Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Entrepreneurship in European Regions

Implications for Public Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policies for Fostering Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 22))

Abstract

Policy makers’ interest in stimulating entrepreneurship suggests a general consensus about their beneficiary economic effects that exist. For example, the goal of the EU 2000 Lisbon Agenda to become the world’s most innovative area by 2010 relies on the entrepreneurial power of regions. The European Commission , in its Green paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe (European Commission 2003 , p. 9), makes it more explicit:

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for instance the most recent Dutch government treaty (Dutch Coalition Agreement 2007) and the German “Ich-AG” (BMWi 2005).

  2. 2.

    According to Pasinetti (1993), an economy that does not increase the variety of industries over time will suffer from structural unemployment and will ultimately stagnate. In this view, the development of new industries in an economy is required to absorb labor that has become redundant in pre-existing industries. This labor has become redundant due to a combination of productivity increases and demand saturation in pre-existing industries, characterizing the product lifecycle dynamics in each sector.

  3. 3.

    Even when controlled for recent macroeconomic growth and time lags of the effect on economic growth (see Thurik et al. 2008).

  4. 4.

    In what Audretsch and Fritsch (2002) call “revolving door” regimes: inefficient entrants, which exit soon after entry will not make a valuable contribution to the economy.

  5. 5.

    The studies of Audretsch and Keilbach find no (2005), or only very weak (Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004) associations of new firm formation in general- and labor-productivity growth. Only specific forms of entrepreneurship, like new firm formation in high-tech or ICT industries (i.e., technology start-ups) have strong positive associations with labor productivity growth.

  6. 6.

    The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor makes a distinction between “necessity entrepreneurship,” which is having to become an entrepreneur (often “self-employed”) because you have no better option, and “opportunity entrepreneurship,” which is an active choice to start a new enterprise based on the perception that an unexploited or underexploited business opportunity exists. Analyzing data in 11 countries, Acs and Varga (2005) found that effects on economic growth and development of necessity and opportunity entrepreneurship vary greatly: necessity entrepreneurship has no effect on economic development while opportunity entrepreneurship has a positive and significant effect. They also found that the ratio of opportunity to necessity entrepreneurship in a country is positively related to GDP per capita.

  7. 7.

    See Reynolds et al. (2005) for a detailed description of the GEM methodology.

  8. 8.

    NUTS stands for Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. The Eurostat introduced the standard European NUTS classification. In this selection we have indices for 125 regions corresponding to the classification used by ESRI. This classification comprises of NUTS1 levels for Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. NUTS 2 levels are applied for Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden an2d a combination of NUTS1 and NUTS 2 for Italy, Spain and Switzerland.

  9. 9.

    The abstracted regions are Antwerp and Ghent (Belgium); Aarhus (Denmark); Helsinki (Finland); Duisburg-Essen, Düsseldorf, Köln, Rhein-Main, Stuttgart and Munich (Germany); Budapest (Hungary); Dublin (Ireland); Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht (Netherlands); Barcelona, Valencia, Seville and Malaga (Spain).

  10. 10.

    This issue is not relevant for our empirical analysis since it is based on the individual-level observations constituting the regional aggregates shown in Figs. 4.2–4.5.

  11. 11.

    This region includes the Sophia-Antipolis cluster.

  12. 12.

    In line with Davidsson (1991) one could wonder why individual level perceptions of ability and opportunities to start firms are not included in our analyses. Indeed, Arenius and Minniti (2005) find a strong relationship between individuals’ perceptions to entrepreneurship and their involvement in nascent entrepreneurship. However, we feel that the data poses methodological restrictions to do so, since perceived ability, opportunities, and fear of failure are posed directly after questions on involvement in entrepreneurial activity. One would not expect many people involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity to say that they do not have the skills to start a business or that they do not see opportunities to start a business. Let alone that people already making actual preparation to start a firm will answer that fear of failure would prevent them from starting a business.

  13. 13.

    The general idea of multilevel analysis is that individuals in the same social context show similar progressive behavior. The most researched cases are within educational studies on school performances: students learn by individual and class influences (Raudenbusch and Bruyk 2002).

  14. 14.

    We apply Stata’s gllamm procedure (see Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2005), using the logit link from the binomial family.

References

  • Acs, Z.J. (2008), ‘Foundations of High Impact Entrepreneurship’, Jena Economic Research Papers # 2008 – 060, Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z.J. and C. Armington (2004), ‘Employment Growth and Entrepreneurial Activity in Cities’, Regional Studies, 38, 911–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z.J. and D.B. Audretsch (2003), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z.J. and P. Mueller (2008), ‘Employment Effects of Business Dynamics: Mice, Gazelles and Elephants’, Small Business Economics, 30(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z.J. and A. Varga (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and Technological Change’, Small Business Economics, 24(3), 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., D. Audretsch, P. Braunerhjelm and B. Carlsson (2005), ‘The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5326, London: CEPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, Ph., R. Blundell, R. Griffith, P. Howitt and S. Prantl (2006), ‘The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity’. NBER Working Paper 12027, Cambridge, MA: NBER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arenius, P. and M. Minniti (2005), ‘Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship’, Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. (1995), Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. and M. Fritsch (1992), ‘On the Measurement of Entry Rates’, Empirica, 21(1), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. and M. Fritsch (2002), ‘Growth Regimes Over Time and Space’, Regional Studies, 36, 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. and M. Keilbach (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship and Regional Growth: An Evolutionary Interpretation’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. and M. Keilbach (2005),‘Entrepreneurship Capital and Regional Growth’, Annals of Regional Science, 39, 457–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. and R. Thurik (2001), ‘Linking Entrepreneurship to Growth’, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2001/2, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B., M.C. Keilbach and E.E. Lehmann (2006), Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W.J. (1990), ‘Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive’, The Journal of Political Economy, 95(5), 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W.J. (2002), The Free-Market Innovation Machine – Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W.J. (2004), ‘Four Sources of Innovation and Stimulation of Growth in the Dutch Economy’, De Economist, 152(3), 321–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S. (2007), ‘Entrepreneurial Culture culture, Regional Innovativeness and Economic Growth’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, D. (1979), The Job Generation Process, Cambridge, MA: MIT, Program on Neighbourhood and Regional Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • BMWi Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2005), Nationales Reformprogramm Deutschland: Innovation forcieren – Sicherheit im Wandel fördern – Deutsche Einheit vollenden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. and C.J. Coyne (2003), ‘Entrepreneurship and Development: Cause or Consequence?’, Advances in Austrian Economics, 6, 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N. and V. Schutjens (2009), ‘Determinants of Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity in European Regions; Distinguishing Low and High Ambition Entrepreneurship’, in: D. Smallbone, H. Landstrom and D. Jones Evans (eds), Making the Difference in Local, Regional and National Economies: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., E. Stam and V. Schutjens (2006), Creative Destruction and Regional Competitiveness, Zoetermeer: EIMEIM Business and Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., V. Schutjens and E. Stam (2008), ‘Determinants of Growth-Oriented Entrepreneurship: A Multilevel Approach’. Paper Presented at the AAG-conference, April 15–19 2008, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., E. Stam and V. Schutjens (2009), ‘Creative Destruction and Regional Productivity Growth; Evidence from the Dutch Manufacturing and Services Industries’, Small Business Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callejón, M. and A. Segarra (1999), ‘Business Dynamics and Efficiency in Industries and Regions: The Case of Spain’, Small Business Economics, 13, 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M. and R. Thurik (2008), ‘The Lag Structure of the Impact of Business Ownership on Economic Performance in OECD Countries’, Small Business Economics, 30(1): 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassar, G. (2007), ‘Money, Money, Money? A Longitudinal Investigation of Entrepreneur Career Reasons, Growth Preferences and Achieved Growth’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, January, 89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1991), Continued Entrepreneurship: Ability, Need, and Opportunity as Determinants of Small Firm Growth’, Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, F., M. Rosenbrand and N. Bosma (2003), De overstap naar het ondernemerschap: levensloop, beweegredenen en obstakels, Tilburg: Organisatie voor Strategisch Arbeidsmarktonderzoek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. and D. Lovallo (1997), ‘Rational Entrepreneurs or Optimistic Martyrs? Some Considerations on Technological Regimes, Corporate Entries and the Evolutionary Role of Decision Biases’, in: R. Garud, P.R. Nayyar and Z.B. Shapira (eds), Technological Innovation Oversights and Foresights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Coalition Agreement (2007), Coalitieakkoord tussen de Tweede Kamerfracties van CDA, PvdA en ChristenUnie, 7 februari 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Commission (2003), Green Paper: Entrepreneurship in Europe, Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faggian, A., Ph. McCann and S. Sheppard (2007), ‘Human Capital capital, Higher Education and Graduate Migration: An Analysis of Scottish and Welsh Students’, Urban Studies, 44(13), 2511–2528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. (2005), ‘Firm Formation formation in a Regional Context’, in: S. Breschi and F. Malerba (eds), Clusters, Networks, and Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E. and A. Reuber (2003), ‘Support for Rapid-Growth Firms: A Comparison of the Views of Founders, Government Policymakers, and Private Sector Resource Providers’, Journal of Small Business Management, 41, 346–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M. (2008), ‘How Does New Business Formation Affect Regional Development? Introduction to the Special Issue’, Small Business Economics, 30(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M. and A. Schroeter (2009), ‘Why Does the Effect of New Business Formation Differ Across Regions?’, Small Business Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2003), Multilevel Statistical Models (3rd ed.), London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship: A Weak Link in the Welfare State?’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, J., M. van Gelderenvan and R. Thurik (2008), ‘Drivers of Entrepreneurial Aspirations at the Country Level: The Role of Start-Up Motivations and Social Security’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4): 401–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, D., A. Findlay, R. Harrison and C. Mason (2008), ‘Will Attracting the “Creative Class” Boost Economic Growth in Old Industrial Regions? A Case Study of Scotland’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B: Human Geography, 90(2), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J.J. (2002), Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D., C. Lawson, B. Moore and F. Wilkinson (1999), ‘Collective Learning Processes, Networking and ‘Institutional Thickness’ in the Cambridge Region’, Regional Studies, 33(4), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster, S. (2006), Whose child? How existing firms foster new firm formation: Individual start-ups, spin-outs and spin-offs, Thesis, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, D.S. (1969), The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.Y., R. Florida and Z. Acs (2004), ‘Creativity and Entrepreneurship: A Regional Analysis of New Firm Formation’, Regional Studies, 38(8), 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, J. and H. Welsh (2003), ‘Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Growth Aspirations: A Comparison of Technology and Non-Technology-Based Nascent Entrepreneurs’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1991), ‘Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning’, Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (2008), ‘The Role of Government Policy on Entrepreneurial Activity: Productive, Unproductive or Destructive?’, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 32(5), 779–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. and K. Davis (2004), ‘Learning the Silicon Valley Way’, in: T. Bresnahan and A. Gambardella (eds), Building High-tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P., A. Van Stel and D.J. Storey (2008), ‘The Effects of New Firm Formation on Regional Development over Time: The Case of Great Britain’, Small Business Economics, 30(1): 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (1994), ‘Innovation and Diffusion in Small Firms: Theory and Evidence’, Small Business Economics, 6, 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B. (2000), Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2000), OECD Employment Outlook, Paris: OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2003), Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development Programme and Policy Recommendations, Paris: OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S.C. and M.T. Robson (2004), ‘Explaining International Variations in Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries’, Southern Economic Journal, 71(2), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L.L. (1993), Structural Economic Dynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perren, L. and P.J. Jennings (2005), ‘Government Discourses on Entrepreneurship: Issues of Legitimization, Subjugation, and Power’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(2), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S. and A. Skrondal (2005), Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbusch, S.W. and A.S. Bruyk (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P.D., N.S. Bosma, E. Autio with S.A. Hunt, N. De Bono, I. Servais, P. Lopez-Garcia and N. Chin (2005), ‘Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection Design and Implementation 1998–2003’, Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H.O. and R. Sternberg (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship: The Role of Clusters. Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical evidence from Germany’, Small Business Economics, 24, 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. and L. Birdzell (1986), How the West Grew Rich, New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahid Y. and N. Kaora (2007), How Universities Promote Economic Growth, Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S.A. (2000), ‘Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities’, Organization Science, 11(4), 448–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallbone, D., R. Baldock and S. Burgess (2002), ‘Targeted Support for High-Growth Start-Ups: Some Policy Issues’, Environment and Planning C, 20 (2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. (ed.) (1994), Strangers and Citizens, London: Rivers Outram.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy’, in: B. Nooteboom and E. Stam (eds), Micro-Foundations for Innovation Policy, Amsterdam/Chicago: Amsterdam University Press/Chicago University Press, pp. 135–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., K. Suddle, J. Hessels, and A. Van Stel (2007), ‘High Growth Entrepreneurs, Public Policies and Economic Growth’, Jena Economic Research Papers #2007–019, Jena: Max Planck Institute of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam, E., D. Audretsch and J. Meijaard (2008), ‘Renascent Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18(3), 493–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, L. and A. Lundström (2001), ‘Patterns and Trends in Entrepreneurship/SME Policy and Practice in Ten Economies’, Entrepreneurship Policy for the Future Series, Vol. 3, Stockholm: Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, D. (2002), ‘Innovative Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Observations from a UK Perspective’, in: EIMEIM (ed.), Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Innovative Entrepreneurship. New Policy Challenges!, Zoetermeer: EIM Business & Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (1997), The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamásy, C. (2006), ‘Determinants of Regional Entrepreneurship Dynamics in Contemporary Germany: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis’. Regional Studies, 40(4), 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurik, R., M. Carree, A. Van Stel and D. Audretsch (2008), ‘Does Self-Employment Reduce Unemployment?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trettin, L. and F. Welter (2007), ‘Spatially Oriented Entrepreneurship Research at a Crossroad’, Paper Presented at Interdisciplinary European Conference on Entrepreneurship Research (IECER), February 28-March 2, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, Y. and E. Lafuente (2007), ‘Do Different Institutional Frameworks Condition the Influence of Local Fear of Failure and Entrepreneurial Examples Over Entrepreneurial Activity?’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19, 313–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, C.M. and P.H. Versloot (2007), ‘What is the Value of Entrepreneurship? A review of Recent Research’, Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A. and D. Storey (2004), ‘The Link Between Firm Births and Job Creation: Is There a Upas Tree Effect?’, Regional Studies, 38, 893–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A. and K. Suddle (2008), ‘The Impact of New Firm Formation on Regional Development in the Netherlands’, Small Business Economics, 30(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheul, I., A. Wennekers, D. Audretsch and A. Thurik (2002), ‘An Eclectic Theory of Entrepreneurship: Policies, Institutions and Culture’, in: D. Audretsch, R. Thurik, I. Verheul and A. Wennekers (eds), Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policy in a European-US Comparison, Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S. and R. Thurik (1999), ‘Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth’, Small Business Economics, 13, 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., P. Davidsson and F. Delmar (2003), ‘What Do They Think and Feel About Growth? An Expectancy-Value Approach to Small Business Managers’ Attitudes Towards Growth’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P., Y. Ho and E. Autio (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEMGEM Data’, Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht (URU), Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80115, NL-3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Niels Bosma, Veronique Schutjens & Erik Stam

Authors
  1. Niels Bosma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veronique Schutjens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Stam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels Bosma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Bosma, N., Schutjens, V., Stam, E. (2009). Entrepreneurship in European Regions. In: Baptista, R., Leitao, J. (eds) Public Policies for Fostering Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 22. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0249-8_4

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation