ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY IN EMERGING … · ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY IN EMERGING ECONOMIES ... six emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Indo-nesia,SouthKorea,andRussia)

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY INEMERGING ECONOMIES

GARRY D. BRUTON,1,2* IGOR FILATOTCHEV,3,4 STEVEN SI,5,6 andMIKE WRIGHT7,8

1Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, U.S.A.2Sun Yat Sen Business School, Sun Yat Sen University, Guangzhou, China3Cass Business School, City University London, London. U.K.4Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria5Tongji University, Shanghai, China6Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.7Center for Management Buyout Research, Imperial College Business School,London, U.K.8Department of Management, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

The goals of the special issue are to: (1) publish work that builds knowledge about thenature of strategic and entrepreneurial activities in emerging economies, as well as theirantecedents and consequences; and (2) develop a theoretical foundation for future research.In this introduction to the special issue, we initially review the existing literature and themajor definitions used to date for emerging economies. We then develop a framework for theanalysis of where strategic entrepreneurship in emerging economies now stands that, in turn,allows us to develop an understanding of where the field needs to move in the future. Wesubsequently identify how each article in this special issue informs our research questionsas we develop an agenda for future research. Copyright © 2013 Strategic ManagementSociety.

INTRODUCTION

The world is undergoing a rapid economic shift asfirms in the long dominant economies of Europe andNorth America are increasingly being challenged byfirms from emerging economies: low-income, high-growth nations principally reliant on economic lib-eralization for their growth (Hoskisson et al., 2000;Wright et al., 2005; Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Li,2010). The growth of emerging economies is suchthat the World Bank’s chief economist predicts thatsix emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Indo-

nesia, South Korea, and Russia) will account for halfof the world’s economic growth by 2025 (Lin, 2011).Yet, despite the importance of emerging economiesto the world’s economy, scholars too often fail torecognize that emerging economies challenge theo-ries developed to explain phenomena in matureeconomies, which are relatively stable and efficient(Bruton, Ahlstrom, Obloj, 2008; Xu and Meyers,2013). As a result, scholarship on emerging econo-mies remains surprisingly limited. This special issue,and this introductory article, will help fill this gap inthe literature as scholars consider entrepreneurshipin emerging economies.

The limited research on emerging economies instrategic entrepreneurship is, in many ways, not sur-prising since strategic entrepreneurship research ingeneral remains context free. Scholars are beginning

Keywords: entrepreneurship; strategy; emerging economy;resource orchestration*Correspondence to: Garry D. Bruton, Neeley School of Busi-ness, Texas Christian University, 2900 Lubbock Ave., FortWorth, TX 76109, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

bs_bs_banner

Strategic Entrepreneurship JournalStrat. Entrepreneurship J., 7: 169–180 (2013)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/sej.1159

Copyright © 2013 Strategic Management Society

to fill out strategic entrepreneurship’s boundary con-ditions, especially in relation to family firms (i.e.,Lumpkin, Steier, and Wright, 2011). Yet, emergingeconomies remain outside the typical focus of entre-preneurship scholars who still concentrate dispro-portionately on firms in the mature economies ofEurope and North America. Indeed, we know fromthe existing pool of research on strategic and entre-preneurial activities in emerging economies thatfirms in emerging economies have unique differ-ences (Ahlstrom and Bruton, 2006). Thus, scholarsneed to study entrepreneurship in its varied contexts,as the insights gathered from developed economiesmay be inappropriate for emerging economies(Zahra and Wright, 2011).

In this introductory article, we initially build amodel to understand strategic entrepreneurship inemerging economies. This framework draws fromboth the entrepreneurship and strategy processes thatoccur in this specific context (e.g., Hitt et al., 2011).We then utilize this framework to develop a futureresearch agenda for strategic entrepreneurship inemerging economies. Finally, we review the articlesin this special issue and how they help address thefuture research questions we raise. We selected thearticles in this special issue from 82 initial submis-sions to the call for scholarly work that would:(1) build knowledge about the about the nature, ante-cedents, and consequences of strategic and entre-preneurial activities in emerging economies; and(2) help develop a theoretical foundation for futureresearch. To develop the articles submitted for theissue, we held a conference at Tongji University,Shanghai, China, in May 2012 to discuss and movethe articles toward publication. The articles appear-ing in this special issue underwent at least fourrounds of revision, in addition to the special confer-ence feedback.

STRATEGIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP INEMERGING ECONOMIES

Defining an emerging economy

In laying the foundation for understanding strategicentrepreneurship in an emerging economy, onemust first define the term emerging economy. Pastscholars have defined the term in multiple ways.The World Bank Economist Antoine van Agtmaelfirst used the term ‘emerging economies’ as areplacement term to describe less developed coun-tries in the 1980s. From these early efforts to

examine emerging economies, scholars recognizethat emerging economies are characterized byunderdeveloped market-supporting institutionsincluding weak laws and poor enforcement capacityof the formal legal institutions, referred to as insti-tutional voids (Khanna and Palepu, 2000). Yet,others also recognized that to separate emergingeconomies from economies of those nations that arejust poor, there is a need to incorporate the rapidpace of economic development and governmentpolicies favoring economic liberalization throughthe adoption of a free market system into the defi-nition (Arnold and Quelch, 1998).

Integrating these different definitions, Hoskissonand colleagues (2000) defined an emerging economyas a low-income, rapid-growth country using eco-nomic liberalization as its primary engine of growth.These scholars went further to recognize that 13former centrally planned economies moving tomarket economy are a unique subset of emergingeconomies, which they called transitional econo-mies. Scholars have now built on the work byHoskisson et al. (2000) to try to provide greatercontextualization to the definitions of emergingeconomies. One of these definitional streams arguesthat factor endowments, such as natural resourcesfound in classical economics, are an importantelement in defining emerging economies. Forexample, Wan and Hoskisson (2003: 28) argue thatendowed factors ‘used to produce goods or services(that is, used for transformational activities) are criti-cal in defining emerging economies since suchendowments impact the ability of firms to captureany value created.’ More recent scholarship (e.g.,Wright et al., 2005; Hermelo and Vassolo, 2010;Hoskisson et al., forthcoming) builds on the recog-nition of the impact of endowed factors to emphasizethat both institutions and factor endowments impactemerging economies. The result is that factormarkets form a basis for production activities in aspecific country, and one needs to consider institu-tions that facilitate both production and distributionof generated rents through better contractual assur-ance in classifying economies as emerging.

The emerging economy definitions developed todate share the feature that they recognize that theenvironmental setting of a nation is critical to deter-mining whether a nation is emerging or not. Toooften scholars have tended to view the concept ofwhich nations are emerging as static. But the domi-nant concept in the definition of an emergingeconomy is evolution and change.

170 G. D. Bruton et al.

Copyright © 2013 Strategic Management Society Strat. Entrepreneurship J., 7: 169–180 (2013)DOI: 10.1002/sej

FRAMEWORK OF STRATEGICENTREPRENEURSHIP INEMERGING ECONOMIES

We build on the definitions just established to arguethat strategic and entrepreneurial actions of emerg-ing economy firms are not uniform, but instead flowuniquely from the specific settings in which theyoccur. Thus, one must examine the contextual settingof the nation. However, variables beyond the contextof the nation also impact what occurs in emergingeconomies. The entrepreneurial actions of firms inemerging economies are critical, yet scholars canview these actions along multiple different dimen-sions. Drawing upon the discussion of Hitt et al.(2011), there would appear to be two broad dimen-sions to entrepreneurial strategic actions. The firstinvolves the micro-level processes that flow from theindividual. These micro individual processes includeconcerns both about the individual, such as cognition(Abell, Felin, and Foss, 2008) and learning, whichshape the entrepreneurial and strategic actions of thefirm. Second, there are also macro-level concerns,including the gathering and structuring of resources.The micro/macro concerns then lead to a variety ofentrepreneurial activities which, in turn, produceunique sets of performance outcomes in emergingeconomies. Figure 1 summarizes our framework forthis view of emerging economy firms. We will lookbriefly at each of these variables in our framework(context, microprocesses, macroprocesses, entrepre-neurial activities, outcomes) next.

Context

A central element in understanding strategic entre-preneurship research in emerging economies isrecognizing that different contexts in which scho-lars examine firms can cause/lead to hetero-geneity among entrepreneurial firms (Shane andVenkataraman, 2000). Thus, rather than thinking ofemerging economies as a uniform whole, scholarsneed to differentiate entrepreneurship into variouscontextual settings. Zahra and Wright (2011) iden-tify four dimensions: temporal, institutional, social,and spatial. These four contextual settings eachprovide different perspectives on strategy in emerg-ing economies. The temporal aspect recognizes thechanges in context in terms of the particular phasesof a firm’s life cycle (Zahra, Filatotchev, and Wright,2009). The institutional contextual setting concernsthe effect of different institutional contexts. This

context includes the characteristics of the externalenvironment and institutional contexts in which ven-tures emerge. The social contextual setting concernsthe relationships among the various parties, such assectorial configurations, alliance and trading part-ners, universities, investors, and parent corporations,and influence the emergence and development ofventures founded by entrepreneurs. The spatial con-textual setting (Welter, 2011) denotes the geographi-cal concentration of ventures and the dispersion ofinstitutions that support these ventures.

Micro impacts on strategy

The micro-level concerns of the firm impact strategyand, ultimately, the entrepreneurship that results.Although many entrepreneurial activities areresource constrained, emerging economies may poseparticular challenges in this respect. Bricolage andeffectuation approaches to entrepreneurship may beespecially relevant in the development of emergingeconomies, as resources are scarce and marketsunderdeveloped (Sarasvathy, 2008; Baker andNelson, 2005). The scarce resources of entrepreneur-ial firms in emerging economies lead to differentforms of networking between entrepreneurs andothers, including suppliers and government officials,to obtain needed resources (Le and Nguyen, 2009).The way in which entrepreneurs build these net-works also differs from that of mature economies,with individuals in emerging economies focusing ondifferent key considerations (Bruton, Khavul, andChavez, 2011). Thus, financial constraints lead todifferences in how firms in emerging economiesgather resources. However, one would expect that arich set of other microprocess differences exist inemerging economies. Overall, the examinations ofhow microprocesses in emerging economies impacton strategy remain limited to date (Kiss, Danis, andCavusgil, 2012).

Macro impacts on strategy

The macro nature of the given environment alsoimpacts the entrepreneurial actions of a firm. As wenoted in the discussion of microprocesses, resourcesare a key element that shapes entrepreneurship inemerging economies (Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Puky,2009). Entrepreneurs must address at a macro levelnot the location of resources, but the selection ofresources to utilize and, ultimately, the capabilities

Introduction 171


to develop in order to use those resources (Lu et al.,2010). Resources are difficult to obtain in emergingeconomies, but which packages of resources toutilize and how to build those packages of resourcesin order to develop a competitive advantage throughsome capability becomes central to the entrepreneur-ial firm success. For example, Hoskisson et al.(forthcoming) argue that traditional emerging econo-mies suffer from both the lack of institutional devel-opment and the lack of infrastructure and factormarket development. However, much has changed asnations have modernized their infrastructures andinstitutions. Increasingly, there is significant vari-

ance in infrastructure and institutional developmentof nations. Hoskisson et al. (forthcoming) argue that,as a result, some nations are neither emerging econo-mies nor developed economies. Such macro-leveldiversity can lead, in turn, to substantial differencesin strategic entrepreneurship since macro-levelfactors set up boundary conditions for the firm-leveldecision-making process.

Variety of entrepreneurship

The context in which a firm operates, in combinationwith the micro and macro aspects of the firm, leads

Emerging economy contextsSpatial (geographical location; transnational)

Institutional (emerging; mid-range; newly developed; state; corruption) Social (sector; alliances; spillovers; reverse spillovers)

Temporal (life cycle of entrepreneurs’ ventures)

Micro-foundations Individual cognitions

Prior knowledge and learning reputation

Micro-processes Resource availability

Selection, structuring of resources Capabilities to configure resources

Entrepreneurial activities Rate in different EE contexts

Novelty of entrepreneurial opportunity Type of EE entrepreneur and mode

Outcomes Internationalization Social and economic

performance IPO, sale, failure

Figure 1. Emerging economy strategic entrepreneurship



to a variety of potential entrepreneurial activities.Zahra and Wright (2011) distinguish among the rate,magnitude of novelty, and type of entrepreneurialactivities as key to understanding the variety ofresulting entrepreneurship in an emerging economy.

Rate

Rate refers to the number of ventures being created(or added to existing businesses or generated throughthe spin-off or management buyout of existingactivities) by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial cor-porations either individually or within a sector oreconomy. The rate of entrepreneurship can be verydifferent in emerging economies. The difference inrate may occur, in part, because of the difference inthe nature of entrepreneurship. In emerging econo-mies, entrepreneurship is often informal since entre-preneurs do not register with the government (Webbet al., forthcoming). For example, the GDP estimatesof informal economies unsurprisingly translate toapproximately 65 percent of employment in Asia, 51percent of employment in Latin America, and 72percent of employment in North/Sub-Saharan Africa(International Labour Office, 2002).

In emerging economies, activities that may notexist in mature economies, such as privatization of(or parts of) state-owned entities, impact the rate ofentrepreneurship. Such privatization can be the basisfor the creation of corporate entrepreneurial activi-ties as managers become released from the con-straints of state bureaucracies. While attention oftenfocuses on privatization through initial public offer-ing (IPO) of central government-owned activities,privatization may also occur at local governmentlevels and may involve smaller activities (Wanget al., 2012). The generation of entrepreneurial ven-tures involving different levels of government raisesinteresting questions concerning the nature of con-tinuing interference of government officials in therunning of the businesses, including the role ofpolitical networks and the division of gains fromfuture performance (Sun, Wright, and Mellahi,2010). In some emerging economies, family firmsmay be an important source of entrepreneurial activ-ity. In others, notably former Communist countries,family firms may become a significant feature of theentrepreneurial landscape as a market economybecomes more established. In a general context ofentrepreneurial deficits among the domestic popula-tion, nationals who return to their home country aftergaining experience in developed commercial envi-

ronments may develop entrepreneurial activities inemerging economies (Wright et al., 2008).

Magnitude of novelty

Magnitude of novelty refers to the extent to which anentrepreneurial venture is new to the market in termsof new or existing knowledge. In emerging econo-mies, the magnitude of novelty may vary consider-ably. On the one hand, new ventures may not beparticularly novel in terms of knowledge that existsin developed economies, but they provide low-costopportunities and can be sold into these economiesthrough transnational entrepreneurs. On the otherhand, novelty may be evident in the development ofnew forms of low-cost products for sale withinemerging economies, notably to lower incomegroups. A further element of novelty, often over-looked in the focus on low-cost production, is thedevelopment of high-tech products as some emerg-ing economies develop highly educated workforces.These more novel forms of entrepreneurial activitymay become more important as emerging economiesdevelop.

Type of entrepreneurial activities

Type of entrepreneurial activities refers to the mul-titude of potential differences in knowledge sourcesthrough which to identify opportunities, the diversityof organizational forms in a market, and the numberand diversity of proprietary processes in a market.For example, returning entrepreneurs (e.g., individu-als who return to their home countries after educa-tion and/or employment in developed economies)may bring knowledge and capabilities from devel-oped economies that both can fill gaps in emergingeconomies and provide spillover knowledge benefitsto domestic entrepreneurs (Liu et al., 2010).

Different dimensions of variety of entrepreneurship

Thus, the rate of entrepreneurial activities in a givennation, the novelty of the entrepreneurial opportuni-ties that the firm can take advantage of, and the typeof entrepreneurship in the given location can impactthe entrepreneurship in the firm in a rich range ofways.

Although we illustrate these key concepts here,scholars should recognize that what we have pre-sented is not an exhaustive list of the activities thatimpact the variety of resulting entrepreneurship inemerging economies. Further, scholars should note

Introduction 173


that while we present the micro- or macro-level vari-ables separately, these variables do not act in isola-tion. The micro and macro variables impact eachother and ultimately generate the performance out-comes that the firm experiences.

Performance outcomes

The last variable in our framework is performanceoutcomes. The performance outcomes that scholarsconsider in their research can vary. The variablesexamined can range from financial to social impacts.Much attention has focused upon the challenges indeveloping entrepreneurial activities in emergingeconomies as drivers of macroeconomic growth, butsocially oriented entrepreneurship may also be ofspecial relevance in the context of some of the pooreremerging economies. Although supposedly highlyresource constrained, entrepreneurial firms fromemerging economies are increasing their internation-alization activities. Interesting interactions ariseamong the role of home country governments infacilitating internationalization, the lack of resourcesand capabilities available to domestic entrepreneurs,and the availability of returning and transnationalentrepreneurs with overseas networks.

Overview of the model

The model presented in Figure 1 integrates the rec-ognition that context is central to understanding notonly the nature of an emerging economy, but also theresulting entrepreneurship and outcomes. However,context alone does not generate differences in theentrepreneurship and strategy of emerging econo-mies. The macro variables noted earlier are alsocentral in generating these differences. The result isthat the model generated here provides a means toorganize the differences in firms as we considerforces that impact the development of entrepreneur-ship and strategy in a firm. But it also allows scholarsto understand the elements that generate the specificdifferences we see in emerging economy entrepre-neurship and strategy.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Recognizing the issues highlighted in the discussionso far led us to make two key points about futureresearch on strategic entrepreneurship in emerging

economies. The first point is the nature of the defi-nition of emerging economies adopted by scholarsand how it is evolving over time. The second pointconcerns a set of research questions that build on thecontextual issues identified and specific questionsthat arise in four dominant types of entrepreneurship—informal entrepreneurs, global entrepreneurs,family entrepreneurs, and corporate entrepreneurs.While these four types of entrepreneurship are notinclusive of all types of entrepreneurship, they arethe dominant forms. Looking at each of these typeswill allow us to better discuss in specific the direc-tion of future research. We will look at these twoconcerns for future research in greater depth next.

Evolution of what is an emerging economy

One of the key issues for scholars is recognizing thatemerging economies do not stand still. As we notedbefore, the definition of an emerging economyincludes low-income, high-growth nations that relyprincipally on economic liberalization for theirgrowth (Hoskisson et al., 2000). However, manynations that were poor as economic liberalizationswept the world in the 1990s are not poor today(Hoskisson et al., forthcoming). For example, in the1990s, scholars could easily have classified Polandas an emergent economy. But today, Poland is amember of the European Union (EU) and has one ofthe highest growth rates and incomes in the EU.Thus, it would be a mistake to classify Poland, orformer Soviet Bloc countries such as the CzechRepublic or Hungary, as emergent. In contrast, somenations that scholars would not have classified asemergent 20 years ago—since they were not fastgrowing or they were too underdeveloped—shouldno longer be considered emergent. These fast-growing nations include Mongolia and Kazakhstanin Asia and Angola and Ethiopia in Africa (to justname a few), which, to date, scholars have not exam-ined. However, some economies that once appearedto be emergent have stagnated, if not gone backward,as market and political reforms have stalled.

Thus, scholars need to recognize that an emergenteconomy is an evolving concept and that scholarscannot uniformly consider nations as emerging overtime. Scholars and editors must be particularly dili-gent in their research so they do not use outdatedclassifications of nations as emerging. Scholars mustrecognize the dynamic aspect of the term ‘emergingeconomies’ for the term to be meaningful. Recogniz-ing the need for care in categorizing countries as



emerging economies opens up possibilities for aresearch agenda that examines the determinants ofthe state of evolution of different emerging econo-mies and the implications and challenges for strate-gic entrepreneurship in these countries. From apolicy perspective, such heterogeneity also impliesthe need for the introduction of more fine-grainedapproaches to support for entrepreneurship that rec-ognizes contextual idiosyncrasies.

Topics to examine

Scholars can develop a potential future researchagenda using the concepts discussed in Figure 1.Specifically, we focus on the four contextual settingswe’ve identified (temporal, institutional, social, andspatial) and four major types of entrepreneurship(informal entrepreneurs, global entrepreneurs,family entrepreneurs, and corporate entrepreneurs)scholars have examined extensively in the past.Table 1 summarizes these research topics in terms ofspecific questions that impact emerging economyresearch.

Temporal

Temporal factors have implications for the life cycleof all four types (informal entrepreneurs, globalentrepreneurs, family entrepreneurs, and corporateentrepreneurs) of entrepreneurship in emergingeconomies. Yet, the specific implications for eachtype may differ, perhaps influenced by the rate ofevolution of the emerging economy and interactionwith institutional developments. At present, we lackinsights into these temporal processes. We willdiscuss this lack of insights in greater detail later.

Spatial

Spatial dimensions of context include both cross-national and regional dimensions within an emerg-ing economy. With respect to the cross-nationaldimension, scholars have recognized the role ofreturning entrepreneurs, yet scholars still do notunderstand well the entrepreneurs’ location deci-sions within their home countries. For example, dothey seek to locate in the city where they grew up ordo they make decisions based primarily on economicfactors relating to the location of customers and sup-pliers? Family entrepreneurs may also have impor-tant cross-national dimensions. Family businesses inthe emerging economy may have links with family

members that have emigrated to developed econo-mies or they might provide the local networks forreturning entrepreneurs. In large, former centrallyplanned emerging economies, where large corpora-tions may be geographically spread, the evolution ofa market economy may have implications for theextent to which corporations continue to be sowidely spread or retrench to more commerciallyattractive areas.

A further spatial dimension concerns theimplications of entry by foreign entrepreneurs orcorporations, such entry generating domestic entre-preneurship within a particular locality within anemerging economy. On the one hand, such entrymight threaten fragile nascent domestic entrepre-neurs. On the other hand, competition from foreignentrepreneurial firms brings new modes of deliverythat may stimulate more innovative entrepreneurialbehavior. Besides the pressure from such productmarket competition, there may also be learningspillovers for domestic entrepreneurs. As emergingeconomies evolve, the creation of a significantmiddle class, with aspirations informed by exposureto ‘Western’ culture, emphasizes that demand sideconditions are changing that open up new opportu-nities for entrepreneurs if they can adapt. Thesespatial changes may also call forth a need for tradi-tional domestic entrepreneurs to change their tempo-ral mindset to become more attuned to a changingenvironment. Interesting research opportunitiesinclude the prospect for studies of local industrydynamics in such contexts, which could include con-sideration of the exit of traditional entrepreneursalongside the entry of new ones.

Institutions

Institutional regulations likely influence both thelegal form of entrepreneurship and the rules of thegame by which each operates. Further, as the insti-tutional context evolves, different forms of entrepre-neurship may become more or less viable. Forexample, informal entrepreneurship may prevail inthe context of weak institutional frameworks in theearly stages of emerging economies. The interactionbetween the environmental context and entrepre-neurial behavior may lead to performance outcomesthat do not necessarily benefit the society in anemerging economy context. In particular, corruptionand weak legal institutions may result in an unpro-ductive dark side of entrepreneurship that crowds outproductive entrepreneurship and hinders economic

Introduction 175


Tabl

e1.

Som

ere

sear

chth

emes

for

entr

epre

neur

sin

emer

ging

econ

omy

cont

exts

Info

rmal

entr

epre

neur

sG

loba

len

trep

rene

urs

Fam

ilyen

trep

rene

urs

Cor

pora

teen

trep

rene

ursh

ip

Tem

pora

l1.

How

dodi

ffer

ent

notio

nsof

time

influ

ence

the

natu

reof

form

al/in

form

alen

trep

rene

uria

lac

tiviti

es?

2.A

sfir

ms

evol

vefr

omin

form

alto

form

al,h

owlo

ngis

this

proc

ess,

and

wha

tin

fluen

ces

this

evol

utio

n?

1.Fo

rho

wlo

ngov

erth

eve

ntur

ede

velo

pmen

tph

ase

isex

peri

ence

from

wor

king

abro

adus

eful

?2.

Em

ergi

ngec

onom

ygl

obal

entr

epre

neur

ial

firm

sof

ten

retu

rnto

ente

rth

eir

hom

em

arke

ts.H

owlo

ngis

this

proc

ess

and

wha

tfa

ctor

sim

pact

this

spri

ngbo

ard

type

ofin

tern

atio

naliz

atio

n?

1.W

hat

dist

inct

ive

chal

leng

esar

efa

ced

inm

aint

aini

ngfa

mily

entr

epre

neur

sov

ertim

e?2.

Tow

hat

exte

ntdo

esth

ero

leof

exte

nded

fam

ilies

mea

nth

atm

ultig

ener

atio

nal

netw

orks

offa

mily

entr

epre

neur

sde

velo

pov

ertim

e,ho

wdo

thes

efa

cilit

ate

reso

urce

orch

estr

atio

n,an

dho

wsu

stai

nabl

ear

eth

ey?

3.To

wha

tex

tent

dofa

mily

entr

epre

neur

sop

erat

eac

ross

diff

eren

tge

ogra

phic

alar

eas?

4.H

owdo

fam

ilyco

nnec

tions

faci

litat

etr

ansn

atio

nal

and

inte

rnat

iona

len

trep

rene

ursh

ip?

1.H

owan

dto

wha

tex

tent

does

corp

orat

een

trep

rene

ursh

ipde

velo

pin

emer

ging

econ

omie

sov

ertim

e?2.

Due

togr

eate

rre

sour

ceco

nstr

aint

san

dgr

eate

run

cert

aint

y,is

the

timin

gof

the

corp

orat

een

trep

rene

uria

lpr

oces

sdi

ffer

ent?

Eco

nom

icge

ogra

phy

(spa

tial)

1.To

wha

tex

tent

isth

ere

am

ism

atch

betw

een

the

need

tost

imul

ate

such

mob

ility

and

entr

epre

neur

s’ab

ility

todo

so?

2.W

hydo

firm

sin

emer

ging

econ

omie

s,bo

thfo

rmal

and

info

rmal

,clu

ster

toge

ther

?

1.H

owdo

expe

rien

ces

gain

edab

road

and

glob

alne

twor

ksde

velo

ped

byre

turn

ing

entr

epre

neur

saf

fect

thei

rlo

catio

nde

cisi

onw

ithin

emer

ging

econ

omie

s?2.

Whe

ngl

obal

entr

epre

neur

sre

turn

toen

ter

thei

rho

me

econ

omie

s,w

hich

part

ofth

eir

hom

em

arke

tdo

they

seek

toen

ter?

1.H

owdo

esco

rpor

ate

entr

epre

neur

ship

diff

erin

corp

orat

ions

loca

ted

indi

ffer

ent

regi

ons

indi

ffer

ent

type

sof

emer

ging

econ

omie

sw

ithdi

ffer

ent

rela

tions

hips

with

dist

ant

pare

nts?

2.A

sco

rpor

atio

nsex

pand

abro

ad,w

hat

isth

eim

pact

ofsu

chin

tern

atio

naliz

atio

non

emer

ging

econ

omy

firm

san

ddo

essu

chan

effe

ctdi

ffer

geog

raph

ical

ly?

Inst

itutio

ns1.

How

does

the

bala

nce

betw

een

form

alan

din

form

alen

trep

rene

ursh

ipdi

ffer

betw

een

inst

itutio

nal

cont

exts

and

whe

nth

ese

cont

exts

chan

ge?

How

does

the

inst

itutio

nal

cont

ext

shap

epo

sitiv

eve

rsus

nega

tive

dim

ensi

ons

ofin

form

alen

trep

rene

ursh

ip?

2.If

,rat

her

than

inst

itutio

nal

deve

lopm

ent,

itis

ano

rmat

ive

valu

eth

atfir

ms

ofa

cert

ain

size

orst

arte

dby

cert

ain

clas

sar

eto

bein

form

al,

how

does

that

impa

cten

trep

rene

ursh

ipan

alys

is?

1.W

hat

isth

ein

fluen

ceof

inst

itutio

nal

sour

ceof

retu

rnee

’sex

peri

ence

abro

adon

thei

rve

ntur

esan

dre

sour

ceor

ches

trat

ion?

2.H

owdo

glob

alen

trep

rene

urs

over

com

evo

ids

ofin

stitu

tiona

lsu

ppor

tsan

dre

stri

ctio

nson

fore

ign

entr

yin

toem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies?

1.H

owdo

inst

itutio

nal

fram

ewor

ksaf

fect

the

stru

ctur

eof

entr

epre

neur

ial

fam

ilyfir

ms?

2.To

wha

tex

tent

dodi

ffer

ent

leve

lsof

inst

itutio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

faci

litat

eor

frus

trat

eth

epr

eval

ence

and

goal

sof

fam

ilyen

trep

rene

ursh

ip?

1.To

wha

tex

tent

dodi

ffer

ent

leve

lsof

inst

itutio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

with

ina

part

icul

arem

ergi

ngec

onom

yfa

cilit

ate

orfr

ustr

ate

corp

orat

een

trep

rene

ursh

ip?

2.H

owdo

esin

telle

ctua

lpr

otec

tion

impa

ctco

rpor

ate

entr

epre

neur

ship

indi

ffer

ent

econ

omie

s?

Soci

a1.

Tow

hat

exte

ntdo

info

rmal

entr

epre

neur

sut

ilize

fam

ily,p

oliti

cal,

and

com

mer

cial

netw

orks

?2.

How

does

the

use

ofth

ese

netw

orks

chan

geas

econ

omie

sde

velo

p?

1.H

owdo

esth

eso

cial

capi

tal

from

expe

rien

cein

the

host

coun

try

prov

ide

acce

ssto

dive

rse

sour

ces

ofkn

owle

dge

and

how

isth

isut

ilize

dw

hen

indi

vidu

als

beco

me

retu

rnee

s?2.

Wha

tis

the

natu

reof

the

netw

orks

glob

alen

trep

rene

urs

deve

lop?

1.To

wha

tex

tent

isth

eso

cial

capi

tal

offa

mily

entr

epre

neur

sm

ore

orle

ssef

fect

ive

inem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies

than

inde

velo

ped

econ

omie

s?2.

Tow

hat

exte

ntdo

esfa

mily

soci

alca

pita

lsu

bstit

ute

for

polit

ical

soci

alca

pita

l?

1.W

hat

isth

eim

pact

ofle

arni

ngon

corp

orat

een

trep

rene

ursh

ip?

2.D

oes

corp

orat

een

trep

rene

ursh

ipin

emer

ging

econ

omie

sha

vebr

oade

rim

pact

inem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies

than

inm

atur

eec

onom

ies?



development. We need further analysis of the extent,impact, and processes involved in productiveversus unproductive entrepreneurship in emergingeconomies.

Hoskisson et al. (forthcoming) suggest that thebusiness strategies firms build in emerging econo-mies are shaped by a specific constellation of insti-tutions and resources available to an incumbent firm.However, these factors represent a necessary but notsufficient condition for a successful business strat-egy. The firm’s strategic outcomes are also shapedby its entrepreneurial orientation and resourceorchestration capabilities. Strategic entrepreneurshiprepresents an attempt to synthesize the resource-based perspective from the strategy literature withopportunity recognition from entrepreneurship. Thisapproach emphasizes the need to select and structurerequisite resources and capabilities while simultane-ously accumulating, bundling, and leveraging theseresources to generate competitive advantage. Theentrepreneur’s resource selection and configurationprocess is influenced by the contexts in which firmsoperate.

What is not clear is how firms develop the requi-site entrepreneurial skills for internationalization.Liu et al. (2010) have shown how entrepreneurs witheducational and work experience in developedeconomies can return to their home economies (inthis case, China) to create enterprises better placed tointernationalize than those new ventures where thisexpertise is absent. There is a need to extend thisanalysis to cases from other emerging economies,such as India and Russia. To what extent are thesefirms able to recruit returning executives with expe-rience in developed economies? How is this phe-nomenon related to enhancing entrepreneurship?

Social

Social capital is important to various types of entre-preneurship in all economies. While social capitalmay be especially important in the context of uncer-tain markets and legal frameworks, we know littleabout the different roles of social capital in emergingeconomies. Social capital may have downsides aswell as upsides. Political social capital may be espe-cially important in facilitating entrepreneurial activ-ity in the early stages of emerging economies, but berestrictive in later stages. We know little about thecomplementarity or substitutability of differentforms of social capital in emerging economies andhow these interactions change for different types ofentrepreneurship as these economies evolve.

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLES

Table 2 provides a summary of articles included inthis Special Issue. The five articles in this specialissue each investigate a specific aspect of entrepre-neurship and strategy in emerging economies. Thearticles are notable in that they are developed in awide variety of different ways. For example, thearticles all draw from different theoretical perspec-tives including institutional theory, the knowledge-based view (KBV), strategic planning theory, thetransactive memory system perspective, and signal-ing theory. The articles also adopt a wide range ofempirical approaches, generating rich datasets, fromhistorical case study narrative (Jain and Sharma,2013, this issue), cross-sectional face-to-face inter-views with CEO/founders (Yamakawa et al., 2013,this issue), mail surveys of multiple key foundingmembers (Zheng and Mai, 2013, this issue), contentanalysis of IPO prospectuses (Payne, et al., 2013,this issue), and longitudinal large-scale surveys ofnascent entrepreneurs (Chinese PSED) (Zhang et al.,2013, this issue). Finally, the researchers also adoptvery different analytical techniques, includingtheory building from cases, OLS regression, hierar-chical logistic regression and skewed logistic(scobit) regression, probit estimation and general-ized linear modeling.

The resulting articles do address a number of thequestions we raised earlier in Table 1. The issues thearticles discuss appear in Table 1’s column on corpo-rate entrepreneurship questions. For example, Jainand Sharma (2013, this issue) help explore corporateentrepreneurship from an institutional contextual set-ting—how intellectual property protection developsin an emerging economy setting over time. Theauthors highlight the turbulent nature of migratinginstitutional logics and demonstrate how these insti-tutional dynamics impact entrepreneurial activity andhave the unanticipated effect of making the sectorhighly competitive and vibrant. Payne et al. (2013,this issue) also provide an institutional insight, as thisteam looks at the issue of how corruption impactsperformance of listings of entrepreneurial firms fromemerging economies. They show that the relationshipbetween organizational virtue rhetoric in prospec-tuses and the performance of foreign IPOs from 35different countries is contingent upon the level ofperceived corruption for each IPO firm’s home coun-try—a pervasive and costly problem for emergingeconomy countries due to its impact on economicgrowth and national governance.

Introduction 177


Tabl

e2.

Sum

mar

yof

artic

les

inth

esp

ecia

lis

sue

Aut

hors

Res

earc

hqu

estio

nsT

heor

etic

alpe

rspe

ctiv

eD

ata

and

met

hods

Key

findi

ngs

Yam

akaw

a,K

havu

l,Pe

ng,a

ndD

eeds

Wha

tdr

ives

new

vent

ures

toin

tern

atio

naliz

efr

omem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies

tode

velo

ped

econ

omie

s?

Kno

wle

dge-

base

dvi

ew17

0ne

wve

ntur

esfr

omC

hina

and

Indi

a;fa

ce-t

o-fa

cein

terv

iew

sw

ithC

EO

s/fo

unde

rs;

hier

arch

ical

skew

edlo

gist

ic(s

cobi

t)re

gres

sion

Inte

rnat

iona

lex

pans

ions

ofne

wve

ntur

esfr

omem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies

tode

velo

ped

econ

omie

sar

edr

iven

byth

eir

stoc

kof

prio

rkn

owle

dge,

expe

cted

bene

fits

ofin

com

ing

flow

ofkn

owle

dge,

and

thei

rde

sire

toen

hanc

edo

mes

ticre

puta

tion;

afir

m’s

dom

estic

repu

tatio

nst

rong

lyin

fluen

ces

deci

sion

ofw

heth

erto

ente

rE

Eor

DE

—a

one

unit

decr

ease

ina

new

vent

ure’

sas

sess

men

tof

itsdo

mes

ticre

puta

tion

resu

ltsin

a68

perc

ent

incr

ease

inth

epr

obab

ility

that

itw

illen

ter

aD

Eas

oppo

sed

toan

EE

.Z

heng

and

Mai

How

dofo

undi

ngte

ams

inem

ergi

ngec

onom

ies

resp

ond

tosu

rpri

ses

that

impa

ctth

eir

vent

ures

?

Tra

nsac

tive

mem

ory

syst

empe

rspe

ctiv

eM

ail

surv

eyof

atle

ast

two

key

foun

ding

mem

bers

in13

7st

art-

ups

info

urpr

ovin

ces

ofC

hina

from

2006

to20

08;

prob

itre

gres

sion

Foun

ding

team

sw

ithst

rong

TM

Ssar

em

ore

likel

yto

impr

ovis

e,bu

tar

ele

ssin

clin

edto

acqu

ire

exte

rnal

know

ledg

ein

resp

onse

tosu

rpri

ses

than

foun

ding

team

sw

ithw

eak

TM

Ss;

nega

tive

surp

rise

sse

emto

stre

ngth

enth

ese

rela

tions

hips

.Z

hang

,Yan

g,A

u,an

dX

ieTo

wha

tex

tent

and

unde

rw

hat

cond

ition

sar

efo

rmal

and

info

rmal

busi

ness

plan

ning

help

ful

tone

wve

ntur

esin

the

Chi

nese

mar

ket?

Inst

itutio

nal

theo

ry;

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngth

eory

Lon

gitu

dina

lst

udy:

two

wav

esof

inte

rvie

ws

with

321

foun

ders

ofne

wve

ntur

esin

Chi

nafr

omth

eC

hine

sePa

nel

Stud

yof

Ent

repr

eneu

rial

Dyn

amic

s(C

PSE

D);

hier

arch

ical

logi

stic

alre

gres

sion

The

rela

tive

valu

eof

the

two

type

sof

plan

ning

depe

nds,

inpa

rt,o

nth

epr

ior

busi

ness

expe

rien

cean

dso

cial

clas

sof

the

entr

epre

neur

:fo

rmal

plan

ning

wor

ksbe

stfo

rth

ose

with

prio

rbu

sine

ssex

peri

ence

and

thos

ew

ithlo

wer

clas

sst

atus

.Pa

yne,

Moo

re,

Bel

l,an

dZ

acha

ry

Doe

sth

eor

gani

zatio

nal

virt

uerh

etor

icus

edby

fore

ign

IPO

sin

thei

rpr

ospe

ctus

esin

fluen

ces

IPO

perf

orm

ance

?D

oes

the

leve

lof

corr

uptio

nin

the

IPO

issu

erho

me

coun

try

influ

ence

the

orga

niza

tiona

lvi

rtue

rhet

oric

tope

rfor

man

cere

latio

nshi

p?

Sign

alin

gth

eory

284

fore

ign

IPO

son

U.S

.equ

itym

arke

tsfr

om40

coun

trie

sfr

om19

96to

2007

;co

nten

tan

alys

isof

IPO

pros

pect

uses

,co

rrup

tion

perc

eptio

nin

dice

s,un

derp

rici

ngm

easu

res,

fore

ign

VC

back

ing,

audi

tor

repu

tatio

n,co

rpor

ate

gove

rnan

cean

dot

her

cont

rol

vari

able

s;ge

nera

lized

linea

rm

odel

ing

Fore

ign

IPO

sth

atsi

gnal

virt

uous

ness

tend

toou

tper

form

othe

rfo

reig

nIP

Os

both

inth

esh

ort

and

long

term

.H

ome

coun

try

corr

uptio

nle

vels

have

ast

rong

erm

oder

atin

gef

fect

onth

isre

latio

nshi

pfo

rsh

ort-

term

perf

orm

ance

.

Jain

and

Shar

ma

How

doac

tors

confi

gure

the

inst

itutio

nal

regi

me

ofa

nasc

ent

sect

orin

anem

ergi

ngec

onom

y?

Inst

itutio

ns-b

ased

view

ofst

rate

gyan

den

trep

rene

ursh

ip

Proc

ess-

base

dhi

stor

ical

qual

itativ

est

udy;

all

the

maj

orev

ents

inth

em

obile

tele

phon

yse

ctor

duri

ng19

80–2

010;

publ

icly

avai

labl

ein

form

atio

nfr

omse

vera

lpr

inte

dan

don

line

sour

ces

Reg

ime

cons

titut

ion

isco

ntes

ted,

capr

icio

us,a

ndco

nvol

uted

,inv

olvi

ngpr

oces

ses

ofsu

bver

ting

,m

aneu

veri

ng,

and

bols

teri

ng;

thes

ein

stitu

tiona

ldy

nam

ics

dire

ctly

impa

ctth

efo

rmat

ion

ofth

ena

scen

tin

dust

ryan

dca

nha

veth

e(c

ount

erin

tuiti

ve)

effe

ctof

mak

ing

ithi

ghly

com

petit

ive

and

vibr

ant;

the

stat

epl

ays

aro

leas

aco

nstr

aine

din

stitu

tiona

len

trep

rene

ur.



Yamakawa et al. (2013, this issue) help answercorporate entrepreneurs’ question of spatial distribu-tion as firms internationalize. Specifically, they lookat the impact of international expansion by emergingmarket corporations. Focusing on intangibleresources, these authors argue that internationalexpansions of new ventures from emerging econo-mies are driven by their desire to enhance domesticreputation, exploit their stocks of prior knowledge,and explore benefits of incoming knowledge flows.

Looking at the more micro-level variables, Zhengand Mai (2013, this issue) and Zhang et al. (2013,this issue) both help broadly address the role ofsocial concerns for corporate entrepreneurship.More specifically, Zheng and Mai (2013, this issue)investigate how founding teams’ transactive memorysystems (TMS) affect their perceptions regardinghow to bridge the knowledge gaps arising from sur-prises. Their findings suggest that in emergingeconomies where market supporting institutions aredeficient, founding teams with strong TMSs are lessinclined to acquire external knowledge, but are proneto improvise in response to surprises. Zhang et al.(2013, this issue) examine how entrepreneurs’ priorexperiences and social class shape the planning-performance relationship. Interestingly, the authorsfind that social class moderates only the linkbetween formal planning and performance, whereasprior work experience moderates the effects of bothformal and informal planning on performance. Thesetwo articles further emphasize the importance oflooking at entrepreneurs’ social capital in the contextof emerging markets.

CONCLUSION

The main objective of this special issue is to developinsights into the distinctive nature of strategic entre-preneurship in emerging economies. The articlespresent a range of topics and methods that help high-light the breadth and depth of potential researchopportunities. Further, in this article we have devel-oped an analytical framework that synthesizes thecentral elements underpinning strategic entrepre-neurship, opportunities, and resources, with thedimensions of context that relate to the diversity ofemerging economies. We use this framework tostructure a set of research questions for futureresearch that we encourage others to pursue.

Yet, it is also notable that the articles published inthis special issue address only a relatively narrow

part of the questions we raised in Table 1—specifi-cally corporate entrepreneurship. Examinations ofinformal firms, global entrepreneurs, and familyfirms are absent from the articles here. The researchhere is exceptionally well developed to be able tomove from the initial 82 submissions to this small setof five articles published. However, we acknowledgethat the high level of development expected also, inpart, creates a barrier to some of the answering of thequestions raised in Table 1. The ability to developextensive databases to answer, for example, ques-tions around informality, is exceptionally difficult.We hope that as scholarship on strategic entrepre-neurship in emerging economies expands, a farricher set of articles and topics can develop. Suchscholarly developments will require exceptionallyhigh levels of commitment to develop the data nec-essary to answer such questions. We hope that thefoundation laid here will make such a developmentpossible.

REFERENCES

Abell P, Felin T, Foss NJ. 2008. Building microfoundationsfor the routines, capabilities, and performance links.Managerial and Decision Economics 29: 489–502.

Ahlstrom D, Bruton GD. 2006. Venture capital in emergingeconomies: networks and institutional change. Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice 30(2): 299–320.

Arnold DJ, Quelch JA. 1998. New strategies in emergingmarkets. Sloan Management Review 40: 7–21.

Baker T, Nelson R. 2005. Creating something from nothing:resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage.Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 329–366.

Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Li H. 2010. Institutional theoryand entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do weneed to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 34: 421–440.

Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Obloj K. 2008. Entrepreneurshipin emerging economies: where are we today and whereshould the research go in the future. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 32(1): 1–14.

Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Puky T. 2009. Institutional differ-ences and the development of entrepreneurial ventures: acomparison of the venture capital industries in LatinAmerica and Asia. Journal of International BusinessStudies 40(5): 762–778.

Bruton GD, Khavul S, Chavez H. 2011. Microlending inemerging economies: building a new line of inquiry fromthe ground up. Journal of International Business Studies42(5): 718–739.

Hermelo F, Vassolo R. 2010. Institutional development andhypercompetition in emerging economies. StrategicManagement Journal 31(13): 1457–1473.

Introduction 179


Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Sirmon DG, Trahms CA. 2011. Stra-tegic entrepreneurship: creating value for individuals,organizations, and society. Academy of ManagementPerspectives 25(2): 57–76.

Hoskisson RE, Eden L, Lau CM, Wright M. 2000. Strategyin emerging economies. Academy of ManagementJournal 43(3): 249–267.

Hoskisson RE, Wright M, Filatotchev I, Peng MW. Emerg-ing multinationals from mid-range economies: the influ-ence of institutions and factor markets. Journal ofManagement Studies. Forthcoming.

International Labour Office. 2002. Decent work and theinformal economy: sixth item on the agenda (90thsession). Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/%20ilc/ilc90/pdf/rep-vi.pdf (accessed 6June 2013).

Jain S, Sharma D. 2013. Institutional logic migration andindustry evolution in emerging economies: the case oftelephony in India. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,September Special Issue 7: this issue.

Khanna T, Palepu K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable inemerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian busi-ness groups. Journal of Finance 55: 867–891.

Kiss A, Danis W, Cavusgil T. 2012. International entrepre-neurship research in emerging economies: a criticalreview and research agenda. Journal of Business Ventur-ing 27: 266–290.

Le NTB, Nguyen TV. 2009. The impact of networking onbank financing: the case of small- and medium-sizedenterprises in Vietnam. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 33(4): 867–887.

Lin YF. 2011. Global development horizons 2011—multipolarity: the new global economy. Available at:http://www.worldbank.org/gdh2011 (accessed 6 June2013).

Liu X, Wright M, Filatotchev I, Dai O, Lu J. 2010. Humanmobility and international knowledge spillovers: evi-dence from high-tech small and medium enterprises in anemerging market. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal4(4): 340–355.

Lu Y, Zhou L, Bruton GD, Li W. 2010. Capabilities as amediator linking resources and the international perfor-mance of entrepreneurial firms in an emerging economy.Journal of International Business Studies 41(3): 419–436.

Lumpkin GT, Steier L, Wright M. 2011. Strategic entrepre-neurship in family business. Strategic EntrepreneurshipJournal 5(4): 285–306.

Payne T, Moore C, Bell G, Zachary M. 2013. Signalingorganizational virtue: an examination of virtue rhetoric,country-level corruption, and performance of foreignIPOs from emerging and developed economies. StrategicEntrepreneurship Journal, September Special Issue 7:this issue.

Sarasvathy SD. 2008. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepre-neurial Expertise. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, U.K.

Shane S, Venkataraman S. 2000. The promise of entrepre-neurship as a field of research. Academy of ManagementReview 25(1): 217–226.

Sun P, Wright M, Mellahi K. 2010. Is entrepreneur-politician alliance sustainable during transition? The caseof management buyouts in China. Management andOrganization Review 6(1): 101–121.

Wan WP, Hoskisson RE. 2003. Home country environ-ments, corporate diversification strategies, and firmperformance. Academy of Management Journal 46:27–45.

Wang C, Hong J, Kafouros M, Wright M. 2012. Exploringthe role of government involvement in outward FDI fromemerging economies. Journal of International BusinessStudies 43(7): 655–676.

Webb JW, Bruton GD, Tihanyi L, Ireland RD. Researchon entrepreneurship in the informal economy: framinga research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing.Forthcoming.

Welter F. 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship: concep-tual challenges and ways forward. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 35(1): 165–178.

Wright M, Filatotchev I, Hoskisson RE, Peng MW. 2005.Strategy research in emerging economies: challenging theconventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies42(1): 1–33.

Wright M, Liu X, Buck T, Filatotchev I. 2008. Returneeentrepreneurs, science park location choice, and perfor-mance: an analysis of high-technology SMEs in China.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32: 131–155.

Xu D, Meyers KE. 2013. Linking theory and context: ‘strat-egy research in emerging economies’ after Wright et al.(2005). Journal of Management Studies. Forthcoming.

Yamakawa Y, Khavul S, Peng MW, Deeds DL. 2013.Venturing from emerging economies. Strategic Entrepre-neurship Journal, September Special Issue 7: this issue.

Zahra S, Filatotchev I, Wright M. 2009. How do thresholdfirms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role ofboards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Ven-turing 24(3): 248–260.

Zahra S, Wright M. 2011. Entrepreneurship’s next act.Academy of Management Perspectives 25: 67–83.

Zhang Y, Yang J, Tang J, Au K, Xue H. 2013. Prior expe-rience and social class as moderators of the planning-performance relationship in China’s emerging economy.Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, September SpecialIssue 7: this issue.

Zheng Y, Mai Y. 2013. A contextualized transactivememory system view on how founding teams respond tosurprises: evidence from China. Strategic Entrepreneur-ship Journal, September Special Issue 7: this issue.



Documents

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY IN EMERGING … · ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGY IN EMERGING ECONOMIES ... six emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Indo-nesia,SouthKorea,andRussia)