Analysis of the Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Trade Openness within the Framework of Quantile Panel Approach: The Case of OECD Countries

Öz

This study aims to examine the impact of the trade openness of selected OECD countries on entrepreneurship. There is a general acceptance that the impact of the trade openness of economies on entrepreneurship is positive. In the analysis process, econometric modeling studies were carried out based on the data of the selected OECD countries for the 2006-2020 period. The quantile panel regression technique was used to test the impact of trade openness on entrepreneurship. The quantile panel regression analyses have been carried out with an approach that considers the asymmetric situation between the selected OECD countries. Hence, this approach has been a contribution to the literature. Policy recommendations are presented within the framework of empirical findings. According to the empirical findings, entrepreneurship activities are important in terms of increasing economic performance in the selected OECD countries and show that policies should be implemented in support of entrepreneurship activities. The necessity of considering the impact of the trade openness level on entrepreneurship in determining policies has been revealed. In particular, the fact that the economies assess this issue in the policy development process can be considered a strategic instrument.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Entrepreneurship
• Trade Openness
• Quantile Panel
• Heterogeneity

Kantil Panel Yaklaşımı Çerçevesinde Girişimcilik İle Dışa Açıklık Arasındaki İlişkinin Analizi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, seçilen OECD ülkelerinin ticaret açıklığının girişimcilik üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ekonomilerin ticaret açıklığının girişimcilik üzerindeki etkisinin olumlu olduğuna dair genel bir kabul vardır. Analiz sürecinde, 2006-2020 dönemi için seçilen OECD ülkelerinin verilerine dayanarak ekonometrik modelleme çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ticaret açıklığının girişimcilik üzerindeki etkisini test etmek için kantil panel regresyon tekniği kullanılmıştır. Kantil panel regresyon analizleri, seçilen OECD ülkeleri arasındaki asimetrik durumu göz önünde bulunduran bir yaklaşımla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu nedenle, bu yaklaşım literatüre bir katkı olmuştur. Politika önerileri ampirik bulgular çerçevesinde sunulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgulara göre, girişimcilik faaliyetlerinin seçilen OECD ülkelerinde ekonomik performansın artırılması açısından önemli olduğu ortaya konmaktadır ve girişimcilik faaliyetlerini destekleyici yönde politikaların uygulanması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Ticari açıklık düzeyinin belirlenmesinde girişimciliğe olan etkilerinin dikkate alınması gerekliliği ortaya konmuştur. Özellikle, ekonomilerin bu konuyu politika geliştirme sürecinde değerlendirmesi stratejik bir araç olarak kabul edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Girişimcilik
• Dışa Açıklık
• Kantil Panel
• Heterojenlik

Kaynakça

1. Abrevaya, J. and C. M. Dahl (2008). The effects of birth inputs on birthweight: Evidence from quantile estimation on panel data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 26, 379– 97.
2. Altınışık, İ., and Külen, C. (2020). Girişimcilik Kültürü Ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Teorik Bir Değerlendirme. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship Culture and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Evaluation. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University Journal of Social and Economic Research. 22(39), 277-290.
3. Amin, A, RU Khan and A Maqsood (2021). Financial development, entrepreneurship and financial openness: Evidence from Asia. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, doi:10.1108/JEAS-05-2021-0080. Baltagi, B. H. (2013). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. 5th ed. New York: Wiley.
4. Bersvendsen Tore and Ditzen Jan (2021). Testing for slope heterogeneity in Stata. The Stata Journal, 21, Number 1, pp. 51–80. DOI: 10.1177/1536867X211000004.
5. Blomquist, J., and J. Westerlund. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters 121: 374–378. https://doi.org /10.1016/ j. econlet.2013.09.012.
6. Canay I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data, Econometrics Journal, volume 14, pp. 368–386. doi: 10.1111/j.1368-423X.2011.00349.x https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/iac879/wp/SimpleQRpanel_EJ.pdf (Accessed 19.03.2024)
7. Chudik, A., M. H. Pesaran, and E. Tosetti. (2011). Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels. Econometrics Journal 14: C45–C90. https: // doi.org / 10.1111 / j.1368-423X.2010.00330.x.
8. Dilanchiev, A and A Sekreter (2015). Measuring the effect of trade openness on entrepreneurship development in case of Georgia. International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 6(10), 6990–6993

9. Doran, J., McCarthy, N., and O’Connor, M. (2018). The Role of Entrepreneurship in Stimulating Economic Growth in Developed and Developing Countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1), 1-14.
10. Fischer, M.M., and Nijkamp, P. (2009). Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. in Capello, R. ve Nijkamp, P. (eds), Handbook of Regional Grovth and Development Theories, Massachusets, Edvard Elgar Publishing.
11. Galvao, A. (2008). Quantile regression for dynamic panel data with fixed effects. Working paper, University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign.
12. Geraci, M. and M. Bottai (2007). Quantile regression for longitudinal data using the asymmetric laplace distribution. Biostatistics 8, 140–54.
13. GEDI (Global Enterprenourship and Development Institute) (2024). Global Entrepreneurship Index, http://thegedi.org/global-entrepreneurship-and-development-index/ (Accessed 19.03.2024)
14. Global Entrepreneurship Institute (2024). Topics of discussion, https://news.gcase.org/topics-of-discussion/ (Accessed 19.03.2024)
15. Graham B. S. (2015). Quantile Regression with Panel Data. Working Paper 21034 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21034
16. Grossman, Gene M, (1984). International Trade, Foreign Investment, and the Formation of the Entrepreneurial Class, American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(4), pages 605-614, September.
17. Jean Baptiste Say Institute (2022). Jean-Baptiste Say Institute for Entrepreneurship Annual Report 2022, https://www.sayinstitute.eu/jean-baptiste-say-institute-for-entrepreneurship-annual-report-2022/ (Accessed 19.03.2024)
18. Kaur, H., and Bains, A. (2013). Understanding The Concept of Entrepreneur Competency. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(11), 31-33.
19. Karavias Y. and Tzavalis E. (2014). Testing for Unit Roots in Short Panels Allowing for a Structural Break. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 76:391–407. DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2012.10.014
20. Khalil, R. (2019). The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 8(3), 12-43.
21. Koenker, R. and G. Bassett (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46, 33–50.
22. Koenker, R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 91, 74–89.
23. Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile Regression. Econometric Society Monograph, ESM38, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Lamarche, C. (2010). Robust penalized quantile regression estimation for panel data. Journal of Econometrics 157, 396–408.
25. LêKhang, T., and Thành, N. C. (2018). Economic Growth, Entrepreneurship, And Institutions: Evidence in Emerging Countries. In The 5th IBSM International Conference On Business, Management and Accounting (357-374).
26. Malecki, EJ (2018). Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: A review of recent research. In Katz, JA and AC Corbett (Eds.), Reflections and Extensions on Key Papers of the First Twenty-Five Years of Advances, Vol. 20, pp. 71–116. UK: Emerald Publishing Limited, doi:10.1108/S1074-754020180000020010
27. Maritz, A, A Perenyi, G de Waal and C Buck (2020). Entrepreneurship as the unsung hero during the current COVID-19 economic crisis: Australian perspectives. Sustainability, 12(11), 4612, doi: 10.3390/su12114612.
28. McGrath, R.G. (2003). Connecting the Study of Entrepreneurship and Theories of Capitalist Progress An Epilogue. In: Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. (eds) Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. International Handbook Series on Entrepreneurship, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24519-7_19
29. Nguyen, B, NP Canh and SD Thanh (2021). Institutions, human capital and entrepreneurship density. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(3), 1270–1293, doi: 10.1007/s13132-020-00666-w.
30. Ng, Serena and Perron Pierre (2005). A note on the selection of time series models, Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, Vol.67, Issue1, pp.115-134
31. Pesaran, M. H., and T. Yamagata. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics 142: 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
32. Pesaran M. H. (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22:265–312.
33. Peprah, AA and AF Adekoya (2020). Entrepreneurship and economic growth in developing countries: Evidence from Africa. Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), 388–394, doi: 10.1002/bsd2.104.
34. Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
35. Pradhan, R. P., Arvin, M. B., Nair, M., and Bennett, S. E. (2020). The Dynamics Among Entrepreneurship, Innovation, And Economic Growth in The Eurozone Countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(5), 1106-1122.
36. Prasetyo, P. E., and Kistanti, N. R. (2020). Human Capital, Institutional Economics and Entrepreneurship as A Driver for Quality & Sustainable Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2575-2589.
37. Rahman, MM, MM Rahman, M Rahman and MAK Masud (2021). The impact of trade openness on the cost of financial intermediation and bank performance: Evidence from BRICS countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, doi:10.1108/IJOEM-04- 2021-0498.
38. Rosen, A. (2009). Set identification via quantile restrictions in short panels. Working paper, University College, London.
39. Rusu, V. D., and Roman, A. (2017). Entrepreneurial Activity in The EU: An Empirical Evaluation of Its Determinants. Sustainability, 9(10), 1-16.
40. Sahlman, W.A. and H.H. Stevenson, (1991). Introduction, in W.A. Sahlman and H.H. Stevenson (eds.), The Entrepreneurial Venture, Boston: McGraw Hill.
41. Sautet, F (2013). Local and systemic entrepreneurship: Solving the puzzle of entrepreneurship and economic development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 387–402, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00469.x
42. Setini, M, NN Yasa, IW Gede Supartha, IG Ketut Giantari and I Rajiani, (2020). The passway of women entrepreneurship: Starting from social capital with open innovation, through to knowledge sharing and innovative performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(2), 25, doi: 10.3390/joitmc6020025.
43. Sigue, M (2020). The determinants of the global competitiveness of the economy: A dynamic panel approach applied to the WAEMU country. Applied Finance and Accounting, 6(2), 16–27.
44. Stoica, O., Roman, A., and Rusu, V. D. (2020). The Nexus Between Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: A Comparative Analysis On Groups of Countries. Sustainability, 12(3), 1-19.
45. Scholman, G, A van Stel and R Thurik (2015). The relationship among entrepreneurial activity, business cycles and economic openness. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(2), 307–319, doi: 10.1007/s11365-014-0340-5.
46. Sheikh, MA, MA Malik and RZ Masood (2020). Assessing the effects of trade openness on sustainable development: Evidence from India. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 5(1), 1, doi: 10.1186/s41180-019-0030-x.
47. Schumpeter, G. (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Unary University Press.
48. Şahin, D. (2018). OECD Ülkelerinde Girişimcilik Faaliyetlerinin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerine Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, The Impact of Entrepreneurial Activities on Economic Growth in OECD Countries: Panel Data Analysis. Adnan Menderes University Social Sciences Institute Journal. 5(3), 81-90.
49. Tirole, J, (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA
50. Tolbert, P., David, R., and Sine, W. (2011). Studying choice and change: The intersection of institutional theory and entrepreneurship research. Organization Science 10.1287/orsc.1100.0601
51. Oyama, D, Y Sato, T Tabuchi and J-F Thisse (2011). On the impact of trade on the industrial structures of nations. International Journal of Economic Theory, 7(1), 93–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7363.2010.00151.x.
52. Oviatt, Benjamin, and Patricia McDougall (2005). Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 537–554.
53. Zhao C. (2013). Essays on Unit Root Testing in Panel Data. PhD Thesis in Economics, University of Birmingham, https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/4946/1/Zhao14PhD.pdf (Accessed 19.03.2024)
54. World Bank (2024). https://data.worldbank.org/topic/21 (Accessed 19.03.2024)