Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 15:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of the Asia Pacific EconomyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjap20
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland andSingaporeLinda Low aa Department of Economy , Abu Dhabi, United Arab EmiratesPublished online: 13 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Linda Low (2005) Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore, Journal of the Asia PacificEconomy, 10:1, 116-138, DOI: 10.1080/1354786042000309107
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354786042000309107
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of the Asia Pacific EconomyVol. 10, No. 1, 116–138, February 2005
Entrepreneurship Development in Irelandand Singapore
LINDA LOWDepartment of Economy, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
ABSTRACT Ireland and Singapore have many striking similarities despite varying politicalethos and culture. Both economies are striving toward a knowledge-based economy based oninformation communication technology in a highly globalized context. Both have been rankedas the top globalizer – Ireland in 2001 and Singapore in 2000 by AT Kearney in Foreign PolicyMagazine. In terms of sustainability for economic growth and development, both economiesrecognize the critical role of their local enterprises and indigenous industry in general and en-trepreneurship in innovative and creative activities, in particular. Both Ireland and Singapore,as developmental states, have favourable government intervention including the all-importantaspect in human resources development and entrepreneurship education and training at theuniversity level in pursuit of sustainable growth. Faced with a more competitive and highlyvolatile global economy, the two may learn lessons from each other and share experiences withother economies in their respective regions on enterpreneurship or enterprise development.In attempting some model comparison, this paper looks into the prospect of some generic en-trepreneurship developmental model as a template in the first instance, subject to idiosyncraticsocio-political features of individual countries.
KEY WORDS: Knowledge-based economy, information communication technology, tech-nology brokers, new wave migration, disapora, enterpreneurship education
JEL CLASSIFICATION: M13 Entrepreneurship
Introduction
Schumpeterian entrepreneurship is innovation, a novel way to combine existing re-sources, a coincidence of a profit opportunity and an economic agent willing andable to exploit this opportunity in taking judgemental decisions about resource coor-dination (see Burke, 1995; Kenny, 1991; Swedberg, 2000). It is no less, if not more,critical in the new knowledge-based economy driven by information communica-tion technology in a globalized world economy. A rough and crude survey of rathersuccessful late industrializers suggest that small, open economies, as in the Nordic
Correspondence Address: Department of Economy, Abu Dhabi, PO Box 853, Abu Dhabi, United ArabEmirates. Email: [email protected]
1354–7860 Print/1469–9648 Online /05/010000116–23 C© 2005 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1354786042000309107
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 117
countries, have as much chance to be entrepreneurial and innovative as larger ones,such the US or India, if some concerted policy and efforts are made. Both Ireland andSingapore are small, open economies that have reached first world industrial level,starting as regional economies to be top globalizers. Ireland was so ranked by ATKearney in Foreign Policy Magazine in 2001 and Singapore, in 2000 (Foreign Pol-icy Magazine, January/February 2000 and 2001; http//www.foreignpolicy.com). Onedistinctive feature of globalization is access and use of Internet in broad economic,social and personal contexts. These observations may be anecdotal and unstructuredin any theoretical sense.
The research question this paper is trying to pursue is how entrepreneurship inIreland and Singapore matters in the initial stage of their growth, and whether it wouldcontinue to be critical in sustaining them in the new globalized world economy, withprofound implications on their developmental states.
Through their developmental states, both Ireland and Singapore (see O’Riain, 2000;Low, 1998, 2001) created global competitiveness by deploying fiscal incentives andharnessing human resources development to emerging opportunities in high tech-nology, cross-border production networks. Both economies are striving toward aknowledge-based economy driven by information communication technology andintellectual capital, where creativity and innovation – as in entrepreneurship – makethe difference. Thus, entrepreneurship and indigenous enterprise development havebecome critical policy parameters, alluding to the private corporate sector as thegrowth-designated driver in the new globalized knowledge-based economy. Indus-trial policy directed by the government in the developmental states in both Irelandand Singapore must adapt to respond with given domestic constraints and regionaland global challenges. Ireland and Singapore also constitute a natural pair for modelcomparison as both may use leverage as regional economies in the European Union(EU) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) respectively, toenhance network connectivity and supply chains in the larger global context.
Starting with a comparison of economic development in Ireland (see Gray, 1997)and Singapore in the next section, the subsequent section identifies their domesticissues and external challenges in the transition from successful newly-industrializingeconomies based on manufactured export growth to knowledge-based new economies.Experiences and lessons in entrepreneurship development are crystallized in a com-parative analysis. This section also attempts to portray the entrepreneurship models inboth Ireland and Singapore in a structured, diagrammatic manner in the first instance.A more generic template is derived to offer scope and flexibility for idiosyncraticcountry features to be designed and modified by other economies looking to ex-emplary Ireland and Singapore. The generic entrepreneurship model is, in itself, asignificant blueprint for Ireland and Singapore in ensuring sustainable developmentinto a new globalized knowledge-based economy. Geoeconomics and geopolitics areever changing, and whether technoglobalism or technonationalism drives strategicinterests of multinational corporations is a factor exogenous to small nations. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
118 L. Low
prospects and policy implications of such a more robust, sustainable entrepreneur-ship model for Ireland and Singapore in the concluding section are meant to be morethought provoking than prescriptive.
Comparative Economic Development
Merger with Malaysia in 1963 promised a common market to support Singapore’simport-substituting industrialization, which has diseconomies of scale in a smalldomestic market. With the separation in 1965, export-oriented industrialization inlow value-added, labour-intensive pursuits continued until restructuring to capital-intensive, high technology industries around the late 1970s and early 1980s. Rapideconomic growth based on manufactured exports has made Singapore a newly-industrializing economy like Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. A second re-structuring and diversification in the early 1990s was to enable Singapore to jointhe league of Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in-dustrialized nations and attain a developed country status. Singapore is developed,according to most socio-economic indicators (Table 1), except for its sustainabilityin science and technology. Its unique political culture and ethos has engendered astable Asian-style democracy, but has certain implications as will be amplified in thenext section. Singapore’s growth and prosperity is highly dependent on direct foreigninvestment and trade, making it – together with Hong Kong – the most open economydefined in terms of the total trade to gross domestic product ratio exceeding two tothree times.
Ireland joined the ranks of newly-industrializing economies only in 1994 (see Mac-Sharry et al., 2000). However, both its demographic gift from a later baby boom and
Table 1. Comparative statistics, 2000, unless otherwise stated
Ireland Singapore
Population, million 3.7 3.2GDP (US$bil) 98.3 92.4Nominal GDP per capita (US$) 25,956 39,796Ave ann growth real GDP 90–99 (%) 6.9 7.7Real GDP growth (%) 11.5 −2.0Current account balance, US$m −719 15,865Inflation (%) (consumer price index) 5.6 1.3Unemployment (%) 5.6 3.1AT Kearney globalisation ranking 2001 1 3Transparency Index ranking 2001 18 4Foreign reserves US$bil 1/5/02 5,288 80, 362Corporate tax rate (% 1/1/02) 16 24.5
Sources: Central Bank of Ireland, Singapore Department of Statistics, http//www.atkearney.com/pdf/eng/Rankings2001, http//www.globcorruptionreport.org/download/dataandresearch.pdf, http//www.imf.org/external/np/ir/colist.htm and http//www.us.kpmg/microsite/GlobalTax/CTRSurvey/CorporateTax RateSurvey2002PDF
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 119
entry as a late industrializer have continued to propel the economy to double-digitgrowth rates of 10.8 percent and 11.5 percent in 1999 and 2000 respectively (compar-ative data in Table 1 up to 2000/1). Singapore continued to be severely affected by aregional combination of the aftermath of the Asian crisis, al-Qeada-related terrorismin Southeast Asia and a steady decline in competitiveness in the global supply chainin high technology sectors. Suffice to note, Singapore is comparatively more open,dependent and mature in industrial structure and workforce. Its economic resiliencehas weakened, caught in the regional and global high technology turbulence with con-strained options and degrees of freedom for long term sustainability. However, unlikeSingapore, which finessed its infrastructure and growth by prudent fiscal policy andprocess, Ireland benefited from EU structural funds and assistance. With a supportivetax and monetary regime and financial assistance, Ireland’s Industrial DevelopmentAuthority is the equivalent of Singapore’s Economic Development Board in attractingdirect foreign investment and multinational corporations.
Both economies are small and lacking in resources, except for a well-educatedand skilled labour force through conscientious education and human resourcesdevelopment policies. Ireland has the further potential of economic reunificationwith Northern Ireland (Bradley & Birnie, 2001) and also an agricultural base. Incontrast, Singapore is a wholly urbanized city-state whose lack of water, air andsea space are also security concerns. Ireland’s current population is (less than halfthat before the great famine in the 1840s) 8.2 million with migration – mainly tothe US – reversed only since 1996–98. But the Irish diaspora, with links from thehigh-technology US to Australasia, is as natural as Singapore’s foreign talent policyis artificially induced. Singapore’s attractiveness as a global talent centre is whollypremised on its global competitiveness and quality of life – offered as a place towork and live. Like Ireland, Singapore experiences new-style immigration andemigration, which involve younger, better-educated professionals and entrepreneurs.Ireland emigration benefits from EU integration and the EU single market, whichbrings in talent from Scandinavia as well as – traditionally – the UK. Singapore hasto compete globally, including for information technology skills from India or Chinawithout any comparable synergy from Southeast Asia.
Although ‘euroland’ comprises industrialized, developed economies, Ireland facesgrowing competition from Central and Eastern European Countries in an enlargedEU. European economic union and political commitment at full tilt has createdthe supranational European Commission, European Parliament, European CentralBank, Maastricht convergence criteria and a stabilization growth pact. In contrast,economic integration premised on the Association of South East Asian Nations(ASEAN) free trade area has been delayed, if not derailed, since the Asian cri-sis. The ASEAN way is both non-formalized and chary of intervention in do-mestic politics, such that the wherewithal in political commitment for economicintegration is lacking. Moreover, ASEAN may be marginalized with extra-cross re-gional pacts, either as in ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan and Korea) or ASEAN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
120 L. Low
wooed by China, Closer Economic Relations (Australia and New Zealand), Japan,the US and India (International Herald Tribune, 5 November 2002, p 10). Theresultant impact and pace of development of Ireland and Singapore as regionaleconomies are thus quite contrasting under these different political economy regionalcontexts.
In particular, Singapore’s macroeconomic policy, geared to an open economy andfree trade, is atypical of that in larger, agricultural ASEAN economies. Like Ireland,it has pursued globalization and international competitiveness relentlessly, althoughboth countries have prospered as regional economies and hubs. Singapore is thetraditional Southeast Asian entrepot. American direct foreign investment and multi-nationals are attracted to Ireland as an offshore base to the EU hinterland. However,Southeast Asia has been eclipsed since the Asian crisis. The ascension of China as aglobal economy since its 1978 economic reforms has been bolstered by its accessionto the World Trade Organization in 2001. Ireland has similarly faced Chinese com-petition as electronic and information technology firms have relocated in line withthe supply dynamics of global production networks and the huge Chinese marketprospects. Such manufacturing structural diversification to other low-cost centres andthe transition from the low to high technology ends by Ireland and Singapore are partof the growth trajectory. However, the scale, speed and complexity of globalizationin general and the pulling power of China in particular, have to be considered bySingapore as it aspires to continue as a regional hub. Ireland has some compensatingdynamics from both the EU and the US. Singapore has to regionalize harder beyondASEAN and wield a more astute foreign economic policy, not always necessarily insynchrony with that of its proximate neighbours (Leifer, 2000). It has signed bilat-eral free trade pacts with New Zealand, Japan, the European Free Trade Area andAustralia, with the US, the EU, Canada, Mexico, Chile and India pending, to tapresources, technology and markets (Low, 2003).
Domestic Issues and External Challenges
Both Ireland and Singapore are at a crossroads with respect to a second industrial take-off into knowledge-based economies. A critical mass is lacking in research and de-velopment in Singapore. It aspires to an entrepreneurial culture, marrying risk-takingwith high technology pursuits in growing technology entrepreneurs (technopreneurs).This requires entrepeneurship to be both creative and innovative, with implicationsfor the controversy between nature and nurture in growing entrepreneurship. Singa-pore’s developmental state, characterized as Singapore Inc, and its government-linkedcompanies are patently more interventionist and omnipotent with a sui generis po-litical economy culture and ethos. Irish enterprise may be a laggard in the contextof the whole of the EU, belatedly encouraged with the priority on multinationalcorporations, as was also the case in Singapore. Irish enterprises have relativelymore scope and diversity, and not crowded-out as in Singapore Inc where small and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 121
medium-sized enterprises are generally subcontractors to multinational corporationsand government-linked companies. Suspicious of family-based business structuresand practices and the capture of the developmental state by such vested interest groupsas crony capitalism, Singapore Inc and government-linked companies have partneredwith multinational corporations for faster, speedier results in employment creationand industrial restructuring (Haggard & Low, 2001). The belated promotion of smalland medium-sized enterprises was more to counteract the political alienation of Chi-nese educated entrepreneurs who have fewer career opportunities in English-speakingmultinational corporations and the civil service.
In both cases, family background and the education system greatly influence en-trepreneurship. Singapore is not a nation of shopkeepers and enterprises as careersin multinational corporations and the public sector are preferred to self-employmentin general. Although the Housing and Development Board ‘mom-and-pop’ shops aresprouting in all public housing estate town centres, they are mainly in low value-added and low productivity retail, and in personal services ranging from medical anddental to hairdressing services. In contrast, Ireland is a nation of micro-businesses,with more than 90 percent of enterprises employing fewer than 10 persons and smallbusinesses accounting for around half of the employment in the private sector (Ire-land, 1994, p. 2). Ireland has history and culture, from preservation and cultivationof Gaelic heritage to creating an enthusiasm and national confidence in a new spiritof cultural enterprise.
Singapore’s education system has been geared to industrialization in promotingnon-academic technical education and professional disciplines. A curriculum revampin line with a knowledge-based economy emphasizing creative thinking more thanknowledge and content has occurred. However, with thinking schools, a learning andcreative nation thrives with some chaos and disorder rather than Confucian hierarchyand order. With English as the first language, Singapore students have excelled inscience and mathematics, as ranked by the International Association for the Evaluationof Educational Achievement in the Third International Mathematics and ScienceStudy, the largest and most ambitious international study of student achievement.Tables 2 and 3 show how Singapore and Ireland fared, and reflect Singapore’s moreexplicit science and technology policy compared with Ireland’s (Hardiman & O’Neill,1997; Ireland, 1996).
Table 2. 1994/95 third international mathematics and science study
Maths 3rd gr 4th gr 7th gr 8th gr Science 3rd gr 4th gr 7th gr 8th gr
Singapore 2 1 1 1 Singapore 10 9 1 1Ireland 12 9 18 15 Ireland 14 11 15 17
Source: http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS1/Highlights.html.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
122 L. Low
Table 3. 1999 third international mathematics and science study
Maths 3rd gr 4th gr 8th gr Science 3rd gr 4th gr 8th gr
Singapore 2 1 1 Singapore 7 7 2Ireland 7 7 n/a Ireland 9 9 n/a
Source: As in Table 2.
Ireland does better in gross tertiary enrolment ratios defined at a specific level ofeducation regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of official school-age popula-tion corresponding to the same level of education in given school year, as shown inTable 4.
Table 4 belies Singapore’s demand, which is paradoxically constrained by supplyin state universities and polytechnics. With some 11,000 students, or 25 percent ofthe cohort enrolled in local tertiary institutions compared with an average 45 percentin OECD economies, another estimated 8000 currently go overseas. Historically, toavert supply-induced demand escalating healthcare costs, the local output of doctors(and lawyers to avert a litigious society) has been capped, although there seemednever to be enough versatile engineers (Low, 1996). Only certain foreign medical andlaw schools are recognized. The policy logic is both anachronistic and contradictory
Table 4. 1999 third international mathematics and science study
Ireland Singapore
Total Male Female Total Male Female
1980 18.1 21.1 15.0 7.8 9.1 6.31981 19.6 22.9 16.1 8.5 10.0 7.01982 20.7 23.9 17.4 10.3 11.9 8.61983 20.7 23.1 18.1 11.9 13.3 10.31984 21.4 23.8 18.9 12.2 14.8 9.41985 22.3 24.8 19.8 13.6 16.6 10.41986 23.4 25.6 21.0 14.3 17.6 11.01987 24.6 26.7 22.5 15.1 18.5 11.71988 26.2 28.4 23.9 15.6 19.0 12.21989 27.6 29.4 25.7 16.8 20.3 13.41990 29.3 30.8 27.7 18.6 22.1 15.21991 32.7 33.7 31.6 20.5 24.0 17.11992 34.7 35.1 34.4 23.1 26.6 19.51993 37.3 37.6 36.9 26.8 30.5 23.01994 38.0 37.6 38.3 29.3 24.8 33.91995 39.6 38.3 41.0 33.7 36.6 30.71996 41.0 38.8 43.3 38.5 n/a n/a
Source: OECD Yearbook, 2001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 123
to the 1993 regionalization policy, which encourages overseas ventures to tap regionalresources and markets and so grow more gross national product.
Parental resources finesse private overseas education. As an ‘escape’ avenue forthose who could not qualify, rather than a grudge against exclusion in subsidizedlocal universities, the situation may be tolerated in a non-welfare state as an extrasource of graduates. Increasingly, wealthy parents are sending their bright childrenabroad if they do not wish to be bonded like some 300 to 350 government and publicsector scholars who study overseas in designated courses and institutions. There is aninherent contradiction in the somewhat rightful social denigration of bond-breakingwhile the knowledge-based economy is about individuals seizing the opportunity andchance, especially when scholars are offered avenues for postgraduate education orresearch in high technology belts in the US. A shift from scholarship to loan andbursary may reconcile the old and new Singapore economy. These are non-issues inIreland, which enjoys the converse of a welfare state and fine European universitiesand exchange programmes on its doorstep.
Private education and experience overseas is a source of emigration. As disciplinesand courses are not dictated, as in scholarships, private choice may invalidate man-power and education planning, which fix local tertiary student intakes. Singapore’stertiary supply constraint is also hard to reconcile with the foreign talent policy andthe Economic Development Board’s aim to bring in foreign universities, includingINSEAD, Chicago Business School and John Hopkins Medical School, to makeSingapore a regional and international education hub. In the final analysis, privateoverseas education to gain exposure and global networking is the singular prevailingargument provided by the current survey of the Singapore Overseas Network. Thissurvey reported a 52 percent return rate of non-scholars, higher than the 44 percentrate for scholars. An interesting policy issue is how Singapore can learn to create andemulate the Irish diaspora as a source of entrepreneurship and networking as ‘newage’ migration, as in people going to and fro, forging the bridge or link between theiroriginal roots and new homeland, should be the other side of foreign talents.
Historically, Ireland’s migration is a reflection of both the dire economics in themid-19th century and the country generally lagging behind many Western countriesin entrepreneurship. The Irish developmental state succeeded in preparing the man-ufacturing base as an entry point to the EU for multinational corporations. UnlikeSingapore, Ireland has chronic high unemployment, which prompted the encourage-ment of entrepreneurship and small business. Industrial policy focused on indigenousindustries, including internationally traded services that have inherent weaknesses inmanagement, marketing and technology and dictated a more selective approach togrant aid. Like Singapore, Ireland’s current focus on high technology entrepreneur-ship emphasizes research and development and exploiting new technical knowledge.Ireland has enjoyed tremendous success in entrepreneurship education as graduateentrepreneurship and research create value for future business and industry leaders,jobs and enterprises. It is second to Belgium in the EU for the proportion of young
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
124 L. Low
adults with university degrees, with six out of ten majoring in engineering, scienceor business studies.
The social characteristics and family background of Irish entrepreneurs are rel-evant considerations. Unlike the US, high technology Irish entrepreneurs are notfrom families of entrepreneurs or following a family tradition in business, althoughIrish entrepreneurs do credit their parents for support (Garavan et al., 1997a, 1997b;O’Cinneide, 1986). Education on average is a masters in science or engineering. Apositive association with a previous occupation or enterprise experience is anotherfeature. Unlike the US reiterative process in previous company formation experience,Irish entrepreneurs tend to be first timers. By age and life situation at the time thecompany formation occurs, Irish entrepreneurs are young, on average mid-30s, inhigh technology pursuits, and are married and so have the support of a spouse.
Prima facie, with a preference for employment, Singapore entrepreneurs couldbe older, striking out later. Both Irish and Singaporean entrepreneurs have a psy-chological makeup which includes independence, achievement, intuition, moderaterisk taking, shrewdness and experimentation. Culturally, the stigma of failure andpropensity to play safe may be more of an issue in Singapore with its preference foremployment. In terms of research orientation, both sets of entrepreneurs are probablymore development than research oriented, in project management and design. This isa result of both a lack of critical mass and a dependence on multinational corporationsand imported technology.
Entrepreneurship Model Comparison
The level of entrepreneurial activity is found to differ significantly between countrieswith major differences in the prevalence of new firms in the Global EntrepreneurshipMonitor (Reynolds et al., 2001). Most firms are started by and operated by men,with peak entrepreneurial activity among those aged 25–34. Financial support ishighly associated with the level of entrepreneurial activity and education plays a vitalrole. Policies geared toward nurturing entrepreneurship should not be confined to theentrepreneurship sector per se as overall economic growth and the economic system,including the taxation level, ease of doing business, labour market flexibility and levelof non-wage labour costs all matter. The perceived legitimacy of entrepreneurship –such as the extent to which fear of failure acts as a deterrent – and respect for thosestarting new firms, both make a difference. Generally, the Global EntrepreneurshipMonitor’s empirical evidence corroborates the promotion of entrepreneurship, its rolein society and the opportunity for personal gain as being critical for economic growth.Successful policies include increasing skill and motivation opportunities, increasingthe participation of women, and targeting younger people less than 25 and older than44 for the greatest long-term impact.
A combination of high Internet and mobile telephone penetration with the rightskills to attract high technology companies is exemplified in Sweden (The Economist,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 125
8 September 2001, p. 79). Ericsson, accounting for 8 percent of Swedish gross domes-tic product as a market leader, enjoyed the telecommunication infrastructure businessand attracted young Swedes to stable jobs rather than risky individual Internet start-ups . In contrast, Finland and Ireland grew more slowly as their technology curve hasbeen less dynamic and confined to producing goods. Irish multinational corporationsand direct foreign investment are focused on producing information communicationtechnology equipment for the European market and its telecommunication infrastruc-ture remains underdeveloped. Finland is different, as exemplified by Nokia, with itsmanagement exerting a strong centripetal force drawing a vast network of suppliersinto the company as partners. Most Nokia managers have stayed on in the 90 percentforeign-owned (mainly by Americans) firm. Irish enterprise leaders seem comfortablebetween the extremes of a market-disciplined US economic model, which promotesthe invisible hand of development by way of unrestrained individual self-interest, anda conscientious Northern European model, which sets economic development withinthe context of a welfare state. Tables 5 and 6 provide a more global comparison ofentrepreneurial activity.
Table 5. Nascent firm, new firm and total entrepreneurialactivity prevalence rates by country
Nascent firm New firm Entrepreneurial activity
Brazil Korea BrazilUS US KoreaAustralia Brazil USCanada Norway AustraliaArgentina Australia NorwayNorway India CanadaKorea Italy ArgentinaGermany Finland IndiaIndia Canada ItalyItaly UK UKSpain Sweden GermanyDenmark Argentina DenmarkUK Denmark SpainIsrael Israel IsraelSweden Germany FinlandFinland Spain SwedenSingapore Belgium BelgiumBelgium France FranceFrance Singapore SingaporeIreland Japan JapanJapan Ireland Ireland
Source: Reynolds et al. (2001, pp. 9–10).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
126 L. Low
Table 6. Types of countries and entrepreneurial activity (%)
Externally Agriculturally Alpha group Alpha group Alpha grouporiented (1) oriented (2) low (3) medium (4) high (5)
Total entrepreneurialactivity
1.91 11.17 1.73 4.50 10.15
Nascent firmprevalence rate
1.28 7.88 1.04 2.86 6.82
New firm prevalencerate
0.74 3.68 0.69 2.01 4.11
Growth-orientednascent firmprevalence rate
0.19 0.54 0.00 0.48 0.90
Business angelprevalence rate
1.17 1.42 1.64 3.19 4.23
Male nascent firmprevalence/r
2.90 12.48 1.45 5.07 11.38
Female new firmprevalence/r
0.54 7.27 0.37 2.39 5.78
Real GDP constantprice 1999
5.36 3.64 1.51 2.45 3.52
Real GDP constantprice estimate 2000
5.55 5.18 2.18 3.22 4.29
Percentageemployment change1998–9
2.74 2.45 0.60 2.03 1.43
Percentageemployment changeestimate 2000
5.02 2.59 1.10 1.16 1.59
Total trade/GDP 1999 160.04 15.24 28.06 50.54 41.13Percentage of men in
agriculture work1992–7
6.33 43.50 5.50 5.50 5.67
(1) Comprises Belgium, Ireland and Singapore.(2) Comprises Brazil and India.(3) Comprises France and Japan.(4) Comprises Argentina, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy Spain, Sweden and UK.(5) Comprises Australia, Canada, Korea, Norway and US.Source: As in Table 5.
Tables 5 and 6 show that neither Ireland nor Singapore fared well in entrepreneurialactivities. The most mentioned issues in Ireland are government policy, finance andcultural, social norms. For Singapore, they are cultural, social norms, education andtraining, and government policy. Despite very high gross domestic product growth inIreland, it has lowest rate of entrepreneurial activity of all 21 countries in the GlobalEntrepreneurial Monitor 2000, accounting for only 1.2 percent. Less than 1 in 100 Irishinvests in new business start-ups, the lowest among participating European countries.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 127
Entrepreneurial activity among women is five times lower than for men – the secondlowest among the 21 countries surveyed. Among its unique national features is thecreation of a business environment supportive of direct foreign investment in hightechnology sectors. Cultural factors have historically limited economic opportunityand mitigated against entrepreneurship, but many agencies have been created to sup-port new business creation and local entrepreneurship. Economic success has led toa tighter labour market and less entrepreneurial ‘push’ although a buoyant economyalso creates entrepreneurial opportunity.
The challenge in Ireland is to increase the trend of rising numbers of enter-prise registrations and quality start-ups approved by development agencies. Lowresearch and development in third level colleges precludes any significant tech-nology transfer from this source and therefore a significant investment in scienceand technology is needed to remedy this. Capital markets are insufficiently devel-oped for new and growing firms with a perceived lack of seed capital and well-developed exit mechanisms for early-stage investors. Ireland had the lowest levelof classic venture capital invested domestically in 1999. The government needs toenforce rigorously a competition policy that creates a business opportunity for en-trepreneurs, especially in non-traded sectors. Local enterprises have to be challengedto maximize the benefits conveyed by multinational corporations through captur-ing subsupply opportunities, research and development transfers and entrepreneurialspinoffs.
Despite higher-than-average gross domestic product growth, Singapore has one ofthe lowest rates of entrepreneurial activity (2.1 percent) in the Global EntrepreneurshipMonitor 2000, which is explained by its dependence on the external sector. Around1 percent of the adult population invests in new business start-ups, the lowest inthe Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2000. Entrepreneurial activity among womenis one-third that of men, below the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2000 average.Entrepreneurship is identified as a fundamental driver in the next phase of growth,spearheaded by ‘Technopreneurship 21’ with a US$1 billion fund, to create researchand innovation centres, build links with Silicon Valley, and relax regulations in respectof bankruptcy and the use of domestic premises for start-ups. Singapore has thehighest ratio of classic venture capital after Israel, with sophisticated capital marketsand sufficient information communication technology investment with a generouspublic sector. It is too early to evaluate ‘Technopreneurship 21’, which is definitely aprogramme of finessed nurture. Issues include fear of failure and associated preferencefor stable, corporate employment, a low unemployment rate, tight labour market, nodepth of entrepreneurial experience (including those providing finance and deliveringsupport programmes), an education system developing technical excellence, but notcreativity, a small local market and pervasive GLCs.
At the risk of oversimplification, supply-side induced policies in Singapore maybe less effective than for Ireland because of the contrasting genetic makeup of en-trepreneurship culture and the Singapore Inc model. Intrinsic Irish enterprise goes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
128 L. Low
beyond universal high technology, dotcom enterprises in electronics and computersor spa services such as cosmetics, facial, massages and other personal, health-relatedservices that many high-class hotels and resorts offer. The ‘young enterprise’ schemeestablished in Ireland in 1989 was an effective way of inculcating entrepreneurial ori-entation and gave comprehensive insights into the entrepreneurship hands-on learn-ing process. The University of Limerick’s search for a course structure, for teach-ing/learning methodology to ‘think enterprise’, has tapped American experience inentrepreneurship education as the graduate entrepreneur in Ireland is a recognitionof the need to encourage graduates to look creatively at opportunities. Culling con-firmed entrepreneurs from the general student to the graduate population to makeentrepreneurship a profession and career is itself a challenge, as universities andcolleges traditionally do not prepare students for self-employment. This bias, anddoubts about whether entrepreneurship be taught, have been corrected in the Univer-sity of Limerick, as in the US where such education and training have become highlydeveloped.
Graduate enterprise in Ireland start with traditional entrepreneurs working for oth-ers before they leave to start up on their own when they get dissatisfied with or-ganisation life, the rewards and constraints. Many have found university educationhas a strong influence on career or self-employment. Predisposing factors includethe parental role-maker, work–hobby experience, and self-perception as triggeringfactors. The same works less in Singapore as opportunities on the demand side aremore circumscribed by a small domestic base, crowded out by government-linkedcompanies and multinational corporations, and venturing abroad is not yet somethingSingaporeans are sufficiently hungry for. The Irish entrepreneurial case may havenew business start-ups in a range of businesses, not entirely new, but modificationsof existing products and only a few complement the original concept.
Riverdance is the exception, as this Irish case demonstrates creativity to arrive ata new product concept. Launched at the 39th Eurovision Song Contest in Dublin in1994, Riverdance started as a music/dance of less than 7 minutes commissioned byRadio Television Eire as an interval presentation, and was networked on televisionworldwide. From a space filler to a new cultural art form and theatrical productionin its own right by 1995, Riverdance encouraged the Celtic revival, with pop music,and created an interpretation of Irish dancing as sales of audio and video recordingssoared. The use of a gala event as springboard for artistic cultural promotion is notnew, but Riverdance demonstrated more the pull from the marketplace than push fac-tors. Post-Riverdance posed a challenge for traditional Irish dancing, seen as unfairlyeclipsed by its strict rules with respect to practices and standards, and competition eti-quette with respect to movements. Riverdance is more creative, free flowing and doesnot comply to tradition, and so critics claim it has eroded the purity of Irish dance. Asa catalyst reflecting the growing confidence in Irish cultural identity with economicprosperity and growing peace prospects in Northern Ireland, Riverdance has goneon the road and enabled more than 600 million people to see it. An instant export
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 129
industry, Riverdance has travelled around the world to the US, Germany, Australia andAsia.
Beside Riverdance, new entrepreneurs in business – from telecommunications tofashion design, from sandwich bars to body art – drive the extraordinary spirit of en-terprise among a new Irish generation (Travers, 2001). Three striking characteristicsof the 16 entrepreneurs surveyed have become definitive of the Irish enterprise spirit:ability, imagination and passion. Ability is demonstrated by Chris Horn in applyingcomplex research which facilitates computer networking in his Iona Technologies.Imagination led Barry McDonagh to seek new ways to generate a stronger sense ofcommunity in his charity-focused Internet site, thegoodspider.com. Passion, overcom-ing the financial and personal challenges of business failure, spurred Brody Sweeneyto create an Irish franchise brand, O’Brien’s Irish Sandwich Bars with worldwiderecognition.
Another notable characteristic distinguishing the Irish spirit of enterprise is anunderstated, but strong and unyielding wish to give. Generosity of time and en-ergy to education initiatives, funding unrelated fledging enterprises, building liveli-hoods or participating brought the Special Olympics to Ireland for the first time.All these demonstrate a strong sense that the benefits that accrue from enterpriseshould be shared. Individual achievements are set in a context of social progressand empathy with the needs of others. Society members have a strong sense ofvalue where both individual interest and community responsibility converge as onein which the quality of life of its citizens is higher and in which enterprise canthrive in a society characterized by social capitalism. Evidence of social capitalismemerging in Ireland with social responsibility playing a significant role has yet to bematched in Singapore under a state, competition and efficiency-driven socio-politicalethos.
The challenge for Irish enterprise spirit, defined as individual achievements in abil-ity, imagination and passion set in the context of social progress and empathy with theneeds of others is to create a sustained balance between individual interests and com-munity responsibility. One wonders if all 16 Irish cases, not just the high-technologyelectronics ones, would have been as successful in the Singapore environment, whereartistic, cultural and social entrepreneurial activities are still ‘bud grafted’ . Thisperception is reinforced if the current focus on high technology, research and devel-opment and technopreneurs is any indication of the government picking winners, asin life sciences rather than free market play and individual choice.
Entrepreneurs typified as capitalists and loners who never give up may be moreisolated in the Singapore working and cultural environment where going with theconventional wisdom of secure employment and prevailing majority behaviour isseductive. To be good, effective managers on their own, entrepreneurs pay the price forsuccess in the neglect of family and friends. While they may have an unremitting needfor independence, including financial, the mandatory saving in the Central ProvidentFund has been noted as a constraint. Views on luck, timing, being at the right place
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
130 L. Low
at the right time are somewhat polarized, but entrepreneurs are definitely those whosee opportunities and do something with them.
From the above comparisons and analysis, Table 7 attempts to capture the stylisticentrepreneurship models as discerned in Ireland and Singapore. Their similarities areas insightful as their contrasting features due to country specifics and idiosyncrasiesdrawing out a generic entrepreneurship model, also seen in Table 7. The genericentrepreneurship model may be a template for other economies poised to take offas Ireland and Singapore did, once they have added on their own country flavours.It is sufficient to generalize that the classical focus of entrepreneurship is on riskand innovation. A second psychological focus is on unique characteristics, such asthe need for achievement, independence and control. Third is a sociological focuson family and environment dynamics. Fourth is a management focus on planning,organization, leading and control and fifth is an ‘intrapreneurship’ focus on ventureteams within organizations.
Both Ireland and Singapore face the challenges of their vision as a globalizedknowledge-based economy, which involves marrying the new organizations and en-trepreneurs with financiers in the right networks. For high technology enterprises,the incubator organization reveals risks about company formation related to finance,career, family and psychology in the personal risk of failure, which can be amelio-rated with the right level of support. Entrepreneurs may not be seeking escape fromemployment because they see past work experience as positive and their previousplace of employment or company has developed their skills and knowledge. Theycould be more pulled than pushed to go on their own. There is, however, a ceiling topaid employment.
As finance is an inevitable problem, venture capital and venture formation, char-acterized by idea generation and evaluation, are helpful. Ideas are not by accidentor coincidence or from work experience, but from systematically scanning the envi-ronment for business ideas, combined with a knowledge of individuals with marketresearch for viability. Managerial structure as a team venture for high technologyenterprises features complementary talents because the high technology nature needsfinancial and marketing partners. A management and venture team provides buddingentrepreneurs who are generally working full time in the early stages with flexibilityin time commitment and a safety net. They devote all their time and energy and quitemployment usually when their ideas prove feasible. As such, the working environ-ment and support system have to be flexible and encouraging. The ‘Housing andDevelopment Boars’ allowing small dot-com companies to operate in public sectorflats is a necessary step in the right direction to facilitate – rather than regulate –entrepreneurs in a new public policy mindset.
Survival in most operations five years after start-up is a general watershed. Ex-pansion comes with remoteness from an enlarged marketplace a major disadvantage,problems in finance, wrong employees with the turning of engineering-oriented firmsto market-oriented ones. The availability of support services, no less state financial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 131
Table 7. Irish, Singapore and generic entrepreneurship models
Attribute, features Ireland Singapore Generic
Indigenouspopulation stock
Demographic gift oflate baby boom
Ageing stock, belatedpro-natalist policy,small size
Youthful dynamism,vibrancy vital
Education, humanresourcesdevelopment
Good, catching up attertiary technical,managerial level
Excellent technical,knowledge content,refocus to becreative, innovative
Blend technicalexpertise withentrepreneurshipcharacteristics
Socio-politicalculture
Rich culture, liberalpolitical ethos
Conforming, stablepolitical governance
Diverse, liberal,challenging ethos
Enterprise culture Lively, encouraging Passive, rarity Thriving, vibrantFamily, support Mainly supportive Cautious, grudging All round supportSaving Low personal saving High, untapped social
security saving,High accessible saving
Finance Lacks small businesscredit
Low take-up for smallbusiness credit,bureaucratic
Extensive, availablesmall business credit
Capital market,venture capital
Growing, nascent Well developed,needing ideas
Developed, industryintegrated
Industry/firmstructure
Balanced, small-big,local-foreign firms
Government-linked,multinationalsdominate
Balanced, less state,more private-led
Migration Net immigration, Irishdisapora
Open foreign talentpolicy versusemigration
Attractive to new-stylemigrants
Developmentalstate
Strong, democraticinstitution
Dominant, atcrossroads, change
Reinvented state roleas facilitator
Industrial relations Social partnership Tripartism ConsensualNational vision Globalised knowledge-based economy, driven by information
communication technology, intellectual capitalRegional context EU widen versus
deepenASEAN, East Asia Hinterland vital
Globalisation Top scorer 2001 Top scorer 2000 Predisposed, topDirect foreign
investmentHigh, US-reliant High, broad-based High, broad-based
Multinationalcorporations
Extensive, more US,EU MNCs
Extensive, relativelybalanced, US MNCsin high technology
Extensive with scopefor local MNCs
Technology, R&D Growing, small scale Focused, small scale Necessary scaleeconomies
Overallenvironment
Good, conducive,potential prospectsin North-SouthIreland, larger EU
Policy-induced,neighbourhoodeffects
Blend naturalcomparative withcompetitiveadvantage
Sustainability:Economy Strong Passable, reliant on Self propellingEntrepreneurship Good potential external factors All round attractive
Source: Drawn by author.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
132 L. Low
assistance, even intervention, can help to solve some problems. Social attitudes, legit-imacy and sources of psychological support beyond family and friends can be inducedby policy and market incentives. The US may be exceptional with a high incidenceof entrepreneurial activities and role models, a high spirit and culture of enterprise,high availability of venture capital and other support services. Clearly, the free playof markets and capitalism is a necessary environment. Neither Ireland nor Singaporecan aspire to such American exceptionalism, but incremental learning does not hurt.
The supply of entrepreneurs can be induced by factors such as attitude to risk,availability of capital, education, information and so on. The level of real wages affectsthe robustness of profit exploitation within the market. Relative incomes also affectthe supply of entrepreneurs directly and determine the distribution of this supply intoproductive, unproductive and destructive entrepreneurship. Dynamics and evolutionmatter as the structure and composition of industrial growth and continuous technicalcharacteristics are evolutionary and ever-changing, in order to create entrepreneurialopportunities and niches. How start-ups occur, causes of births and deaths of small-medium-sized enterprises, whether markets operate differently in rapid change versusa more stable environment, can make a difference to entrepreneurial supply. Beyondeconomics, new values, sociology and anthropology focus on small, medium-sizedenterprises being very dependent on trust and solidarity. Beyond social networks, thenetwork entrepreneur has to deal with production networks, inter-firm networks inregional and global economies.
The role of entrepreneurs and small, medium-sized enterprises in industrial restruc-turing, job creation and destruction, innovation, productivity and overall vitality of themacro-economy has numerous public policy implications (Zoltan et al., 1999). With-out the entry and exit of small, medium-sized enterprises, a greater dominance of largefirms and a more rigid industry structure may result, and surges of entrepreneurshipare always necessary for economic growth and transformation. The strong connectionat the micro-level and macroeconomic performance, the importance of dynamism increative destruction in a high level of innovative activity plus tolerance for failurecall for supportive public policy including financing of small, medium-sized enter-prises also starved by inadequate management competence and other forms of humancapital.
The socio-institutional and political problems of endogenous and innovative en-trepreneurship are compounded by globalization as international corporations andfinancial oligarchies supersede market forces. In turn, multinational corporations andoligopolies can affect sustainable regional development where independent, inno-vative and enterprising owner-managers in small, medium-sized enterprises are keyplayers (Cecora, 1999). Spontaneous development of entrepreneurship at the grass-roots level is as vital for economics as in the individual’s socialization, values, per-sonality, culture, attitudes, role and identity in an embedded context.
One policy implication from the above theoretical and generic model is the roleof government, which is critical in training initiatives, and technical and managerial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 133
expertise for small, medium-sized enterprises. A second policy implication is thatentrepreneurs need the creation of a more capitalistic environment, especially VC de-velopment. A third is to develop market-oriented, market-driven companies, a culturetoward outward-oriented, international markets is necessary. A fourth is to increasethe supply of entrepreneurs, socio-cultural barriers and the right, conducive environ-ment to develop enterprise culture. The education system with an appropriate mixof technical and management skills can foster enterprise quality and an employerculture. There is no advantage to the enterprise culture if the school system laudsprofessions, as do parents. Interestingly, Canada and the US use ‘enterpreneurshipeducation’ while it is ‘enterprise’ in the UK and Ireland. A fifth policy implicationis a recognition that the enterprise founder suffers from extreme uncertainty and in-security during start-up, from management stress, and the conflicting demands ofwork and lifestyle. The socio-cultural environment and role model become importantas the possession of innate psychological qualities is augmented with ‘learned’ andacquired exposure.
An alternative environment for enterprise character is via a strong finance commu-nity, as in the availability of financial support such as loans and venture capital withrole models augmented by psychological support from spouses and family. A strongenterprise culture giving support and legitimacy to entrepreneurship is wide-rangingand necessary, from the education system, which fosters enterprise and not only pro-fessions and vocations, to providing wider opportunities in postgraduate research intosmall, medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurship development. Equally vital issome promotion of the acquisition of ideas through greater collaboration between in-dustry and education in order to match ideas to commercial possibilities. A diversifiedeconomy with large firms and small, medium-sized enterprises in high technologyindustries as an attractive base will equip entrepreneurs with skills, knowledge andthe ability to spot opportunities.
Small firms are not just scaled down versions of large firms, but differ in terms ofuncertainty, innovation and evolution as their small market share make them pricetakers, which operate in niche markets with differentiated products. The basic causesof small business failure include managerial incompetence or inexperience, neglect,weak control and under capitalization. Managerial problems include hiring and pro-motion based on nepotism, unclear business definition – if there is uncertainty aboutthe ‘exact’ business – which leads to constant change and a lack of stabilization thatcan be worsened by the whimsical or inconsistent behaviour of owners. There ismuch greater diversity of aims and objectives between owners of small firms thanof big firms. There is greater internal uncertainty in SMEs. Small firms are morelikely to introduce fundamentally new innovations than larger ones as the founderdiscovers a new product, process or delivery. Not all small, medium-sized enter-prises want to grow into medium or large firms, preferring to stay small to main-tain a certain lifestyle. In fact, their very survival may hinge on remaining small,as listing on stock markets and inviting partners may lose them their control and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
134 L. Low
objectives, as pleasing new financiers and shareholders corrupt their original aims andmotivations.
New business start-ups involve identification of a new business concept on which toestablish a firm, even if it involves a modification of existing products available in themarket with superior execution and energy, not idealistic creativity of a new product.Creative founders with leadership enjoy the initial creative phase with informality andlack of structure. Two important considerations are an identification of the venture’scompetitive advantage and the location of finance with a potential stress on under-capitalization. As the business expands, the entrepreneurial management approach tochange to a professional approach must be recognized to avert an over-paternalisticatmosphere and an inability to innovate on a continuous basis, and also with regardto additional goals of efficiency. Exporting is a way for expansion and diversifica-tion of small, medium-sized enterprises, especially for those lacking resources toengage in foreign joint ventures or international direct investment. One-product ven-tures have limited growth potential, which means high technology ventures mustdeal with new product development and broaden their product base. Over-tradingas in increase in sales must be guarded since additional expenses and outgoingshave to be met before customers pay up and involve cash flow and working capitalissues.
After maturity or stability, decline sets in if a ‘swing stage’ of the owner/managerto redirect from a growth focus to strategic consolidation is lacking in order to pro-pel venture forward to higher profitability levels. The reasons for failure in small,medium-sized enterprises are no different from those for large firms, but they aremagnified. Dealing with an increasingly competitive environment, including changesin national legislation and regulations, which may develop new products, servicesand competition, is part and parcel of the transition and renewal process. As noted,many owners may prefer to maintain a ‘lifestyle’-type of business with an acceptableliving and prefer to remain small and plateau out as the owner/manager. Enterprisesmay be born to die or stagnate in three years or less, before new ideas and innovationsare born again without the fallacy that small, medium-sized enterprises want to growany larger. In reality, true entrepreneurs live out their ideas, sell out and move on tonew ones as a process of self-renewal rather than become trapped in structures andnorms antithetical to the likes and definition of entrepreneurship.
Conclusion and Policy Implications
Both Ireland and Singapore have crested the newly-industrializing economy wave,joined the industrialized ranks of OECD economies and converged to be high technol-ogy knowledge-based economies. Seemingly similar in strategies and policy directionbased on developmental states, direct foreign investment and multinational corpora-tions, there are at least two fundamental differences. Whereas the developmentalstate is strongly entrenched in Singapore Inc and its government-linked companies,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 135
the Irish case is fundamentally more inclined toward social capitalism. Irish small,medium-sized enterprises and indigenous industry have greater latitude and flair with-out the crowding-out effects of government-linked companies and inherent distrustof family-run businesses and practices.
Both have tapped strategic partnerships with multinational corporations in technol-ogy and global linkages, but Singapore small, medium-sized enterprises continue tobe led by government-linked companies and multinational corporations rather than beindustry leaders in their ways. The small, domestic, urbanized base constitutes a severeresource and, consequently, cost constraint as Singapore’s import propensity is highwithout any surplus from agricultural to be tapped. Ireland is at least self-sufficient inwater compared with Singapore’s 50 percent dependence on imported water, which isa security issue. The raison d’etre and logic of government-made Singapore economyis implicit in all these features, whereas Irish enterprise can participate in a relativelymore private-sector led economy. Both have overcome market size with exports, butwithout a base to cut their teeth; small, medium-sized enterprises inevitably becomedependent on multinational corporations for technology and brands as in originalequipment manufacturing.
The second crucial difference that sets the external setting and environment re-lates to Ireland in the EU and Singapore in ASEAN in two approaches to economicintegration. Maastricht convergence and stabilization criteria contrasted with the in-formal, non-intervention ASEAN way means, first and foremost, a single EU marketand currency and not just an ASEAN free trade area which has stalled since the Asiancrisis. Singapore’s macroeconomic policy, geared towards open global competition,is at odds with its more protectionist ASEAN neighbours. Singapore’s latitude andscope as a regional and hub economy is directly challenged by Malaysia, which wantsits ports and airports in the same league, if not better. China poses a larger regionalcompetitor and as Southeast Asia has been eclipsed with a dubious recovery sincethe Asian crisis, direct foreign investment and multinational corporations have driftedtoward Northeast Asia, which by definition would exclude Singapore as a regionalhub. Entrepreneurs – both state, as in the Suzhou Industrial Park, and individual –have not fared so well in China, a difficult business terrain, despite the common-ality in Chinese language, culture and dubious quanxi. Pitted against freewheelingand dealing entrepreneurs from Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Singapore Inc mode isdisadvantaged
Harnessing human resources development and deploying English, science and tech-nology may give both Ireland and Singapore an edge. Singapore is ahead in terms ofinfrastructure, which Ireland is struggling to finesse. EU structural funds are becom-ing less generous and are being channelled to other developing and new EU memberstates. Singapore has accumulated budget surpluses and strong reserves while Irelandmay run again into fiscal deficits. Ireland has, however, the demographic dividendfrom a later baby boom while Singapore has an ageing workforce that is less con-ducive to knowledge-based entrepreneurship. Tertiary education has responded well
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
136 L. Low
in both countries to the extent that nurture is as necessary as nature in new-age,high-technology entrepreneurship.
Migration has quite different effects, as Singapore has a more artificial foreigntalent policy in contrast to the natural Irish diaspora from the US to Australasia onone hand, and high technology talents from the EU, like the Scandinavian states, onthe other. Socio-political stress is greater on Singapore policy makers as they haveto reconcile value adding by foreign talents while employability becomes a biggerissue than employment in an ageing workforce. Issues relate to bonding public sectorscholars, encouraging private overseas education with loans and bursaries, creatingnetworks and casting migration in a more positive light, as the flipside of foreigntalents requires some judicious policy intervention.
Both countries need creative and innovative entrepreneurship, with Singaporeputting more stress on technopreneurs while empirical Irish cases have demon-strated many artistic and cultural aspects of enterprise based on local talents andcultural heritage. Singapore may have the means to spend money and effort more lav-ishly to nurture technopreneurs, as in incubators, venture capital, joint ventures andmany state-financed and sponsored schemes under ‘Technopreneurship 21’. Whileentrepreneurial education is vital as proven in Ireland in tertiary education and enter-prise research, Singapore graduates still gravitate to multinational corporations andpublic sector employment. It may have a more difficult time nurturing the necessaryculture and socio-political environment.
The political economy of dismantling or privatizing Singapore Inc necessitatessome political decontrol by the long serving People’s Action Party regime. Singa-pore’s economic success is not quite paralleled in democratization. There are intrinsicparadoxes and contradictions in efforts to inculcate ‘thinking schools, learning na-tion’ as creativity thrives on some chaos and letting loose, rather than traditionaldisciplined, well-ordered, structures geared for efficiency and productivity. Irelandmay lack the hard infrastructure, but its soft creative brainware for entrepreneurshipmay be more naturally in place plus the European challenge.
At the global level, neither Ireland nor Singapore compares well with other moreentrepreneurial countries, due to the inherent difficulties discussed. The lack of asustainable innovation base may be due to a lack of quantitative scale economiesand critical mass or true creativity and innovation in ideas and capabilities. Both willthus continue to be dependent on foreign technology in direct foreign investmentand multinational corporations. Singapore has started to acquire technology abroadin mergers and acquisitions with government-linked companies and the GovernmentInvestment Corporation of Singapore financially well endowed. Irish enterprises andprivate capital may eventually have to do the same to spawn indigenous multinationalcorporations and technology.
The focus on high technology in both cases comes with vulnerability to supplychain effects and the volatility of shorter and sharper technology cycles. Globalizationhas accentuated the issue of dependence on multinational corporations, direct foreign
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Entrepreneurship Development in Ireland and Singapore 137
investment and foreign technology. As much as Singapore has diversified into servicessuch as in finance and banking, and picking new high technology winners such as inlife sciences, in the final analysis Ireland has the greater potential for a truly morediversified industrial base and structure. It has an agricultural base to provide foodand raw materials as well as absorbing periodic industrial, urban unemployment.Entrepreneurship in traditional rural and lower technology activities exists naturallyin Ireland and Northern Ireland.
While some divergence in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial development maybe discerned, they remain the pivotal focus in both Ireland and Singapore for over-all economic growth and development. Both are still some way ahead in humanresources development and knowledge-based economies relative to other develop-ing economies, but are laggards in global entrepreneurial activities. Ireland has thedeveloped EU to learn from while Singapore taps more globally. Competition andleapfrogging by other Central and East European countries and ASEAN economies,not least of all, China, constitute pressure for both. Being nimble and forward-movingremain survival strategies for Ireland and Singapore. Above all, policy makers haveto be entrepreneurial themselves.
References
Bradley, John & Birnie, Esmond (2001) Can the Celtic Tiger Cross the Irish Border? (Cork: Cork UniversityPress).
Burke, Andrew, E. (Ed) (1995) Enterprise and the Irish Economy (Dublin: Oakland Tree Press).Cecora, James (1999) Cultivating Grass-Roots for Regional Development in a Globalising Economy:
Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Organised Markets (Aldershot: Ashgate).Garavan, Thomas N., O’Cinneide, Barra & Fleming, Patricia (1997a) Entrepreneurship and Business
Start-ups in Ireland, Volume 1: An Overview (Dublin: Oakland Tree Press).Garavan, Thomas N., O’Cinneide, Barra, Garavan, Mary, Hynes, Briga & Walsh, Fergus (1997b) En-
trepreneurship and Business Start-ups in Ireland, Volume 2: Cases (Dublin: Oakland Tree Press).Gray, Alan W. (Ed) (1997) International Perspectives on the Irish Economy (Dublin: Indecon Economic
Consultants).Haggard, Stephan & Low, Linda (2001) State, politics, and business in Singapore, in: Terence Edmund
Gomez (Ed.) Political Business in East Asia, pp 301–323 (New York and London: Routledge).Hardiman, T. P. & O’Neill, E. P. (1997) The role of science and innovation, in: Fionan O’Muircheartaigh
(Ed.), Ireland in the Coming Times, pp. 253–284 (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration).Ireland (1994) Task Force on Small Business Report (Dublin: Government Stationery Office).Ireland (1996) Science, Technology and Innovation: The White Paper (Dublin: Stationery Office).Kennedy, Kieran A., Giblin, Thomas & McHugh, Deidre (1988, reprinted 1989, 2001, 2002) The Economic
Development of Ireland in the 20th Century (London and New York: Routledge).Kenny, Ivor (1991) Out on Their Own: Conversations with Irish Entrepreneurs (Dublin: Gill and Macmil-
lan).Leifer, Michael (2000) Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability (London and New York:
Routledge).Low, Linda (1996) Professionals at the Crossroads (Singapore: Times Academic Press).Low, Linda (1998) Political Economy in a City-state: Government-made Singapore (Singapore: Oxford
University Press).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
138 L. Low
Low, Linda (2001) The Singapore developmental state in the new economy and polity, The Pacific Review,13(3), pp. 409–439
Low, Linda (2003) Policy dilemmas in Singapore’s RTA strategy, The Pacific Review, 16(1), pp. 99–127.MacSharry, Ray & White, Padraic A. (2000) The Making of the Celtic Tiger: The Inside Story of Ireland’s
Boom Economy (Dublin: Mercier Press).O’Cinneide, Barra (1986) The Case for Irish Enterprise (Dublin: Enterprise Publications).O’Riain, Sean (2000) The flexible developmental state: globalization, information technology, and the
‘Celtic Tiger’, Politics and Society, 28(2), pp. 157–193.Reynolds, Paul D., Hay, Michael, Bygrave, William D., Camp, Michael S. & Autio, Erkko (2001) Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2000 Executive Report (Jointly published by Babson College, Wenst &Young, Kaufman Center and London Business School).
Swedberg, Richard (Ed.) (2000) Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).
Travers, John J. (2001) Driving the Tiger: Irish Enterprise Spirit (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan).Zoltan, Acs J., Carlsson, Bo & Karlsson, Charlie (Eds) (1999) Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises and the Macroeconomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
15:
54 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
