See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5012545

Setting up a business in the Netherlands

Article · May 2001

Source: RePEc

CITATION READS
1 124

3 authors:

Marco van Gelderen Niels Bosma

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Utrecht University
51 PUBLICATIONS   4,629 CITATIONS    112 PUBLICATIONS   8,829 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roy Thurik
Erasmus University Rotterdam
411 PUBLICATIONS   30,995 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ADHD and Entrepreneurship View project

COVID-19, Personality & Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Niels Bosma on 06 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Report

Setting up a Business in the Netherlands

Who starts, who gives up, who is still trying?

Marco van Gelderen (EIM and Free University of Amsterdam)

Niels Bosma (EIM)
Roy Thurik (EIM and Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Zoetermeer, April 2001

ISBN: 90-371-0820-2
Price: NLG 35.-
Order number: H0013

This study forms part of the Programmaonderzoek MKB en Ondernemerschap

(Programme Research SMEs & Entrepreneurship) that is financed by the Netherlands
Ministry of Economic Affairs.

EIM / Business & Policy Research employs 170 professionals. EIM provides pol-
icy- and practice-oriented socio-economic information on and for all sectors in
private enterprise and for policy-makers. EIM is established in Zoetermeer. Be-
sides on the Netherlands, EIM also focuses on the European economy and on
other continents. You may contact us for more information about EIM and its ser-
vices.
Address: Italiëlaan 33
Mailing address: P.O. Box 7001

2701 AA Zoetermeer

Telephone: + 31 79 341 36 34

Fax: + 31 79 341 50 24
Website: www.eim.nl

The responsibility for the contents of this report lies with EIM.
Quoting of numbers and/or texts as an explanation or support in papers, essays and
books is permitted only when the source is clearly mentioned.
No part of this publication may be copied and/or published in any form or by any means,
or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior written permission of EIM.
EIM does not accept responsibility for printing errors and/or other imperfections.
Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................5

1 Introduction............................................................................7

2 A sample of Dutch nascent entrepreneurs and a

taxonomy of performance indicators ...................................9

3 Characteristics of the sample ..............................................17

4 Results: explaining pre-start-up performance....................19

5 Discussion .............................................................................23

References ............................................................................25

Appendices
I Description of the performance indicators .............................................31
II Descriptive statistics and correlations of the performance indicators ..33
Abstract

The explanation of firm performance is a central issue in the field of entrepre-

neurship. Most research however deals with the success of existing firms. The
first success of a firm is that it becomes one. What are the characteristics of the
people who actually start a business in comparison to those who give up the
effort or who are still busy organizing? The present research report investi-
gates this question using a panel of Dutch nascent entrepreneurs (people cur-
rently engaged in setting up a business) over a period of one year. Some in-
triguing results from our analyses are the following. First, people who wish to
start with large start-up capital and third-party loans are more likely to give
up. Second, women take a longer time to prepare for eventual start-up. Third,
industry experience is a success factor, while work experience, management
experience, and experience in setting up a business as well as education are
not. Finally, people who are already entrepreneurs manage to get their (new)
business started relatively often. Knowledge of predictors of pre-start-up per-
formance has significant benefits for entrepreneurship practice, education and
policy measures. We hope the model described in this report will encourage
the work yet to be done.

Samenvatting

Succesfactoren van pas gestarte ondernemers worden veelvuldig onderzocht.

Echter, het eerste succes van een ondernemer is dat het bedrijf daadwerkelijk
van de grond komt. Wat zijn de kenmerken van de mensen die de plannen
voor het starten van een onderneming realiseren, vergeleken met de mensen
die opgeven of bezig blijven met het opzetten van de onderneming? Dit on-
derzoek gaat nader in op deze vraag. Er wordt gebruikgemaakt van een panel
bestaande uit mensen die bezig zijn een onderneming op te zetten in Neder-
land. Deze mensen (in het Engels aangeduid met de term ‘nascent entrepre-
neurs’) zijn gedurende een jaar gevolgd. De analyse levert enkele interessante
resultaten op. Ten eerste geven de mensen die willen starten met hoge hoe-
veelheden startkapitaal en leningen met grotere waarschijnlijkheid op dan de
wat behoudendere mensen. Ten tweede lijken vrouwen meer tijd nodig te
hebben om de start te realiseren. Ten derde biedt ervaring in de sector meer
kans op succes. Dit geldt niet voor het hebben van werkervaring, ervaring in
management of ervaring in het opzetten van een onderneming. Ook hoger
opgeleiden hebben niet een grotere kans om de start te realiseren. Als laatste
blijkt dat mensen die al ondernemer zijn hun (nieuwe) onderneming relatief
vaak kunnen realiseren. Kennis over determinanten van prestaties in de fase
voorafgaand aan de start is belangrijk voor ondernemers zelf, voor onderwijs

EIM Business & Policy Research 5

en voor beleidsvoering. Dit onderzoek kan dienen als aanzet voor het vele
werk dat op dit terrein nog uitgevoerd dient te worden.

6 EIM Business & Poliy Research

1 Introduction

Explaining firm performance is an important part of entrepreneurship re-

search (Cooper and Gascon, 1992; Lussier, 1995; Honig, 1998; Boden and Nucci,
2000; van Gelderen, Frese and Thurik, 2001). Most research deals with the suc-
cess of existing firms. However, the first success of a firm is that it becomes
one. Entrepreneurs have frequently been compared with non-entrepreneurs
(Baron, 1999; Kaufman, 1999), but not often with persons who wanted to start
a business but did not succeed in doing so. Why does one person actually suc-
ceed in starting a business, while a second gives up, and a third is still busy or-
ganizing? Answers to this question are directly relevant for practitioners who
want to evaluate their own prospects, chances and behaviour. For example, in
one of the few studies on the subject, Carter, Gartner and Reynolds (1995) re-
port that both individuals who started their business as well as individuals who
gave up the start-up effort undertook more activities to make their business
real. People who were still trying to set up their business had undertaken
fewer activities than the other two groups. Therefore, the authors advise indi-
viduals considering a business start-up to pursue opportunities aggressively in
the short term, in order not to find themselves perennially still trying. Com-
parisons of nascent entrepreneurs who start, still try, or give up are also rele-
vant for governmental agencies that deal with nascent entrepreneurs. Re-
search on pre-start-up failure variables gives insight into the factors that hin-
der aspiring founders from realizing their plans. This knowledge can guide
policy measures that improve the general conditions surrounding start-ups,
thus enabling a more effective use of the nascent entrepreneurs’ potential
(Chini, Frank, Korunka and Lueger, 2000). Research by Chini et al. (2000) points
to the importance of information use and availability. They found that people
who had abandoned their start-up effort frequently indicated that informa-
tion was unavailable or discouraging. Therefore, governmental agencies are
heeded to make stimulating information and guidance available.
Finally, knowledge of the behaviour of nascent entrepreneurs is important for
those involved in creating and maintaining policy measures at a macro-
economic level. The level of entrepreneurship, i.e., the number of business
owners per work force, differs considerably across countries and periods
(Thurik, 1999; Carree and Thurik, 1999). Both the causes and consequences of
variation in the level of entrepreneurship are a matter of extensive scientific
debate as well as of great policy importance. A high level of entrepreneurial
activity is assumed and shown to contribute to innovative activities, competi-
tion, economic growth and job creation (Baumol, 1993; Thurik, 1996;
Audretsch and Thurik, 2000 and 2001; Carree, van Stel, Thurik and Wennekers,
2001). For European countries in particular the fragile economic growth, cou-
pled with the persistently high levels of unemployment, has fostered entre-
preneurship (OECD, 2000). Many governments now seek to promote entrepre-
neurship, and high hopes are attached to entrepreneurship as a source of job

EIM Business & Policy Research 7

creation and economic growth (Thurik, 1996). The exploitation of economies
of scale and scope is no longer at the heart of modern economies (Teece,
1993; Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). The reason is that globalization and the
ICT revolution imply a need for a knowledge-intensive economy. Such an
economy emerges only after significant structural change, requiring a substan-
tial reallocation and reorganization of resources. This induces an intense de-
mand for entrepreneurship (Casson, 1995; Audretsch and Thurik, 2000 and
2001). When it comes to how the mechanisms work, little is known, either on
how entrepreneurship can best be promoted or on how entrepreneurship in-
fluences economic performance. Promotion of entrepreneurship starts with in-
sight in the motives and behaviour of those seriously playing with the idea of
becoming an entrepreneur.

8 EIM Business & Poliy Research

2 A sample of Dutch nascent entrepreneurs and a
taxonomy of performance indicators

Research of success and failure in the pre-start-up phase is scarce mainly be-
cause of the lack of a representative sample (Reynolds and Miller, 1992; Rey-
nolds, 1997). People walking around with an idea of starting a business are
difficult to find. Of course, researchers may collect a sample of starting entre-
preneurs and question them about their preparation phase retrospectively.
However, in such an approach all people who did not succeed in getting a bu-
siness started will be overlooked (survivor bias). Moreover, retrospective
questioning may lead to biased memories (hindsight bias). To avoid survivor
bias and hindsight bias, one has to collect a sample of nascent entrepreneurs,
i.e., people who are in the process of setting up a business. For example, the
researcher may collect a sample of nascent entrepreneurs from among people
who take a course in setting up a business at the local Chamber of Commerce.
However, the people who take part in such a course may form a biased sam-
ple. For example, ethnic minorities are less likely to participate in the regular
information and guidance channels. Therefore, as a third desirable characteris-
tic of a research design on success in the pre-start-up phase, one would not on-
ly want to avoid survivor and hindsight bias, but also draw a representative
and random sample (Katz and Gartner, 1988). To this purpose, Paul Reynolds
of Babson College has set up the Entrepreneurial Research Consortium (ERC).
The ERC is an international research effort (joined among others by the United
States, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands) in which nascent entrepreneurs
are collected by randomly calling phone numbers. The person who answers
the phone is asked: are you currently, alone or with others, setting up a busi-
ness? If the person answers affirmatively, two exclusions are made. First, it is
essential to have an active and manifest desire to set up a business. If he or she
is only dreaming about starting up a business, he or she is considered a poten-
tial entrepreneur instead of a nascent entrepreneur. Second, someone who
has set up a business that is already operational, even though in a start-up
phase, must be considered an entrepreneur instead of a nascent entrepreneur.
By this design, a relevant, representative and random sample of nascent en-
trepreneurs is created avoiding the traps of survivor bias and hindsight bias.
In the fall of 1998, 49,936 phone numbers were dialed. An interview was held
with 21,393 persons (43%) aged between 18 and 65 years. Eventually, this re-
sulted in a sample of 526 nascent entrepreneurs (2.5% of the sample, which
indicates a prevalence rate of 2.5% within the Dutch population between 18
and 65 years old). This prevalence rate is comparable with Scandinavian coun-
tries but much lower than that in the United States (Delmar and Davidsson,
2000).
In comparison with a control group (N=586) taken from the 21,393 persons
who stated not to be currently setting up a business, the sample of nascent

EIM Business & Policy Research 9

entrepreneurs was relatively male, young, had followed higher education and
earned a higher income (van Gelderen, 1999). Of the sample of 526 nascent
entrepreneurs, 330 could be contacted one year later (63%) in order to assess
the then current status of the start-up effort. Of these 330 persons, 47%
started their business, 27% were still organizing, and 26% had abandoned the
effort.
To establish the differences in characteristics between these three groups,
some independent variables are listed in table 1. They are classified using the
extended model of new venture performance of Chrisman, Bauerschmidt and
Hofer (1998). They consider new venture performance as a function of the per-
sonal characteristics of the entrepreneur (E), industry structure (IS), strategy
(S), resources (R) and organizational structure, process and system (OS). They
propose the following functional relationship: new venture performance = f
(E,IS,S,R,OS). Our independent variables can be classified in a similar fashion:
demographics and experience are personal characteristics of the entrepreneur;
industry sector and technology are part of industry structure; ambition and
approach are part of strategy; and capital and third-party loans can be consid-
ered as resources. As the ventures are in the pre-start-up-phase, no variables
pertain to organizational structure, process or systems. Table 1 provides also
the predicted sign of the influence of the independent variables. Descriptions
of the variables are supplied in appendix I. As few previous studies into success
factors in the pre-start-up phase have been done, predictions for the inde-
pendent variables are not based on literature on the pre-start-up phase. They
are derived from the literature on post-start-up firm performance.

Table 1 Independent variables

demographics (personal characteristics) ambition (strategy)

gender (male) ambition number of employees (+)
age (-) ambition becoming rich (+)
education (+) ambition becoming large (+)
income (+) ending up full- or part-time (full-time)
daily activity (entrepreneur)
experience (personal characteristics) approach (strategy)
work experience (+) wrote a business plan (+)
management experience (+) asked for information/advice (+)
industry experience (+) starting full- or part-time (full-time)
experience in starting a firm (+) team (+)
environment (industry structure) finance (resources)
techno (-) amount of start-up capital (+)
sector (services) third-party financing (+)

Table 2 lists a review of articles modelling new venture performance. They are
published between 1996 and the fall of 2000, in what is generally considered
to be the top four journals in entrepreneurship research (JBV, ET&P, JSBM and
SBE). Daily activity is excluded from the review, as this variable is not relevant
in the post-start-up-phase. Ambition was taken as one variable in this review.

10 EIM Business & Poliy Research

The results of two earlier reviews by Lussier (1995) and by Cooper and Gascon
(1992) are also given in the table. One has to bear in mind that this review
gives only an impressionistic overview of success factors, given the differences
in samples, research designs, performance measures and methods of analysis
used by the different studies (Cooper, 1993).
In most cases our hypotheses follow from the review, but some variables need
further explanation. We hypothesize age to be positively related to perform-
ance, given the positive relations of the different types of experience with
performance. The number of reports on the age of the founder is quite low.
Probably, most studies did not directly investigate the age of the founder as
they already included experience. The hypothesized sign for services is not de-
rived from the performance literature but rather from the assumption that a
business in services can be started very easily, needing fewer resources than a
business in manufacturing or in retail. Therefore, services should be associated
with nascent entrepreneurs who start a business. Ambition is sometimes stud-
ied as a dependent variable (e.g. Cliff, 1998) but not often as an independent
variable in performance modelling. We hypothesize ambition to be positively
related to performance as we expect ambitious entrepreneurs to be highly
motivated. Finally, the use of a business plan is sometimes negatively associ-
ated with small business performance. However, in the same studies (Frese,
van Gelderen and Ombach, 2000; Reid and Smith, 2000; van Gelderen, Frese
and Thurik, 2001) planning (not in the form of a business plan) is positively as-
sociated with performance. Therefore, we make no hypothesis regarding the
use of business plans.

EIM Business & Policy Research 11

Table 2 Literature review on relations with performance of the independent variables (SBE, JSBM, ET&P, JBV 1996 - (Fall) 2000)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. + : N : 14. 15. 16.

gender female – male N N + + + 3 - 2 - 0 + +
age young – old N N N 0 - 3 - 0 + +/- +
education low – high N N + + N N + + + N 5 - 5 - 0 + + +
personal income 0 - 0 - 0 +
work experience N + + + + 4 - 1 - 0 +
management experience N N N 0 - 3 - 0 + + +
industry experience N + N N N + + 3 - 4 - 1 + + +
experience in setting up N N + 1 - 2 - 0 +/- +
techno nascent N + 1 - 1 - 3
dummy manufacturing N + N 1 - 2 - 1 +/- N
dummy trade N N 0 - 2 - 1 +/- N
dummy business services N N N 0 - 3 - 0 +
dummy consumer services N N 0 - 2 - 0 +
ambition N N 0 - 2 - 0 +
business plan N N 0 - 2 - 2 + +/- N
information and guidance N + N N + 2 - 3 - 0 + + +
start full-time – part-time N N 0 - 2 - 4
solo – team N N + 1 - 2 - 0 + + +
start-up capital + N N + N + + + 5 - 3 - 0 + + +
third-party loan N + N + 2 - 2 - 1 +/- +
+ = factor significantly contributing to performance
N = factor is neither decreasing nor increasing performance
- = factor significantly decreases performance

1 = Reid and Smith (2000) 9 = Honig (1998)

2 = Reid (1999) 10 = Gartner, Starr and Bhat (1998)
3 = Basu and Goswami (1999) 11 = Lerner, Brush and Hisrich (1997)
4 = Bruderl and Preissendorfer (1998) (effects on survival) 12 = Carter, Williams and Reynolds (1997) (direct effects)
5 = Frese, van Gelderen and Ombach (2000) (partly unpublished results) 13 = summary of 1 through 12
6 = Fasci and Valdez (1998) 14 = review by Lussier (1995)
7 = Sapienza and Grimm (1997) 15 = review by Cooper and Gascon (1992)
8 = Boden and Nucci (2000) 16 = hypothesis used in this study

12 EIM Business & Policy Research

13
In the follow-ups held among the sample of nascent entrepreneurs, the cur-
rent status of the start-up effort was assessed. The actual question used is:
How would you classify your firm? Is it (1) operational and running; (2) are you
still setting up the business; (3) have you temporarily delayed your start-up ef-
fort; (4) have you completely abandoned your start-up effort? Groups (2) and
(3) are taken together and classified as the group ‘still organizing’ because of
the reasons people gave for classifying themselves as pausing their start-up ef-
forts (like waiting for a licence). In our design it is the entrepreneur himself
who defines whether his business is actually started or still in the start-up pha-
se. This implies that entrepreneurs can use different criteria to judge whether
they consider themselves started or not. In fact, the question why a nascent
entrepreneur considered himself started gave rise to a plethora of answers. In
table 3 these answers are classified using the properties of emerging
organizations given by Katz and Gartner (1988). So when interpreting the re-
sults, one has to bear in mind that there is an underlying heterogeneity in the
performance measure. In fact, in a different study using this data set, the ap-
plication of theory-driven measures of whether a business actually started re-
sulted in different explanatory success factors (van Gelderen, 2001).

Table 3 Different definitions of start-up moments

intention boundary resources exchange

wish or desire registration ch.comm. arranged finance first customer
idea sign at magistracy hired personnel first cash flow
resolution official address arranged housing acceptation in market
ambition business cards production of goods a certain scale
gave up job official opening bought inventory to derive income
searched information bank account got licence to buy stock

EIM Business & Policy Research 15

16 EIM Business & Policy Research
3 Characteristics of the sample

The descriptive statistics of the independent variables are given in appendix II

together with the correlation matrix. Their frequencies and numbers are given
in table 4. Five continuous variables (personal income, work experience, man-
agement experience, industry experience, and desired start-up capital) were
recoded into categories to mitigate the effects of very large numbers. Also,
the categories become larger as the average value of the categories increases
in order to reflect diminishing marginal returns. Age was recoded into catego-
ries to obtain insight into the relations of the different age categories with
the other variables.
As can be seen in appendix II, most independent variables had some missing
data, most notably personal income and desired number of personnel in five
years. For the multivariate analyses, which were done using a multinomial lo-
gistic regression technique, an expected maximization procedure was executed
to replace missing data based on underlying data patterns, while keeping me-
ans and standard deviations constant. Industry sector (manufacturing, trade,
business services, consumer services) and daily activity status (employee,
entrepreneur, social welfare, student) were recoded into dummy variables.

EIM Business & Policy Research 17

Table 4 Frequencies and univariate analyses of the relationships of the explanatory variables with the performance categories

def. still def. still

stop busy start chi-sq. stop busy start chi-sq.
variable %N categories 26% 27% 47% + sign. variable %N categories 26% 27% 47% + sign.
gender 30% female 25% 39% 37% 10.09 ** education 53% low/middle edu. 25% 28% 47% 0.14
(n=330) 70% male 26% 22% 52% (n=321) 47% high education 25% 26% 49%
age 7% age 18-24 17% 25% 58% 4.97 daily activity 65% employee 29% 29% 42% 5.51
(n=327) 42% age 25-34 25% 30% 45% (n=309) 22% entrepreneur 13% 16% 71% 18.74**
31% age 35-44 25% 24% 51% (dummy variables) 9% social welfare 29% 43% 29% 5.11
17% age 45-54 32% 28% 41% 4% student 33% 25% 42% 0.41
3% age 55-64 18% 18% 64%
personal income 32% $ 0 – 1,200 p.m. 23% 32% 45% 5.82 end up full- or part- 84% full-time 25% 27% 48% 0.14
(n=253) 40% $ 1,201-2,000 p.m. 30% 31% 40% time (n=317) 16% part-time 27% 29% 45%
28% $ > 2,000 p.m. 21% 21% 57%
ambition become 85% to earn a living 26% 28% 47% 0.16 ambition to grow 82% to stay small 22% 28% 50% 5.09
rich (n=320) 15% to become rich 23% 30% 47% large (n=321) 18% to grow large 36% 26% 38%
ambition amount 28% 0 employees 23% 28% 49% 5.96 work experience 6% 0-3 years 22% 28% 50% 0.27
of employees with- 25% 1-2 employees 22% 28% 51% (n=328) 33% 4-10 years 25% 28% 47%
in five years 22% 3-6 employees 19% 33% 47% 38% 11-20 years 24% 27% 48%
(n=261) 19% 7-25 employees 31% 25% 45% 24% >20 years 27% 27% 47%
6% >25 employees 44% 19% 38%

management 27% 0-1 year 29% 30% 41% 2.81 industry experience 27% 0-1 year 37% 30% 33% 18.86 **
experience (n=327) 33% 2-5 years 24% 28% 49% (n=328) 21% 2-5 years 24% 30% 46%
20% 6-10 years 20% 28% 52% 24% 6-10 years 12% 26% 63%
20% >10 years 27% 24% 49% 28% >10 years 26% 25% 50%
experience in firm 79% no 26% 28% 46% 0.66 techno nascent 40% no 25% 28% 46% 0.36
founding (n=330) 21% yes 24% 24% 51% (n=330) 60% yes 26% 26% 49%
industry type 14% manufacturing 11% 17% 71% 9.33 ** start-up capital 31% 0-10.000 23% 25% 52% 13.40 *
(n=245) 23% trade 32% 27% 41% 1.74 (n=311) 34% 10.001-50.000 16% 28% 56%
(dummy variables) 39% business services 23% 26% 51% 0.62 16% 50.001-200.000 33% 20% 47%
24% consumer services 27% 34% 39% 2.28 18% > 200.001 35% 32% 33%
third-party money 57% only own money 18% 24% 58% 14.87 ** business plan 43% no business plan 25% 26% 49% 0.23
(n=307) 43% arrange a loan 32% 31% 37% (n=330) 57% business plan 26% 28% 46%
information and 25% makes no use of it 32% 30% 38% 3.99 start full-time or 47% full-time start 26% 19% 55% 9.02 *
guidance (n=328) 75% receives inf. & sup. 23% 27% 50% part-time (n=317) 53% part-time start 23% 34% 43%
team (n=318) 62% solo 23% 26% 52% 2.90
38% team 30% 28% 43%

Note: ** p < .01 and * p < .05.

18 EIM Business & Policy Research

4 Results: explaining pre-start-up performance

Very few non-biased samples of entrepreneurs in the pre-start-up phase exist.

Table 4 provides detailed descriptive statistics on what was until now un-
known territory. It is striking that while in comparison to a control group the
nascent entrepreneurs are relatively highly educated and earn a high income,
only a minority of them prefers to grow large, to become rich, to start full-
time, and to use a third-party loan. These findings point to a tendency of peo-
ple of higher social strata to start a business besides their former activities.
This is also reflected by the dimensions generated by a non-linear principal
component analysis (Bijleveld and van der Kamp, 1998). Table 5 shows three
dimensions consisting of variables with a component loading higher than .35.
The first dimension clusters a number of variables connected with ambition,
the second one a number of variables connected with age, while the third di-
mension groups the variables as described above: higher income, higher edu-
cated people who strive for a part-time business in the business services.

Table 5 Non-linear principal component analysis*

dimension 1: ambition dimension 2: age dimension 3: yuppie

amount of employees (.72) work experience (-.82) education (.62)
start-up capital (.61) young (.77) business services (.61)
start full-time (.52) management exp. (-.67) income (.56)
male (.51) industry experience (-.51) end part-time (.39)
becoming rich (.38) student (.45)
wrote business plan (.38) team (.39)
entrepreneur (.37)
techno nascent (.37)
third-party loan (.36)
* Component loadings between parentheses.

The relationships of the independent variables with performance (started, still

organizing, abandoned effort) are analyzed both in a univariate framework
and a multivariate one. Univariate analyses are done using simple chi-square
analyses, as the dependent variable consists of three categories. Table 5 gives
the results of the chi-square statistics as well as the frequencies per success
category. We find significantly more females and people with the intention to
start part-time who are still busy organizing. These two groups are highly cor-
related, as can be seen in table 3. Moreover, the two dummy variables ‘manu-
facturing’ and ‘regarding oneself as an entrepreneur’ are highly discriminative
between the categories of ‘actually started’ and ‘abandoned’. Industry experi-
ence is a success factor, as opposed to other types of experience, but only up
to a certain amount of years. Starting out without arranging a loan is a highly

EIM Business & Policy Research 19

significant success factor, as opposed to wishing to start out with a large start-
up capital.
Most of these results emerge also in a multinomial logistic model presented in
table 6. This type of regression is similar to logistic regression but more gen-
eral because the dependent variable is not restricted to two categories. The
vector coefficients do not represent an absolute effect but the marginal effect
of an explanatory variable on the probability of ‘abandoned’ and ‘still organiz-
ing’ relative to the probability of ‘actually started’ (Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon
and Woo, 1994; Long, 1997). In table 6 the nascent entrepreneurs who actually
started serve as a benchmark group for the persons who gave up (first column)
and for the persons who were still setting up their business (column 2). A
comparison between the nascent entrepreneurs who abandoned their start-up
effort and entrepreneurs still organizing is not presented, as no significant dif-
ferences are found. Employee status was left out of the model because it took
up 65% of the variable ‘daily activity’ (see table 5), leaving identification prob-
lems for the other dummies representing daily activity. When distinguishing
between nascents that actually started and nascents still organizing, we again
find females and part-timers still setting up, and entrepreneurs being less like-
ly to be still organizing. As a success factor of nascent entrepreneurs who
finally started, again only the following factors emerge: manufacturing, re-
garding oneself as an entrepreneur, industry experience and using own
money. Start-up capital loses its significance due to the non-linearity of its re-
lationship with performance, as can be seen in table 5.
Goodness-of-fit is measured in a manner similar to Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon
2
and Woo (1994). For logistic regression models, a straight R statistic is not
2
available. Some alternatives pseudo R measures have been calculated. The
Nagelkerke R2 equals 0.306, whereas the McFadden equals 0.148. A common
measure for determining the fit of the model in these kinds of applications is
the Hosmer and Lemeshow test (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989), where the
probability of an outcome is specified rather than the actual occurrence of an
outcome. For all three categories the test did not point at rejection of the hy-
pothesis that the model fits well (the cases were divided into 10 subgroups of
33 observations each). The p-values associated with the chi-square test were
0.58, 0.24 and 0.22 for respectively abandoned, still trying and started. Given
that the nascent entrepreneurs who are still trying are placed in a temporary
category (every person in this category should ultimately belong to the cate-
gory ‘abandoned’ or ‘started’ and the timing for transfers into one of these
two categories may therefore be important), we conclude that our model fits
the data reasonably well.

20 EIM Business & Policy Research

Table 6 Multinomial logistic model of success in the pre-start-up phase

vector of coefficients associated with

independent variables ‘abandoned’ ‘still organizing’ ‘actually started’
intercept 1.25 2.63 0
1. gender female - male -.44 -1.06** 0
2. age young - old .38 -.07 0
3. education low - high -.33 -.22 0
4. personal income -.07 -.25 0
5. dummy entrepreneur -1.80** -1.18* 0
6. dummy social welfare .20 .80 0
7. dummy student .61 -.20 0
8. amount of employees .25 .22 0
9. ambition becoming rich -.59 -.16 0
10. ambition becoming large .74 .26 0
11. end up part-time -.24 -.57 0
12. work experience .32 .46 0
13. management experience -.19 -.15 0
14. industry experience -.36* -.17 0
15. experience in setting up .37 .24 0
16. techno nascent .07 -.05 0
17. dummy manufacturing -1.66* -1.11 0
18. dummy trade .03 -.29 0
19. dummy business services -.08 -.08 0
20. dummy consumer services -.24 -.08 0
21. business plan -.03 .32 0
22. information and guidance -.72 -.59 0
23. start full-time – part-time .44 1.16** 0
24. solo – team .50 .36 0
25. start-up capital .25 .30 0
26. third-party loan .93* .60 0
Note: ** p < .01 and * p < .05

The variables connected with ‘giving up’ or ‘abandoned’ respectively ‘still or-
ganizing’ do not necessarily coincide with the reasons given by the respon-
dents when asked why they had given up their business respectively what re-
mained to be done before they would get started (table 7). The main reason
given for abandoning the start-up effort was the opportunity offered by a job.
Of course, the choice for another job might be influenced by difficulties in the
start-up process. Obtaining appropriate finance seems to be the major bottle-
neck of the people still busy organizing.

EIM Business & Policy Research 21

Table 7 Reasons cited for ‘giving up’ and ‘still busy organizing’

reasons for giving up N % reasons for still organizing N %

1. other/better job 21 25 1. finance 24 27
2. market/risks 15 18 2. juridical 16 18
3. finance 14 17 3. market/risks 12 13
4. private reasons 11 13 4. location 12 13
5. other 23 27 5. lack of time 7 8
6. private reasons 5 6
7. other 14 16
total 84 total 90

22 EIM Business & Policy Research

5 Discussion

Characteristics of nascents, i.e., people who are in the process of setting up a

business, are hardly dealt with in the area of entrepreneurship research. Our
results must be seen as an empirical step that needs to be followed up by a
more in-depth theoretical approach that investigates the entire underlying
process. Apart from generating a large number of descriptive statistics, the
present study sheds light on the impact and relative importance of some ex-
planatory variables connected with the pre-start-up phase. Our results lead to
some intriguing questions. We give three examples. First, women need more
time to actually start a business. Is this a question of difficulties in obtaining
access to resources or of differing values (Brush, 1992; Fischer, Reuber and Dy-
ke, 1993; Verheul and Thurik, 2001)? The strong correlations between being
male and management and industry experience, respectively point to the first
position, while the strong correlations between being female and part-time
business ownership point to the second position.
Second, we find that a third-party loan and a higher start-up capital are vari-
ables connected with failure in the nascent phase. This indicates a difference
between the pre-start-up phase and the post-start-up phase, as it has repeat-
edly been shown that capitalization is an important success factor in the post-
start-up phase (table 2). The question is whether the selection process that ta-
kes place in the pre-start-up phase is healthy or unhealthy. Does the group of
nascents that want to start out large consist of relatively many dreamers, who
are rightfully rejected by banks and other financiers? Or do these people
calculate their prospects carefully and then either start or back off (Carter,
Gartner and Reynolds, 1995)? Or do the financial markets in the Netherlands
lack opportunities for nascent entrepreneurs? In any case, for many nascent
entrepreneurs it is beneficial to start out modestly.
Third, a striking dissimilarity between pre-start-up and post-start-up has to do
with experience. It is puzzling that industry experience is a success factor,
while work experience, management experience, and experience in setting up
a business as well as education are not. Particularly management experience
has been repeatedly shown to affect post-start-up performance (Lussier, 1995).
Can the result that having knowledge of the industry and a network in the
market is decisive be replicated, and why would this result emerge? Perhaps
knowledge of an industry and a network in a market are crucial for actually
starting a business, while after start-up management experience takes over in
importance. As industry experience is significantly correlated with age, it
might be that industry experience opens a strategic window for older people
to set up a business (Harvey and Evans, 1995).
The present study has a number of weaknesses and limitations that serve as
suggestions for further research. First, in survey research one is limited to vari-

EIM Business & Policy Research 23

ables that are easily accessible. This does not mean that these variables are
necessarily the most important variables (Cooper, 1993). The skills, knowledge
and motives of nascents are not directly accessed. Also the so-called ‘how’
variables (VanderWerf, 1989) are not taken into account, for example how re-
sources are developed, how relationships are maintained, and how informa-
tion is gained (Cooper, 1993). Second, as table 7 indicates, there is only a par-
tial connection between the success and failure factors in our model on the
one hand and reasons actually given by people themselves as to why they
have abandoned or why they were still busy organizing on the other. Of the
four reasons that are usually given for why people abandon their start-up ef-
fort, three are not measured in our model. A good job offer, unfavourable
outcomes of market research, and private reasons could be taken into account
in further modelling of pre-start-up performance. The same reasoning applies
to the actual reasons given by people why they were still busy organizing.
Third, our analyses of success and failure factors provide a general picture
only. This limits the practical relevance, as it is well known that there is a large
variety in types of ventures and types of entrepreneurs. So when analyzing
specific types of entrepreneurs, more detailed pictures of factors connected
with success and failure emerge that might very well deviate from the general
picture. Of course, analyses of the success factors for specific types of entre-
preneurs would require a larger or more specific sample. Fourth, the depend-
ent variable is not based on a uniform criterion. This means that people in the
same situation but with different norms might consider themselves as ‘started’
or ‘still organizing’, respectively. Although the subjective viewpoint of the nas-
cent entrepreneur is important, validity of our dependent variable would in-
crease if objective measures were added.
Government policy in the old, managed economy was largely about control.
High certainty dictated that it was known what to produce, how it should be
produced, and who would produce it. The role of government was to con-
strain the power of large corporations, which were needed for efficiency un-
der mass-production, but posed a threat to democracy through their concen-
tration of power (Chandler, 1977 and 1990). Under the old, managed economy
the policy debate centred on competition policies (antitrust), regulation and
public ownership of business (Teece, 1993). In the new, entrepreneurial econ-
omy these constraining policies have become increasingly irrelevant. The cen-
tral role of government policy in the new, entrepreneurial economy is ena-
bling in nature. The focus is to foster the production and commercialization of
knowledge. Rather than focus on limiting the freedom of firms to contract
through antitrust, regulation and public ownership, government policy in the
new, entrepreneurial economy targets education, increasing the skills and
human capital of workers, and facilitating the mobility of workers and their
ability to start new firms (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001). Knowledge of their
motives and behaviour in the pre-start-up phase is essential for creating a
portfolio of new enabling policies. Therefore, we believe that efforts to un-

24 EIM Business & Policy Research

derstand predictors of pre-start-up performance will become an important
part of entrepreneurship research. The present study is one of the first to con-
tribute to this new area. We hope the simple model described here will en-
courage the work yet to be done.

EIM Business & Policy Research 25

26 EIM Business & Policy Research
References

Audretsch, D.B., and Thurik, A.R., 2000. Capitalism and democracy in the 21st
century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Economics, 10(1): 17-34.
Audretsch, D.B., and Thurik, A.R., 2001. Sources of growth: the entrepreneurial
versus the managed economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, forthcoming.
Baron, R.A., 1999. Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The poten-
tial effects of thinking about ‘what might have been’. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, 15: 79-91.
Basu, A., and Goswami, A., 1999. Determinants of South Asian entrepreneurial
growth in Britain: A mulitvariate analysis. Small Business Economics, 13: 57-70.
Baumol, W.J., 1993. Entrepreneurship, Management and the Structure of Pay-
offs. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.
Bijleveld, C.C.J.H., and Kamp, L.J.Th. van der, 1998. Longitudinal Data Analysis:
Designs, Models and Methods. London: Sage.
Boden, R.J., and Nucci, A.R., 2000. On the survival prospects of men’s and
women’s new business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 7-362.
Brüderl, J., and Preisendörfer, P., 1998. Network support and the success of
newly found businesses. Small Business Economics, 10: 213-225.
Brush, C.G., 1992. Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new
perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16: 5-
28.
Carree, M.A., Stel, A.J. van, Thurik, A.R., and Wennekers, A.R.M., 2001. Eco-
nomic development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23
OECD countries in the period 1976-1996. Small Business Economics, forthcom-
ing.
Carree, M.A., and Thurik, A.R., 1999. Industrial structure and economic growth.
In: D.B. Audretsch and A. R. Thurik eds., Innovation, Industry Evolution and
Employment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 86-110
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., and Reynolds, P.D., 1995. Exploring start-up event
sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 151-166.
Carter, N.M., Williams, M., and Reynolds, P.D., 1997. Discontinuance among
new firms in retail: The influence of initial resources, strategy and gender.
Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 125-145.
Casson, M., 1995. Entrepreneurship and Business Culture; Studies in the Eco-
nomics of Trust; Vol. 1. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

EIM Business & Policy Research 27

Chandler, A.D., 1977. The Visible Hand: the Managerial Revolution in Ameri-
can Business, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chandler, A.D., 1990. Scale and Scope: the Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chini, L., Frank, H., Korunka, C., and Lueger, M., 2000. Founding a business - A
configurational perspective. Proceedings of RENT conference, Prague, 23/24-
11.
Chrisman, J.J., Bauerschmidt, A., and Hofer, C.W., 1998. The determinants of
new venture performance: An extended model. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23(1): 5-22.
Cliff, J.E., 1998. Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationships between atti-
tudes towards growth, gender and business size. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing, 13: 523-542.
Cooper, A.C., 1993. Challenges in predicting new firm performance. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8: 231-253.
Cooper, A.C., and Gimeno-Gascon, F.J., 1992. Entrepreneurs, processes of
founding, and new-firm performance. In: Sexton, D.L., and Kasarda, J.D., ed.,
The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship. Boston: PWS-Kent.
Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J., and Woo, C.Y., 1994. Initial human and fi-
nancial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 9: 371-395.
Delmar, F., and Davidsson, P., 2000. Where do they come from? Prevalence
and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 12: 1-23.
Fasci, M.A., and Valdez, J.V., 1998. A performance contrast of male- and fe-
male-owned small accounting practices. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment, 36(3): 1-7.
Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R., and Dyke, L.S., 1993. A theoretical overview and
extension of research on sex, gender and entrepreneurship. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 8: 151-168.
Frese, M., Gelderen, M.W. van, and Ombach, M., 2000. How to plan as a small
scale business owner: Psychological process characteristics of action strategies
and success. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(2): 1-18.
Gartner, W.B., Starr, J.A., and Bhat, S., 1998. Predicting new firm survival: An
analysis of ‘Autonomy of a start-up’, cases from Inc. magazine. Journal of
Business Venturing, 14: 215-232.
Gelderen, M.W. van, 1999. Ontluikend Ondernemerschap. Zoetermeer: EIM.
Gelderen, M.W. van, 2001. Ondernemers vóór de start: definitiekwesties en
succesfactoren. Bedrijfskunde, forthcoming.

28 EIM Business & Policy Research

Gelderen, M.W. van, Frese, M., and Thurik, A.R., 2001. Strategies, uncertainty
and performance of small startups. Small Business Economics, forthcoming.
Harvey, M., and Evans, R., 1995. Strategic windows in the entrepreneurial pro-
cess. Journal of Business Venturing, 10: 331-347.
Honig, B. 1998. What determines success? Examining the human, financial and
social capital of Jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,
13: 371-394.
Hosmer, D.W., and Lemeshow, S., 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Katz, J., and Gartner, W.B., 1988. Properties of emerging organisations. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 13: 429-441.
Kaufman, P.J., 1999. Franchising and the choice of self-employment. Journal of
Business Venturing, 14: 345-362.
Lerner, M., Brush, C., and Hisrich, R., 1997. Israeli women entrepreneurs: An
examination of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing,
12: 315-339.
Long, J.S., 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent
Variables. London: Sage.
Lussier, R.N., 1995. A nonfinancial business success versus failure prediction
model for young farmers. Journal of Small Business Management, 33: 8-20.
OECD, 2000. OECD Employment Outlook. OECD: Paris.
Reid, G.C., 1999. Complex actions and simple outcomes: How new entrepre-
neurs stay in business. Small Business Economics, 13: 303-315.
Reid, G.C., and Smith, J.A., 2000. What makes a new business start-up success-
ful? Small Business Economics, 14: 165-182.
Reynolds, P., and Miller, B., 1992. New firm gestation: Conception, birth, and
implications for research. Journal of Business Venturing, 7: 405-417.
Reynolds, P.D., 1997. Who starts new firms? - Preliminary explorations of firms-
in-gestation. Small Business Economics, 9: 449-462.
Sapienza, H.J., and Grimm, C.M., 1997. Founder characteristics, start-up process
and strategy/structure variables as predictors of shortline railroad perform-
ance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1): 5-24.
Teece, D.J., 1993. The dynamics of industrial capitalism: perspectives on Alfred
Chandler’s scale and scope. Journal of Economic Literature, 31: 199-225.
Thurik, A.R., 1996. Small firms, entrepreneurship and economic growth. In:
P.H. Admiraal ed., Small Business in the Modern Economy. Oxford: Basil Black-
well Publishers, 126-152.

EIM Business & Policy Research 29

Thurik, A.R., 1999. Entrepreneurship, industrial transformation and growth. In
G.D. Libecap ed. The Sources of Entrepreneurial Activity: Vol. 11, Advances in
the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth. Stamford,
CT: JAI Press, 29-65.
VanderWerf, P.A., 1989. Achieving empirical progress in an undefined field.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14: 45-58.
Verheul, I., and Thurik, A.R., 2001. Start-up capital: differences between male
and female entrepreneurs: ‘does gender matter?’. Small Business Economics,
forthcoming.
Wennekers, A.R.M., and Thurik, A.R., 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and eco-
nomic growth. Small Business Economics, 13: 2.

30 EIM Business & Policy Research

Appendix I: Description of the performance indicators

Table I Descriptions and definitions of variables used in the analyses

Variable Description/definition

1. gender female – male equals 1 if the nascent entrepreneur is female, equals 2 if the
nascent entrepreneur is male
2. age young – old age of the nascent entrepreneur, in five categories
3. education low – high equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur is high-educated, equals 1
otherwise
4. personal income actual household income, in three categories
5. dummy employee equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur’s current daily activity is
being an employee, equals 1 otherwise
6. dummy entrepreneur equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur’s current daily activity is
being a business owner, equals 1 otherwise
7. dummy social welfare equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur currently benefits from
social security, equals 1 otherwise
8. dummy student equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur’s current daily activity is
being a student, equals 1 otherwise
9. amount of employees desired number of employees five years from now (i.e. moment
of first questionnaire), in five categories
10. ambition becoming rich equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur indicates to have an ambi-
tion becoming rich, as opposed to the alternative of just earning
a living
11. ambition becoming large equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur indicates to have an ambi-
tion establishing growth, as opposed to the alternative of stay-
ing small
12. end up part-time equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to be a part-time
entrepreneur eventually, equals 1 otherwise
13. work experience amount of working experience, classified in four categories
14. management experience amount of experience in management, classified in four catego-
ries
15. industry experience experience in the industry, classified in four categories
16. experience in setting up equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur has experience in setting up
a business, equals 1 otherwise
17. techno nascent equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to carry out techno-
logical R&D, equals 1 otherwise
18. dummy manufacturing equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to set up the busi-
ness in manufacturing, equals 1 otherwise
19. dummy trade equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to set up the busi-
ness in trade, equals 1 otherwise

EIM Business & Policy Research 31

20. dummy business services equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to set up the busi-
ness in business services, equals 1 otherwise
21. dummy consumer services equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to set up the busi-
ness in consumer services, equals 1 otherwise
22. business plan equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur wrote a business plan,
equals 1 otherwise
23. information and guidance equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur makes use of available
information and guidance, equals 1 otherwise
24. start full-time - part-time equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur will start part-time, equals 1
otherwise
25. solo – team equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur sets up the business with
others, equals 1 otherwise
26. start-up capital start-up capital required, perceived by the nascent entrepreneur,
in four categories
27. third-party loan equals 2 if the nascent entrepreneur expects to acquire some
finance from a third party, equals 1 otherwise

32 EIM Business & Policy Research

Appendix II: Descriptive statistics and correlations of the performance indicators

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. gender female – male 1.70 .46 -
2. age young – old 2.67 .95 -.04 -
3. education low – high 1.47 .50 -.04 .18 ** -
4. personal income 1.96 .71 .01 .26 ** .36** -
5. dummy employee 0.61 .49 .10 -.10 -.02 .07 -
6. dummy entrepreneur 0.21 .41 .09 .12 * .06 .12 * -.64** -
7. dummy social welfare 0.08 .28 -.09 .15 ** -.02 -.18 * -.38** -.16 ** -
8. dummy student 0.04 .19 .02 -.27 ** .08 -.09 -.24** -.10 -.06 -
9. amount of employees 2.49 1.16 .22 ** -.05 .16** .17 ** .01 .20 ** -.18** .01 -
10. ambition becoming rich 1.15 .35 .10 -.12 * .10 .05 -.07 .04 -.01 .19** .17 ** -
11. ambition becoming large 1.18 .38 .12 * -.12 * .12* .02 .03 .02 -.06 .09 .34 ** .27 ** -
12. end up part-time 1.16 .36 -.28 ** .08 .12* .03 -.18** -.03 .00 .26** -.16 ** -.01 -.07 -
13. work experience 2.80 .87 .05 .56 ** -.08 .20 ** -.02 .10 -.02 -.23** -.08 -.09 .06 .00
14. management experience 2.33 1.08 .13 * .38 ** .06 .28 ** .04 .11 -.04 -.15** .15 ** .01 -.04 .03
15. industry experience 2.54 1.16 .21 ** .18 ** .00 .16 ** .03 .11 * -.05 -.10 .07 -.09 .02 .12*
16. experience in setting up 1.21 .41 .09 .15 ** .07 .10 -.27** .34 ** .05 -.02 .10 .03 .03 -.03
17. techno nascent 1.40 .49 .16 ** -.08 .08 .04 -.06 .12 * .02 .04 .26 ** .07 -.12 * .12*
18. dummy manufacturing 0.11 .31 .07 .04 -.05 .10 .05 -.01 -.07 -.01 .10 -.09 .04 .04
19. dummy trade 0.17 .38 -.11 * -.04 -.14* -.06 -.07 .03 .04 -.04 .04 -.03 .00 .00
20. dummy business services 0.29 .45 .05 ** -.01 .26** .21 ** .03 .07 -.05 .02 .09 .22 ** -.02 .00
21. dummy consumer services 0.18 .38 -.22 .17 ** .07 .04 -.10 -.06 .14** -.01 -.15 ** -.04 -.03 -.13*
22. business plan 1.57 .50 .06 -.01 .11 .17 ** -.06 .05 -.04 .17** .29 ** .18 ** -.19 ** .01
23. information and guidance 1.75 .43 .03 -.13 * .02 .08 .05 -.07 .07 .07 -.12 * .04 -.02 -.03
24. start full-time – part-time 1.53 .49 -.25 ** .02 .12* .05 .12* -.24 ** .03 .09 -.29 ** -.02 .14 * -.38**
25. solo – team 1.38 .48 .12 -.20 ** .07 .00 -.02 .06 -.10 .18** .36 ** .11 * -.20 ** -.02
26. start-up capital 2.21 1.05 .22 ** -.03 .03 .04 -.05 .11 -.01 -.01 .31 ** .06 -.14 ** .23**
27. third-party loan 1.43 .48 .13 -.04 .02 -.08 -.03 .00 .08 .01 .20 ** .05 -.12 * .09
Note: ** p < .01 and * p < .05

EIM Business & Policy Research 33

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix (continued)

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
1. gender female – male
2. age
3. education low – high
4. dummy employee
5. dummy entrepreneur
6. dummy social welfare
7. dummy student
8. personal income
9. amount of employees
10. ambition becoming rich
11. ambition becoming large
12. end up part-time
13. work experience -
14. management experience .59 ** -
15. industry experience .29 ** .34 ** -
16. experience in setting up .03 .12 * .14 * -
17. techno nascent -.15 ** -.08 .01 .06 -
18. dummy manufacturing .02 .01 .10 -.01 .26 ** -
19. dummy trade -.03 -.02 -.17 ** .04 -.04 -.16 ** -
20. dummy business services -.14 * -.05 .02 .03 .05 -.22 * -.29** -
21. dummy consumer services .08 .03 -.11 * -.01 -.11 * -.16 ** -.21** -.30 ** -
22. business plan -.03 .02 -.03 -.04 .15 ** .10 .03 -.04 -.07 -
23. information and guidance -.08 -.12 * -.03 -.19 ** .08 .04 .03 .07 -.05 .10 -
24. start full-time – part-time -.10 -.08 -.10 -.02 -.03 -.05 -.03 .16 ** .11 * -.14 * .10 -
25. solo – team -.26 ** -.03 -.01 .08 .18 ** .02 -.01 .07 -.05 .06 .01 -.02 -
26. start-up capital .05 .11 .14 ** .10 .16 ** .01 .01 -.12 * .00 .17 ** .00 .34 ** .24 ** -
27. third-party loan -.07 -.08 .00 -.06 .07 -.05 .08 -.17 ** .00 .13 * .00 .14 * .09 .47 ** -
Note: ** p < .01 and * p < .05

34 EIM Business & Policy Research

List of Research Reports

Order no Title
H9301 The intertemporal stability of the concentration-margins relation-
ship in Dutch and U.S. manufacturing; Yvonne Prince and
Roy Thurik
H9302 Persistence of profits and competitiveness in Dutch
manufacturing; Aad Kleijweg
H9303 Small-store presence in Japan; Martin A. Carree, Jeroen C.A. Potjes
and A. Roy Thurik
intern Multi-factorial risk analysis and the sensitivity concept;
Erik M. Vermeulen, Jaap Spronk and Nico van der Wijst
H9304 Do small firms' price-cost margins follow those of large firms?
First empirical results; Yvonne Prince and Roy Thurik
H9305 Export success of SMEs: an empirical study; Cinzia Mancini and
Yvonne Prince
H9306 Het aandeel van het midden- en kleinbedrijf in de Nederlandse
industrie; Kees Bakker en Roy Thurik
H9307 Multi-factorial risk analysis applied to firm evaluation;
Erik M. Vermeulen, Jaap Spronk and Nico van der Wijst
H9308 Visualizing interfirm comparison; Erik M. Vermeulen, Jaap Spronk
and Nico van der Wijst
H9309 Industry dynamics and small-firm development in the European
printing industry (Case Studies of Britain, the Netherlands and
Denmark); Michael Kitson, Yvonne Prince and Mette Mönsted
H9401 Employment during the business cycle: evidence from Dutch
manufacturing; Marcel H.C. Lever and Wilbert H.M. van der Hoeven
H9402 De Nederlandse industrie in internationaal perspectief:
arbeidsproduktiviteit, lonen en concurrentiepositie; Aad Kleijweg
en Sjaak Vollebregt
H9403 A micro-econometric analysis of interrelated factor demand;
René Huigen, Aad Kleijweg, George van Leeuwen and
Kees Zeelenberg
H9404 Between economies of scale and entrepreneurship; Roy Thurik
H9405 L'évolution structurelle du commerce de gros français; Luuk Klomp
et Eugène Rebers
intern Basisinkomen: een inventarisatie van argumenten; Bob van Dijk
H9406 Interfirm performance evaluation under uncertainty, a multi-
dimensional frame-work; Jaap Spronk and Erik M. Vermeulen
H9407 Indicatoren voor de dynamiek van de Nederlandse economie: een
sectorale analyse; Garmt Dijksterhuis, Hendrik-Jan Heeres en
Aad Kleijweg
H9408 Entry and exit in Dutch manufacturing industries; Aad Kleijweg
and Marcel Lever

EIM Business & Policy Research 35

intern Labour productivity in Europe: differences in firm-size, countries
and industries; Garmt Dijksterhuis
H9409 Verslag van de derde mondiale workshop Small Business
Economics; Tinbergen Instituut, Rotterdam, 26-27 augustus 1994;
M.A. Carree en M.H.C. Lever
H9410 Internal and external forces in sectoral wage formation: evidence
from the Netherlands; Johan J. Graafland and Marcel H.C. Lever
H9411 Selectie van leveranciers: een kwestie van produkt, profijt en partner-
schap?; F. Pleijster
intern Grafische weergave van tabellen; Garmt Dijksterhuis
H9501 Over de toepassing van de financieringstheorie in het midden- en
kleinbedrijf; Erik M. Vermeulen
H9502 Insider power, market power, firm size and wages: evidence from
Dutch manufacturing industries; Marcel H.C. Lever and
Jolanda M. van Werkhooven
H9503 Export performance of SMEs; Yvonne M. Prince
H9504 Strategic Niches and Profitability: A First Report; David B. Audretsch,
Yvonne M. Prince and A. Roy Thurik
H9505 Meer over winkelopenstellingstijden; H.J. Gianotten en H.J. Heeres
intern Interstratos; een onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden van de Interstra-
tos-dataset; Jan de Kok
H9506 Union coverage and sectoral wages: evidence from the Netherlands;
Marcel H.C. Lever and Wessel A. Marquering
H9507 Ontwikkeling van de grootteklassenverdeling in de Nederlandse
Industrie; Sjaak Vollebregt
H9508 Firm size and employment determination in Dutch manufacturing
industries; Marcel H.C. Lever
H9509 Entrepreneurship: visies en benaderingen; Bob van Dijk en Roy Thurik
H9510 De toegevoegde waarde van de detailhandel; enkele verklarende
theorieën tegen de achtergrond van ontwikkelingen in distributieko-
lom, technologie en externe omgeving; J.T. Nienhuis en H.J. Gianotten
H9511 Haalbaarheidsonderzoek MANAGEMENT-model; onderzoek naar de
mogelijk-heden voor een simulatiemodel van het bedrijfsleven, geba-
seerd op gedetailleerde branche- en bedrijfsgegevens;
Aad Kleijweg, Sander Wennekers, Ton Kwaak en Nico van der Wijst
H9512 Chippen in binnen- en buitenland; De elektronische portemonnee in
kaart gebracht; een verkenning van toepassingen, mogelijkheden en
consequenties van de chipcard als elektronische portemonnee in bin-
nen- en buitenland; drs. J. Roorda en drs. W.J.P. Vogelesang
H9601 Omzetprognoses voor de detailhandel; Pieter Fris, Aad Kleijweg en
Jan de Kok
H9602 Flexibiliteit in de Nederlandse Industrie; N.J. Reincke
H9603 The Decision between Internal and External R&D; David B. Audretsch,
Albert J. Menkveld and A. Roy Thurik

36 EIM Business & Policy Research

H9604 Job creation by size class: measurement and empirical
investigation; Aad Kleijweg and Henry Nieuwenhuijsen
H9605 Het effect van een beursnotering; drs. K.R. Jonkheer
H9606 Een Micro-werkgelegenheidsmodel voor de Detailhandel;
drs. P. Fris
H9607 Demand for and wages of high- and low-skilled labour in the
Netherlands; M.H.C. Lever and A.S.R. van der Linden
H9701 Arbeidsomstandigheden en bedrijfsgrootte. Een verkenning met
de LISREL-methode; drs. L.H.M. Bosch en drs. J.M.P. de Kok
H9702 The impact of competition on prices and wages in Dutch manufac-
turing industries; Marcel H.C. Lever
H9703 FAMOS, een financieringsmodel naar grootteklassen;
drs. W.H.J. Verhoeven
H9704 Banencreatie door MKB en GB; Pieter Fris, Henry Nieuwenhuijsen en
Sjaak Vollebregt
H9705 Naar een bedrijfstypenmodel van het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven;
drs. W.H.M. van der Hoeven, drs. J.M.P. de Kok en drs. A. Kwaak
H9801 The Knowledge Society, Entrepreneurship and Unemployment;
David B. Audretsch and A. Roy Thurik
H9802 Firm Failure and Industrial Dynamics in the Netherlands;
David B. Audretsch, Patrick Houweling and A. Roy Thurik
H9803 The determinants of employment in Europe, the USA and Japan;
André van Stel
H9804 PRISMA'98: Policy Research Instrument for Size-aspects in Macro-
economic Analysis; Ton Kwaak
H9805 Banencreatie bij het Klein-, Midden- en Grootbedrijf;
Henry Nieuwenhuijsen, Ben van der Eijken en Ron van Dijk
H9806 Milieumodel; drs. K.L. Bangma
H9807 Barriers for hiring personnel; Jacques Niehof
H9808 Methodiek kosten en baten Arbowetgeving; drs. K.M.P. Brouwers,
dr. B.I. van der Burg, drs. A.F.M. Nijsen en ir. H.C. Visee
H9809 Business Ownership and Economic Growth; An Empirical
Investigation; Martin Carree, André van Stel, Roy Thurik and
Sander Wennekers
H9810 The Degree of Collusion in Construction; M.H.C. Lever,
H.R. Nieuwenhuijsen and A.J. van Stel
H9811 Self-employment in 23 OECD countries; Ralph E. Wildeman,
Geert Hofstede, Niels G. Noorderhaven, A. Roy Thurik,
Wim H.J. Verhoeven and Alexander R.M. Wennekers
H9812 SICLASS: Forecasting the European enterprise sector by industry
and size class; Niels Bosma and Ton Kwaak
H9901 Scanning the Future of Entrepreneurship; drs. N.S. Bosma,
drs. A.R.M. Wennekers and drs. W.S. Zwinkels

EIM Business & Policy Research 37

H9902 Are Small Firms Really Sub-optimal? Compensating Factor Differ-
entials in Small Dutch Manufacturing Firms; David B. Audretsch,
George van Leeuwen, Bert Menkveld and Roy Thurik
H9903 FAMOS; A size-class based financial analysis model;
W.H.J. Verhoeven and E.A. van Noort
H9904 Conduct and Performance in Dutch Manufacturing; An Applica-
tion of Appelbaum 1982 with a Plausibility-Check;
Frank A. Hindriks, Henry R. Nieuwenhuijsen and
Adriaan J. van Stel
H9905 Non-competitive Rents in Dutch Manufacturing; Conduct and
Performance in the New Empirical Industrial Organization;
Frank A. Hindriks
H9906 A human-resource-based theory of the small firm; Charlotte Koch
and Jan de Kok
H9907 Van werknemer naar ondernemer; Een hybride of directe start?;
ir. H.C. Visee en drs. W.S. Zwinkels
H9908 Modelling returns to R&D: an application on size effects;
Peter Brouwer and Henry Nieuwenhuijsen
H9909 Turbulence and productivity in the Netherlands; Niels Bosma and
Henry Nieuwenhuijsen
H9910 Start-up capital: Differences between male and female entrepre-
neurs. ‘Does gender matter?’; Ingrid Verheul and Roy Thurik
H9911 Modelling Business Ownership in the Netherlands; Niels Bosma,
Sander Wennekers, Gerrit de Wit and Wim Zwinkels
H9912 Measuring innovative intensity: Scale construction; J.P.J. de Jong
H9913 Determinants of firm size; Y. Bernardt and R. Muller
H0001 Strategies, uncertainty and performance of small business start-
ups; Marco van Gelderen, Michael Frese and Roy Thurik
H0002 Determinants of Successful Entrepreneurship; Niels Bosma,
Mirjam van Praag and Gerrit de Wit
H0003 Comparative Advantages in Estimating Mark-ups;
Frank A. Hindriks, Henry R. Nieuwenhuijsen and Gerrit de Wit
H0004 The ARKO labour-cost model: Characteristics and application;
G.Th. Elsendoorn and A.H. Nieuwland
H0005 The impact of contestability on prices in manufacturing industries;
Frank Bosman
H0006 Estimating missing data within an accounting and aggregation
framework; Ton Kwaak and Niels Bosma
H0007 Kennis-spillovers en economische groei; Henry Nieuwenhuijsen en
André van Stel
H0008 KTO2000; Een sectormodel naar grootteklasse voor de analyse en
prognose van Korte Termijn Ontwikkelingen; drs. K.L. Bangma en
drs. W.H.J. Verhoeven
H0009 Making sense of the new economy; Joris Meijaard

38 EIM Business & Policy Research

 H0010 Determinants of innovative ability; An empirical test of a causal
model; J.P.J. de Jong, R. Kemp and C. Snel
H0011 The effects of transaction costs and human capital on firm size: a
simulation model approach; Frank den Butter, Edwin van Gameren
and Jan de Kok
H0012 An eclectic theory of entrepreneurship: policies, institutions and
culture; Ingrid Verheul, Sander Wennekers, David Audretsch and
Roy Thurik

EIM Business & Policy Research 39

View publication stats