinction needs to be made between general and specific education on
entrepreneurship (Verheul et al. 2001). Building on this point, O’Connor (2013)
distinguished two types of education: (1) general education and (2) education and
training on entrepreneurship.
Concerning the general education and, in agreement with O’Connor (2013), the
accomplishment of higher levels of general education is more common among entre-
preneurs. To reinforce this claim, he argued that developed (or innovative-driven)
countries exhibit higher rates of entrepreneurial success when they evidence higher
levels of general education and these rates can be leveraged when combined with
experience (Leffler and Svedberg 2005; O’Connor 2013). In the same line, Minniti
et al. (2006) found a positive relationship between higher levels of education and
startup business activities among the nations that participate in the GEM study. General
education not only contributes to enlarge the horizons of knowledge turning individuals
more aware of the potential market opportunities but also provides the necessary
knowledge and the mental flexibility to take advantage of these opportunities. As
Paço et al. (2015) observed, education can be viewed as an important mechanism to
(1) provide individuals with a sense of independence, autonomy, and self-confidence;
(2) make people aware of alternative choices of career; (3) expand people horizons,
making them more capable of perceiving potential market opportunities; and to (4)
provide knowledge that can be used by individuals to develop new business
opportunities.
Yet, other authors claimed that the role of education and training in entrepreneurship
is more efficient to promote and stimulate entrepreneurial skills and knowledge
(Verheul et al. 2001, p. 34), thereby exercising a major influence on entrepreneurial
attitudes. The NES-GEM mainly applies to the later type of education, which can be
divided in primary, secondary, and higher education.
In line with Paço et al. (2011) personal attitudes are very important to explain
entrepreneurship intention. As these authors highlighted, education and training
should focus much more in changing/stimulating favorable personal attitudes towards
entrepreneurship than in providing technical knowledge about business. Under this
perspective, Levie and Autio (2008) argued that entrepreneurship education at basic
and post-secondary levels Bexposes individuals to stories and cases of the discovery
and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities, thus providing students with exam-
ples that they can relate to when encountering market gaps and undervalued resources^
(Levie and Autio 2008, p. 246) In turn, post-secondary entrepreneurship education
universities can offer courses that enable the development of practical skills (Verheul
et al. 2001).
Meanwhile, different types of education levels may vary according to the education
system of each country. Specifically, in the present study entrepreneurship education
and training is defined as Bthe extent to which training in creating or managing SMEs is
incorporated within the education and training systems at all levels^ (Amorós and
Bosma 2014, p. 45).
This study follow Busenitz et al. (2000) who argued that the cognitive dimension
comprises the knowledge and skills possessed by the people in a country connected to
establishing and operating a new business. Therefore, the following hypothesized rela-
tionships are presented below.
H4a: The relevance of the basic education and training (cultural-cognitive I

dimension) differs between factor- and innovation-driven countries.
H4b: The relevance of the post-graduate education and training (cultural-cognitive
II dimension) differs between factor- and innovation-driven countries.
At a lower level,
H5a: The relevance of the basic education and training (cultural-cognitive I
dimension) differs in Portugal and Angola.
H5b: The relevance of the post-graduate education and training (cultural-cognitive
II dimension) differs in Portugal and Angola.
Opportunity to startup
Opportunity is a very indefinable concept. In Davidsson’s (2015) comprehensive

review of the literature, it was found that very few works offer a clear definition of
opportunity thereby, authors who provided in advance a definition struggle to apply a
consistent view. However, there is a broad consensus that opportunities are not formed
in a singular moment but result instead of both determined and emergent action by
entrepreneurs (Alvarez et al. 2015). Specifically, these actions begin an iterative cycle
of change between entrepreneurs, their stakeholders, and an uncertain environment.
According to Wright and Zammuto (2013, p. 53), Bopportunities are an important,
albeit not well developed, concept in institutional entrepreneurship.^ In this line,
institutional entrepreneurs are actors who have an interest in modifying institutional
structures or in creating new ones, and who have sufficient resources to do so. Maguire
et al. (2004, p. 657) define institutional entrepreneurship as Bthe activities of actors who
have particular interest in particular institutional arrangements and who leverage
resources to create new institutions or to transform existing ones.^ DiMaggio (1988,
p. 14), for their part, denotes that new institutions arise when Borganized actors with
sufficient resources see in them an opportunity to realize an interest that they value
highly.^
Since the 1990s, there has been a tendency among new institutionalists to
focus more on the way in which both individuals and organizations innovate,
act strategically, and contribute to institutional change (Battilana 2004). The
notion of agency becomes central to institutional entrepreneurship as actors
(entrepreneurs) are actively involved in influencing and shaping institutions.
Fligstein (1997) acknowledged that institutional entrepreneurs are actors who
constantly attempt to build-up their situations and motivate others to act
cooperatively in the production and reproduction of institutions by providing
them with common meanings and identities (Battilana 2004).
68 Pinho J.C.
Scott (2008) argues that institutional entrepreneurs include both individuals and
collective actors that, in the view of Bruton et al. (2010, p. 429), Blead efforts to
identify political opportunities, frame issues and problems, mobilize constituencies,
and spearhead collective attempts to infuse new beliefs, norms and values into social
structures.^ From a GEM perspective, the environmental conditions, namely gov-
ernment policies and programs, cultural and social norms and the education system
are known as important drivers to create or weaken opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Urbano and Alvarez (2014), for their part, maintain that there are a number of
government policy measures that may foster opportunities to generate new busi-
nesses. These measures include lowering the entry barriers to new firm formation;
reducing the barriers to expansion and growth, including difficulties over the hiring
and firing of labor, the tax regime, or closing business; improving the access to
credit; and providing information, training, and other non-financial support to
entrepreneurs. Conversely, the presence of strict regulations (the Angolan case)
may inhibit entrepreneurial opportunities as far as they restrict economic freedom
and increase transaction costs associated with launching a new business. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H6a: The relevance of the opportunity to startup differs in Portugal and Angola.
Methodology
The decision as to which research design should be adopted for the current research
study was guided by the nature of the research questions and hypotheses. As a result, a
descriptive research was deemed to be appropriate for the purposes of the present study.
The choice of the proper research design is relevant to ensure that the study will provide
relevant information to support the research hypotheses. As previously mentioned, this
study involves two stages.
The first stage includes a sample of 176 national experts in 62 countries grouped by
two categories of countries (factor versus innovative) and presents the relevance (or
average mean) of a number of variables that integrate the EFCs along the period of
2010–2014. This data is available in the GEM project Website (http://www.
gemconsortium.org/data).
The second stage fine tunes the analysis and focuses the attention on two selected
countries, Portugal and Angola. Similarly, these two countries were examined along the
same period of time (2010–2014).
Procedures of data collection
The National Expert Survey NES-GEM relies on primary data collected from national
experts in each country. Due to the lack of updated lists of national experts either in
Portugal or Angola, the experts that were included in both sub-samples were selected on
the basis of reputation and experience. An effort was made to certify that national experts
with a substantial range of knowledge, experience, and academic background were
selected in Portugal and Angola. A minimum of 36 experts were included on each
country’s panel (see Reynolds et al. 2005).
In terms of data collection, the national team in both countries, Portugal and Angola
were responsible for using their own networks and contacts within the country. Once
contacted with a detailed explanation of the project, virtually all national experts were
invited to participate in the questionnaire which was sent by an e-mail (with a hyperlink to
the interview) (Reynolds et al. 2005). The questionnaire for each country had been
translated into the appropriate languages for each country and each national team was
asked to code all expert questionnaire data using standards formats (Reynolds et al. 2005).
These groups of national experts are technically considered as a convenience sample.
Hence, the Portuguese sub-sample includes 163 national experts while the Angolan sub-
sample including 138 national experts. In total, the full sample is based on 301 cases.
It should be noted that, although prior studies have not used extensively the NES, a
number of studies can be referred as using variables included in this database (Levie
and Autio 2008; Bosma 2013; Coduras and Autio 2013; Schott and Sedaghat 2014;
Martínez-Fierro et al. 2016). It is also relevant to notice that, in the view of several
authors, this database is regarded as having high explanatory power (Coduras and
Autio 2013; Martínez-Fierro et al. 2016).
As the sample associated to each year had a small size the procedure used by Kwon
and Arenius (2010) was adopted. Specifically, they have combined data across several
years. One advantage of this decision is associated with the increase of the stability of
different measures. Yet, to confirm if there is a difference in the relevance of different
measures along different years, a one-way ANOVA test was computed. Before exam-
ining each F test, the results of the Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances were
computed. Results evidence that the relevance (or mean score) of different variables did
not differ significantly along the range period considered for analysis.
Measures
As previously mentioned, this study relied on several EFCs to address the three
institutional dimensions proposed by Scott (2008), namely normative (e.g., cultural
and social norms), regulative (e.g., government programs and government policies),
and cultural-cognitive (education and training) (Reynolds et al. 2005). An additional
dimension of NES-GEM referring to the opportunity to start-up was included in the
present study.
Specifically, the construct of cultural and social norms, which in this study repre-
sents the normative dimension is defined as the extent to which Bsocial and cultural
norms encourage or allow actions leading to new business methods or activities that
can potentially increase personal wealth and income^ (Amorós and Bosma 2014, p.
45). This construct contains five indicators (see Table 4).
In turn, the construct government program towards entrepreneurship which repre-
sents the regulative dimension is defined as Bthe presence and quality of programs
directly assisting SMEs at all levels of government (national, regional, municipal)^
(Amorós and Bosma 2014, p. 45). This construct includes six indicators (Table 5). The
government policy that also represents the regulative dimension is related to public
policies supporting entrepreneurship and comprises two components: entrepreneurship
as a relevant economic issue and the existence of taxes or regulations that are either
size-neutral or may encourage new firms and SMEs. This construct covers seven
indicators (Table 6).
70 Pinho J.C.
The construct of education and training, which represents the cultural-

cognitive dimension comprises the extent to which training in creating or
managing SMEs is incorporated within the education and training system at
all levels. This construct is divided in two components: (1) Entrepreneurship
education at basic school (primary and secondary) and (2) Entrepreneurship
education at post-secondary levels (higher education such as vocational, col-
lege, business schools, etc.). This construct has in total six indicators (Tables 7
and 8).
Finally, the construct of opportunity to startup comprises items related to offering
good opportunities for the creation of new firms, among others. This construct includes
five indicators (Table 9). All previous constructs can be found on the NES-GEM survey
and were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from totally false (1) to totally
true (5).
Data analysis
In terms of data analysis, descriptive and inference statistics were used, partic-
ularly t tests to identify possible differences between the mean score (or
relevance) of EFCs (or institutional dimensions) and the type of economy,
particularly factor- versus innovation-driven economies. Before examining each
independent sample t tests, the results of Levene’s test equality of variances
were checked. The outcome of this test determines which of the t values should
be used. Additionally, in order to check whether the results for each dimension
are sensitive to any outliers, a box-plot of the distribution of scores for the two
groups of countries (factor- versus innovation-driven) was computed (see
Appendix 1 and 2). The rectangles represent 50 % of the cases, with the
whiskers (the lines protruding from the box) varying from the smallest to the
largest values (Pallant 2013). The outliers are represented by the small circles.
The only variable showing more sensitivity to outliers is the basic education
and training for the Portuguese sub-sample (Appendix 2). However, it should
be noted that after deleting these outliers, the results obtained were the same.
Differences of institutional variables between two groups

(factor- versus innovation-driven) of countries
This first stage aims at providing an answer to the following research question: To what
extent does the relevance of selected institutional variables differ according to the
economic structure (factor- versus innovation-driven countries) of participating coun-
tries in NES-GEM during 2010–2014.
As can be observed Table 3 indicates that there is not a significant difference in the
mean scores of the normative dimension (cultural and social norms) between the two
groups of economies (factor-driven versus innovation-driven; t = 1.31; p > 0.05).
Conversely, the regulatory dimension I (government programs) is the dimension that
evidences the major difference between the two group of economies (t = −8.45;
p < 0.001). This is also confirmed by the regulatory dimension II (the government
policies) (t = −2.85; p < 0.01). Therefore, it is possible to conclude that there is a
Table 3 Institutional dimensions versus type of economy (factor- versus innovation-driven)
Factors (n = 61) Innovation t test

(n = 115)
Mean Standard Mean Standard

deviation deviation
1. Cultural and social norms—normative 2.87 0.42 2.77 0.61 1.31

2. Government programs—regulatory I 2.26 0.39 2.86 0.45 −8.45***
3. Government policies—regulatory II 2.46 0.53 2.70 0.51 −2.85**
4. Education I (primary, 1.92 0.42 2.16 0.39 −3.78***
secondary)—cultural-cognitive I
5. Education II (graduation: university, business 2.72 0.45 2.84 0.38 −1.78†
school, etc.)—cultural-cognitive II
†
p < 0.10; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
significant difference in both mean scores of the two regulatory dimensions for the two
groups of economies (factor versus innovation).
With regard to the cultural-cognitive dimension, it includes two sub-dimensions
representing two distinct levels of education and training towards entrepreneurship: the
pre-secondary education and graduation (and post-secondary) education. In both cases,
the results are significantly different, although in the case of graduation education a
level of 10 % of significance was considered (t = −1.78; p < 0.10). Overall, it can be
concluded that the scores of the cultural-cognitive dimension operationalized through
two sub-dimensions representing two levels of education and training are different for
the two groups of economies (factor- versus innovation-driven). In line with previous
results, it can be concluded that the following hypotheses: H2a, H2b, H4a, and H4b are
supported by the data while H1a is not supported.
In what concerns to those dimensions that are significantly different (regulatory and
cultural-cognitive dimensions), a possible explanation is based on the fact that in the
group of countries driven to innovation the regulatory dimension, which includes both
government programs and government policies, is likely to show more formalized and
explicit rules to support new businesses in providing a certain predictability. Addition-
ally, there is a major propensity to transfer knowledge from universities to growing
firms. Similarly, people working for government agencies are more knowledgeable and
effective in supporting new and growing firms. With regard to the cultural-cognitive
dimension, the innovation-driven countries are likely to value education and training in
entrepreneurship not only at the basic level but also at the graduate level. Generally
speaking, the education system in innovative countries is better organized and struc-
tured to support new and growing firms.
Differences of institutional variables between two countries: Portugal and Angola
This second stage attempted to answer the following question: To what extent does the
relevance of selected institutional variables differ according to the economic structure
of two specific countries (Portugal and Angola), e.g., an innovation-driven country and
72 Pinho J.C.
a factor-driven country. In this particular case, a detailed analysis was conducted for
each indicator that accounts for each institutional dimension.
In what concerns the normative dimension (cultural and social norms), and consid-
ering the overall mean, Table 4 shows that the national culture in both countries tends to
neglect the individual success, self-sufficiency, personal risk, creativity, and innovation
as well as individual responsibility. Interestingly, as for the previous analysis that
showed a low value for innovative-driven countries in comparison with factor-driven
countries, the same pattern was found. That is, the average mean of indicators for this
dimension is more favorable in the Angolan case (M = 2.89; DP = 0.98) than in the
Portuguese case (M = 2.31; DP = 0.82). However, of five indicators, four are statisti-
cally different in both countries (t = −5.47; p < 0.001). Hence, the data seems to
confirm Hypothesis 1b.
With regard to the regulatory institutional dimension, the first sub-dimension includes
the government programs and the data reveals that it tends to be more favorable in the
Portuguese (M = 2.83; DP = 0.67) case than in the Angolan case (M = 2.23; DP = 0.67).
Among those indicators that revealed to be highly statistically different between two
countries, particular emphasis can be attributed to Bscience parks and business incubators
providing effective support for new and growing firms^ as well as Balmost anyone who
needs help from a government program for a new or growing business in finding what
they need.^ By contrast, the only indicator that is not significantly different between both
countries is Ba wide range of government assistance for new and growing firms can be
obtained through contact with a single agency^ (Table 5). Of six indicators that include
this sub-dimension, five are statistically different (t = 7.66; p < 0.001). It is relevant to
Table 4 Normative (cultural and social norms)
Portugal Angola t test
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean

deviation deviation difference
The national culture is highly supportive of 2.19 1.01 2.85 1.24 −0.65 −4.89***
individual success achieved through own
personal efforts
The national culture emphasizes 2.33 1.03 3.09 1.20 −0.75 −5.77***
self-sufficiency, autonomy, and personal
initiative
The national culture encourages entrepreneurial 2.06 0.96 2.83 1.17 −0.76 −6.11***
risk-taking
The national culture encourages creativity and 2.62 1.00 2.92 1.14 −0.30 −2.42*
innovativeness
The national culture emphasizes the 2.33 0.99 2.75 1.21 −0.42 −3.34
responsibility that the individual (rather than
the collective) has in managing his or her
own life
Global mean 2.31 0.82 2.89 0.98 −0.58 −5.47***
Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 5 Regulatory I (government programs)
Portugal Angola Mean t test

difference
deviation deviation
A wide range of government assistance for new 2.73 1.08 2.69 1.18 0.04 0.31
and growing firms can be obtained through
contact with a single agency
Science parks and business incubators provide 3.58 1.00 2.08 1.09 1.50 12.4***
effective support for new and growing firms
There are an adequate number of government 3.00 1.13 2.61 1.10 0.39 3.05*
programs for new and growing business
The people working for government agencies 2.77 1.02 2.24 0.96 0.52 4.54***
are competent and effective in supporting
new and growing firms
Almost anyone who needs help from a 2.39 0.93 1.78 0.85 0.60 5.86***
government program for a new or growing
business can find what they need
Government programs aimed at supporting new 2.50 0.99 2.01 0.87 0.48 4.51**
and growing firms are effective
Global mean 2.83 0.67 2.23 0.67 0.60 7.66***

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
notice that these results are consistent with previous results when considering the group of
countries. Hence, it can be concluded that hypothesis 3a is supported by the data.
In what concerns the second regulatory sub-dimension (government policies), the
data reveals that contrary to the first sub-dimension, in general, most values are more
favorable with regard to the Angolan (M = 2.35; DP = 0.68) sub-sample than to the
Portuguese sub-sample (M = 2.16; DP = 0.63). Of seven indicators, five are statistically
different between Portugal and Angola (t = −2.56; p < 0.05). It may be interesting to
notice that this result is not consistent with the results obtained in the previous analysis
in which a group of countries were considered. However, it can be concluded that
hypothesis 3b is supported by the data though in an opposite direction (Table 6).
Next, the cultural-cognitive dimension is analyzed. Here, two levels of education
types are considered, namely: the basic (primary/secondary) education and the graduate
education. Overall, the data seems to indicate that both countries (Portugal and Angola)
do not attach high importance to the basic level of education towards entrepreneurship.
Specifically, concerning the basic (primary/secondary) education level, the data reveals
no significant difference between Portugal (M = 1.91; SD = 0.79) and Angola
(M = 1.93; SD = 0.92) (Table 7). Of the three indicators included in Table 7, none is
statistically different (t = −0.26; p > 0.05). It is relevant to notice that this result does not
follow previous analysis, in which different groups of countries were considered (1st
stage). Thus, it can be concluded that hypothesis 5a is not supported by the data.
Table 8 shows that the data concerning to post-secondary (or graduate) education
and training is more favorable in Portugal (M = 2.87; SD = 0.78) than in Angola
(M = 2.29; DP = 0.87). In average, of three indicators, two are statistically different
74 Pinho J.C.
Table 6 Regulatory II (government policies)

difference
deviation deviation
Government policies (e.g., public procurement) 1.90 0.87 2.27 1.07 −0.36 −3.17**
consistently favor new firms
The support for new and growing firms is a 2.63 1.13 2.93 1.22 −0.30 −2.20*
high priority for policy at the national
government level
The support for new and growing firms is a 2.79 1.15 2.69 1.16 0.10 0.79
high priority for policy at the local
government level
New firms can get most of the required permits 1.86 1.02 1.48 0.85 0.38 3.44***
and licenses in about a week
The amount of taxes is NOT a burden for new 1.78 1.08 2.56 1.39 −0.77 −5.29***
and growing firms
Taxes and other government regulations are 2.16 1.13 2.76 1.16 −0.60 −4.49***
applied to new and growing firms in a
predictable and consistent way
Coping with government bureaucracy, 1.99 0.99 1.81 1.18 0.17 1.39
regulations, and licensing requirements it is
not unduly difficult for new and growing
firms
Global mean 2.16 0.63 2.35 0.68 −0.19 −2.56*

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 7 Education and training (primary/secondary)—cultural-cognitive

difference
deviation deviation
Teaching in primary and secondary education 2.06 1.02 1.94 1.07 0.12 0.98
encourages creativity, self-sufficiency, and
personal initiative
Teaching in primary and secondary education 1.93 0.90 1.97 1.01 −0.03 −0.34
provides adequate instruction in market economic
principles
Teaching in primary and secondary education 1.73 0.86 1.88 0.98 −0.15 −1.42
provides adequate attention to entrepreneurship
and new firm creation
Global mean 1.91 0.79 1.93 0.92 −0.02 −0.26
Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true. Note: This variable showed a high number of outliers
(see Appendix 2), particularly for the Portuguese sample. It should be noted that we have performed the same
tests after eliminating these outliers, and the final results are the same (There is no significant difference
between both countries)
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Table 8 Education and training post-secondary (cultural-cognitive)

difference
deviation deviation
Colleges and universities provide good and 2.70 0.98 2.24 0.98 0.46 4.05***
adequate preparation for starting up and
growing new firms
The level of business and management education 3.33 0.96 2.27 0.96 1.06 9.44***
provide good and adequate preparation for
starting up and growing new firms
The vocational, professional, and continuing 2.58 0.95 2.36 1.10 0.22 1.87
education systems provide good and adequate
preparation for starting up and growing new
firms
Global mean 2.87 0.78 2.29 0.87 0.58 6.10***

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
(t = 6.10; p < 0.001). This result is consistent with previous analysis that includes the
group of countries in the same category (factor- versus innovation-driven countries). In
line with this, it can be concluded that hypothesis 5b is supported by the data (Table 8).
Table 9 Opportunity to startup

difference
deviation deviation
In my country, ...
There are plenty of good opportunities for the 3.33 1.05 4.13 1.06 −0.79 −5.68***
creation of new firms
There are more good opportunities for the 3.51 1.07 4.17 1.09 −0.65 ‑4.57***
creation of new firms than there are people
able to take advantage of them
Good opportunities for new firms have 3.13 1.25 4.16 0.97 −1.02 −7.05***
considerably increased in the past 5 years
Individuals can easily pursue entrepreneurial 2.42 0.86 2.50 0.85 −0.08 −0.74
opportunities
There are plenty of good opportunities to create 3.17 1.13 3.91 1.11 −0.73 −4.97***
truly high growth firms
Global mean 3.11 0.79 3.80 0.75 −0.65 −6.46***
This data does not include the year 2014; 5-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
76 Pinho J.C.
Finally, Table 9 shows that the opportunity to startup is more favorable with regard
to the Angolan (M = 3.80; DP = 0.75) sub-sample than the Portuguese sub-sample
(M = 3.11; DP = 0.79). Of five indicators that cover this dimension, four are statistically
different between the two countries (t = −6.46; p < 0.001). Therefore, it can be
concluded that hypothesis 6 is supported by the data (Table 9).
Discussion and conclusions
As previously noted, the study aimed to analyze the relevance of several

institutional variables, based on NES-GEM, by taking into account different
groups of economies, including a vast number of countries. In the first stage,
the data revealed that, in general, the proposed dimensions showed low values
in relation to the mean (M = 3.00 in 5-point Likert scale). The lowest mean
value is associated to basic education and training in both types of economy
(Portugal and Angola).
Therefore, when two groups of countries (factor- versus innovation-driven)
are considered, the only institutional dimension that reveals not to be different
is the normative dimension (or the cultural and social norms). Conversely, the
mean score of the remaining dimensions, namely the regulatory and the
cultural-cognitive dimensions are significantly different for the two groups of
economies under analysis. Overall, of five dimensions, three are significantly
different (Table 3). It should be noted that this analysis only considered the
overall mean of the major institutional dimensions because it was the only
information available by GEM project.
In the second stage, which corresponds to research question two, the analysis
was fine tuned to understand how previous findings can be extended to two
specific countries, namely Portugal and Angola. The reasons why these two
countries were selected have already been presented. Specifically, the objective
was to study the extent to which the mean score of each institutional dimension
(normative, regulatory, and cultural-cognitive and opportunity to startup) differs
along innovative- versus a factor-driven countries.
Given the availability of data, the analysis at this stage was refined at the
level of each indicator. Hence, the normative dimension (cultural and social
norms) includes five indicators, and of these, only one is not statistically
different between two countries, i.e., BThe national culture emphasizes the
responsibility that the individual (rather than the collective) has in managing
his or her own life^ (Table 4). Moreover, results show that the Angolan
national culture tends to promote higher self-sufficiency, autonomy, and indi-
vidual initiative than the Portuguese national culture. Comparing the previous
results with other studies, these findings are also consistent with Singer et al.
(2015) results. These authors were responsible for the production of the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014 - Global Report. That is, African countries that
are factor-driven show higher values with regard to this dimension (M = 2.99)
when compared with the European (EU)-driven countries (M = 2.65).
One possible explanation for this result is the fact that the cultural and social norm
dimension is associated with weak-tie social capital, and as a result this dimension can
be considered as an important informal mechanism for lowering transaction costs while

providing access to needed resources (Stephan and Uhlaner 2010; Stephan et al. 2015).
Concerning the regulatory dimension I (Government programs), the data reveals that
there are a vast number of significant differences between Portugal and Angola. That is,
the global mean is lower for Angola than for Portugal, suggesting that when consid-
ering the group of African countries (factor-driven) in comparison with the EU
countries (innovation-driven), the study results are consistent with these two groups.
That is, the mean for the first group of countries (African) accounts for M = 2.65 while
in the second group (EU countries) the mean represents M = 2.85 (Singer et al. 2015).
With regard to the regulatory dimension II (government policies) of seven
indicators, five are significantly different while two are not. In this particular
case, the global mean is higher in Angola than in Portugal. Relevant to notice
that this difference is also equivalent when considering the group of African
countries (M = 2.50) and the group of European (EU) countries (M = 2.44)
(Singer et al. 2015).
In what concerns both regulatory sub-dimensions, it is interesting to notice
that if on one side the data reflects a more favorable picture of Portugal
concerning the government programs, by contrast, the data reveals a more
favorable picture of Angola with regard to government policies. Interestingly,
when considering the data aggregated by group of economies, the results are
quite similar (Singer et al. 2015).
A possible explanation for the previous inconsistency may be associated with the
notion of institutional voids, which can be defined as the lack of institutional facilities,
norms, and regulations needed for a well-functioning economy (North 1990). In this
line, Khanna and Palepu (2013) referred to institutional voids as the absence of strong
rule of law by formal institutions. Despite the fact that the growth of economic rates
before the decrease of oil prices was positive, the fragility of Angolan institutions is still
a consequence of a monolithic politic regime which deepened social inequality.
Government inactivity may lead to more entrepreneurial activities, particularly those
concerned to necessity-based entrepreneurship. Therefore, Angola can be characterized
by weak governance structures, strong information asymmetries, and weak disclosure
requirements that inhibit an efficient functioning of the market leading to high trans-
action costs. According to several international reports, Angolan government relies on a
heavy bureaucratic-administrative business culture, excessive administrative discretion,
and corruption by government officers, high interest rates, and inflation (www.
business-anti-corruption.com). To generate other sources of revenue that minimize oil
dependence, the Angolan authorities need to develop an institutional framework that
facilitates the development of new entrepreneurial activities, particularly those related
to opportunity-driven entrepreneurship in new sectors of activity.
With regard to the cultural-cognitive dimension, it also includes two sub-dimen-
sions, namely basic (primary/secondary) education and training and post-secondary
education and training. The study results are in line with previous studies, which
concluded that there is a small difference between the group of European (EU)
countries (M = 2.12) and the group of African countries (M = 2.06) (Singer et al. 2015).
Concerning post-secondary education, the data indicates a significant difference
between Portugal and Angola. That is, of the three indicators, two are statistically
significant. In other words, the education and training post-secondary system is better
78 Pinho J.C.
structured in Portugal than in Angola. Entrepreneurship in Portugal is increasingly seen

as a viable alternative to create employment, particularly in a country in which young
unemployment is very high. A current problem in Portugal, and most countries, is
Bhow to foster the creation of startups and make the entrepreneurial career more
attractive to young people^ (Raposo et al. 2008, p. 500). As Raposo et al. (2008)
observed, there has been an increasing effort to improve an entrepreneurial culture,
particularly in the context of higher education institutions. Relying on data from Singer
et al. (2015) report when comparing the group of African countries (M = 2.84) with the
group of European countries (M = 2.82), the values are slightly favorable to the group
of African countries.
Finally, this study included an additional variable (the opportunity to startup), which
was not associated with any particular institutional dimension but is relevant to understand
potential differences between Portugal and Angola. The same type of analysis, i.e., an
analysis at the indicator level, was not possible in the first stage of this study (group of
countries) due to unavailability of data.
It is interesting to emphasize that the opportunity to startup is perceived by
national experts as greater in Angola than in Portugal. Although not specifically
addressed in the present study, one possible explanation for this result may be
related to the nature of entrepreneurship. Necessity-driven entrepreneurship is
usually associated to underdeveloped economies (or factor-driven) and is more
prevalent in the consumer-oriented sectors, particularly in those areas of activity
that are less complex, lower cost, and requiring less financial and human capital
(Sambharya and Musteen 2014). On the contrary, opportunity-driven entrepre-
neurship occurs mainly in the business service sector requiring more intensive
creative processes. This line of reasoning may be transposed to the type of
economy as it partly explains why factor-driven countries show high values
towards the opportunity to startup in comparison with innovation-driven coun-
tries (Table 9).
As noted by Erken et al. (2009:9), Bwith increasing economic development, the
importance of entrepreneurship decreased quantitatively but increased qualitatively.^
This result may also suggest that there are more business opportunities available in
Angola that can be further explored.
Contributions of the study
The results of this exploratory study have relevance for theory and practice. From a
theoretical perspective, the study contributes to the existing literature in three notewor-
thy ways: First, by using the NES-GEM data, the study explores an area of GEM that is
viewed as under-researched (Amorós and Bosma 2014). As Álvarez et al. (2014)
observed, it is interesting to emphasize that 87 % of the articles used APS data, 3 %
used NES information, and 10 % used both information sources. In line with this, it is
clear that studies involving national experts are increasingly needed. Second, this study
contributes to advance knowledge of entrepreneurship using the institutional view and
considering two different groups of economies (factor- versus innovation-driven).
Third, the study makes a good contribution to the growing field of cross-cultural
entrepreneurship including sub-Saharan countries. As Silva et al. (2015, p. 166)
acknowledged, Balthough the African continent is made up of 53 countries, only 12
have been included in at least one of the main cross-cultural studies in recent decades.^
This study is an attempt to fill this gap in the literature.
From a practical perspective, this research provides a useful picture that
helps to understand the major institutional differences among a group of
countries relying on factor- versus innovation-driven factors. Consistent with
Martínez-Fierro et al. (2016), the opinions of the national experts under analysis
seems to form a pattern of behavior that reflects the characteristics of entre-
preneurship in different stages of development (factor- versus innovation-driv-
en). This study uncovers that although both countries (Portugal and Angola)
shared secular strong links derived from colonial times, the current institutional
framework perceived by national experts in entrepreneurship is significantly
different. Yet, it is interesting to notice that the perceptions of national
Angolan’s experts concerning the opportunities of startup is more favorable
(or higher) than the national Portuguese experts. This may suggest that there
are more business opportunities available that can be further explored. Besides,
the need to rebuild the poor infrastructures of the country associated with high
levels of unemployment can be viewed as an important entrepreneurial
opportunity.
Limitations and future research
The findings and implications of this study are also considered in light of its
limitations. One limitation of the study is associated with the perceptions of
national specialists in entrepreneurship though this limitation is transversal to
all studies within NES-GEM.
As mentioned in the Singer et al. (2015) report, perceptions are always
relative, in such a way that national experts assess each dimension in relation
to the way how they view each entrepreneur. In such circumstances, the results
of this study should be viewed with caution in a sense that this study deals
with non-representative samples and analyzes perceptions of specialists instead
of entrepreneurs per see.
Future studies should include, at the level of indicators, a larger group of countries
and enlarge its scope to other types of economies such as efficiency-driven economies.
Another possible research direction is to analyze the potential impact of the proposed
institutional dimensions on the type of entrepreneurship: necessity- versus opportunity-
driven entrepreneurship following other studies in the field (Sambharya and Musteen
2014) but using other sources of data.
It is also relevant that future editions of NES-GEM would refine several variables
that measure each dimension, particularly using other proxy variables that better fit
each institutional dimension (normative, regulative, and cultural-cognitive). Last but
not least, future studies should consider analyzing potential causal relationships in
which the three Scott-based institutional dimensions may work as predictor variables of
an effective intention of creating a new business.
Acknowledgments The author wish to thank Professor Hamid Etemad and the reviewers for the comments
made on an early version of this article. Additionally, the author thanks to SPI-Portugal for providing part of
GEM data (Portugal and Angola), which makes this study possible.
80 Pinho J.C.
Appendix 1
Fig. 1 First stage of data analysis (factor or production versus innovation-driven group of countries). Notes:
For the cultural and social norms variable, the measures of central tendency converge (80.5%) towards 3.00 (5
point scale) for factor (or production)-driven group of countries (Mean=2.87; SD=0.42; Median=3.00). With
regard to the pre-secondary education variable the measures of central tendency converge (82% for both)
towards 2.0 (5-point scale) for both group of economies. Finally, concerning the post-secondary education
variable, the measures of central tendency converge (83%) towards 3.0 (5 point scale) for innovation-driven
countries (Mean=2.84; SD=0.38; Median=3.00)
Appendix 2
Fig. 2 Second stage of data analysis (Portugal versus Angola)
References
Aguilar R, Goldstein A (2009) The chinisation of Africa: the case of Angola. World Econ 32(11):1543–1562
Álvarez C, Urbano D (2011) Environmental factors and entrepreneurial activity in Latin America. Revista
Latinoamericana de Administración 48:31–45
Álvarez C, Urbano D, Amorós J (2014) GEM research: achievements and challenges. Small Bus Econ 42:
445–465
82 Pinho J.C.
Alvarez S, Young S, Woolley J (2015) Opportunities and institutions: a co-creation story of the king crab
industry. J Bus Ventur 30:95–112
Amorós, J., Bosma, N. (2014) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2013 global report: fifteen years of assessing
entrepreneurship across the globe. Available at http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/3106/gem-2013-
global-report/. Accessed 10 November 2014
Amorós J, Bosma N, Levie J (2013) Ten years of global entrepreneurship monitor: accomplishments and
prospects. Inte J Entrep Venturing 5(2):120–152
Audretsch D, Thurik R (2001) What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and
entrepreneurial economies. Ind Corp Chang 10(1):267
Battilana, J., (2004) Foundations for a theory of institutional entrepreneurship: solving the paradox of
embedded agency, INSEAD, WP 2004/61/OB
Baughn C, Neupert K (2003) Culture and national conditions facilitating entrepreneurial start-ups. J Int Entrep
1:313–330
Baumol W (1996) Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. J Bus Ventur 11(1):3–33
Bosma N (2013) The global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) and its impact on entrepreneurship research.
Found Trends Entrep 9(2):143–248
Bruton G, Ahlstrom D (2003) An institutional view of China’s venture capital industry: explaining the
differences between China and the west. J Bus Ventur 18(2):233–260
Bruton G, Ahlstrom D, Li H (2010) Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do
we need to move in the future? Entrep Theory Practice 18:43–62
Bruton G, Ahlstrom D, Puky T (2009) Institutional differences and the development of entrepreneurial
ventures: a comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin America and Asia. J Int Bus Stud 40:
762–778
Busenitz L, Gómez C, Spencer J (2000) Country institutional profiles: unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena.
Acad Manag J 43(5):994–1003
Chen, J. Saarenko, S. and Puumalainen, K. (2016) Internationalization and value orientation of entrepreneurial
ventures—a Latin American perspective. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. DOI 10.1007
/s10843-016-0169-9 (published online: 03 March 2016)
Coduras A, Autio E (2013) Comparing subjective and objective indicators to describe the national entrepre-
neurial context: the global entrepreneurship monitor and the global competitiveness index contributions.
Investigaciones Regionales 26:47–74
Davidsson P (2015) Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization. J
Bus Ventur 30:674–695
De Clercq D, Danis WD, Dakhli M (2010) The moderating effect of institutional context on the relationship
between associational activity and new business activity in emerging economies. Int Bus Rev 19(1):85–
101
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker, L.G. (ed) Institutional patterns
and organizations. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3–22
Eisenstadt SN (1980) Cultural orientations, institutional entrepreneurs, and social change: comparative
analysis of traditional civilizations. Am J Sociol 85(4):840–869
Erken, H., Donselaar, P., Thurik, A. (2009) Total factor productivity and the role of entrepreneurship.
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper no. 2009-034/3
Fligstein N (1997) Social skill and institutional theory. Am Behav Sci 40:397–405
George G, Zahra S (2002) Culture and its consequences for entrepreneurship. Enterp Theory Pract 26(4):5–8
Hardy, C., Maguire, S. (2008) Institutional entrepreneurship. In: R. Greenwood, K., Sahlin and Sudday, R.
(eds) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage Publication, Los Angeles, CA, pp.
198–217
Hirsch PM, Lounsbury M (1997) Ending the family quarrel: toward a reconciliation of Bold^ and Bnew^
institutionalisms. Am Behav Sci 40(4):406–418
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Sage Publication,
Beverly Hills, CA
Hofstede G (1991) Culture and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, London
Javidan M, House R (2001) Cultural acumen for the global manager: lessons from project GLOBE. Organ
Dyn 29(4):289–305
Khanna T, Palepu K (2013) Winning in emerging markets: a road map for strategy execution. Harvard
Business Press, Boston
Khoury T, Prasad A (2015) Entrepreneurship amid concurrent institutional constraints in less developed
countries. Bus Soc 12:1–36
Kohn M, Slomczynski K, Janicka K, Khmelko V (1997) Social structure and personality under conditions of
radical change: a comparative analysis of Poland and Ukraine. Am Sociol Rev 62(4):614–638
Kostova T (1997) Country Institutional profiles: concept and measurement. Acad Manag Proc 1997(1):180–
184
Kreiser P, Marino L, Dickson P, Weaver M (2010) Cultural influences on entrepreneurial orientation: the
impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs. Entrep Theory Pract 34(5):959–983
Kwon SW, Arenius P (2010) Nations of entrepreneurs: a social capital perspective. J Bus Ventur 25(3):315–
330
Leffler E, Svedberg G (2005) Enterprise learning: a challenge to education? Eur Edu Res J 4(3):219–227
Levie J, Autio E (2008) A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Bus Econ 31:235–263
Maguire S, Hardy C (2009) Discourse and deinstitutionalization: the decline of DDT. Acad Manag J 52(1):
148–178
Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/aids
treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad Manag J 47(5):657–679
Martinez-Fierro, S., Biedma-Ferrer, J.M., Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2016) Entrepreneurship and strategies for eco-
nomic development. Small Business Economics (online: 02/05/2016): 1–17
McMullen JS, Bagby D, Palich L (2008) Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial
action. Entrep Theory Pract 32(5):875–895
Minniti, M., Bygrave, W., Autio, E. (2006) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2005 Executive Report.
Available at http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1157607424015/GEM_2005_Report.pdf.
Accessed 8th January 2016
Mitchell R, Smith B, Seawright K, Morse E (2000) Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation
decision. Acad Manag J 43(5):974–983
Mueller S, Thomas A (2000) Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of control
and innovativeness. J Bus Ventur 16:51–75
Nasra R, Dacin M (2010) Institutional arrangements and international entrepreneurship: the state as institu-
tional entrepreneur. Entrep Theory Pract 34(3):583–609
North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press,
New York
North D (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, Princeton
O’Connor A (2013) A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: meeting government and
economic purposes. J Bus Ventur 28:546–563
OECD (2014) Portugal: Deepening structural reform to support growth and competitiveness. OECD
Publications. Available at www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. Accessed 10 November 2014
Paço A, Ferreira J, Raposo M, Rodrigues R, Dinis (2011) Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: empirical
findings about secondary students. J Int Entrep 9:20–38
Paço A, Ferreira J, Raposo M, Rodrigues R, Dinis A (2015) Entrepreneurial intentions: is education enough?
Int Entrep Manag J 11:57–75
Pallant J (2013) SPSS Survival Manual. McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, England
Porter M, Sachs JJ, McArthur J (2002) Executive summary: competitiveness and stages of economic
development. In: Porter ME, Sachs JJ, Cornelius PK, McArthur JW, Schwab K (eds) The global
competitiveness report 2001–2002. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 16–25
Powell W, DiMaggio P (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago
Raposo, M., Ferreira, J., Paço, A., Rodrigues, R. (2008) Propensity to firm creation: empirical research using
structural equations. 4, pp. 485–504
Reynolds P, Bosma N, Autio E, Hunt SB, Servais I, Lopez-Garcia P, Chin N (2005) Global entrepreneurship
monitor: data collection and implementation 1998-2003. Small Bus Econ 24(3):205–231
Reynolds, P., Hay, M., Camp, S. (1999) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 1999 Executive Report. Available
at http://www.gemconsortium.org. Accessed 15 November 2014
Román C, Congregado E, Millán J (2013) Start-up incentives: entrepreneurship policy or active labour market
programme? J Bus Ventur 28:151–175
Salimath M, Cullen (2010) Formal and informal institutional effects on entrepreneurship: a synthesis of
national-level research. Int J Organ Anal 18(3):358–385
Sambharya R, Musteen M (2014) Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: an empirical study across
countries. J Int Entrep 12:314–330
Schott T, Sedaghat M (2014) Innovation embedded in entrepreneurs’ networks and national education
systems. Small Bus Econ 43:463–476
Scott WR (1995) Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
84 Pinho J.C.
Scott W (2008) Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests, 3rd edition. Foundations of Organizational
Science Series. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Selznick P (1957) Leadership in administration. Pow, Peterson, Evanston, IL
Shane S (1993) Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. J Bus Ventur 8:59–73
Silva M, Roque H, Caetano A (2015) Culture in Angola: insights for human resources management. Cross
Cult Manag 22(2):166–186
Simón-Moya V, Revuelto-Taboada L, Guerrero R (2014) Institutional and economic drivers of entrepreneur-
ship: an international perspective. J Bus Res 67:715–721
Singer S, Amorós J, Arreola DM (2015) Global entrepreneurship monitor 2014 global report. Available:
http://www.gemconsortium.org/. Acessed April 2015
Stephan U, Uhlaner L (2010) Performed-based vs. socially supportive culture: a cross-national study of
descriptive norms and entrepreneurship. J Int Bus Stud 41(8):1347–1364
Stephan U, Uhlaner L, Stride C (2015) Institutions and social entrepreneurship: the role of institutional voids,
institutional support, and institutional configurations. J Int Bus Stud 46:308–331
Thai M, Turkina E (2014) Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus informal entrepreneur-
ship. J Bus Ventur 29:490–510
Urbano D, Alvarez C (2014) Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: an international study.
Small Bus Econ 42:703–716
Valdez M, Richardson J (2013) Institutional determinants of macro-level entrepreneurship. Enterp Theory
Pract 37(5):983–1247
Van Stel A, Storey D, Thurik A (2005) The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth.
Small Bus Econ 24(3):311–321
Verheul I, Wennekers S, Audretsch D, Thurik R (2001) An eclectic theory of entrepreneurship, discussion
paper TI2001-030/3. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam
Wennekers A, van Stel A, Thurik A, Reynolds P (2005) Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic
development. Small Bus Econ 24(3):293–309
World Economic Forum (2014) The global competitiveness report 2014–2015: full data edition. Available at
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015 Accessed 10 November 2014)
Wright A, Zammuto R (2013) Creating opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship: the colonel and the cup
in English county cricket. J Bus Ventur 28:51–68

s10843-016-0193-9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

s10843-016-0193-9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

s10843-016-0193-9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Int Entrep (2017) 15:56–84

Institutional theory and global entrepreneurship:

José Carlos Pinho 1

Published online: 14 December 2016

Resumen A partir de la teoría institucional, este artículo examina varias condiciones

* José Carlos Pinho

que la puntuación media tanto de la dimensión reguladora como de la dimensión

Keywords Cross-cultural management . Global entrepreneurship . GEM data

Contributions: This study contributes to existing literature in three noteworthy ways:

Research questions/purpose: This article aims at analyzing the following research

Basic methods: Following a quantitative approach, a survey was applied to a sample of

Results/findings: Results indicate that the relevance of both regulative and

Theoretical and practical implications: From a theoretical implication point of view,

1. To what extent does the relevance of different institutional variables (normative,

The studies undertaken by GEM at a macro-level, particularly at the nation-states

Table 1 The pillars of institutions

Emphases Three pillars of institutions

Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive

Basics of compliance Expedience Social obligation Taken for granted

Source: Based on Scott (1995, p. 35)

Table 2 Operationalization of institutional dimensions

Authors Institutional dimensions

Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive

Scott (1995) Rules, laws, sanction Certification, accreditation Prevalence, isomorphism

Source: Adapted from Urbano and Alvarez (2014)

The normative dimension (cultural and social norms)

The regulatory dimension (government programs and government policy)

H2a: The relevance of the government programs (regulatory I dimension) differs

The cultural-cognitive dimension (basic/post-graduate education and training)

The cultural-cognitive dimension encompasses the collective understandings of the

cultural milieu whereby entrepreneurship is accepted and encouraged.^ It also reflects

H4a: The relevance of the basic education and training (cultural-cognitive I

Opportunity is a very indefinable concept. In Davidsson’s (2015) comprehensive

Procedures of data collection

The construct of education and training, which represents the cultural-

Differences of institutional variables between two groups

Table 3 Institutional dimensions versus type of economy (factor- versus innovation-driven)

Factors (n = 61) Innovation t test

Mean Standard Mean Standard

1. Cultural and social norms—normative 2.87 0.42 2.77 0.61 1.31

Differences of institutional variables between two countries: Portugal and Angola

Table 4 Normative (cultural and social norms)

Portugal Angola t test

Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean

Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true

Table 5 Regulatory I (government programs)

Portugal Angola Mean t test

Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true

Table 6 Regulatory II (government policies)

Portugal Angola Mean t test

Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true

Table 7 Education and training (primary/secondary)—cultural-cognitive

Portugal Angola Mean t test

Table 8 Education and training post-secondary (cultural-cognitive)

Portugal Angola Mean t test

Five-point Likert scale: 1 = totally false; 5 = totally true

Table 9 Opportunity to startup

Portugal Angola Mean t test

Discussion and conclusions

As previously noted, the study aimed to analyze the relevance of several