Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2021)
June 2021

Articles

Entrepreneurial ecosystem of Luxembourg: Empirical insights into barriers and stimuli based on GEI data

https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2021.0702.04

Published 2021-06-01

  • Sahoum Ali Aljazzazen

Sahoum Ali Aljazzazen
University of Pécs

Abstract

Objective: The research objective of this article is to evaluate Luxembourg’s entrepreneurship position and performance, and compare its entrepreneurship profile with other countries, and then to investigate the main bottleneck that holds back Luxembourg’s growth in terms of entrepreneurship.
Research Design & Methods: The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) approach was employed in this research. This methodology focuses on institutional and individual dimensions of entrepreneurship that are linked to efficiency. Furthermore, we used a unique feature of the GEI, the Penalty for Bottleneck (PFB) methodology, to infer which entrepreneurial elements should be tackled and how much effort is needed to alleviate the bottleneck of the Luxembourg entrepreneurial profile.
Findings: The study results show no improvement in Luxembourg’s profile in terms of entrepreneurship from 2014 to 2016, although it has a very high GDP per capita than those with GEI higher than it. The “start-up skills” were the main bottleneck in terms of entrepreneurship performance, which lowers the overall GEI score of Luxembourg. Therefore, the start-up skills should be improved 100% to become 0.23 in order to enhance Luxembourg’s GEI score by 10 points; consequently, the new overall GEI becomes 68.3.
Implications & Recommendations: To increase and develop entrepreneurship programs in Luxembourg, the responsible authorities in Luxembourg must adapt entrepreneurship programs that target various groups of society, especially with many immigrants. It should also facilitate access to entrepreneurial and support programs to enable aspiring entrepreneurs to create their businesses. Luxembourg should also focus on refugees by strengthening the entrepreneurial programs available to them and cooperating with NGOs to overcome obstacles such as the language barrier.
Contribution & Value Added: This paper highlights Luxembourg’s vulnerable performance using a new approach that combines single and institutional variables in a unique model. Additionally, what sets this research apart is the use of PFB, which is also used to uncover the components of entrepreneurship that need to be addressed.

Keywords

entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial ecosystem; bottleneck’s penalty; GEI; GEM; Luxembourg

pdf

Author Biography

Sahoum Ali Aljazzazen

Bachelor of Computer engineering (Yarmouk University, Jordan); Master of Business Administration (Balqa’a Applied University, Jordan); PhD Candidate in Business Administration (University of Pécs, Hungary). His research interests include quality management and knowledge management in the service organizations.

Correspondence to: Sahoum Ali Aljazzazen, University of Pécs, Pécs, Rákóczi út 80, 7622, Hungary, e-mail: eng.sahoum@hotmail.com

References

  1. Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016
  2. Ács, Z. J., Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., & Lloyd, A. (2018). Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2018. In SpringerBriefs in Economics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03279-1
  3. Ács, Z., Szerb, L., & Autio, E. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782540427
  4. Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755-764. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227384
  5. Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The missing link: knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9235-1
  6. Carr, C. (2018). Sustainability in small states: Luxembourg as a post-suburban space under growth pressure in need of a cross-national sustainability. in: Brinkmann R., Garren S. (Eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainability. (727-738). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71389-2_39
  7. Cieślik, J., & van Stel, A. (2014). Comparative Analysis of Recent Trends in Private Sector Development in CEE Transition Economies. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(2), 205-235. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0054
  8. Fritsch, M., & Schroeter, A. (2011). Why does the effect of new business formation differ across regions? Small Business Economics, 36(4), 383-400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9256-9
  9. Gancarczyk, M. (2019). The Performance of High-Growers and Regional Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Research Framework. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(3), 99-123. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2019.070306
  10. Liñán, F., & Fernandez-Serrano, J. (2014). National culture, entrepreneurship and economic development: Different patterns across the European Union. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 685-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9520-x
  11. Lubbadeh, T. (2019). Entrepreneurship development in Japan: An empirical analysis. International Entrepreneurship Review, 5(3), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.15678/ier.2019.0503.02
  12. Maj, J., & Kubiciel-Lodzińska, S. (2020). Entrepreneurial tendencies of migrants working in the care sector in Poland. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(3), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.15678/eber.2020.080302
  13. OECD/EU. (2017). The missing entrepreneurs 2017: Policies for Inclusive Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264283602-en
  14. OECD/European Union. (2017). Inclusive Entrepreneurship Policies, Country Assessment Notes. Luxembourg, 2018. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/industry/smes/LATVIA-country-note-2017.pdf on November 15, 2020.
  15. Pinillos, M. J., & Reyes, L. (2011). Relationship between individualist-collectivist culture and entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data. Small Business Economics, 37(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9230-6
  16. Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., & Chin, N. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection Design and Implementation 1998?2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1980-1
  17. Schinzel, U. (2016). Impact of national culture on e-recruitment practices in Luxembourg. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 12(2-3), 318-336. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2016.074972
  18. Szerb, L., & Trumbull, W. N. (2018). Entrepreneurship development in Russia: is Russia a normal country? An empirical analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(6), 902-929. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2018-0033
  19. Thornton, P. H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610391930
  20. Ubrežiová, I., Wach, K., & Horváthová, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises: Comparative study between Slovakia and Poland for the years 2001–2007. Agricultural Economics, 54(8), 358-366.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.