Rati Ram and Rajeev K. Goel
Rajeev K. Goel and James W. Saunoris
This chapter studies the effects of various forms of government decentralization on institutional quality across countries. Using corruption and the shadow economy to proxy for institutional quality, as well as three forms of government decentralization (i.e., virtual, physical, and fiscal), the econometric results show virtual decentralization to be the most effective in improving institutional quality. The effects on transition and countries in Asia are also considered.
Rajeev K. Goel, Michael A. Nelson and James E. Payne
This study extends the existing literature on the role of economic freedom on entrepreneurship by employing the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI). Unlike other indices/measures of entrepreneurship, the GEDI takes into account both individual and institutional factors that influences entrepreneurial performance within a country. Using a cross-section of 72 countries, we find that a country’s GDP and level of education each yield a positive and statistically significant impact on entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, both the level of democracy and the degree of trade openness did not yield a statistically significant impact on the level of entrepreneurship. While the overall level of economic freedom has a positive and statistically significant influence on entrepreneurship, the results for several components of economic freedom provided varying results. While size of government and monetary freedom are statistically insignificant, regulation renders a positive and statistically significant impact on entrepreneurship.
Rajeev K. Goel, Devrim Göktepe-Hultén and Rati Ram
Rati Ram, Devrim Göktepe-Hultén and Rajeev K. Goel
This paper considers the concept and practice of entrepreneurial leadership in the academe. After a small introduction to the research in the emerging field of entrepreneurial leadership, we note many substantial differences between academic entrepreneurs and the general class of entrepreneurs so as to motivate our focus on the academic community. We then provide a brief narrative on some strands of literature on entrepreneurial leadership and give preliminary hints of the difficulties associated with application of the concept and the related research to the academe. That is followed by a more direct consideration of the applicability to the academic community of the concepts, definitions, and research agendas articulated in the existing literature on entrepreneurial leadership. In particular, we note the potential inapplicability of several items in the agenda proposed by Harrison et al. (2015) for "gendered research" on entrepreneurial leadership. In that context, we propose an agenda for research on entrepreneurial leadership in the academic community. The agenda broadly takes the concepts, definitions and practice outlined in the existing research on entrepreneurial leadership and suggests that the applicability, and possible modifications, of these to the academic community be considered in the future research. It is possible that much of the conceptualization and practice of entrepreneurial leadership discussed in the literature has limited applicability to the academe for which new paradigms might be needed.