Entrepreneurship In Ireland 2011 Investing In Your Future Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Description
This brief elucidation with regards to entrepreneurship in ireland 2011 investing in your future global entrepreneurship monitor (gem).

The Annual Report for Ireland
PAULA FITZSIMONS & COLM O’GORMAN
Entrepreneurship in Ireland
2011
Investing in your future
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
The GEM report is supported by Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, the European Social Fund and
the Department of Justice and Equality, under the Equality for Women Measure 2007-2013,
and also by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
The Annual Report for Ireland
Paula Fitzsimons
Colm O’Gorman
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
IN IRELAND 2011
2
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The GEM report is supported by Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, the European
Social Fund and the Department of Justice and Equality, under the
Equality for Women Measure 2007-2013, and also by the Department of
Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The ?ndings of this independent report
however do not necessarily represent the views of these organisations.
Although data used in this report is collected by the GEM consortium,
its analysis and interpretation is the sole responsibility of the authors.
The authors, for their part, have attempted to ensure accuracy and
completeness of the information contained in this publication. No
responsibility can be accepted, however, for any errors and inaccuracies
that occur.
Design by Swerve.
3
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 05
AUTHORS’ DETAILS 07
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 09
GEM METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS 11
FOREWORD 13
ENTREPRENEURS FEATURED ON THE COVER 17
SECTION 1: SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011 21
SECTION 2: ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011 25
2.1 Introduction 25
2.2 The entrepreneurial process 26
2.3 Potenial entrepreneurs 27
2.4 Aspiration to start a business 28
2.5 Early stage entrepreneurial activity 29
2.6 Established owner managers 30
2.7 Discontinued businesses and exits 30
2.8 Pro?le of Irish entrepreneurs 31
2.9 Entrepreneurial teams 32
2.10 The impact of entrepreneurship 32
2.11 Environment and eco system 34
2.12 Entrepreneurial employee activity (intrapreneurship) 37
2.13 Harnessing entrepreneurial potential 37
SECTION 3: WOMEN – AN UNTAPPED SOURCE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL? 39
3.1 The entrepreneurial gender divide 39
3.2 Men and women early stage entrepreneurs 41
3.3 Importance of personal context 41
3.4 Pro?le of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 42
3.5 Pro?le of established owner managers by gender 43
3.6 Agency support for women entrepreneurs 43
3.7 Growth aspirations of entrepreneurs 45
3.8 Tapping into women’s entrepreneurial potential 46
3.9 Pro?les of recent women entrepreneurs 48
SECTION 4: COMPARATIVE DATA ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011 57
APPENDIX 1: GLOBAL RESULTS 79
CONTENTS
5
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLES (SECTION 2 AND SECTION 3)
Table 1 A snapshot of entrepreneurship in Ireland in 2011 26
Table 2 Entrepreneurship in Ireland 2007-2011 29
Table 3 The gender gap in selected countries 39
Table 4 Early stage entrepreneurs and established owner managers by gender 40
Table 5 Perception of opportunities by gender 42
Table 6 Employment status of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 43
Table 7 Education level of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 43
Table 8 CEB Measure 2 (Training and Mentoring) participants by gender 44
Table 9 CEB Measure 1 (Financial support) by gender 44
Table 10 Enterprise Ireland HPSU approvals by gender 44
Table 11 Sector of activity of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 45
Table 12 International orientation of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 45
Table 13 Growth aspirations of early stage entrepreneurs by gender 46
FIGURES (SECTION 2)
Figure 1 The entrepreneurship process 26
Figure 2 The institutional context and its relationship to entrepreneurship 35
SECTION 4: COMPARATIVE DATA ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011
Table A Potential entrepreneurs 57
Table B Entrepreneurial activity and established owner manager activity 58
Table C ‘Culture’: Perceptions of general population 59
Table D Exits 60
Table E Reasons for exits 61
Table F Motivations of early stage entrepreneurs 62
Table G Primary motivations of early stage entrepreneurs 63
Table H Age of early stage entrepreneurs 64
Table I Education level of early stage entrepreneurs 65
Table J Employment status and household income of early stage entrepreneurs 66
Table K Age of established owner managers 67
Table L Education level and household income of established owner managers 68
Table M Entrepreneurial teams 69
Table N Sector of activity of early stage entrepreneurs 70
Table O Innovativeness of early stage entrepreneurs 71
Table P International orientation of early stage entrepreneurs 72
Table Q Growth aspirations of early stage entrepreneurs 73
Table R Informal Investors: rates and amounts 74
Table S Intrapreneurship 75
Table T Gender: early stage entrepreneurs 76
Table U Gender: established owner managers 77
Table V Gender: personal context 78
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
7
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
AUTHORS’ DETAILS
PAULA FITZSIMONS, the founder of Fitzsimons Consulting which specialises in entrepreneurship
and growth, has been the national coordinator for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for
Ireland since 2000. A recognized expert on entrepreneurship, she was an expert facilitator to the
Small Business Forum and subsequently advised Forfás and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and
Employment on the development of a national entrepreneurship policy. She has also developed an
enterprise strategy for the Dublin region.
Having been actively involved in its design and development, Paula is the coordinator and
communications manager for Senior Enterprise which seeks to increase the engagement of those in
the older age group with entrepreneurship and with enterprise more generally. This initiative is receiving
support from the EU through INTERREG IVB NWE. Senior Enterprise is being implemented through
transnational cooperation by three partners, together with nine observers from across NW Europe.
The initiative has attracted a great deal of positive attention from across Europe and internationally. It
is perceived as highly innovative in meeting a real need. The Mid-East Regional Authority is acting as
Lead Partner.
Paula is also the national director of Going for Growth, which is focused on peer support as a means
of assisting women entrepreneurs who wish to grow their businesses. Designed to address a gap in
enterprise development, the Going for Growth initiative is being funded under the Equality for Women
Measure 2010-2013 and by Enterprise Ireland. The Equality for Women Measure is funded by the
European Social Fund (ESF) and the Department of Justice and Equality. Going for Growth was
included in the 2009 Good Practice initiatives by the European Commission and voted into the Top 10
most bene?cial to implement of those initiatives. It was selected to represent Ireland in the European
Enterprise Awards 2011.
CONTACT DETAILS:
Paula Fitzsimons • Tel: +353 1 845 0770 • E-mail: paula@?tzsimons-consulting.com
COLM O’GORMAN is Professor of Entrepreneurship at Dublin City University Business School. His
research focuses on strategy in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), with a particular focus
on the strategic attributes of high growth ?rms. Speci?cally he has studied the growth strategies of
SMEs, the nature of managerial work in high growth SMEs, mission statements in SMEs, and interna-
tionalisation processes in International New Ventures, and in SMEs. He has explored the emergence of
high-tech ?rms in the context of cluster dynamics, including a study of the factors that led to the rapid
emergence of the software industry in Ireland during the 1990s. He has examined how inward Foreign
Direct Investment impacts on the nature and extent of entrepreneurial activity. He has investigated the
barriers to the commercialisation of university-based research via entrepreneurship.
Colm has published in international peer-reviewed journals such as Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, European Planning Studies, Journal of Small Business Management, International
Marketing Review, Organizational Dynamics, R&D Management, Small Business Economics, and
Venture Capital. He has completed several European Union funded research projects. He is co-author
of ‘Enterprise in Action’, a text book on entrepreneurship for Irish students. He has co-authored
eight teaching cases studies on entrepreneurship published by the European Case Clearing House,
including several award winning cases.
CONTACT DETAILS:
Colm O’Gorman • Tel: +353 1 700 6941 • E-mail: [email protected]
9
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the sponsorship of Enterprise Ireland, Forfás, the European Social Fund, and the Equality
for Women Measure, Department of Justice and Equality, under the Equality for Women Measure
2007-2013 and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland is included in the 2011
GEM research cycle. We are very grateful to our sponsors for their support and for the importance
they place on entrepreneurship. At a time of unprecedented challenges, when policy makers focus
now more than ever on the contribution that entrepreneurs can make, GEM research and analysis is
in a position to provide important data to inform and shape policy choices.
The Irish GEM team would like to thank all the members of the public who participated in our survey.
We are very grateful to them as without their participation, the adult population survey, on which GEM
research is primarily based, could not be completed.
We are also grateful to all the entrepreneurs and expert informants that were consulted as part of this
research. They gave generously of their time and their insights as always enriched our understanding
of the changing environment for entrepreneurship in Ireland.
We thank our colleagues in the National GEM Teams, who undertake the research in each of more
than ?fty countries. We are also grateful to the coordination team in the Global Entrepreneurship
Research Association (GERA). The coordination team manages to skillfully combine complex data
from all the national teams, while ensuring robustness and academic rigour. We also acknowledge
with thanks the assistance of Ian McGlynn in the production of this report.
Finally, our sincere thanks go to the many readers of the GEM annual reports. By your comments
it appears that many of you ?nd the information of value in a wide variety of circumstances. We are
grateful for your feedback and for your continued interest in the research.
Paula Fitzsimons Colm O’Gorman
fitzsimons consulting
S P ECI AL I S I NG I N E NTRE P RE NE URS HI P AND GROWTH
11
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) provides unique measures of the involvement of individuals
in entrepreneurial activity. GEM carries out identical population surveys on an annual basis in over
50 countries.
1
The support of Enterprise Ireland and Forfás made possible the surveying of 2,000
people in Ireland in 2011.
2
GEM describes entrepreneurial activity as a process and measures different
phases of this process from conception through ?rm birth to persistence.
3

Aspiring entrepreneurs
Aspiring entrepreneurs are those who expect to start a business in the next three years. The rate is for
those in the adult population aged 18-64 years inclusive.
Nascent entrepreneurs
Nascent entrepreneurs are those actively planning a new venture. These entrepreneurs have done
something during the previous twelve months to help start a new business, that he or she will at least
part own. Activities such as organising the start-up team, looking for equipment, saving money for
the start-up, or writing a business plan would all be considered as active commitments to starting
a business. Wages or salaries will not have been paid for more than three months in respect of the
new business. Many of these people are still in fulltime employment. The rate is for those in the adult
population aged 18-64 years inclusive.
New ?rm entrepreneurs
New ?rm entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs who at least part own and manage a new business that
is between 4 and 42 months old and have not paid salaries for longer than this period. These new
ventures are in the ?rst 42 months after the new venture has been set up. The rate is for those in the
adult population aged 18-64 years inclusive.
Total early stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA rate)
As its name implies, total early stage entrepreneurial activity refers to the total rate of early stage
entrepreneurial activity among the adult population aged 18-64 years inclusive. In some instances, this
rate is less than the combined percentages for nascent and new ?rm entrepreneurs. This is because,
in circumstances where respondents qualify as both a nascent and a new ?rm entrepreneur, they are
counted only once.
Owner managers of established businesses
In addition to those people who are currently involved in the early stages of a business, there are
also many people who have set up businesses that they have continued to own and manage. These
people are included in the established business owner index which captures the percentage of people
in the population that have set up businesses that they have continued to own and manage and which
has paid wages or salaries for more than 42 months. The rate is for those in the adult population aged
18-64 years inclusive.
GEM METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
1
As part of GEM research in 2011, a total of 140,000 adults (18-64 years of age) were surveyed in 54 economies, spanning diverse
geographies and a range of development levels.
2
A random telephone survey was carried out in June 2011.
3
Figure1 in Section 2 illustrates the entrepreneurial process with reference to these de?nitions.
13
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The Government’s Action Plan for Jobs 2012 was launched earlier this year. Since then, I have held
numerous public meetings throughout the country about the Action Plan. At these sessions, I outlined
the Government’s approach to the creation and protection of employment and I sought feedback from
local companies on activities and supports required to drive economic growth. Crucially, I was able
to point to many tax and welfare based supports that are in existence, and are very lucrative, to help
businesses start-up, grow or take on new employees.
These meetings underlined for me once more that our job in Government is to create the environment
in which entrepreneurs can thrive and their businesses grow. In the past year I and my Ministerial
colleagues have introduced a range of measures to support entrepreneurs, as we recognise that it is
successful businesses, not Government, that create jobs.
In that regard I am pleased to note the results of the GEM research which indicates that more people
were starting new businesses in 2011 than were a year earlier. This report estimates that approximately
2,200 enterprising individuals are setting up new businesses each month. While the majority of these
businesses will remain small, I am pleased to note that most expect to become employers. The
employment impact of these new enterprises is signi?cant when taken together.
Given the impact which entrepreneurs can make in terms of employment creation, innovation and
productivity, it is clear that we need to harness the entrepreneurial potential of all our people, men and
women, regardless of age, whether they were born in Ireland or elsewhere.
I am convinced that signi?cant untapped entrepreneurial potential exists among the talented and
enterprising women of this country. The evidence of this report further reinforces the point. To further
support their development, I recently launched a new strategy for female entrepreneurs to be delivered
by Enterprise Ireland. This new strategy complements the work of the County Enterprise Boards and
a range of initiatives for women entrepreneurs being funded by the European Social Fund under the
Equality for Women Measure and is designed to further increase the number of women entrepreneurs.
The challenge now is not only to get more women to start new businesses, but to encourage more of
them to start innovative businesses focused on exports, growth and job creation.
The entrepreneurs, featured on the cover of this report and pro?led within it, started their businesses in
the teeth of the recession. Their determination and tenacity is commendable and I know it is repeated by
individuals the length and breadth of the country. Enterprising individuals are identifying opportunities,
assembling the necessary resources and creating new businesses. They are determined to turn the
recession into an opportunity for personal and commercial success.
FOREWORD
Continued over
15
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Entrepreneurs are often single minded in their focus on their new business and it can be a lonely road
they travel. It is clear from their stories that these individuals receive a great deal of encouragement
from family and friends, as well as more formal support from other sources. These “supporters” are
also to be commended as without their encouragement many of the entrepreneurs would simply give
up before their enterprise became a reality.
Despite the well documented challenges of the current environment, the GEM report sets out clearly
the many positives around entrepreneurship in Ireland in 2011 – the increase in rates of entrepreneurial
activity; the fact that ambitious entrepreneurs in Ireland are highly innovative and have high growth
aspirations relative to other countries; and that entrepreneurs continue to be held in high esteem. It is
also very clear that there are areas where challenges remain. My determination is to further support
the Irish entrepreneurial community to generate even greater numbers of innovative entrepreneurs
to create strong, export led businesses in the coming year. The Action Plan for Jobs 2012 made a
good start in helping entrepreneurs start, grow and expand their business. I have already started
working on the Action Plan for 2013 which I intend will build and grow from the platform set down by
this year’s plan.
Finally, I would like to thank the authors of the report, Paula Fitzsimons and Dr Colm O’Gorman, for
their continued work in providing valuable information and insights into the entrepreneurial landscape
in Ireland.
Richard Bruton T.D.
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation
Spetember 2012
FOREWORD (CONTINUED)
17
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
ENTREPRENEURS FEATURED ON THE COVER
ÁINE CUDDIHY, THE MINICAKE COMPANY
Áine worked as a primary school teacher in Limerick for over 30 years before retiring in
November 2010. For years she had dreamed of setting up her own food business. Áine’s
retirement and her passion for cooking combined to give her the opportunity and the motivation
to set up The Minicake Company in May 2011. Áine makes mini cakes and cake pops and also
came up with the idea of designing cakes that resemble bouquets of ?owers. Áine recently took
part in Senior Entrepreneurs – a training initiative for budding entrepreneurs aged 50+, jointly
organised by Senior Enterprise, an EU INTERREG IVB NWE supported initiative, and the City and
County Enterprise Boards. Áine believes her biggest achievement to date has been setting up
her own business at 60 years of age and the con?dence she has gained from doing so.
DR. EMMELINE HILL, EQUINOME
Emmeline Hill is a co-founder of Equinome. She is regarded as one of Ireland’s most prominent
genomics scientists and leads the Equine Exercise Genomics research group in UCD. Emmeline
had never planned on becoming an entrepreneur, but once her research into equine genetics
led to the discovery of “The Speed Gene”, she realised that it could revolutionise the horse
racing industry. The commercial launch of the company and its ?rst product- the Equinome
Speed Gene Test – took place in January 2010. Emmeline was presented with the 2010 IMAGE
Entrepreneur of the Year Award, in recognition of her innovative idea and its transformation into
a commercial success. The company is now a world leader in the development and provision of
genomic selection tools for the bloodstock and racing industry. Emmeline recently participated
in Going For Growth which is funded under The Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013 and
by Enterprise Ireland.
JOHN COLEMAN, HOME-SAVER
During the Celtic Tiger years, John Coleman, a graduate of Dublin City University, was a
self-employed mortgage broker. When the property market crashed, John was faced with a
drastic fall in income and needed to re-invent himself. He sought to make savings and took
a very in-depth look at his costs. Contacting all the different suppliers proved to be time
consuming and frustrating. A light bulb ignited in John’s head and the idea for Home-Saver
was born. John’s vision was to provide a trustworthy advisory service designed to reduce
regular expenses like utilities, insurance and taxation for households throughout Ireland. He
set up Home-Saver in 2010 and has found a ready market for his services. He now employs 7
consultants and has aspirations for future growth.
www.home-saver.ie
www.equinome.com
MICHAEL MURPHY, MOO-LICIOUS FOODS
Michael Murphy spent over twenty ?ve years working in the dairy industry before establishing
Moo-Licious Foods in 2009. Thanks to his participation in Enterprise Ireland’s (EI) Propel
Programme, Michael learned the skills necessary to develop his business plan. Moo-Licious will
produce Milk Sticks and Pots of long life milk for export to the UK, other European countries and
the Middle East. The products feature a shelf life of 24 weeks for UHT and 35 days for extended
shelf life milk. Moo-Licious was one of the High Potential Start-up Companies supported by EI
in 2010. Michael has won some big international clients and has already secured contracts
for the ?rst ?ve years’ worth of the Moo-Licious product. Having recently opened a production
facility, based in Moville, Co. Donegal, Michael is set to create 20 jobs, making Moo-Licious one
of the biggest employers in the town.
19
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
ENTREPRENEURS FEATURED ON THE COVER
JOHN BROPHY, CARRIG SOLUTIONS
John Brophy was approaching his 50th birthday when after 11 years working at a senior level in
IT management in a major multinational, he was unexpectedly made redundant. This was exactly
what John needed to turn the idea of becoming an entrepreneur into a reality. John decided to
invest his entire redundancy payment into setting up Carrig Solutions. Carrig Solutions provides
IT infrastructure support to blue-chip companies all over Ireland and the U.K. The company
is constantly recruiting and building its team. John has just hired his 8th full time employee
and also has two part time employees. The combination of John’s 30 years IT expertise and
excellent service delivery has enabled the company to make its mark from the outset. John is
grateful for the support he received from Wicklow County Enterprise Board at an early stage.
LINDA O’SULLIVAN, FOOTBRIDGE INTERACTIVE
Ever since Linda O’Sullivan ?nished university she had been interested in entrepreneurship
and one day hoped to set up her own business. For over ten years, she worked as a development
executive, writing children’s shows for many international broadcasters, including the BBC,
Disney Channel and France 3. The idea for her business came when Linda decided to investigate
how reading exercises could be integrated into game-based learning for children. Footbridge
Interactive won a Competitive Start Fund from Enterprise Ireland in 2011, worth €50,000 and
later that year won LEAP Business Award’s ?rst prize, receiving another investment from the
AIB Seed Capital Fund. The company’s game Reading Bridges aimed at 7-12 year olds has
been very successful. Plans are now underway to develop more e-learning products for children
of all ages.
EDWARD MCHUGH, ALGAE HEALTH
Having identi?ed the signi?cant potential that existed in the microalgae sector, Edward McHugh
formed Algae Health Ltd. in 2009 to enable the commercialisation of this opportunity. The
company cultivates speci?c strains of microalgaes to produce high value substances such
as Omega Oils and carotenoids. Quali?ed as a Mechanical Engineer, Edward has substantial
management experience in a range of sectors including biotechnology, chemical, medical and
software. Having worked for several years as a consultant helping companies create, develop
and introduce new innovative products, Edward is now using these skills to drive forward his
own business. Algae Health was part of the 2010 High Potential Start-ups showcase supported
by Enterprise Ireland. Edward received funding for the Research and Development stage as well
as for commercialisation from EI.
JIANLING KYLE, KYLE’S KITCHEN
Jianling Kyle, a spirited entrepreneur, has travelled a long way to bring the taste of China
to Ireland. Having been passionate about oriental style food for over 15 years, Jianling set
up a food production business in 2008 alongside her husband Michael. Adapting to the Irish
market has proved to be Jianling’s biggest challenge. In 2011, she became involved in the
Female Entrepreneur Mentoring (FEM) Programme designed by the Longford Women’s Link
(LWL). Jianling and her husband featured on RTE’s Dragon’s Den later in the year. Jianling
has converted the oriental dumpling into a nutritious product made from Irish ingredients. Her
company, Kyle’s Kitchen has since expanded production of their brand Wrapsu in co-operation
with Mallon Foods in Co. Monaghan. Wrapsu is currently available in convenience stores
throughout the country.
www.carrigsolutions.ie
www.readingbridges.com
www.algaehealth.ie
www.wrapsu.com
21
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The ?rst Action Plan for Jobs, published by the Government in February 2012, recognised that creating
an indigenous engine of economic growth was central to the revitalisation of the Irish economy.
Entrepreneurship, and the start-up companies that emerge as a result, were identi?ed as providing the
feedstock for future exports and employment and the means by which new sectors would take root
in Ireland. It was also recognised that entrepreneurial activity also increases levels of innovation in the
market place, increases productivity and improves cost ef?ciency. The Taoiseach has committed the
Government to making Ireland the best small country in the world in which to do business by 2016.
In many respects GEM research illustrates that entrepreneurship in Ireland in 2011 continued the
trends noted in 2010. Re?ecting the challenging economic environment, many of these were less
positive, although there were some strong positive trends that could be identi?ed.
The negative change in the environment for entrepreneurship in Ireland continued to have an impact
on the general perception of entrepreneurship as an attractive career option, with a continuation in the
relatively low numbers perceiving opportunities to start a business or aspiring to be an entrepreneur.
The high level of necessity entrepreneurship also continued. More than one in four early stage
entrepreneurs did not expect to become employers. The entrepreneurial gender divide continued,
compounded by the relative lack of ambition among women entrepreneurs. There was a very sharp
increase in the number of owner managers whose businesses failed. At a time of continued dif?culties
in accessing ?nance, there were fewer informal investors and those that were active were investing
smaller amounts.
Few people see entrepreneurial opportunities
The very low prevalence rate at which people in Ireland are seeing opportunities for new businesses
(26%) showed no signs of any real increase in 2011 over 2010 and continued at historically low levels.
Continuing low levels of those aspiring to be an entrepreneur
The prevalence of those aspiring to be an entrepreneur in Ireland in the future was at a very low level
(8.5%) in 2011, continuing the low levels observed in 2010. This is a signi?cant change to the relatively
high levels of previous years and now places Ireland behind the average across the OECD and EU.
The belief that entrepreneurship is a good career choice is also much lower in Ireland than it is in other
countries.
Relative rate of early stage entrepreneurs continues to decline
Ireland’s position in the ranking of entrepreneurial activity across EU-15 countries has declined in
recent years. For many years Ireland had a leading position within Europe in respect of these countries.
In 2011, four countries, the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, and the UK ranked higher in terms of rates
of total early stage entrepreneurial activity.
4
Moreover, entrepreneurial activity in Ireland is considerably
behind the higher rate of entrepreneurial activity in the newer accession countries.
5
The prevalence of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (7.3%) is also considerably behind that in
Australia (10.5%) and in the United States (12.3%).
4
In 2010, only the Netherlands had a higher TEA rate than Ireland among the EU-15.
5
The only exception of those new accession countries involved in the GEM 2011 research cycle is Slovenia.
SECTION 1
SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
IN IRELAND IN 2011
22
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The high rate of necessity entrepreneurship continues
The 2010 GEM report noted that the reasons motivating people to become an entrepreneur had
altered signi?cantly from previous years, with a very marked increase in the number of individuals
starting a new business through perceived necessity (32%). This trend continued in 2011 (31%).
Ireland has a higher rate of necessity entrepreneurs than the norm across the OECD and the EU,
including Spain and Greece.
Fewer expecting to become employers
The 2010 report noted that with the increase in the rate of necessity entrepreneurs had come an increase
in the proportion of early stage entrepreneurs that wish merely to create a job for themselves and do
not expect to become employers. This trend continued to an even greater extent in 2011 - 29% of early
stage entrepreneurs compared to 23% in 2010. This was a signi?cant increase on previous years.
6
An increase in the number of owner mangers closing their businesses
More than twice the number of owner managers closed their businesses in the twelve months to July
2011 (81,000) compared to the previous year (33,000). The majority were closing due to a lack of
pro?tability. This is at the highest rate noted in Ireland in the previous ten years. The rate of exit, where
the business is discontinued, is higher in Ireland than it is in most countries.
Women continue be less entrepreneurial and to have lower aspirations
Men are 2.5 times more likely to be an early stage entrepreneur than are women. There has been no
sustained narrowing of the gender gap in Ireland between men and women early stage entrepreneurs,
as there has been in many other countries.
Men compared to women early stage entrepreneurs are considerably more ambitious and, as the
ambition increases, so does the gender gap.
Fewer informal investors
The prevalence of informal investors declined slightly and the average amount invested is lower than
the norm across the OECD and EU, with the average amount invested in Ireland over a three year
period falling to an average of E26,000 per investor in 2011 from E46,000 in 2010.
Positive trends….
In the midst of this negative situation, which re?ected the continued recession, high levels
of unemployment and depressed consumer spending, certain positive trends could be identi?ed.
There was a de?nite increase in the number starting new businesses each month and entrepreneurs
continued to be held in high esteem. Relative to other countries a high proportion of early
stage entrepreneurs in Ireland have serious growth ambitions for their new businesses, are engaged in
medium/high technology sectors, and expect to have at least half of their customers in export markets.
Increase in rates of entrepreneurial activity
The decline noted in 2010 in the rate of early stage entrepreneurial activity in Ireland is reversed with
a slight increase in activity in 2011 – up to 7.3% from 6.8% in 2010. This increase is accounted for by
those who have actually set up new businesses. The prevalence of those at an advanced planning
stage remains constant.
As a result of the increased rate of new ?rm entrepreneurs, it is estimated that in 2011 approximately 2,200
people are setting up a new business each month. This is a considerable increase on the previous year.
Ambitious Irish entrepreneurs
One in ?ve early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (20%) expect to have signi?cant jobs growth (at least
twenty jobs) within ?ve years. This is a relatively high proportion and is higher than the averages across
the OECD and EU.
A signi?cant minority of Irish entrepreneurs (18%) has, or expects to have at least half of their customers
in export markets. This maintains the high level noted in 2010 and is well ahead of the OECD and EU
averages.
6
At the other end of the scale there is a higher proportion of entrepreneurs in Ireland with high growth ambitions that is the norm
across other countries.
23
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Relatively high proportion are engaged in medium or high technology sectors
The majority of entrepreneurs are active in low technology sectors. This is true in Ireland as in other
countries. In Ireland, however, more than one in ten (11%) of all early stage entrepreneurs are active
in sectors which may be de?ned as medium or high technology. This is a very high proportion and is
higher than the averages across the OECD and EU.
Entrepreneurs continue to be held in high esteem
Successful entrepreneurs in Ireland have a high level of status and respect for them remains higher in
Ireland than in many other countries.
Entrepreneurial employee activity (intrapreneurship)
In 2011 for the ?rst time GEM calculated the rate of entrepreneurial employee activity (intrapreneurship)
in Ireland. One in ten of those in employment report that they have been engaged in an entrepreneurial
activity for their employer during the past three years. The rate in Ireland (10.4%) is more or less on
par with the average across the EU-15
7
and higher than the average across the EU-27 and the OECD.
7
Some EU-15 countries have signi?cantly higher rates e.g. Sweden (22.2%) and Denmark (20.7%).
25
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As a successful entrepreneurial society can generate a range of strategic, economic, spatial, social
and personal bene?ts, entrepreneurship has been moving up the political and policy agenda as
politicians and policy makers seek ways to address challenges to create employment, restart growth,
deepen competitive advantage, strengthen the enterprise base, create vibrant regions and achieve
greater social inclusion. This is true in Ireland as it is in many other countries.
GEM supports these objectives by providing evidence regarding the level of entrepreneurial activity
in a country at each stage of the entrepreneurial process over time and relative to other comparable
countries. It can pinpoint areas of concern in a timely fashion from issues concerning the prevalence
of potential entrepreneurs right through to the rate at which owner managers are closing businesses.
Recognising that not all entrepreneurs are the same and that their aspirations and expectations for
their new businesses will vary, GEM research facilitates a pro?ling of typical early stage and established
owner managers and highlights those sections of the population that are less entrepreneurial. In
a similar manner, by focusing on the individual the research can give insights into the mind-set of
the entrepreneur and can identify his or her sectoral focus, market orientation and relative growth
aspiration. Finally the research can give valuable insights into the prevailing environment and eco
system for entrepreneurship.
This section provides an overview of entrepreneurship in Ireland in 2011 and examines each of these
aspects of entrepreneurship in some detail. The ?ndings are compared with previous years and a
comparison is also made with other developed countries in particular those who were included in
the GEM 2011 cycle from across the EU
8
and OECD.
9
For ease of reference, cross country tables
are collected together in Section 4. Table A through to Table S are relevant to this Section and are
referenced in order throughout the text. Where tables are referenced by number in the text (Table 1
and Table 2), they are to be found in the body of this Section and not in Section 4.
The information provided is based on the GEM research, which draws on an analysis of the facts, views
and opinions gathered as part of an adult population study of 2,000 people, which was undertaken in
mid-year. It also draws on the views and opinions of a panel of experts and entrepreneurs who were
consulted and whose insights enriched our understanding of the prevailing entrepreneurial eco system
(Section 2.11).
GEM research is carried out in the same way in each of the ?fty four countries participating in the cycle.
Accordingly, the results can be compared across countries and Ireland’s relative position ascertained.
For the most part, comparisons are made with OECD, EU-27 and EU-15 countries.
10
As Ireland has
participated in GEM research in all but one year since 2000, comparisons over time can also be made.
SECTION 2
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011
8
Twenty of the EU-27 countries are included. They are Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
9
Of the 54 countries included in the GEM 2011 research, 26 are members of the OCED. They are Australia, Belgium, Chile, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States.
10
Twelve of the EU-15 countries are included. They are Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
26
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
2.2 THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS
GEM describes entrepreneurial activity as a process and measures different phases of this process
from conception through ?rm birth to persistence (Figure 1).
Table 1 gives a snapshot of entrepreneurial activity in Ireland in 2011 with reference to this entrepreneurial
cycle. Unless otherwise stated, all rates discussed in this report are for those in the adult population
aged 18-64 years inclusive.
When taken together it is very clear that a signi?cant proportion of the adult population in Ireland are
aspiring to become entrepreneurs, are actively planning a new enterprise, are in the early stages of
start-up or are the owner manager of an established business. If the spirit of enterprise displayed by
these individuals is harnessed to the full, their contribution to the economy can be very considerable.
Some individuals are exiting - passing on the business within the family or selling it, while others are
closing the business they previously owned and managed. These previous owner managers can also
continue to make a signi?cant contribution by supplying society with experienced entrepreneurs who
may go on to start another business (serial entrepreneurs) or to use their expertise and resources to
bene?t entrepreneurs in some way (through ?nancing, advising, or other forms of support).
11
11
Previous GEM research in Ireland has indicated that approximately one in four early stage entrepreneurs have previous entrepreneurial
experience. (Table 1.14 Serial entrepreneurs: OECD and EU, page 27, GEM Report for Ireland 2008)
12
In some instances, this rate is less than the combined totals for nascent and new ?rm entrepreneurs. This is because, in circumstances
where respondents qualify as both a nascent and a new ?rm entrepreneur, they are counted only once.
13
Closed a business in the previous 12 months and the business was discontinued.
Early-stage Entrepreneurship Profile
Entrepreneurship Phases
Entrepreneurship Context
Discontinuing
entrepreneurs
Established
owner managers
Aspiring
Entrepreneurs
Nascent
Entrepreneurs
New firm
Entrepreneurs
Inclusiveness
• Sex
• Age
Industry
• Sector
Impact
• Business growth
• Innovation
• Internationalization
• See opportunities
• Have capabilities
• No fear of failure
• Positive beliefs
Potential
Entrepreneurs
Individual Drivers:
motives and goals
Societal Attitudes Institutional
levers
(TEA) Total Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial Activity
Source: Adapted from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011 Global Report, (Kelley, D., Singer, S. and M. Herrington), page 5.
FIGURE 1: THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROCESS

TABLE 1: A SNAPSHOT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND IN 2011

Aspiring Nascent New ?rm Early stage Owner Entrepreneurs
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
12
managers of discontinuing
established businesses
13
businesses
Percentage of
adult population 8.4% 4.3% 3.1% 7.3% 8.0% 2.8%
Number of people 245,000 124,000 91,000 211,000 232,000 81,000

27
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
2.3 POTENTIAL ENTREPRENEURS
Potential entrepreneurs are found among the general population and are latent entrepreneurs. They
may never act on their entrepreneurial potential but they have certain aspects in their personal
contexts which makes them more likely to be future entrepreneurs than others in the population. They
tend to know recent entrepreneurs, are alert to enterprising opportunities in their environment, believe
that they have the knowledge and skills to start and successfully run a new business and are less
susceptible to being deterred by fear of failure.
In 2011 in Ireland:
• One in four people (26%) believe that there are opportunities to start a business in their local area
in the coming six months.
14

• Over four in ten people (46%) believe they have the skills and knowledge to start a business.
• Four in ten people (39%) have an entrepreneurial role model.
15
• Four in ten people (41%) report that fear of failure would prevent them starting a business.
Perception of opportunity: Entrepreneurs are three times as likely to perceive an opportunity than
those in the general population.
The current recession has had a very severe impact on the number of people in Ireland perceiving new
business opportunities in their local area. The rate in 2011 at 26% is similar to the rates in 2010 (23%)
and 2008 (27%). The current rate, however, is signi?cantly below the rates that prevailed in the years
during the Celtic Tiger - 2007 (46%), 2006 (44%) and 2005 (52%).
This dramatic fall in the perception of opportunities for new businesses is particularly marked when
Ireland is compared to other countries. The rate in Ireland (26%) is below the OECD average (35%),
EU-27 average (32%) and EU-15 average (37%) (Table A in Section 4).
In the nordic countries of Sweden (71%), Norway (67%) and Finland (61%) the great majority of the general
public were able to identify enterprising opportunities. The perception of opportunities by the general public
in Spain (14%) and Greece (11%) during 2011 were considerably lower than they were in Ireland. In both
countries, like Ireland, the perception of opportunity was considerably more prevalent in 2007.
16
The experts and entrepreneurs who were consulted by GEM as part of national key informant panels
were also of the view that there were not many good opportunities for the creation of new ?rms. This
was true not only of panel members in Ireland but of those from across the OECD and EU.
The Irish experts and entrepreneurs commented in particular on the purchasing power of existing and
potential customers, both corporate and consumer, as being severely affected by the downturn and
the loss in con?dence due to the global economic downturn.
Self con?dence in own skills: Those who are con?dent that they have the ability to successfully start
and manage a business are more than seven times more likely to be an entrepreneur compared to those
who do not have this con?dence.
17
Almost one in two of the adult population in Ireland believe that they have the skills and knowledge
to start a business. In this, Ireland (46%) is broadly similar to OECD (43%), EU-27 (43%), and EU-15
(42%) averages. This level of self con?dence has remained broadly stable in recent years.
The experts and entrepreneurs, who were members of the key informant panel, were less certain that
the ability and knowledge to successfully start and manage a new business was widespread among
the general public. This view was held by panel members in Ireland and across the OECD and EU.

14
The period referred to was July to December 2011.
15
They know someone who started a business in the past two years.
16
In 2007 in Spain 34% reported that they could identify opportunities for a new business. In Greece in the same year 29% of adults
expressed this view. In Ireland a much higher percentage (46%) indicated that they perceived opportunities in 2007.
17
It is important not to infer causality here. The data states that those who start a business are con?dent in their own skills. This point
holds true for each aspect of personal context.
28
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Entrepreneurial role models: A person who knows someone who is a recent entrepreneur is more
than twice as likely to be an entrepreneur themselves.
In Ireland over one third of people report knowing someone who had recently set up a new business.
This rate has remained more or less constant in recent years.
Ireland is higher in terms of the number knowing a recent entrepreneur (39%), compared to OECD
(33%), EU-27 (33%) and EU-15 (34%) averages. This is particularly noticeable relative to certain larger
but more entrepreneurial countries, such as the United States where the rate is 27% and Australia
where it is 29% (Table A).
Fear of Failure: In terms of fear of failure deterring an individual from starting a new business, Ireland
(41%) is slightly lower than OECD (42%), EU-27 (45%), and EU-15 (45%) averages. Interestingly, the
prevalence of those reporting fear of failure as an inhibitor is more prevalent in Greece (68%), Spain
(52%) and Portugal (49%), as well as Germany (50%), the UK (46%), and Australia (44%). Among
those in the US, this inhibitor is only marginally less prevalent than it is in Ireland (37%) (Table A).
2.4 ASPIRATION TO START A BUSINESS
Focusing on those who have not yet started to set up a new business but have clearly stated their
intention to do so in the next three years, GEM research tells us that 8.4% of the population in Ireland
expressed this view in 2011. (Table 1) While the number of people that aspire to be an entrepreneur in
the next three years may seem signi?cant at over 245,000, and the rate similar to 2010, the number
of people expressing this aspiration, and their prevalence in the country, is considerably lower than in
2008 (10%) or in any of the previous ?ve years (Table 2).
Relative to other countries the rate is lower (Table B). For example, the OECD average is 15.1%,
the EU-27 average is 15.3% and the EU-15 average is 11.0%. This is a matter of concern as the
aspiration to become an entrepreneur is falling at a time when the perceived need for entrepreneurs
is greater than ever.
The aspiration to become an entrepreneur may be affected not only by the signi?cant decline in
the perception of opportunities for new enterprises, referred to previously, but also because of a
signi?cant fall in the perception of entrepreneurship as a good career option. In Ireland less than half
the adult population (46%) considers entrepreneurship to be a good career choice. This rate has been
declining year on year since 2006, when it stood at 70%. The experts and entrepreneurs consulted as
part of the expert panel are also of the view that few people in Ireland would consider entrepreneurship
to be a desirable career choice (Table C).
The current prevalence in Ireland of the view that entrepreneurship is a good career choice (46%) is
considerably behind that of many other countries. For example, the OECD average is 57%, the EU-27
and the EU-15 averages are 59% (Table C).
Successful entrepreneurs continue to be well considered in Irish society, however, with 83% of
individuals considering that success at entrepreneurship has high status. This rate has remained
constant in recent years and is considerably higher than it is across the OECD (70%), EU-27 (71%)
or EU-15 (72%).
Supportive media coverage of entrepreneurs would also appear to be waning. In 2011 it is perceived
as supportive by 56% of people in Ireland. While this rate is slightly higher than the average across
the OECD (53%), EU-27 (51%) and EU-15 (52%) (Table C) it is a signi?cant reduction on the 84%
rate reported in 2006. The rate in Ireland has declined year on year and 2011 is the ?rst year that it is
below 60%.
Finally the growth in the proportion of early stage entrepreneurs turning to entrepreneurship out of
necessity (31%), up from 19% in 2008 and 6% in 2007, may also be impacting on the numbers
aspiring to set up their own business, as it may be making entrepreneurship a less desirable option
for those who have other choices. A related point is that when the economy was almost at full
29
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
employment, when an individual opted as a positive choice to become an entrepreneur, responding
to a perceived opportunity, there was a safety net provided by the fact that, should the new business
fail, alternative employment was relatively easy to secure. That was not the case for many in 2011,
when unemployment reached 14.8%.
18
Several of the experts and entrepreneurs consulted also drew
attention to the lack of social welfare supports for owner managers whose businesses fail.
2.5 EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
In Ireland 3.1% of the adult population are new ?rm entrepreneurs and a further 4.3% are nascent
entrepreneurs. Combining these rates mean that 7.3% of the adult population are engaged in some
aspect of early stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) (Table 2).
Nascent entrepreneurs are further along the entrepreneurial development cycle than aspiring
entrepreneurs in that they are actively planning a new venture, although many of them may still be in
employment. Nascent entrepreneurs have done something during the previous twelve months to help
start a new business, that he or she will at least part own. Activities such as organising the start-up
team, looking for equipment, saving money for the start-up, or writing a business plan would all be
considered as active commitments to starting a business. Wages or salaries will not have been paid for
more than three months in respect of the new business. These people will not all start a new ?rm. The
rate is for those in the adult population aged 18-64 years inclusive. The rate of nascent entrepreneurs
in 2011 was 4.3% of the adult population. This equates to approximately 124,000 people.
New ?rm entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs that have actually set up a new business, which they
at least part own and manage. The business is between 4 and 42 months old and they have not
paid salaries for longer than this period. These new ventures are in the ?rst 42 months after the new
venture has been set up. The rate of new ?rm entrepreneurs is 3.1% of the adult population. This is
approximately 2,200 people each month involved in starting a new ?rm. As many new businesses
have multiple owners, the number of new ?rms started is lower.
Combining new ?rm entrepreneurs and nascent entrepreneurs produces the GEM TEA rate (total early
stage entrepreneurial activity). The TEA rate in Ireland is 7.3%.
This rate is higher than it was in 2010 (6.8%). The increase is almost entirely due to an increase in
the rate of new ?rm entrepreneurs (to 3.1% from 2.6%), that is by a greater number of people setting
up new businesses. The prevalence of those setting up new businesses, while higher in 2011 than in
2010, is still less than in was in 2008 and 2007 (4.3% and 4.2% respectively) (Table 2).
18
CSO QNHS July 2011
19
In some instances, this rate is less than the combined totals for nascent and new ?rm entrepreneurs. This is because, in
circumstances where respondents qualify as both a nascent and a new ?rm entrepreneur, they are counted only once.
20
Closed a business in the previous 12 months and the business was discontinued.
21
Due to budgetary constraints on the part of its sponsors, Ireland did not participate in the GEM 2009 research cycle.
TABLE 2: ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN IRELAND 2007-2011

Year Aspiring Nascent New ?rm Early stage Owner Entrepreneurs
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
19
managers of discontinuing
established businesses
20
businesses
2011 8.5% 4.3% 3.1% 7.3% 8.0% 2.8%
2010 8.4% 4.4% 2.6% 6.8% 8.6% 1.2%
2009
21
- - - - - -
2008 10.0% 3.3% 4.3% 7.6% 9.0% 1.8%
2007 11.2% 4.2% 4.2% 8.2% 9.0% 1.9%

30
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Relative to other countries, Ireland’s rates of early stage entrepreneurial activity are generally lower or
at the average (Table B). For example, relative to OECD and EU-27 countries, Ireland has a lower than
average rate of new ?rm entrepreneurship, nascent entrepreneurship and TEA. Emerging economies
such as Brazil, China and Russia report rates of entrepreneurial activity that are signi?cantly higher
than OECD averages.
Relative to EU-15 countries Ireland fares better - on all three measures the country is above average.
However, even within this group, Ireland’s relative position has declined in recent years. For example, in
2010 only the Netherlands reported a higher rate of total early stage entrepreneurial activity. In 2011, four
countries, the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, and the UK, ranked higher than Ireland in terms of TEA.
2.6 ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS
Established owner managers are those that have set up businesses that they have continued to
own and manage and which have paid wages or salaries for more than 42 months. The rate of
established owner managers in Ireland is 8.0% and there are a considerable number of established
owner managers in Ireland - almost 232,000 (Table 1). While their prevalence has declined slightly in
recent years (Table 2) relative to other countries, the rate of established owner managers in Ireland
(8.0%) is higher (Table B) - the OECD average is 7.2%, the EU-27 average is 6.6%, while the EU-15
average 7.5%.
2.7 DISCONTINUED BUSINESSES AND EXITS
During the twelve month period July 2010 to June 2011, 2.8% of the population exited a business that
was discontinued, while 0.6% exited a business that was continued (Table D).
The rate of exit in 2011, where the business is discontinued or closed, is much higher than the rate
reported in 2010 (1.2%) and the average for the period 2007 to 2011 (1.9%). The rate of exit where the
business was continued in 2011 (0.6%) was lower than 2010 (1.1%). The overall rate of exit in 2011
(3.4%) is higher than that reported in 2010 (2.3%). Furthermore, the percentage of all exits, which
were associated with a business that did not continue, was higher in 2011 (81%) than in 2010 (52%).
When individuals exit from entrepreneurial activity, this may or may not result in the discontinuation
of the business.
22
Focussing on exits where the business is discontinued, only 6% of exits are due to
retirement (4%) or is a planned exit (2%). The principal reason for exit is a lack of pro?tability (60%). In
2010 lack of pro?tability was also the principal reason, though for a lower proportion of exits (49%).
The full list of reasons cited for exiting (where the business is discontinued) is as follows: business
not pro?table (60%); ‘personal’ reasons (12%); found another job or business opportunity (9%);
opportunity to sell the business (7%); dif?culties in getting ?nance (6%); retirement (4%); and ‘planned’
(2%) (Table E).
Relative to other countries, Ireland has a higher rate of exit where the business is discontinued. The
rate in Ireland (2.8%) is higher than the OECD average (2.1%), the EU-27 average (2.0%) and the
EU-15 average (1.7%). In Ireland the rate of exit where the business is continued (0.6%) is lower than
the OECD average (1.0%), the EU-27 average (0.8%) and the EU-15 average (0.7%).
Exits where the business is discontinued represent a higher percentage of all exits in Ireland (81%)
than the OECD average (68%), EU-27 average (70%), and EU-15 average (70%).
22
Sometimes the business is closed with the departure of the owner manager. In other cases it is passed to others within families or
sold to others as a going concern.
31
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
23
Please see Section 3 for more information on the gender issue and Table T in Section 4 for relevant comparisons across countries.
24
Section 3 examines this aspect in more detail.
2.8 PROFILE OF IRISH ENTREPRENEURS
GEM provides data on the backgrounds of individuals engaging in entrepreneurial activity. These
measures refer to early stage entrepreneurs (that is, both nascent and new-?rm entrepreneurs) and to
established owner managers.
In these paragraphs Irish early stage entrepreneurs are pro?led in terms of motivations for starting and
in terms of gender, age, education, income, and employment status. A pro?le of established owner
managers, in terms of gender, age, education, and income, follows. In Section 3 men and women
early stage entrepreneurs and established owner managers are pro?led in more detail.
WHY START A NEW BUSINESS?
Motivations for starting a business can be broadly classi?ed as opportunity driven or necessity driven
(no other options for employment). In Ireland, most entrepreneurs are driven by opportunity (69%)
(Table F). In 2011, however, the very high rate of necessity entrepreneurship noted in the 2010 report
(32%), continues (31%) and is considerably higher than in earlier years (6% in 2007 and 19% in 2008).
Relative to other countries, the rate of necessity entrepreneurship in Ireland (31%) is higher than
the OECD average (23%), the EU-27 average (25%) and the EU-15 average (18%). The prevalence
of entrepreneurs being motivated by necessity is higher in Ireland in 2011 than it is in Spain (27%),
Greece, (26%) or Portugal (18%).
A more detailed classi?cation of primary motivations for start-up is (i) increasing income, (ii) being
independent, (iii) ‘mixed motives’, and (iv) maintaining income or no other option for work. 38% of Irish
entrepreneurs are primarily motivated by increasing income or being independent; with 38% being
primarily motivated by maintaining income or no other option for work (Table G).
Relative to other countries, fewer entrepreneurs in Ireland (38%) have increasing income or being
independent as a primary motive. The OECD average is 56%, the EU-27 average is 52% and the
EU-15 average is 59%. Similarly, more Irish entrepreneurs (38%) report having non-opportunity
motivation (necessity or to maintain income) as a primary motive. The OECD average is 27%, the
EU-27 average is 28% and the EU-15 average is 24% (Table G).
WHO STARTS NEW BUSINESSES?
Gender: The likelihood that an individual engages in early stage entrepreneurial activity is
in?uenced by their gender.
23
Irish men are two and a half times more likely than Irish
women to be an early stage entrepreneur. Rates of early stage entrepreneurs for
males are 10.3% and for women are 4.2%.
24
Age: The likelihood that an individual engages in early stage entrepreneurial activity is
in?uenced by their age (Table H). Rates of entrepreneurial activity within age cohorts are
highest for those aged between 35-44 years (9.7%), 25-34 (8.7%) and 45-54 (7.7%).
Those aged 18-24 (4.8%) and those aged 55-64 (2.9%) are less likely to start new ?rms.
The age pro?le of Irish entrepreneurs is as follows: 11% are 18-24; 32% are 25-34;
31% are 35-44; 20% are 45-54; and 6% are 55-64.
Education: The likelihood that an individual engages in early stage entrepreneurial activity
is in?uenced by their level of educational attainment (Table I). Rates of early stage
entrepreneurial activity are highest for those whose highest level of educational
attainment is post-secondary education.
32
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Work status: The likelihood that an individual engages in early stage entrepreneurial activity is
in?uenced by their employment status (Table J). Similar to other countries, the majority
of individuals are coming to entrepreneurship in Ireland from paid employment. Relative
to other countries, however, the rate of those unemployed engaged in early stage
entrepreneurial activity in Ireland (4.2%) is higher. This rate represents a considerable
increase on the rate in 2010 (2.5%) and is higher than the OECD average (3.4%), the
EU-27 average (3.5%) and the EU-15 average (2.7%).
Income: The likelihood that an individual engages in early stage entrepreneurial activity is
in?uenced by level of household income. Individuals from higher income households (the
highest 1/3rd of households) are 1.5 times more likely to be early stage entrepreneurs
than individuals from lower income households (the lowest 1/3rd of households) (Table
J). This difference is lower than that in other countries.
IRISH ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS
Gender: The likelihood that an individual is an established owner manager is in?uenced by
their gender. Men in Ireland are more than twice as likely as women in Ireland to be
an owner manager of an established ?rm.
25
This is similar to the OECD average, the
EU-27 average and the EU-15 average.
Age: The likelihood that an individual is an established owner manager is in?uenced by
their age (Table K). Rates of owner manager increase as age category increases. The
highest rates are for those over 45. One half of owner managers are aged 45-64.
This is slightly lower than the OECD average (56%), the EU-27 average (55%) and the
EU-15 average (56%).
Education: The likelihood that an individual is an established owner manager is partly in?uenced by
their highest level of education. For those with only some secondary education the rate
of owner managers is relatively high at 11.9%. For those with just secondary school
education, the rate of owner managers is 6.7%; for those with post-secondary school
education the rate is 7.9%; and for those with graduate education the rate is 6.5%
(Table L).
Income: Just over one half (51%) of established owner managers are in high income households
(the highest 1/3rd of households) (Table L). An owner manager is over three times
more likely to be in a high income household than in a low income household (the
lowest 1/3rd of households). This is also the case in other countries.
2.9 ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
While the popular stereotype of entrepreneurs is the ‘lone’ entrepreneur, many entrepreneurs start
new businesses as part of a team. (Table M) The average number of owners is 1.8 for new ?rm
entrepreneurs.
26
The expected average number of owners for nascent entrepreneurs is 2.2. These are
broadly similar to OECD, EU-27 and EU-15 averages.
The average number of owners is lower for established owner managers (1.6). This is lower than the
OECD average (2.5) and the EU-27 average (2.7) and broadly similar to the EU-15 average (1.8).
2.10 THE IMPACT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The majority of entrepreneurs are setting up new businesses that are in low technology sectors, are not
particularly innovative, have little or no aspiration for growth, and focus on the local or domestic market.
25
Section 3 contains more information on the gender issue. Table U in Section 4 contains relevant comparisons across countries.
26
Hence it is important to refer to 2,200 entrepreneurs every month starting new businesses rather than the number of new
businesses which they are starting, which is less (approximately 1,200).
33
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
A small number of new businesses, however, will have a disproportionate economic impact due to
their ability to exploit newer technologies, their degree of innovation, their greater export orientation
and their aspirations for growth. The paragraphs that follow examine early stage entrepreneurs in
relation to each of these aspects.
Sector of Activity: GEM classi?es early stage entrepreneurs into four sectors of activities as follows:
- Consumer service sectors (including retail, motor, lodgings, restaurants, personal services, health,
education, recreation)
- Business service sectors (including ?nance, insurance, real estate, services to businesses)
- Transformative sectors (including construction, manufacturing, transport, wholesale, and utilities)
- Extractive sectors (including forestry and ?shing, mining and quarrying)
A focus on consumer service sectors accounts for the highest percentage of early stage entrepreneurs
(36%). This is greater than the proportion focused on business service (34%), transformative (23%),
and extractive sectors (7%). The proportion focused on the consumer service sectors is similar to
2010 (36%), while the proportion of entrepreneurs engaged in transformative sectors continues to
decline (28% in 2010, 32% in 2008)
This distribution of activity by sector differs slightly from that in other countries. Consumer service
sectors and transformative sectors are relatively more important in other countries. For consumer
service sectors the OECD average is 45%, the EU-27 average is 40% and the EU-15 average is 43%.
For transformative sectors the OECD average is 25%, the EU-27 average is 27% and the EU-15
average is 22%. Business service sectors are more important in Ireland (34%) than in the OECD (27%),
the EU-27 (28%) and to a lesser extent the EU-15 (31%). (Table N)
11% of early stage entrepreneurs are in high or medium technology sectors. This is slightly higher than
the OECD average (7%), the EU-27 average (8%) and the EU-15 average (9%) (Table N)
Innovativeness: GEM measures innovation in terms of three factors:
- Relative familiarity/degree of novelty of the product or service to the customer
- The newness of the technology used by the business
- The extent of competition, with ‘many competitors’ suggesting a mature or crowded market.
A signi?cant minority of early stage entrepreneurs consider that their business is very innovative
(Table O). For example, 16% of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland believe that they produce or
will produce a product or service that is new to all customers, 12% believe that they have, or will
have, no competitors, and 29% believe that they are using, or will use, new (less than 5 years old) or
the very latest (less than one year old) technology. This is broadly similar to the case in other countries
(OECD averages are 16%, 10% and 30% respectively; EU-15 averages are 15%, 11% and 30%
respectively).
The degree of innovation presented by these measures positioned Ireland as the highest ranking
of all innovation driven economies in terms of innovation among early stage entrepreneurs for the
period 2008-2010. Ireland has experienced a reduction in relative position and this re?ects the fact
that for two of the three measures there is a marked reduction in 2011 – product or service new to all
customers 16% compared to 21% in 2010; and no competitors 12% in 2011 compared to 18% in
2010. Only in the measure related to the use of new or the very latest or new technology is there an
increase 28% in 2011 compared to 20% in 2010.
Internationalisation: Nearly six in every ten Irish early stage entrepreneurs have, or expect to have,
customers outside the country (60%). This is similar to the percentage in other countries (OECD
average is 59%, EU-27 average is 56%, and EU-15 average is 59%) but represents a slight decline in
Ireland on the 2010 position (64%).
Twenty three percent of Irish entrepreneurs have, or expect to have, at least one quarter of their
customers outside the country. This is similar to the 2010 position (23%). The OECD average is 18%,
the EU-27 average is 21%, and the EU-15 average is 19%. (Table P)
34
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Growth Aspirations: An important impact of entrepreneurial activity is job creation. While a slightly
higher proportion of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland do not expect to become employers compared
to other countries, a greater proportion have very signi?cant growth aspirations.
The percentage of early stage entrepreneurs that do not expect to become employers (29%) is higher
than in 2010 (23%) and 2008 (18%). This is slightly higher than the OECD average (25%) and the
EU-27 average (26%) and broadly similar to the EU-15 average (30%).
A majority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (71%) have already created some employment, or
expect to within ?ve years. This is lower that the OECD average (75%) and the EU-27 average (74%)
and similar to the EU-15 average (70%).
A minority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (20%) expect to have signi?cant jobs growth (at least
twenty jobs) within ?ve years (Table Q). This is well ahead of the OECD average (12%), the EU-27
average (12%) and the EU-15 average (10%) and is higher than the rate in 2010 (14%), but lower than
the exceptionally high rate of 23% in 2008.
A minority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (29%) expect to have at least ten jobs within ?ve
years (Table Q). Again, this is higher than the OECD average (18%), the EU-27 average (20%) and the
EU-15 average (15%).
A signi?cant minority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (40%) expect to have at least ?ve jobs
within ?ve years (Table Q). Again, this is higher than the OECD average (29%), the EU-27 average
(30%) and the EU-15 average (24%).
2.11 ENVIRONMENT AND ECO SYSTEM
The GEM conceptual model emphases nine entrepreneurship framework conditions (Figure 2). These
nine entrepreneurship framework conditions exist as part of a broader model of the institutional
environment and its effect on entrepreneurship. The GEM model suggests that two sets of
conditions—basic requirements and ef?ciency enhancers—are foundation conditions that in?uence
the way a society functions and the well-being of its people. These have been adopted from the World
Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report. They are general framework conditions
that effect economic activity more broadly, but they are critical to entrepreneurship because the
entrepreneurship-speci?c conditions cannot function effectively without a solid institutional foundation.
GEM national teams collect information on the nine entrepreneurship framework conditions through a
national expert survey (NES). The determinants of entrepreneurship are complex; the extent to which
speci?c variables can be tied to the rate or pro?le of entrepreneurship in a particular economy is not
yet well understood. The institutional environment is critical to the study of entrepreneurship, however,
because it creates conditions that entrepreneurs must navigate and that policy makers can address.
In the key informant survey the experts and entrepreneurs questioned were asked to indicate their
perception of the constraints and positive factors that prevailed in Ireland in 2011. They were also
asked for their recommendations as to the manner in which the environment for entrepreneurship in
Ireland could be further improved.
35
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
PERCEIVED CONSTRAINTS
Entrepreneurial ?nance was the framework condition singled out most frequently as a constraint by
the GEM key experts and entrepreneurs panel in Ireland in 2011.
27
The experts referred in particular to
access to loan ?nance and dif?culties in obtaining credit facilities from the banks. “One of the ?rst places
that intending and existing entrepreneurs will call to discuss their proposal is their bank and banks
are just not lending at the moment, despite their protestations to the contrary.” As a consequence,
many called for increased pressure from Government on the banking sector to encourage the banks
to provide ?nance on reasonable terms for new and developing businesses. Others called for a
structured loan guarantee scheme and the provision of micro credit facilities i.e. low interest loans of
up to €25,000, especially to start-ups.
28

Several key informants also referred to access to equity ?nance as also being a constraint to
entrepreneurial activity in 2011. GEM research gives an insight into the levels of informal investment
during the year. Informal investors are those that invest in new businesses started by others. These
informal investors are typically family and friends, though there is a small group that can be described
as ‘business angels’ (investing in entrepreneurs not previously known to them). Informal investors are
the second most important source of ?nance for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs’ own resources
being the most common source of ?nance for new ?rms.
In Ireland 3.2% of adults reported having provided funds in the past three years (June 2008 to June
2011) to a new business started by someone else.
27
Of the 36 strong panel 47% are entrepreneurs. The others are experts drawn from across academia, and from the public and private
sectors. All are well informed in this area and have considerable experience in dealing with entrepreneurs and their new ventures and
/or with the eco-system that impacts on them.
28
A Microenterprise Loan Fund Scheme was announced by The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in June 2012http://www.
djei.ie/press/2012/20120622.htm. The Microenterprise Loan Fund will form part of a suite of ?nance schemes provided through the
Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to businesses of a range of sizes and in a range of sectors, including the €150million
Credit Guarantee Scheme, for SMEs who because of a lack of collateral or because of the sector they operate in face dif?culties in
accessing traditional bank credit.http://www.djei.ie/enterprise/smes/RIA_The_Microenterprise_ Loan_Fund_Bill_ 2012.pdf
FIGURE 2: THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Entrepreneurship Profile
Attitudes:
Perceived opportunities &
capabilities; Fear of Failure;
Status of entrepreneurship
Activity:
Opportunity/Necessity-driven,
Early-stage; Inclusiveness;
Industry; Exits
Aspirations:
Growth, Innovation
International orientation
Social value creation
From GEM Adult
Population
Surveys (APS)
Socio-
Economic
Development:
(Jobs,
Innovation,
Social value)
From GEM 2011
Adult Population
Surveys (APS)
Employee
Entrepreneurial
Activity
Established Firms
Basic requirements
- Institutions
- Infrastructure
- Macroeconomic stability
- Health and primary
education
Efficiency enhancers
- Higher education & training
- Goods market efficiency
- Labor market efficiency
- Financial market
sophistication
- Technological readiness
- Market size
Entrepreneurship
framework conditions
- Entrepreneurial finance
- Government policy
- Government
entrepreneurship programs
- Entrepreneurship education
- R&D transfer
- Internal market openness
- Physical infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Commercial, legal
infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Cultural and social norms
From other
available
sources
From GEM
National Expert
Surveys (NES)
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Context
Source: Adapted from Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor 2011 Global Report, (Kelley, D., Singer, S.
and M. Herrington), page 5.
36
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The average investment by Irish informal investors is €26,000. While the absolute amounts invested
in businesses may appear to be relatively small (particularly when compared to formal venture capital
investments), the aggregate amount invested by informal investors is substantial.
Relative to the OECD and EU-15 averages both the Irish rate of informal investors and the average amount
invested is lower. In terms of the rate of informal investors, the Irish rate (3.2%) is signi?cantly lower than
the OECD average (4.7%), the EU-27 average (4.6%) and the EU-15 average (3.9%). In terms of the
average amount invested, the amount in Ireland (€26,000) is lower than the OECD average (€33,000),
lower than the EU-15 average (€28,000), though it is higher than the EU-27 average (€23,000). (Table R)
The prevailing economic climate was also perceived as constraining entrepreneurial activity. Many
noted that the recession has created a lack of business con?dence and depressed both consumer and
businesses demand for goods and services. A number of the experts and entrepreneurs also mentioned
“fear of leaving employment” in times of recession as a deterrent to entrepreneurial activity. This ties in with
a point often mentioned which is a lack of social security support for those whose businesses fail.
Education was cited frequently by those consulted as constraining entrepreneurial activity. There was
a general belief that there is no focus on entrepreneurship within the education system and a shortage
of teachers quali?ed to teach entrepreneurship. Moreover, graduates of the system were perceived
as not being trained in entrepreneurial and creative thinking.
29

PERCEIVED STRENGTHS
The support of Government and the development agencies, in particular Enterprise Ireland and
the City and County Enterprise Boards, was perceived by the experts and entrepreneurs consulted
as being the major strength for entrepreneurial activity in Ireland. The following is a typical comment:
“Current government policy is pro-business and resources are being applied to Enterprise Ireland, the
City and County Enterprise Boards and others, which are fostering start-ups.” In this connection the
key informants also mentioned the low rate of corporation tax, the ?scal incentives to generate IP, third
level incubation units, and particular initiatives including Springboard and Going for Growth.
Recession and the associated rise in unemployment was referred to by almost half of the experts
and entrepreneurs consulted as a factor fostering entrepreneurial activity. The perception is that the high
unemployment rate has left people with no other option. “Increase in necessity entrepreneurship due to
growing unemployment”. “People becoming entrepreneurs, as a way of creating a job for themselves.”
Role models and mentoring programmes were highlighted by a third of the experts and
entrepreneurs with media encouragement through the positive portrayal of successful entrepreneurs
also considered by many to be a key strength in the Irish eco system. “Plenty of press/radio coverage
of start-ups and successful entrepreneurs and TV shows such as Dragon’s Den”.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Changes to the education system and a greater nurturing of an entrepreneurial mindset was
highlighted most frequently by the experts as a means of fostering a supportive culture and of further
supporting future entrepreneurial activity. “Embed creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial behavior
and attitudes in second and third level education.” “Encourage technology at an early age; introduce
problem solving and solutions as the norm at school; move away from rote learning.”
Government policies were perceived by the experts and entrepreneurs as being a major strength
of the environment for entrepreneurs in Ireland. They were also the focus of a great many of the
recommendations for further improvement. The recommendations in this area were broadly in three
areas and called on the government: (i) to intensify support initiatives for new entrepreneurs and to give
the development of entrepreneurs and new enterprise creation equal weight with the focus on existing
SMEs; (ii) to reduce the bureaucratic/regulatory/administration requirements on start-up businesses;
and (iii) to provide welfare supports for those whose businesses fail.
29
HETAC launched draft guidelines and key criteria for the review of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education in higher education and
training institutions in April 2012.http://www.hetac.ie/docs/EEE Draft guidelines BW for issue prior to
conference.pdf Published guidelines, following a consultation process, will be launched later in the year.
37
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
30
If the rates are expressed for the total adult population, rather than just for those in employment, the rates are lower. The rates of
entrepreneurial employee activity in the adult population are as follows: activity in the past year 4.6%; activity in the past 3 years 5.9%.
31
A comparison between early stage entrepreneurs and owner managers of established businesses was made in the 2010 GEM report
for Ireland. It was noted that established owner managers tend to be older, less innovative, less export oriented, with lower growth and
employment ambitions than early stage entrepreneurs.
Access and availability of ?nance was perceived as a constraint by the great majority of those
consulted. Not surprising, several recommendations were put forward by the experts and entrepreneurs
suggesting how improvements could be made in this area. In many instances, these overlapped with
recommendations made in respect of Government policy, particularly ?scal policy, for example suggestions
that VAT/other taxes be reduced for start-up enterprises and an improvement in tax breaks for seed
capital investment. Several recommendations also related to the provision of micro credit facilities for
those who were unable to access credit from the banks and the call on Government to apply pressure
on the banking sector to provide ?nance on reasonable terms for start-up and developing businesses.
2.12 ENTREPRENEURIAL EMPLOYEE ACTIVITY (INTRAPRENEURSHIP)
GEM introduced a new special topic to the research in the 2011 cycle. This related to entrepreneurial
activity by employees (intrapreneurship). GEM de?ned this activity broadly: it includes employees
that develop or launch new goods or services or set up new business units that constitute a new
establishment or subsidiary for their main employer. These initiatives include both activities initiated by
the organisations’ top levels and those that emerge from the bottom.
Analysis of entrepreneurial employee activity across countries suggests that those employees who
are involved in entrepreneurial activity have substantially higher job growth expectations for their new
business activity than independent early stage entrepreneurs. In addition, entrepreneurial employee
activity appears to be more innovative than early stage entrepreneurial activity.
The rate of entrepreneurial employee activity (activity in past 12 months) among those in employment in
Ireland is 8.1% (Table S). The rate rises to 10.4% for those that have engaged in some entrepreneurial
activity for their employer at some time over the past three years.
30
These rates are broadly similar to that
which prevails across the EU-15 (8.5% and 10.9% respectively) and is ahead of the averages across the
OECD and EU-27. Employees in the Nordic countries of Sweden and Finland are particularly active in
this area with 22.2% and 20.7% of employees involved as an intrapreneur in the last three years.
2.13 HARNESSING ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL
Section 2 describes the nature and level of entrepreneurial activity in Ireland in 2011 in some detail,
examines trends over time and makes comparisons with European and OECD countries.
The positive aspects were outlined and the less positive trends noted.
In particular, the rise in the number of those setting up a new business during 2011 was noted as
was the fact that the overall rate of early stage entrepreneurial activity declined in Ireland relative to
other EU-15 countries. A high proportion of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland are doing so through
a feeling of necessity. Relative to other countries, the rate of those unemployed engaged in early
stage entrepreneurial activity in Ireland is higher. The decline in the number of those aspiring to be
entrepreneurs, the decline in the numbers perceiving opportunities for new businesses and the fall-off
in the perception of entrepreneurship as a desirable career were also noted.
Given the many recognised bene?ts that ?ow from a well-functioning entrepreneurial society, including
the creation of employment, the challenge for Ireland is to achieve an optimum level of entrepreneurial
activity, which is inclusive of age and gender, while maximising the potential from the enterprising
efforts of all who decide to become entrepreneurs.
New entrepreneurial activity is particularly important given the age pro?le of established owner
managers and their lower growth and employment aspirations relative to new entrepreneurs.
31
NOTE: Table A through to Table S contain cross country comparisons that are pertinent to
this Section. They may be found in Section 4.
39
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
3.1 THE ENTREPRENEURIAL GENDER DIVIDE
Policy makers have for many years indicated that they believed there was a relatively untapped
entrepreneurial potential among women. For example, in 2003 the EU Green Paper highlighted women
as having considerable entrepreneurial potential, which was perceived as being under developed.
The Green Paper identi?ed the need to focus speci?cally on women as an under-represented group,
together with ethnic minorities, as one means of achieving Europe’s entrepreneurial ambitions.
32

Similarly in Ireland what was perceived as the relatively untapped entrepreneurial potential that existed
among women and among immigrants was highlighted in 2006 by the Small Business Forum and
was subsequently further explored in Towards Developing an Entrepreneurship Policy for Ireland the
following year.
33
Yet in Ireland in 2011 little has changed. The proportion of entrepreneurs that are women, both in
established businesses and in those more recently started, does not re?ect the proportion of women
in the population (51%)
34
nor does it re?ect the proportion of the labour force which are women
(45%).
35
The instance of early stage entrepreneurial activity among men is more than twice that of
women (2.5 to 1) and the higher ratio of established business owners that are men (2.2 to 1) is almost
equally pronounced. (Table T and Table U).
36
Ireland is no different to many other developed countries in having a much higher proportion of men
compared to women engaged in entrepreneurial activity. What is signi?cant, however, is that an
increased rate of early stage entrepreneurial activity among women in many countries is resulting in the
traditional entrepreneurial gender divide beginning to narrow. This is not the case in Ireland. (Table 3)
SECTION 3
WOMEN - AN UNTAPPED SOURCE OF
ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL?
32
Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe, European Commission, January 2003, Section A: What does it take to produce more
entrepreneurs? iv page 14.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0027en01.pdf.
33
The Report of the Small Business Forum, Small Business is Big Business, May 2006
http://www.forfas.ie/publication/search.jsp?ft=/publications/2006/Title,767,en.php. Towards Developing an Entrepreneurship Policy
for Ireland, Section 5 Encouraging Entrepreneurial Activity Among Under-Represented Groups, Forfás, September 2007.
34
Aged 15 and over Source: QNHS Survey, Q1 2012, CSO.
35
Source: QNHS Survey, Q1 2012, CSO.
36
For ease of reference, cross country tables are collected together in Section 4. Table T, Table U and Table V are relevant to this Section
and are referenced in order throughout the text. Where tables are referenced by number in the text (Table 3 through to Table 13),
they are to be found in the body of this Section and not in Section 4.
TABLE 3: THE GENDER GAP IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Country Ratio of men to women Ratio of men to women
early stage entrepreneurs established owner managers
Ireland 2.5 : 1 2.2 : 1
Australia 1.5 : 1 2.1 : 1
UK 1.8 : 1 2.0 : 1
United States 1.4 : 1 1.7 : 1
OECD average 1.8 : 1 2.2 : 1
EU-15 average 1.9 : 1 2.2 : 1
EU-27 average 2.0 : 1 2.3 : 1
40
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
In 2007 the Irish GEM report noted a decided narrowing between the rate at which men and women
were active as early stage entrepreneurs, with men for the ?rst time less than twice as likely to be an
early stage entrepreneur relative to women (1.8 to 1).
37
The narrowing of the gender gap has not been sustained in subsequent years, however, as Table 4
illustrates.
Looking at the rate at which men are the owner managers of established businesses compared to
women, the ratio in Ireland is similar to the average across the EU and the OECD – 2.2 to 1 (Table 3).
In the United States, however, the gender divide is less pronounced (1.7 to 1), as it is in some of the
Nordic countries, namely Sweden (1.6 to 1) and Finland (1.9 to 1).
38
(Table T)
One would expect that a spotlight on the need to encourage more women to become active as
entrepreneurs in recent years would, if effective, have the effect of raising the early stage entrepreneurial
activity rate among women, thereby narrowing the ratio between men and women entrepreneurs.
This has been the case across the EU, and the OECD (Table 3). It has not been the case in Ireland.
The ratio between men and women early stage entrepreneurs (2.5 to 1) in Ireland is slightly wider than
it is between men and women, who are the owner managers of longer established businesses (2.2
to 1). A similar trend can be observed in France.
39
This is unusual. The norm is for an increased rate
of early stage entrepreneurial activity among women, which leads to a narrowing of the gender gap.
In seeking to narrow the entrepreneurial gap between men and women there is little point in achieving
this objective through a smaller proportion of men becoming active as entrepreneurs. The challenge
is to maintain an optimum level of men involved in entrepreneurial activity, both as established owner
managers and as early stage entrepreneurs, while encouraging an increased involvement by women.
Australia is a good example of exactly that. In Australia in 2011 there was a higher rate of women
who were early stage entrepreneurs (8.4%) compared to those who were longer established owner
managers (5.8%). Given that the rate at which men were involved in entrepreneurial activity in that
country was broadly similar between early stage and established entrepreneurs (12.6% and 12.3%
respectively), the ratio of men to women established owner managers in Australia (2.1:1) narrows in
respect of men to women early stage entrepreneurs (1.5:1) without any lowering of the rate at which
men were active as entrepreneurs.
In the US, mentioned above, where the ratio of men to women established business owners is already
relatively narrow, a further narrowing may be observed among early stage entrepreneurs in 2011
37
In the three earlier years the number of times a man was more likely to be an early stage entrepreneur relative to a woman was
2.5:1 (2006), 2.6:1 (2005) and 2.1.1 (2004).
38
Interestingly in the other Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway, the gender divide among established owner managers (3.2 to 1 and
3 to 1 respectively) is even more pronounced than it is in Ireland, and is wider than the OECD and EU averages.
39
Ratio of men to women as established entrepreneurs in France (2.1 to 1) widens among early stage entrepreneurs (2.9 to 1).
TABLE 4: EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS AND ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS BY GENDER

YEAR EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS
Men Women Ratio of men Men Women Ratio of men
(% of male (% of female to women (% of male (% of female to women
working age working age working age working age
population) population) population) population)
2011 10.3% 4.2% 2.5 : 1 10.9% 5.0% 2.2 : 1
2010 9.5% 3.9% 2.4 : 1 11.8% 5.2% 2.3 : 1
2008 11.2% 4.0% 2.8 : 1 12.7% 5.4% 2.4 : 1
2007 10.6% 5.9% 1.8 : 1 12.7% 5.4% 2.4 : 1

41
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
40
Early stage entrepreneurial activity among men in the US was 14.3% in 2011, compared to 8.2% in 2010, 12.7% in 2008, and
12.0% in 2007.
41
It is important not to infer causality here. The data states that those who start a business are con?dent in their own skills. This point
holds true for each aspect of personal context.
(Table 3). Again this narrowing of the ratio between men and women early stage entrepreneurs was not
brought about due to a decrease in the rate at which men were becoming early stage entrepreneurs -
quite the reverse. This happened at a time when the rate of early stage entrepreneurial activity among
men was increasing signi?cantly.
40

In Ireland, while no overall narrowing has occurred in the ratio between men and women established
entrepreneurs and early stage entrepreneurs, it is interesting that the ratio of men to women early stage
entrepreneurs shows a de?nite narrowing among those in the youngest age group (18-24 years), a
ratio of 1.6 to 1, and narrows also, but to a lesser extent, among those in the oldest age groups (55-64
years), a ratio of 2.0 to 1. The ratio for the other ages groups are 2.7 to 1 (25-24 years) and 2.5 to 1
(35-44 years and 45-54 years).
3.2 MEN AND WOMEN EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS
In Ireland 10.3% of men are early stage entrepreneurs compared to 4.2% of women. In 2011, the rate
at which both men and women were planning and starting new businesses increased and reversed
the decline observed in 2010, particularly among men (Table 4).
Relative to other countries, the rate at which men in Ireland are involved as early stage entrepreneurs
is at the average across the OECD and the EU-27, while being ahead of the EU-15. It is considerably
behind the United States and Australia (Table T).
Despite the focus on women entrepreneurs in the media, by policy makers and by the City and County
Enterprise Boards in particular, the participation rate of women as early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland
(4.2%) is relatively low and is lower than the average across the OECD (5.8%) and the EU-27 (5.1%),
similar only to the EU-15 average (4.5%). Moreover, there are particularly marked differences between
the recent participation rate of women as entrepreneurs in Ireland and the US (10.4%), where the rate
is two and a half times higher than it is in Ireland. There are also marked differences with Australia
(8.4%), where the rate is double that of Ireland (Table T).
3.3 IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL CONTEXT
The GEM data demonstrates the relationship between aspects of an individual’s personal context and
entrepreneurial behaviour.
Self con?dence in own skills to successfully start and manage a business characterised 36%
of women and 55% of men in Ireland in 2011. Those who are con?dent that they have the skills to
successfully start and manage a business are more likely to be an entrepreneur compared to those
who do not have this con?dence.
41
The lower rate of self con?dence among women in this respect
is very important. Women in Ireland, who express a belief in their ability to successfully start and run
a new business, are ten times more likely to be an early stage entrepreneur than those without this
self-belief. For men this aspect of personal context is also very important, but to a lesser extent than
it is for women. Men who are con?dent in their ability to start and manage a business are ?ve times
more likely to be an early stage entrepreneur than those without such con?dence.
The lower prevalence of self con?dence among women compared to men is not unique to Ireland. It
may be observed across many countries and the level in Ireland is broadly at the average rate across
the OECD, EU-15 and EU-27. In the US where self-con?dence is extremely prevalent across the
population, it is still higher for men (64%) than it is for women (47%) (Table V).
It would appear that the trend in Ireland in recent years is for the prevalence of self- belief among men
to remain reasonably constant (in or around 55%), despite the changed economic environment, while
its lower prevalence has declined further among women from 42% in 2010 to 36% in 2011.
42
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The perception of opportunities to start a new venture among the general population in Ireland
declined dramatically in 2008 compared to 2007. This was true for both men and women. In 2011
there is no real indication of a return to the earlier high levels (Table 5).
42
The current rate of opportunity
perception is lower for both men and women in Ireland than is the average across the OECD, EU-15,
and EU-27 (Table V).
Knowing someone who is a recent entrepreneur is to be found to a greater extent among
entrepreneurs than it is among the general population. This is true for both men and women. In 2011
45% of men and 34% of women in Ireland reported that they knew a recent entrepreneur. This is an
increase on 2010, particularly for women - up from 27%. The acquaintance with a recent entrepreneur
is relatively high in Ireland among both men and women and is more prevalent than the averages
across the OECD, EU-15 or EU-27.
Of the developed countries, the US has a rate of early stage entrepreneurs among its population that
is considerably higher than Ireland – 12.3% compared to 7.3%. Yet only 29% of men and 25% of
women in the US report knowing a recent entrepreneur - a much lower proportion than in Ireland. This
is perhaps a measure of how networked Ireland’s small population is.
The very high prevalence of early stage entrepreneurs in China (24% compared to 7.3% in Ireland) is
re?ected in the fact that 68% of men and women in that country report knowing a recent entrepreneur.
(See Table V in Section 4 for further international comparisons).
Fear of failure as an inhibitor to setting up a business is less prevalent among entrepreneurs than
it is among the general public. It is more prevalent among women (46%) in Ireland than it is among
men (37%). The greater risk adverseness among women is true across the OECD, EU-15 and EU-27
countries. Only in Japan, where is it equally high for men and women (47%), and in Sweden (37%)
is this inhibitor equally prevalent among men and women. In all other countries, a fear of failure is
reported more frequently among women than it is among men (Table V).
3.4 PROFILE OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER
The average age at which men and women are active as early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland in 2011
is the same (38 years) and re?ects the fact that the majority of early stage entrepreneurs are in their
mid-twenties to their mid-forties.
Previous work status would appear to be in?uential for both men and women in that the great
majority of early stage entrepreneurs are coming from employment. This is particularly true of women
(Table 6).
The great majority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland have been educated beyond second level.
This is true for both men (70%) and women (75%) (Table 7). The education pro?le of men and women
has changed signi?cantly in Ireland in recent years. This is re?ected in the fact that while a third of
42
Entrepreneurs are three times as likely to perceive an opportunity than those in general population.
TABLE 5: PERCEPTION OF OPPORTUNITIES BY GENDER

YEAR Men as a percentage of Women as a percentage of
all men in adult population all women in adult population
2011 28% 23%
2010 26% 19%
2008 25% 28%
2007 50% 42%
43
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
women (34.4%) and men (31.2%) aged 35-64 have a third level education,
43
a much higher proportion
of the younger age group (25-34) have a third level quali?cation – 53.1% of women and 39.1% of men.
The increased proportion of young women with a third level quali?cation is particularly noticeable,
increasing from 37.5% in 2002.
44
All other things being equal, as the proportion of women with third
level quali?cations increases, which the current trend would indicate, it might be expected that the rate
of early stage entrepreneurial activity among women would also increase.
3.5 PROFILE OF ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS BY GENDER
In Ireland 10.9% of men are owner managers of businesses that are at least three and a half years old.
This rate is just over double that of women (5.0%). (Table 4)
Relative to other countries, the rate at which men in Ireland are involved as owner managers of
established businesses (10.9%) is in or about the average across the OECD and EU-15 countries,
while being ahead of the EU-27 (9.2%). The rate at which women are involved as owner managers of
established businesses in Ireland (5.0%) is ahead of the OECD, EU-15 and EU-27 averages (Table U).
In 2010 a decrease in the rate of owner managers in Ireland was noted and this has continued in 2011,
driven by the number of entrepreneurs who are exiting and closing businesses they previously started.
In 2011, 2.8% of the adult population in Ireland are owner managers that have closed businesses in
the previous twelve months. The rate at which men are closing businesses that they previously owned
(4.4%), far exceeds the rate at which women are closing businesses (1.1%).
3.6 AGENCY SUPPORT FOR WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
45
Given that in Ireland men compared to women are more likely to be early stage entrepreneurs (2.5 to
1), and established entrepreneurs (2.2 to 1), it is interesting to note that women entrepreneurs have
been the recipients of training and mentoring support from their local development agencies
46
to a
slightly greater extent than have men over the last ?ve years (average 52%) (Table 8).
43
Source CSO, QNHS Table 4.5 Ireland persons aged 35-64 by highest level of education attained, 2011.
44
Source CSO, QNHS Table 4.4 Ireland persons aged 25-34 with third level quali?cation, 2002-2011.
45
The information in the following paragraphs draws on the GEM research data but also on information supplied directly to the authors
by Enterprise Ireland.
46
City and County Enterprise Boards (CEBs) www.enterpriseboards.ie.
TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER

Work Status Percentage of all male Percentage of all female
early stage entrepreneurs early stage entrepreneurs
In employment (full time or part time) 85% 93%
Not Working (including home-maker) 10% 7%
Retired/student 5% 0%
TABLE 7: EDUCATION LEVEL OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER

Highest Quali?cation Percentage of all male Percentage of all female
early stage entrepreneurs early stage entrepreneurs
Primary and/or some secondary 11% 3%
Secondary school 19% 22%
Post-secondary 21% 32%
Graduate education 49% 43%
44
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Women entrepreneurs, however, are much less likely to have been granted ?nancial support from
these same agencies over this period. The proportion of entrepreneurs receiving ?nancial assistance
that are women has averaged 22%, with only slight variations year on year (Table 9). This is far below
the proportion suggested by the relative rate of women’s entrepreneurial activity.
It is clear that in Ireland women entrepreneurs are not receiving ?nancial support from the development
agencies proportionate to their representation as early stage entrepreneurs and established business
owners.
A large part of the explanation for this situation relates to the types of businesses that women are
starting. The majority of women are setting up businesses in services. This re?ects the fact that the
great majority of women in Ireland are employed in the services sector (90%).
49

47
www.enterprise-ireland.com
48
It should be noted that the ?gures for females given in this table is not con?ned to entrepreneurs but also includes female managers
in the starting team at time of investment. Accordingly, the numbers overstate the number of women entrepreneurs involved.
49
Source CSO: Quarterly National Household Survey Table 2a Persons aged 15 and over in employment (ILO) classi?ed by sex and broad
NACE Rev 2 Economic Sector, Q1 2012.
TABLE 9: CEB MEASURE 1 (FINANCIAL SUPPORT) BY GENDER

YEAR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Percentage of total
Total Men Women that are women
2011 1,013 781 232 23%
2010 1,040 830 210 20%
2009 1,065 816 249 23%
2008 914 715 199 22%
2007 909 710 199 22%

TABLE 8: CEB MEASURE 2 (TRAINING AND MENTORING) PARTICIPANTS BY GENDER

YEAR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS Percentage of total
Total Men Women that are women
2011 27,103 15,097 12,006 44%
2010 23,732 11,578 12,154 51%
2009 25,918 12,502 13,416 52%
2008 21,912 9,439 12,473 57%
2007 21,169 8,536 12,633 60%

TABLE 10: ENTERPRISE IRELAND HPSU APPROVALS BY GENDER

YEAR HPSU Female Entrepreneurs/
Approvals Managers
2011 93 7
2010 80 9 (2 in one company)
2009 73 9 (2 in one company)
2008 71 5
2007 70 10
In the case of Enterprise Ireland (EI)
47
, the main national development agency, the number of women
entrepreneurs among their High Potential Start Ups (HPSU) is even lower (Table 10).
48
45
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
50
This re?ects the occupations in which women are employed. While women represent 45% of those employed, more women than men
are employed as professionals (58% of those employed in this employment category), administrators and secretaries (75%), as
providers of caring, leisure and other services (84%), and providers of sales, customer and other services (65%). Source CSO:
Quarterly National Household Survey, Table 2.7 Ireland: persons in employment by occupation, 2011, Q1 2012.
51
Women comprise just 29% of those employed in manufacturing. Source CSO: Quarterly National Household Survey Table and 2b
Persons aged 15 and over in employment (ILO) classi?ed by sex and NACE Rev 2 Economic Sector, Q1 2012,
TABLE 11: SECTOR OF ACTIVITY OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER

SECTOR MEN WOMEN
Percentage of Percentage of
all male early stage all female early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Extractive 8% 5%
Transforming 28% 10%
Business Services 34% 34%
Consumer orientated 30% 51%
TABLE 12: INTERNATIONAL ORIENTATION OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER

CUSTOMERS IN MEN WOMEN
OVERSEAS MARKETS Percentage of Percentage of
all male early stage all female early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
None 35 51
1% to 24% 38 32
25% to 74% 14 12
75% to 100% 13 5
This is pertinent as the legislative criteria for eligibility for ?nancial support from the development
agencies, both the CEBs and EI, are restricted to the manufacturing
51
and internationally traded
services sectors. Locally traded services and the professions are excluded. Consequently, many
women are owner managers of businesses, whose activities are not eligible for ?nancial support from
the agencies.
3.7 GROWTH ASPIRATIONS OF ENTREPRENEURS
The other part of the explanation as to why women are receiving less support from the development
agencies, particularly Enterprise Ireland (EI), may relate to the relative ambition which men and women
have for their new businesses.
Most entrepreneurs expect to create micro businesses. This is true of both men and women early
stage entrepreneurs. A minority of early stage entrepreneurs in Ireland (29%) expect to create at least
ten jobs, with a smaller proportion (20%) expecting to employ at least 20 people within ?ve years.
Moreover, a higher proportion of women (51%), than men (35%), expects to trade solely on the
domestic market and do not expect to generate international sales. Of those early stage entrepreneurs
that expect to have at least 25% of their customers in overseas markets, the greater export focus of
men is again evident (27% and 17% respectively). (Table 12)
Of the businesses being set up by women, as is evidenced by Table 11, a high proportion is consumer
oriented.
50

46
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Relative ambition is pertinent with regard to an early stage entrepreneur being eligible for EI support.
Besides the need to be involved in manufacturing or internationally traded services, the entrepreneurs
supported by EI, through its HPSU programme, must demonstrate that they are capable of creating
10 jobs in Ireland and realising E1 million in sales within three to four years of starting up. While
aspiration does not necessarily translate into achievement, it is the basis on which the entrepreneurs
will be deciding themselves as to whether they are eligible for HPSU support and the basis on which
they will be assessed.
As Table 13 clearly illustrates, men compared to women early stage entrepreneurs are considerably
more ambitious and, as the ambition increases, so does the gender gap.
In 2011, there are nine times as many men compared to women, who are early stage entrepreneurs
and have signi?cant growth ambitions for their new business, in that they expect to employ twenty or
more within ?ve years.
3.8 TAPPING INTO WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURIAL POTENTIAL
Given the increased pro?ling of women entrepreneurs in the media and the particular focus that the
CEBs in particular have given through National Women’s Enterprise Day and their development of
supportive networks for women entrepreneurs, it is perhaps surprising that there has not been a
sustained narrowing of the gender gap in Ireland between men and women early stage entrepreneurs
in particular, as there has been in many other countries.
More women than men in Ireland report that a fear of failure would inhibit them from becoming an
entrepreneur and fewer women report con?dence in their ability to start and successfully run a new
business. These differences between women and men are not unique to Ireland, however, but are
to be found across the OECD and the EU countries, even in those developed countries that have
a very high level of entrepreneurial activity among women, for example the US and Australia. This
is particularly true of the con?dence measure. Focusing on these measures alone, however, is not
suf?cient to explain the difference in activity rates across countries.
While it is clear that in Ireland women entrepreneurs are not receiving ?nancial support from the
development agencies proportionate to their representation as early stage entrepreneurs and
established business owners, they are availing of “soft” supports to a greater extent than are men.
In looking to identify measures that have been successful in encouraging women to become
entrepreneurs, it might be interesting to study developments in those countries that have stated
objectives to increase the level of entrepreneurial activity among women, have taken concrete
measures to increase the participation of women as entrepreneurs and from the evidence have
achieved a measure of success. Ireland may be able to learn from their experience.
Given the correlation in Ireland between high educational attainment and entrepreneurial activity
for women, it is very signi?cant that the number of women with third level education in the most
entrepreneurial age groups in Ireland is rising very rapidly and is now well ahead of men in the same
TABLE 13: GROWTH ASPIRATIONS OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER
Percentage of early stage entrepreneurs that expect to have at least 10 jobs within ?ve years.
• For men early stage entrepreneurs 36%
• For women early stage entrepreneurs 12%
• All early stage entrepreneurs 29%
Percentage of early stage entrepreneurs that expect to have at least 20 jobs within ?ve years.
• For men early stage entrepreneurs 24%
• For women early stage entrepreneurs 6%
• All early stage entrepreneurs 20%
47
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
age group. Moreover, in the younger age group (18-24) there is a signi?cantly higher percentage of
women who are students in 2011 (45.9%) compared to 2006 (39.6%).
52
This suggests that there will
be a larger pool of talented women within the population in the years to come. It is important that they
have the con?dence and ability to become successful entrepreneurs.
It would be short sighted, however, to merely focus on the proportion of women in the population who
are early stage entrepreneurs. There is a need to also focus on the innovation and growth inherent
in their new businesses. With a greater focus on growth, the economic impact of women’s new
enterprises is greatly increased for themselves, their local communities and the country as a whole.
Looking at the evidence in this report as in previous GEM reports, it is clear that the challenge to have
more women entrepreneurs aim for and achieve signi?cant growth in their new businesses is not an
insigni?cant one. Hence the policy focus must not only be on increasing the number of women active
as entrepreneurs, but on increasing the proportion of these that are innovative, have growth ambitions
and are internationally focused in the medium term. Going for Growth was designed with this in mind.
The Going for Growth initiative is designed with the objective
of increasing the proportion of women entrepreneurs that are
innovative, have growth ambitions and are internationally focused
in the medium term. Going for Growth is a project funded under the
Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013 and by Enterprise Ireland.
The Equality for Women Measure is funded by the European Social
Fund (ESF) through the Human Capital Investment Operational
Programme 2007-2013 and the Department of Justice and Equality.
An important aspect of this initiative is that it is focused on
ambitious women entrepreneurs and is not restricted to eligible
sectors nor constrained by an employment ceiling.
53
More information on the initiative
may be found on the website www.goingforgrowth.com
54
In 2011, sixty ambitious women entrepreneurs participated in the third cycle of the initiative
and were assigned to round tables with volunteer Lead Entrepreneurs. At the end of their
cycle the participants reported an average increase in turnover of 10%, with over 50 new
jobs created. In addition, three participants became exporters for the ?rst time. This was
achieved at a time of continued recession and depressed consumer spending.
A fourth cycle of the initiative is being held in 2012 and the indications are equally positive
with participants already reporting real progress towards their growth goals. In 2012, over
50 participants of previous cycles of Going for Growth come together to continue the
momentum through round table sessions, topic based workshops and a National Forum.
All are being facilitated by volunteer Lead Entrepreneurs and other experts.
Given the very low number of women that have been designated High Potential Start-ups (HPSUs)
by the main development agency, Enterprise Ireland, to date, the development by that agency of a
Female Entrepreneurship Strategy and its recent launch by Richard Bruton, TD, Minister for Jobs,
Enterprise and Innovation, is to be welcomed. Going for Growth is a project funded under the Equality
for Women Measure 2010-2013. The Equality for Women Measure is funded by the European Social
Fund (ESF) through the Human Capital Investment Operational Programme 2007-2013 and the
Department of Justice and Equality
NOTE: Table T, Table U and Table V contain cross country comparisons, which are pertinent
to this Section. They may be found in Section 4.
52
Source CSO, QNHS Table 4.3 Ireland: Students as proportion of population aged 18-24, 2006 and 2011. It should be noted that the
retention of young men in the education system has increased to an even greater extent over these years (29.7% to 44.9%) and may
be a re?ection of the fall-off in employment opportunities, particularly in the construction sector.
53
The CEBs remit does not extend to those enterprises that employ more than 10.
54
Paula Fitzsimons is the National Director of Going for Growth.
48
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
48
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
3.9 PROFILES OF RECENT WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Entrepreneurs are people not statistics! This may appear self-evident, but in a section which has
examined men and women’s entrepreneurial activity in terms of numbers and statistics, this is an
important point to make.
Thanks to support received under the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013, we are featuring
pro?les of eight women entrepreneurs. The Equality for Women Measure is funded by the European
Social Fund (ESF) through the Human Capital Investment Operational Programme 2007-2013 and the
Department of Justice and Equality.
Each of the women pro?led, who come from different parts of the country, has set up a new business
in 2008 or more recently. New entrepreneurs, like those featured, are found throughout the country.
These entrepreneurs come from a variety of backgrounds and have set up a range of different types of
businesses. What unites them is a well-developed ability to spot an opportunity that could be turned
into a new business venture. All agree that setting up a new business is very challenging and they are
very grateful for the support they received along the way, both from family and from other sources. To
a person they are all glad that they took the plunge and turned the good idea into a new business.
49
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
ÁINE CUDDIHY
For years Áine Cuddihy dreamed of setting up her own food business. She worked as a primary
school teacher for over 30 years before retiring in November 2010. Living in Castletroy, Limerick, Áine’s
passion for cooking gave her the motivation to take the plunge and set up The Minicake Company in
May 2011.
Áine did not set up her own business sooner as she was afraid to give up her safe job as a teacher.
Mother to three children, she was devoted to raising her family and helping provide income to pay the
bills. With the children reared, Áine’s husband ran a guesthouse with her part-time support. Although
this business went into decline after the recession hit, it did not affect Áine’s entrepreneurial spirit.
Once her children had grown up and moved away from home, Áine found it dif?cult to cook for only
herself and her husband. As a result, there were often too many leftovers, with two-thirds of cakes
becoming stale and being thrown in the bin. Áine had a brainwave - instead of making one large cake,
Áine started to make small cakes, enough for two people. She was surprised by the response she
received from her friends. When I baked the mini cakes I brought them along to a few friends and their
reaction was so encouraging. All their children had grown up and had left home too and they found
the size of my cakes to be more than enough.
Áine realised that she could develop her cooking hobby into a successful business. She went to local
farmers’ markets where she began selling her mini cakes. This proved to be successful, but only when
the weather was good! Soon, Áine was supplying cupcakes to two local restaurants in Limerick. Other
orders came sporadically for children’s parties and other occasions.
Aine’s daughter Anne discovered Cake Pops on the internet and Áine decided to try making them
herself. Like the mini cakes, Áine brought the Cake Pops around to some friends for tasting. Again, the
reaction was wonderful. Over the next few weeks Áine made hundreds of Cake Pops, delivering them
into of?ces and schools and asking the tasters to ?ll out some questionnaires. Áine was inspired by the
results with ninety per cent of people loving the Cake Pops. The company’s ?rst big order came when
400 Cake Pops were ordered for a Willy Wonka themed Ball organised by Grif?th College in Dublin.
Áine recently took part in Senior Entrepreneurs – a training initiative for budding entrepreneurs aged
50+, jointly organised by Senior Enterprise, an EU INTERREG IVB NWE supported initiative, and the
City and County Enterprise Boards. She learned how to develop practical skills for achieving her
business goals and how to grow the business. The Senior Entrepreneur course was a phenomenal
experience for me. I had made an awful lot of mistakes in the past. I learned to market my business
better through Facebook and Twitter. Even a week after doing the course, I have secured ?ve new
orders and have more than doubled my Facebook followers.
Another company called Boucakery has since been set up by Áine. She came up with the idea of
designing cakes that resemble bouquets of ?owers. Áine hopes that the bouquets will make a mark
within the wedding market. She explains that the bouquets will save money for the Bride and Groom.
Instead of buying ?owers, a cake bouquet can be displayed on each table. Afterwards there is no need
to throw out the ?owers, as they can be eaten! She is also targeting the corporate market as they can
be adapted to company colours and themes.
Áine feels that the lack of ?nancial support available for entrepreneurs is the greatest constraint that is
stopping people from setting up a business. Another barrier faced by Áine was her lack of business
knowledge. She strongly advises people to look for help. The ?rst thing I believe people should do is
look for support. Go to your local Enterprise Board and see what is available.
Áine believes her greatest achievement to date has been setting up her own business at 60 years of
age and the con?dence she has gained by successfully doing so.
For more information on Áine’s new business, ?nd her on www.facebook.com/minicakeco
50
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
50
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
AISLING MAHER
When Aisling Maher graduated from University College Dublin as an architect in 2009, the property
market had crashed and jobs were scarce. The collapse of the construction industry ultimately led to
her discovering her talent for fashion.
I was ?nding it very dif?cult to get a job, and started to look at other ways that I could use the design
skills that I’d learnt. Even when I was studying architecture, at the back of my mind I had always
thought about going back to study fashion.
Aisling decided to go on to study millinery in the London College of Fashion. Along with the design
experience she had already gained in architecture, the course enabled her to create an inspiring
collection of products. Aisling has always been interested in entrepreneurship, but never dreamed that
one day she would be running her own fashion business.
When I was in secondary school, I would often run little businesses. Usually I would sell fashion
accessories – mainly bracelets and jewellery to my friends. My mum was always making clothes, so I
suppose that’s where I get my creative side.
Aisling Maher Designs was established in January 2010 with a focus on the design of fashion
accessories. Aisling’s ?rst lucky break came from an unexpected quarter. She had only just started her
business when Oscar winner Catherine Zeta-Jones, while attending the 2010 JP McManus charity
golf event, spotted one of Aisling’s crystal headpieces in an Adare boutique and subsequently wore it.
The photographs were beamed around the world and Aisling’s career took off.
A real whirlwind took over. I started to get interest from the media. I got coverage on TV3’s Exposé
and that really pushed my career forward. Buyers started contacting me and I began travelling around
the country to ?nd stockists.
From the beginning the hats designed by Aisling Maher have been a hit at international trade shows in
London and Paris. They are now sold through exclusive stockists in Paris, in Germany, and in Beverly
Hills, California. In Limerick, Aisling works and retails from the Design Atelier she shares with fashion
designer Marion Murphy-Cooney. Defying the downward trend, the turnover of Aisling’s retail business
has been extremely bouyant since she opened in February 2012 and she now employs a full-time
team. She is currently rushed off her feet, selling over a hundred hats a month — all of which are hand
made at The Design Atelier workshop.
Events such as weddings and prominent Ladies Days at Festivals including Cheltenham, Punchestown
and the Galway Races have kept business booming. Her bespoke hats and headpieces have already
been worn by fashion ?gures including Xposé’s Lisa Cannon, Glenda Gilson and RTE’s Emma
O’Driscoll.
Aisling feels the key to her success so far has been down to her hard work and the positive reaction
she has received. Since deciding to set up her business, Aisling’s parents have been a huge support
with her father giving her some valuable practical advice. I discovered a brilliant source of inspiration
through the Limerick County Enterprise Board. The supply of key information as well as the mentor
and grant supports were of great bene?t in the early days. Once the business was off the ground, she
became a participant in Going for Growth and feels the support she received has helped her establish
a future path for her business.
The lack of experience I had in the business world was always the biggest challenge for me. I feel
Going for Growth has helped me develop my business skills and has given me more focus and
drive in the right direction. It has allowed me to network and build relationships with other inspiring
entrepreneurs.
For anyone thinking of setting up their own business, Aisling would advise them to think through their
idea and try to come up with a unique selling point and talk to their local Enterprise Board. Currently
in talks with big name luxury-fashion institutions such as Harrods and Selfridges, this young and
enthusiastic Irish entrepreneur will be one to watch over the next few years.
For more information on Aisling’s new business, go to www.aislingmaher.com
51
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
DR EMMELINE HILL
Dr Emmeline Hill hails from a family synonymous with horse racing and breeding in Ireland. For
generations, the Hill family have bred and raced Thoroughbreds. Therefore it comes as no surprise
that Emmeline has ended up working in equine science.
Emmeline ?rst studied Genetics in Trinity College, Dublin, before pursuing a PhD in Molecular
Population Genetics, which she completed in 2000. Emmeline wanted to ?nd a way to apply science
to her love of horse racing. Equine genetics was still very much in its infancy. In the multi-billion euro
industry of Thoroughbred horse racing, breeding techniques had remained relatively unchanged for
over two hundred years. Breeders relied on matching proven successful bloodlines together, hoping
that the offspring would contain a winning combination of genes that contributed to success. I wanted
to see if I could use my knowledge of human population genetics and apply it to horses.
Today, Emmeline is regarded as one of Ireland’s most prominent genomics scientists and leads the Equine
Exercise Genomics research group at University College Dublin, where she is a lecturer in Equine Science.
In 2004, Emmeline became a UCD Principal Investigator when she was awarded the Science
Foundation Ireland President of Ireland Young Researcher Award, Ireland’s most prestigious prize for
young scientists. This enabled Emmeline to develop the world’s ?rst academic research programme
dedicated to understanding the genomics of athletic performance in Thoroughbred racehorses.
From this research into equine genetics, Emmeline identi?ed a large number of genes that were involved
in muscle strength in Thoroughbreds. Most notably, in 2010 she published the ?rst description of a
gene that contributed to a speci?c athletic trait in the Thoroughbred, which has been dubbed “The
Speed Gene”. Depending on which version of the gene is present, the horse is more suited for short
distance (a sprinter) or long distance racing (a stayer). This major breakthrough would ultimately lead
to a change in the way people could breed, train and race their horses.
While Emmeline had never planned on becoming an entrepreneur, she soon realised that her discovery
could revolutionise the horse racing industry and that it was commercially viable. When it came to
making a decision, I didn’t hesitate. It was important for me to protect the intellectual ?ndings of my
research and I felt that setting up a company was necessary to achieve this. The fact I didn’t know
anything about how to set it up was daunting, but was worth the risk.
In early 2009, Emmeline took part in the NovaUCD Campus Company Development Programme (CCDP).
The programme is a nine-month, part-time enterprise support initiative aimed to assist academic and
research entrepreneurs in the establishment and development of knowledge-intensive enterprises to
commercialise the output of their research. The CCDP helped me develop a business plan and a strategy.
I got great advice from the team on the different funding options available and how to market my business.
In May 2009, Emmeline founded the company Equinome with Jim Bolger, one of the world’s leading
racehorse trainers. Equinome won NovaUCD’s start-up award in November 2009. This gave
Emmeline the con?dence and belief that she was moving in the right direction. The commercial launch
of the company and its ?rst product- the Equinome Speed Gene Test – took place in January 2010.
Equinome has since secured clients in USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, UK, Hong Kong, France,
Russia and Singapore.
Emmeline was presented with the 2010 IMAGE Entrepreneur of the Year Award, in recognition of her
innovative idea and its transformation into a commercial success. Equinome is now a world leader in the
development and provision of genomic selection tools for the bloodstock and racing industry. Emmeline
maintains strong industry links with horse breeding and training operations in Ireland and internationally.
Most recently, Emmeline has been a participant in Going for Growth. Going for Growth was the
perfect opportunity for me to focus on the company. The support from the other participants has been
inspiring. We all face the same hurdles despite running very different businesses.
For anyone starting up a company, I would say – just go for it. It is tough and challenging, but knowing
you have made a difference will make it all worthwhile.
For more information on Emmeline’s new business, go to www.equinome.com
52
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
52
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
DR GRÁINNE REDMOND
Sometimes those who become entrepreneurs have always harboured the dream of staring their own
business. With others it is something that they had not previously thought of until an opportunity
presents itself. Gráinne Redmond was one of the latter. Awarded a PhD in Agriculture from University
College Dublin in 2000, her initial focus was on the academic and scienti?c community. She was
employed on a number of short term contracts in this area over the years.
Twelve years on, Grainne is now the mother of two small children and wanted to ?nd a way to combine
her caring responsibilities with work. Her response is one that combines starting her own business
with her responsibilities in UCD as Manager of the Irish Microbial Risk Assessment Network, a 5 year
project co-ordinated by Professor Francis Butler. Her role in managing this network is a part time one.
As part of her role, she has been responsible for managing conferences, writing promotion lea?ets,
organising meetings and many other non-scienti?c tasks. Coming from an academic background, I
had not had any exposure to management or communications before. Over the years I have realised
more and more just how important these aspects are to science as much as to any other area.
Gráinne found that she was good at it and that her services were in demand. She began to be offered
work organising and running other scienti?c conferences outside those of her Network responsibilities.
In response to this demand, Gráinne set up Communicating Science, a business to manage science
related conferences and events.
The nature of the new business lent itself to someone in Grainne’s situation - a busy working Mum -
as it allowed her to work around her caring responsibilities. From the start, I was determined to make
a go of it. As someone who is still working part-time and as a mother, it suits me to work for myself
as its gives me the ?exibility I need. It allows me to plan my week around the family and I can work
at different times during the day or at night after the kids have gone to bed. The nature of Gráinne’s
business meant she could set up with very little resources.
For her ?rst event, Gráinne was contracted by the Irish Academy of Engineering to run a series of
lectures sponsored by Intel, three of which were held in UCD and one in Queen’s University, Belfast.
Presenting a business pitch was completely new to Gráinne and was like nothing she had ever
done before. However, she was able to use her scienti?c background to her advantage and was
subsequently contracted to manage the Safefood Knowledge Networks Conference. In this way,
despite not having any formal event management training, Gráinne’s business began to progress.
Professor Francis Butler also runs a project funded under the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013,
Irish Food Entrepreneurship Training Programme, which provides training, workshops and mentoring
for women who are at an early stage of setting up a business. The Equality for Women Measure is
funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Department of Justice and Equality. Through her
contact with Professor Butler, Grainne was able to attend several of the workshops which she found
most useful. Gráinne also received assistance from her local County Enterprise Board in Fingal.
The biggest challenge for Gráinne has been trying to build up the con?dence to take the step into starting
her own business. She has found the support she received from others has been very encouraging.
I was very reluctant to give people my business card at ?rst. I lacked con?dence and found it dif?cult
to discuss my business with others. I got great support from Professor Francis Butler in UCD, who
guided me along the way. I have also worked with him in the Irish Food Entrepreneurship Training
Programme as an Advisor.
For the short-term, Grainne will continue to work part time, while running Communicating Science.
She has been asked to help manage the Global Food Safety Conference taking place in Dublin in
October 2012. In the future, as the business grows Gráinne would hope to be able to dedicate herself
to it full time, as she sees a real demand in this area.
For more information on Gráinne’s new business, go to www.communicatingscience.ie
53
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
JIANLING KYLE
Jianling Kyle, a spirited entrepreneur, has travelled a long way to bring the taste of China to Ireland.
Jianling’s mother ran one of the largest confectionery companies in Beijing and employed a
workforce of 1,500. During her holidays from University, Jianling worked in her mother’s company in
the production factory. My mother has been a huge inspiration to me. I hadn’t originally planned to
become an entrepreneur, so it was a big surprise! The experience I got from working with my mother
has motivated me!
Jianling studied to become an economist after working as an accountant and was appointed as
an advisor to the Chinese Government for industrial development and macroeconomic policy. She
subsequently went to Oxford for a special training programme and had intended to return to her
position in China. While in Oxford, Jianling met Michael Kyle and her plans to return to China faded as
their relationship developed.
Jianling and Michael are both passionate about food, particularly oriental style food. When Jianling
served Michael a Jiaozi, a Chinese dumpling, he was amazed and convinced her that they could
develop a similar product, which could be a commercial success in the west. We dreamed of one
day developing a business commercialising a food based on the Jiaozi dumpling. We started to work
on some ideas to make the Jiaozi healthier and looked to add more exciting and versatile ?llings. We
wanted to introduce as many people as possible to the delights of what is now Wrapsu!
Jianling moved to Michael’s hometown, Longford in the Irish midlands after they got married and
started a family. She found the food in Ireland to be of extremely high quality. Alongside Michael, she
managed to convert the oriental style of the dumplings into locally produced ingredients, containing
all the main food groups needed for a nutritious diet. Wrapsu has evolved into a healthy food, as it is
made with a fat free pastry with a variety of ?llings.
Jialing’s personal interest in good, healthy food and her commitment to producing high quality products
is very evident. Wrapsu can be easily translated across all categories for all types of occasions under
the one brand. We both felt there was a huge need for such a product in the market. It provides a
quick healthy alternative that people can eat on the go or else have for lunch, dinner or as a party
snack.
Despite the economic climate in 2008, Jianling and Michael believed that the time was right to ?nally
carry out their dream. Kyle’s Kitchen was established and they started selling their produce at farmers’
markets.
Jianling became involved in the Female Entrepreneur Mentoring (FEM) Programme, which was designed
by Longford Women’s Link and supported under the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013. The
Equality for Women Measure is funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) through the Human Capital
Investment Operational Programme 2007-2013 and the Department of Justice and Equality. FEM
had a wonderfully positive impact on me as a woman in business. I now realise that every business
needs a structure. Mentoring allowed me to talk about the dif?culties I was facing and look at how the
business could grow.
Jianling and Michael were featured on RTE’s Dragons’ Den in 2011 and appeared on the follow up
series, Dragons’ on Tour in May 2012. Kyle’s Kitchen has expanded production of Wrapsu and it is
currently available in Spar and Euro Spar stores as well as some specialist outlets throughout the
country. Jianling is also currently in talks with a major supermarket group to supply Wrapsu to their
stores. She also hopes to include a new range of products in the near future, including soups and
spring rolls. Jianling is proud of how well her business has started in Ireland. Coming from China, she
felt it was crucial to learn to adapt quickly to ?t into Irish society and has been lucky to have Michael’s
help and support along the way. An entrepreneur that moves to Ireland from abroad has to be very
dynamic. You have to be energetic and have the belief that you are capable of achieving your goals. It
can be quite demanding, both physically and mentally. But the happiness you feel every time another
hurdle is overcome makes it all worthwhile.
For more information on Jianling’s new business, go to www.wrapsu.com
54
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
54
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
LINDA O’SULLIVAN
Ever since Linda O’Sullivan ?nished university she had been interested in entrepreneurship and one
day hoped to set up her own business. Originally from County Cork, she obtained a Bachelor of
Business Studies with French from the University of Limerick, before deciding to pursue a Masters in
Film and TV in Dublin City University.
For over ten years, Linda worked as a development executive, editor and writer of children’s shows
with many international broadcasters, including the BBC, Disney Channel and France 3. At the time
Linda had thought she would end up establishing a ?lm or TV production related business. She never
imagined that she would start a business that develops online learning products for children.
The idea for her new business came from her own personal experience involving her son, who
struggled with issues relating to dyslexia at school. To help her son, Linda and her husband began
taking their son to learning support classes outside of school. Driving long distances, however, put the
family under great pressure.
I wanted to come up with an easy solution to help my son with his reading dif?culties. The learning
support classes provided great results, yet put him and the whole family under a lot of strain. The
types of exercises he was working on to build his reading ?uency seemed perfect for interactive
game-based learning.
Linda decided to investigate how these reading exercises could be integrated into a new and
exciting animated universe. She consulted with experts in specialist learning from the British Dyslexia
Association as well as parents and teachers. Linda felt there was a need for something that would
provide a fun way for children to practice their reading skills. She wanted to develop a product which
offered better engagement with children, while keeping the focus on the learning element. And so,
Footbridge Interactive was born.
Linda personally invested in building a prototype with the help of an Innovation Voucher from Enterprise
Ireland. This prototype was tested with over 200 children. At that point, Linda took part in a nine
month enterprise support programme (LEAP) run by Limerick Institute of Technology, during which
she received funding (CORD Programme) from Enterprise Ireland. The LEAP Programme was a great
support structure at the early stage, particularly as I had no previous experience of start-ups. The
good dynamics between the various entrepreneurs there is invaluable.
Without the support she received from her family as well as the help from organisations such as
Enterprise Ireland, Linda believes that Footbridge Interactive would not have been possible. I could
not have done this without the support of my husband. Setting up a business while you have young
children at home is a challenge in itself. Enterprise Ireland provided fantastic ?nancial support from the
start. Most recently, I have been involved in Going for Growth. I felt the support of my Lead and my
network group was exactly what I needed at my stage of development. Footbridge Interactive won a
Competitive Start Fund from Enterprise Ireland in 2011, worth E50,000 and then won LEAP Business
Award’s ?rst prize, which involved another E50,000 investment from AIB Seed Capital Fund.
As a result of the funding, the company had the start-up capital needed to build their ?rst product:
Reading Bridges – an online learning game aimed at 7-12 year olds. The company recently won an
award from Enterprise Ireland’s internet growth acceleration programme (iGAP). As a non-tech, iGAP
gave me the tools I needed to move through a software development process that makes sense with
limited resources, and to then set and measure performance for an online business.
Linda described setting up her business as much more demanding than anything she had ever done
before. In order to run your own business, the range of skills needed vary, from ?nancial management
to making technology based decisions. But I enjoy it and I like the challenge.
The advice Linda would give to others thinking of becoming entrepreneurs would be to put all your
energies in the early days into getting to know your customers, not into business plans and chasing
investors.
For more information on Linda’s new business, go to www.readingbridges.com
55
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
PATRICE FANNING
Patrice Fanning’s ?rst taste of entrepreneurship came in transition year, when she participated in her
local Enterprise Board’s Mini-Company competition. This sparked Patrice’s ambition to one day set
up her own business.
Patrice obtained a ?rst-class honours degree from the University of Limerick in Applied Languages
with Computing, which dealt extensively with technical writing. After graduation, she remained at
the university for 3 years teaching technical writing, software localisation, and introductory computer
programming. During this time, Patrice also worked at the Localisation Research Centre (LRC), where
she designed training courses and guides on software localisation, and worked on EU reports and
tenders.
In 2005, Patrice joined global enterprise software giant SAP as a technical writer. She worked with
international development teams to produce user-friendly help and training material for the new
Business ByDesign solution aimed at mid-sized enterprises. Patrice later changed her focus to SAP’s
Business Suite for large enterprises and moved into project and people management.
While working for SAP, Patrice always kept the idea of setting up her own business in the back of
her mind. She recognised an opportunity to set up an Irish-based company that offered outsourced
writing and documentation solutions to both large multinational and high-potential SMEs operating
in the IT space. At the end of 2010, she decided to leave SAP to set up Technically Write IT.
Technology is evolving at breakneck speed. The need to document it clearly, so that it is attractive and
understandable to consumers has never been greater. I believed there was a big market for technical
writing services provided by professionals with English as a ?rst language. I knew the industry well, but
lacked experience in running a business and knew very little about ?nance and marketing for example.
To help get things started, Patrice took part in PINC, an intensive ten-week programme for female
entrepreneurs, based in the Rubicon Centre at Cork Institute of Technology. PINC is a project funded
under the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013. The Equality for Women Measure is funded by
the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Department of Justice and Equality. PINC really got the ball
rolling. It touched on all aspects of business that need to be considered to turn a good idea into a
successful and sustainable venture. I was assigned an extremely knowledgeable mentor, a former
VP of multinational EMC2, who I still work closely with today. I learned a lot from the practical training
sessions and was motivated by networking with other participants, who were just starting out too.
After PINC, Patrice took part in the Genesis Enterprise Programme, also run by the Rubicon Centre.
This programme was more in-depth and gave her the opportunity to develop a concrete plan outlining
her business objectives. This plan was reviewed and tweaked in 1-to-1 sessions with a number of
experienced individuals, giving Patrice increased con?dence in what she wanted to achieve.
Patrice advises ?edgling entrepreneurs to be aware of the challenges they will face in setting up
their business. The most important thing is to go in with your eyes open. You need to recognise the
potential obstacles upfront, so that you can plan effectively to overcome them. I would recommend
locating in a centre like the Rubicon and taking part in a programme like PINC or Genesis. Personally
I bene?tted a lot from this positive and supportive environment. At the moment, Patrice is maintaining
a tight operation with just herself, a business administrator and a part-time accountant on board. Her
model is based on creating contract work for experienced writers. Working with freelance writers on
a contract basis gives me the chance to assess their writing and time management skills. If someone
under delivers, Technically Write IT is under no obligation to hire them for another project. It also allows
us to scale up and down to meet demand from clients.
As a result of its success, the company received a Business Development Achievement Award from
Genesis in March 2012. Looking forward, Patrice hopes to grow her business, her team, and especially
her list of international clients. We’re committed to scaling the business by developing long-term
relationships with new and existing clients. I’m very excited about the future prospects of the business
and I believe that we have what it takes to make Technically Write IT Ltd. an international success.
For more information on Patrice’s new business, go to www.technicallywriteit.com
56
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
56
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
PATRICIA HILL
Patricia spent her early childhood growing up in Dunfanaghy, County Donegal before moving to
England with her parents and siblings. After completing school, Patricia began working for NatWest
Bank in London. In 1989, Patricia moved back to Ireland and began a career with Ulster Bank that
would last for over 20 years. During my career with Ulster Bank, I held many positions with lots of
different roles and responsibilities. I feel they have all helped provide me with the varied range of skills
that are necessary for setting up a business.
In 2009, Ulster Bank was seeking voluntary redundancies from their employees. Patricia saw this as
an opportunity and took it in November of that year. I had always wanted to set up my own business.
I knew the chance had ?nally come and I was ready for the challenge. My Dad was a builder and ran
his own business. He has been a huge inspiration to me. As a teenager I loved working with him and
one day hoped to own my own business too.
Drawing on her varied experience in Ulster Bank, including that of Commercial Manager, with over 900
SME customers in Letterkenny, Patricia was aware of the bene?ts and was well positioned to write a
robust business plan.
Patricia’s goal was to open and run an American style restaurant. She invested money from her
redundancy package into the business and found a suitable location close to the busy shopping
district in Letterkenny. Stateside American Restaurant opened its doors for the ?rst time in April 2011.
Along with sheer determination and hard work, Patricia feels that the support she has received has
been vital. My husband Tommy has been an amazing support. He is still working full time and takes a
backseat in the running of the restaurant, but he is a great consultant! My Head Chef, Ricky McElwaine
has been a godsend and was great at helping get the menu in place. My daughters Shannan (18) and
Robynne (17) also work with me in the restaurant.
Patricia feels her biggest challenge was ?nding the right people to help run the business. As a result
she sought expert help from a HR consultancy company. The biggest test for me was hiring staff.
You can’t do everything yourself and in a restaurant type business, customer service is extremely
important. You need to make the right impression with customers and not everything will be under
your control. You need staff you can trust and who will do their job well. Luckily I have a great team
working with me.
Stateside now has 5 full time and 20 part time workers. Patricia feels it has all been worthwhile. I think
my biggest achievement so far is the fact I have been able to give something back to Letterkenny. I
was able to hire local people and gave opportunities to some young inexperienced students, training
them and providing them with skills which they can use when starting college and going out into the
big wide world. I use local goods and services which also stimulate the local economy, helping us all
to get back on our feet. We are a very family orientated restaurant. I hope I have created a place in
Letterkenny where families can come eat and spend time together in a buzzing atmosphere and not
worry about their kids being too loud.
Despite the recession, Stateside has got off to a good start. For anyone thinking of becoming an
entrepreneur, Patricia recommends that they focus on their business plan and set goals. You have to
really want to do it. It is time consuming, but there is no point doing it half-heartedly. Don’t try to do
everything. Seek advice from experts and get help from organisations such as your local Enterprise
Board.
Looking to the future, Patricia has high hopes to expand her business. She believes that the Stateside
brand has great potential and would like to see Stateside grow throughout the North West. But before
another Stateside is opened, however, Patricia is eager to ensure that her ?agship restaurant runs like
a well-oiled machine and hopes to make progress with their online marketing presence.
For more information on Patricia’s new business, go to www.stateside.ie
PB
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
57
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE A - POTENTIAL ENTREPRENEURS

IRISH ADULTS IRISH ADULTS IRISH ADULTS IRISH ADULTS
Know a recent Opportunities Skills & Knowledge Fear of failure
entrepreneur
6
in local area
7
to start-up prevent start-up
Percentage in Percentage in Percentage in Percentage in
adult population adult population adult population adult population
Australia
1
29 48 47 44
Belgium
1 2 3 4
26 43 44 42
Brazil
5
39 43 53 35
Chile
1
37 57 62 31
China
5
68 49 44 35
Czech Republic
1 3
24 24 39 40
Denmark
1 2 3
32 47 35 42
Finland
1 2 3 4
46 61 37 36
France
1 2 3 4
43 35 38 44
Germany
1 2 3 4
25 35 37 50
Greece
1 2 3 4
31 11 50 68
Hungary
1 3
29 14 40 45
Ireland
1 2 3 4
39 26 46 41
Japan
1
15 6 14 47
Korea
1
26 11 27 40
Latvia
3
29 24 47 45
Lithuania
3
28 23 35 48
Mexico
1
47 43 61 33
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
34 48 42 37
Norway
1
39 67 33 38
Poland
1 3
39 33 52 54
Portugal
1 2 3 4
24 17 47 49
Romania
3
29 36 42 43
Russia
5
37 27 33 46
Slovakia
1 3 4
48 23 53 45
Slovenia
1 3 4
37 18 51 39
Spain
1 2 3 4
29 14 51 52
Sweden
1 2 3
41 71 40 37
Switzerland
1
27 47 42 35
Turkey
1
25 32 42 27
United Kingdom
1 2 3
32 33 42 46
United States
1
27 36 56 37
OECD average 33 35 43 42
EU-15 average 34 37 42 45
EU-27 average 33 32 43 45
EURO area average 35 30 45 46
BR(I)C average 48 40 43 39

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)
6 They know someone who started a business in the past two years.
7 Opportunities to start a business in the next six months (July 2011 - December 2011)
SECTION 4
COMPARATIVE DATA ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP
IN IRELAND IN 2011
58
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
59
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

B

-

E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
I
A
L

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

A
N
D

E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
E
D

O
W
N
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
R

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

A
s
p
i
r
i
n
g

N
a
s
c
e
n
t

N
e
w

?
r
m

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

O
E
C
D

R
a
n
k
i
n
g

E
U
-
1
5

R
a
n
k
i
n
g

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
o
f

2
6
)

(
o
f

1
2
)

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

1
4
.
5

6
.
0

4
.
7

1
0
.
5

5
t
h

9
.
1
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

1
2
.
0

2
.
7

3
.
0

5
.
7

2
2
n
d

1
0
t
h

6
.
8
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

3
2
.
3

4
.
1

1
1
.
0

1
4
.
9

1
2
.
2
C
h
i
l
e
1

4
8
.
6

1
4
.
6

9
.
6

2
3
.
7

1
s
t

7
.
0
C
h
i
n
a
5

4
3
.
4

1
0
.
1

1
4
.
2

2
4
.
0

1
2
.
7
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

1
4
.
6

5
.
1

2
.
7

7
.
6

1
1
t
h

5
.
2
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

8
.
9

3
.
1

1
.
6

4
.
6

2
5
t
h

1
2
t
h

4
.
9
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

8
.
0

3
.
0

3
.
3

6
.
2

1
8
t
h

6
t
h

8
.
8
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
9
.
8

4
.
1

1
.
7

5
.
7

2
1
s
t

9
t
h

2
.
4
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

7
.
6

3
.
4

2
.
4

5
.
6

2
3
r
d

1
1
t
h

5
.
6
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
2
.
3

4
.
4

3
.
7

8
.
0

9
t
h

2
n
d

1
5
.
8
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

2
1
.
9

4
.
8

1
.
6

6
.
3

1
7
t
h

2
.
0
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

8
.
5

4
.
3

3
.
1

7
.
2

1
4
t
h

5
t
h

8
.
0
J
a
p
a
n
1

7
.
1

3
.
2

2
.
0

5
.
2

2
4
t
h

8
.
3
K
o
r
e
a
1

1
7
.
2

2
.
9

5
.
1

7
.
8

1
0
t
h

1
0
.
9
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

2
8
.
0

6
.
8

5
.
3

1
1
.
8

5
.
7
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

2
0
.
6

6
.
4

5
.
0

1
1
.
3

6
.
3
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

2
5
.
8

5
.
7

4
.
0

9
.
6

6
t
h

3
.
0
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

9
.
8

4
.
3

4
.
1

8
.
2

8
t
h

1
s
t

8
.
6
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

1
0
.
9

3
.
8

3
.
4

6
.
9

1
5
t
h

6
.
6
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

2
6
.
9

6
.
0

3
.
1

9
.
0

7
t
h

5
.
0
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

1
4
.
9

4
.
6

3
.
0

7
.
5

1
2
t
h

3
r
d

5
.
7
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

2
7
.
7

5
.
6

4
.
5

9
.
9

4
.
6
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

6
.
2

2
.
4

2
.
3

4
.
6

2
.
8
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

2
4
.
4

9
.
2

5
.
3

1
4
.
2

2
n
d

9
.
6
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

1
0
.
0

1
.
9

1
.
8

3
.
6

2
6
t
h

4
.
8
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

9
.
7

3
.
3

2
.
5

5
.
8

1
9
t
h

7
t
h

8
.
8
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

1
0
.
4

3
.
5

2
.
3

5
.
8

2
0
t
h

8
t
h

7
.
0
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

1
0
.
3

3
.
7

2
.
9

6
.
6

1
6
t
h

1
0
.
2
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

1
1
.
3

6
.
3

6
.
0

1
1
.
9

4
t
h

8
.
0
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

1
0
.
4

4
.
7

2
.
6

7
.
3

1
3
t
h

4
t
h

7
.
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

1
5
.
8

8
.
3

4
.
3

1
2
.
3

3
r
d

9
.
0
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
5
.
1

4
.
9

3
.
5

8
.
2

7
.
2
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
1
.
0

3
.
8

2
.
8

6
.
5

7
.
5
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
5
.
3

4
.
6

3
.
1

7
.
6

6
.
6
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
2
.
4

4
.
1

3
.
1

7
.
1

7
.
7
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

2
7
.
3

5
.
5

9
.
2

1
4
.
5

9
.
2
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

58
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
59
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE C - ‘CULTURE’: PERCEPTIONS OF GENERAL POPULATION

Entrepreneurship Success at Supportive media
is a good entrepreneurship coverage of
career choice has high status entrepreneurs
Percentage in Percentage in Percentage in
adult population adult population adult population
Australia
1
54 68 70
Belgium
1 2 3 4
64 55 47
Brazil
5
86 86 82
Chile
1
73 69 65
China
5
73 73 76
Czech Republic
1 3
n/a n/a n/a
Denmark
1 2 3
n/a n/a n/a
Finland
1 2 3 4
46 83 67
France
1 2 3 4
66 68 47
Germany
1 2 3 4
55 78 50
Greece
1 2 3 4
61 69 32
Hungary
1 3
54 78 34
Ireland
1 2 3 4
46 83 56
Japan
1
26 55 57
Korea
1
61 67 62
Latvia
3
n/a n/a n/a
Lithuania
3
n/a n/a n/a
Mexico
1
57 58 48
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
83 67 62
Norway
1
53 80 60
Poland
1 3
73 64 58
Portugal
1 2 3 4
n/a n/a n/a
Romania3 68 69 57
Russia
5
65 65 55
Slovakia
1 3 4
55 64 55
Slovenia
1 3 4
54 70 45
Spain
1 2 3 4
65 66 45
Sweden
1 2 3
52 71 62
Switzerland
1
n/a n/a n/a
Turkey
1
n/a n/a n/a
United Kingdom
1 2 3
52 81 47
United States
1
n/a n/a n/a
OECD average 57 70 53
EU-15 average 59 72 52
EU-27 average 59 71 51
EURO area average 59 70 51
BR(I)C average 75 75 71

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

T
A
B
L
E

B

-

E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
I
A
L

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

A
N
D

E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
E
D

O
W
N
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
R

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

A
s
p
i
r
i
n
g

N
a
s
c
e
n
t

N
e
w

?
r
m

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

O
E
C
D

R
a
n
k
i
n
g

E
U
-
1
5

R
a
n
k
i
n
g

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
o
f

2
6
)

(
o
f

1
2
)

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

1
4
.
5

6
.
0

4
.
7

1
0
.
5

5
t
h

9
.
1
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

1
2
.
0

2
.
7

3
.
0

5
.
7

2
2
n
d

1
0
t
h

6
.
8
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

3
2
.
3

4
.
1

1
1
.
0

1
4
.
9

1
2
.
2
C
h
i
l
e
1

4
8
.
6

1
4
.
6

9
.
6

2
3
.
7

1
s
t

7
.
0
C
h
i
n
a
5

4
3
.
4

1
0
.
1

1
4
.
2

2
4
.
0

1
2
.
7
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

1
4
.
6

5
.
1

2
.
7

7
.
6

1
1
t
h

5
.
2
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

8
.
9

3
.
1

1
.
6

4
.
6

2
5
t
h

1
2
t
h

4
.
9
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

8
.
0

3
.
0

3
.
3

6
.
2

1
8
t
h

6
t
h

8
.
8
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
9
.
8

4
.
1

1
.
7

5
.
7

2
1
s
t

9
t
h

2
.
4
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

7
.
6

3
.
4

2
.
4

5
.
6

2
3
r
d

1
1
t
h

5
.
6
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
2
.
3

4
.
4

3
.
7

8
.
0

9
t
h

2
n
d

1
5
.
8
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

2
1
.
9

4
.
8

1
.
6

6
.
3

1
7
t
h

2
.
0
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

8
.
5

4
.
3

3
.
1

7
.
2

1
4
t
h

5
t
h

8
.
0
J
a
p
a
n
1

7
.
1

3
.
2

2
.
0

5
.
2

2
4
t
h

8
.
3
K
o
r
e
a
1

1
7
.
2

2
.
9

5
.
1

7
.
8

1
0
t
h

1
0
.
9
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

2
8
.
0

6
.
8

5
.
3

1
1
.
8

5
.
7
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

2
0
.
6

6
.
4

5
.
0

1
1
.
3

6
.
3
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

2
5
.
8

5
.
7

4
.
0

9
.
6

6
t
h

3
.
0
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

9
.
8

4
.
3

4
.
1

8
.
2

8
t
h

1
s
t

8
.
6
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

1
0
.
9

3
.
8

3
.
4

6
.
9

1
5
t
h

6
.
6
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

2
6
.
9

6
.
0

3
.
1

9
.
0

7
t
h

5
.
0
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

1
4
.
9

4
.
6

3
.
0

7
.
5

1
2
t
h

3
r
d

5
.
7
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

2
7
.
7

5
.
6

4
.
5

9
.
9

4
.
6
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

6
.
2

2
.
4

2
.
3

4
.
6

2
.
8
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

2
4
.
4

9
.
2

5
.
3

1
4
.
2

2
n
d

9
.
6
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

1
0
.
0

1
.
9

1
.
8

3
.
6

2
6
t
h

4
.
8
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

9
.
7

3
.
3

2
.
5

5
.
8

1
9
t
h

7
t
h

8
.
8
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

1
0
.
4

3
.
5

2
.
3

5
.
8

2
0
t
h

8
t
h

7
.
0
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

1
0
.
3

3
.
7

2
.
9

6
.
6

1
6
t
h

1
0
.
2
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

1
1
.
3

6
.
3

6
.
0

1
1
.
9

4
t
h

8
.
0
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

1
0
.
4

4
.
7

2
.
6

7
.
3

1
3
t
h

4
t
h

7
.
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

1
5
.
8

8
.
3

4
.
3

1
2
.
3

3
r
d

9
.
0
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
5
.
1

4
.
9

3
.
5

8
.
2

7
.
2
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
1
.
0

3
.
8

2
.
8

6
.
5

7
.
5
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
5
.
3

4
.
6

3
.
1

7
.
6

6
.
6
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
2
.
4

4
.
1

3
.
1

7
.
1

7
.
7
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

2
7
.
3

5
.
5

9
.
2

1
4
.
5

9
.
2
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

60
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
61
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE D - EXITS

Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs
exited in the last exited in the last
12 months and 12 months and
business discontinued business continued
Percentage in Percentage in
adult population adult population
Australia
1
2.7 1.7
Belgium
1 2 3 4
0.4 1.0
Brazil
5
2.5 1.3
Chile
1
4.9 1.9
China
5
3.7 1.6
Czech Republic
1 3
1.9 0.8
Denmark
1 2 3
1.5 0.8
Finland
1 2 3 4
1.2 0.7
France
1 2 3 4
1.6 0.6
Germany
1 2 3 4
1.3 0.5
Greece
1 2 3 4
2.4 0.5
Hungary
1 3
1.6 0.7
Ireland
1 2 3 4
2.8 0.6
Japan
1
0.6 0.1
Korea1 2.4 0.7
Latvia3 2.1 1.0
Lithuania
3
1.5 1.5
Mexico
1
3.1 1.9
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
1.4 0.6
Norway
1
1.4 1.2
Poland
1 3
3.4 0.8
Portugal
1 2 3 4
1.8 1.1
Romania
3
3.2 0.7
Russia
5
1.2 0.3
Slovakia
1 3 4
4.5 2.5
Slovenia
1 3 4
1.0 0.4
Spain
1 2 3 4
1.5 0.7
Sweden
1 2 3
2.4 0.7
Switzerland
1
1.6 1.3
Turkey
1
2.5 1.4
United Kingdom
1 2 3
1.5 0.5
United States
1
2.9 1.5
OECD average 2.1 1.0
EU-15 average 1.7 0.7
EU-27 average 2.0 0.8
EURO area average 1.8 0.8
BR(I)C average 2.5 1.1

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

60
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
61
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

E

-

R
E
A
S
O
N
S

F
O
R

E
X
I
T
S

O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

s
e
l
l

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

w
a
s

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
s

F
o
u
n
d

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

j
o
b

o
r

E
x
i
t

w
a
s

p
l
a
n
n
e
d

R
e
t
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

R
e
a
s
o
n

o
f

C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
?
t
a
b
l
e

g
e
t
t
i
n
g

?
n
a
n
c
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

i
n

a
d
v
a
n
c
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

n
a
t
u
r
e

s
i
n
g
l
e

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
x
i
t
i
n
g
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

1
0

1
5

4

2
8

7

5

2
0

1
0
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

2
6

0

2
5

1
6

5

1
8

1
0

0
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

9

2
6

1
6

1
3

4

0

2
8

5
C
h
i
l
e
1

2

2
0

2
4

1
2

6

1

2
7

8
C
h
i
n
a
5

2

2
1

2
4

1
1

8

2

3
0

2
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

5

2
3

1
2

1
8

5

7

2
8

3
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

9

2
6

7

1
4

2

1
2

3
0

0
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

8

1
7

0

2
1

1
0

2
5

9

1
2
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

3

2
2

2
1

4

0

1
1

3
3

6
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

8

2
5

6

1
1

1
0

3

3
4

3
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

1

6
6

7

4

0

5

1
5

2
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

3

3
5

3
1

1
0

0

7

1
2

3
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

7

6
0

6

9

2

4

1
2

0
J
a
p
a
n
1

0

5
7

1
2

6

0

0

1
2

1
2
K
o
r
e
a
1

3

4
5

2
5

3

0

2

1
4

8
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

7

4
7

1
8

7

5

0

1
4

2
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

3

5
4

1
7

9

1
0

0

5

2
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

1
7

2
6

2
0

5

2

0

2
6

4
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

2

4
3

1
1

9

0

2

3
0

2
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

1
1

1
8

3

1
8

8

8

2
4

1
1
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

0

3
2

1
6

1
2

3

6

1
6

1
5
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

3

6
4

7

1
0

0

2

1
4

0
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

0

5
0

1
7

6

3

0

2
4

0
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

6

4
3

1
4

5

2

1

2
2

7
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

4

4
2

1
0

1
4

2

5

1
5

8
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

0

1
6

4
6

9

0

1
9

7

4
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

5

5
2

1
4

5

2

4

1
6

3
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

1
1

2
9

3

1
6

1
8

7

1
5

1
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

9

2
7

1
3

7

2

2
2

1
8

2
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

1
2

5
0

1
2

4

7

6

9

0
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

0

3
7

9

2
5

7

5

1
7

0
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

3

3
0

1
0

1
0

1

9

2
8

1
0
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6

3
4

1
4

1
2

4

8

1
9

5
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

7

3
7

1
0

1
2

5

8

2
0

2
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5

3
7

1
4

1
2

4

7

1
8

3
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6

3
7

1
4

1
0

3

9

1
8

4
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6

3
0

1
8

9

5

1

2
7

4
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

62
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
63
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE F - MOTIVATIONS OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Opportunity Necessity
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Percentage of all Percentage of all
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Australia
1
85 15
Belgium
1 2 3 4
89 11
Brazil
5
69 31
Chile
1
72 28
China
5
58 42
Czech Republic
1 3
72 28
Denmark
1 2 3
93 7
Finland
1 2 3 4
79 21
France
1 2 3 4
85 15
Germany
1 2 3 4
80 20
Greece
1 2 3 4
74 26
Hungary
1 3
68 33
Ireland
1 2 3 4
69 31
Japan
1
75 25
Korea
1
58 42
Latvia
3
73 27
Lithuania
3
71 29
Mexico
1
80 20
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
90 10
Norway
1
95 5
Poland
1 3
51 49
Portugal
1 2 3 4
82 18
Romania
3
58 42
Russia
5
72 28
Slovakia
1 3 4
72 28
Slovenia
1 3 4
87 13
Spain
1 2 3 4
73 27
Sweden
1 2 3
94 6
Switzerland
1
88 12
Turkey
1
67 33
United Kingdom
1 2 3
82 18
United States
1
78 22
OECD average 77 23
EU-15 average 82 18
EU-27 average 75 25
EURO area average 79 21
BR(I)C average 64 36

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

62
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
63
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE G - PRIMARY MOTIVATIONS OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Increasing income Being independent Mixed Non-opportunity
as primary motive as primary motive motivations (necessity or
maintain income)
Percentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Australia
1
45 29 7 19
Belgium
1 2 3 4
45 32 10 13
Brazil
5
21 25 22 33
Chile
1
32 23 11 33
China
5
21 9 27 43
Czech Republic
1 3
26 32 11 31
Denmark
1 2 3
32 33 24 12
Finland
1 2 3 4
33 35 5 27
France
1 2 3 4
34 37 9 20
Germany
1 2 3 4
18 41 12 29
Greece
1 2 3 4
17 20 29 34
Hungary
1 3
16 15 28 42
Ireland
1 2 3 4
20 18 24 38
Japan
1
31 33 6 30
Korea
1
22 15 18 45
Latvia
3
24 23 25 28
Lithuania
3
25 23 19 33
Mexico
1
37 19 19 25
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
24 42 18 16
Norway
1
44 34 12 10
Poland
1 3
16 16 15 53
Portugal
1 2 3 4
45 15 14 27
Romania
3
25 10 18 47
Russia
5
24 19 26 31
Slovakia
1 3 4
18 16 37 29
Slovenia
1 3 4
26 29 26 19
Spain
1 2 3 4
24 17 25 35
Sweden
1 2 3
50 21 19 10
Switzerland
1
25 40 16 20
Turkey
1
28 19 15 38
United Kingdom
1 2 3
27 21 29 23
United States
1
34 28 9 29
OECD average 30 26 17 27
EU-15 average 31 28 18 24
EU-27 average 27 25 20 28
EURO area average 28 27 19 26
BR(I)C average 22 18 25 36

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

64
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
65
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

H

-

A
G
E

O
F

E
A
R
L
Y

S
T
A
G
E

E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

E
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

a
g
e
d

1
8
-
2
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

2
5
-
3
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

3
5
-
4
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

4
5
-
5
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

5
5
-
6
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

1
8
-
2
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

2
5
-
3
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

3
5
-
4
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

4
5
-
5
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

5
5
-
6
4
y
r
s

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

o
f

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

o
f

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

o
f

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

o
f

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

o
f

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

5
.
9

1
3
.
6

1
1
.
4

1
1
.
6

8
.
2

9

2
9

2
4

2
3

1
4
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

4
.
7

9
.
8

7
.
1

2
.
8

3
.
7

1
1

3
5

3
0

1
1

1
2
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

1
2
.
8

1
7
.
8

1
7
.
2

1
3
.
1

9
.
3

2
0

3
3

2
7

1
4

6
C
h
i
l
e
1

1
6
.
6

2
9
.
8

2
5
.
9

2
3
.
4

1
7
.
2

1
3

3
3

2
8

1
8

9
C
h
i
n
a
5

2
0
.
6

2
8
.
7

2
6
.
4

2
1
.
9

1
8
.
3

1
3

2
7

3
1

1
9

1
0
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

1
0
.
4

9
.
1

9
.
2

6
.
9

3
.
3

1
9

2
8

2
6

1
8

9
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

3
.
5

4
.
8

6
.
6

5
.
0

2
.
5

1
1

2
0

3
3

2
5

1
1
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

4
.
9

8
.
3

8
.
4

5
.
6

4
.
0

1
1

2
7

2
7

2
0

1
5
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

3
.
3

9
.
2

7
.
1

5
.
5

2
.
4

8

3
3

2
9

2
1

8
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

8
.
1

6
.
2

6
.
4

5
.
3

2
.
7

1
9

2
1

2
8

2
3

9
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

5
.
1

9
.
0

1
1
.
8

5
.
8

6
.
7

1
0

2
7

3
3

1
5

1
5
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

5
.
6

7
.
1

8
.
2

7
.
0

2
.
8

1
5

2
5

2
6

2
6

8
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

4
.
8

8
.
7

9
.
7

7
.
7

2
.
9

1
1

3
2

3
1

2
0

6
J
a
p
a
n
1

4
.
0

4
.
7

5
.
4

6
.
3

5
.
2

9

1
9

2
4

2
4

2
4
K
o
r
e
a
1

1
.
4

7
.
3

1
1
.
1

9
.
6

5
.
8

2

2
0

3
6

3
0

1
1
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

1
4
.
2

1
8
.
8

1
1
.
8

8
.
8

4
.
8

2
0

3
6

2
1

1
6

7
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

1
8
.
6

1
5
.
8

1
0
.
2

8
.
3

3
.
8

2
8

3
0

2
0

1
7

6
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

6
.
3

1
0
.
5

1
3
.
3

9
.
5

6
.
4

1
4

2
9

3
3

1
7

7
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

7
.
4

9
.
9

9
.
3

9
.
0

4
.
9

1
2

2
3

2
7

2
6

1
2
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

1
.
7

7
.
2

9
.
9

8
.
1

5
.
7

4

2
2

3
4

2
5

1
6
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

6
.
1

1
3
.
9

1
1
.
2

8
.
2

4
.
0

1
0

3
8

2
4

1
9

9
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

6
.
0

1
0
.
9

7
.
9

6
.
4

5
.
0

1
2

3
5

2
4

1
8

1
1
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

7
.
9

1
4
.
6

9
.
4

1
0
.
2

4
.
6

1
4

3
8

1
8

2
2

7
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

3
.
9

6
.
6

6
.
0

3
.
9

1
.
5

1
4

3
4

2
6

2
0

5
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

1
4
.
3

1
8
.
5

1
9
.
2

1
2
.
0

4
.
7

1
6

3
3

2
7

1
9

6
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

3
.
9

5
.
1

4
.
6

2
.
5

2
.
3

1
3

3
1

2
8

1
5

1
3
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

4
.
4

7
.
7

7
.
6

4
.
8

2
.
5

8

3
3

3
4

1
8

7
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

3
.
6

4
.
2

7
.
3

6
.
3

6
.
7

9

1
5

2
9

2
3

2
5
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

3
.
9

5
.
6

7
.
5

9
.
2

5
.
1

8

2
0

2
9

3
0

1
3
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

8
.
0

1
6
.
2

1
3
.
2

1
2
.
4

3
.
0

1
2

3
9

2
6

2
0

3
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

6
.
8

8
.
8

8
.
7

6
.
9

4
.
8

1
5

2
5

2
7

2
1

1
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

9
.
3

1
5
.
2

1
4
.
3

1
2
.
6

8
.
9

1
2

2
6

2
5

2
4

1
4
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6
.
2

1
0
.
0

1
0
.
1

8
.
1

5
.
1

1
1

2
8

2
9

2
1

1
1
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5
.
2

8
.
1

8
.
2

5
.
9

4
.
1

1
1

2
7

2
9

2
0

1
2
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

7
.
2

1
0
.
0

9
.
1

6
.
7

4
.
0

1
4

2
9

2
7

2
0

1
0
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6
.
1

9
.
4

9
.
0

6
.
1

3
.
8

1
2

3
0

2
9

1
9

1
0
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
2
.
5

1
7
.
7

1
6
.
6

1
2
.
9

9
.
7

1
6

3
1

2
8

1
8

7
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

64
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
65
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE I - EDUCATION LEVEL OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Early stage Early stage Early stage Early stage Early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
with primary with secondary with post- with graduate with post-
and/or some school as secondary education as secondary
secondary highest education highest
education as quali?cation as highest quali?cation
highest
quali?cation
As a percentage As a percentage As a percentage As a percentage Percentage of all
of all adults in this of all adults in this of all adults in this of all adults in this entrepreneurs
education category education category education category education category
Australia
1
7.9 7.1 12.3 12.0 71
Belgium
1 2 3 4
3.8 3.3 6.5 5.7 68
Brazil
5
15.1 15.0 14.0 9.6 10
Chile
1
18.2 20.3 28.2 25.4 48
China
5
23.3 22.5 24.9 8.3 39
Czech Republic
1 3
4.2 9.4 7.8 10.6 20
Denmark
1 2 3
2.6 4.7 3.7 7.9 72
Finland
1 2 3 4
4.0 6.2 6.2 7.3 37
France
1 2 3 4
2.6 4.8 7.2 11.7 54
Germany
1 2 3 4
3.4 4.9 7.8 n/a 44
Greece
1 2 3 4
3.6 7.4 8.7 10.8 57
Hungary
1 3
0.7 6.9 7.5 7.2 38
Ireland
1 2 3 4
6.4 4.8 8.3 5.2 71
Japan
1
4.7 3.0 5.8 10.8 75
Korea
1
5.2 7.6 7.0 6.8 56
Latvia
3
5.2 10.5 15.8 15.2 48
Lithuania
3
7.3 8.0 12.2 n/a 80
Mexico
1
5.3 9.3 8.1 3.2 43
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
5.7 6.8 12.2 n/a 40
Norway
1
6.1 5.0 7.6 8.1 63
Poland
1 3
6.3 10.4 12.1 12.5 33
Portugal
1 2 3 4
6.2 5.6 9.9 n/a 40
Romania
3
2.7 9.3 12.7 14.8 50
Russia
5
2.4 3.1 3.9 7.1 85
Slovakia
1 3 4
10.1 18.0 13.9 22.4 17
Slovenia
1 3 4
1.1 2.8 5.9 n/a 63
Spain
1 2 3 4
4.2 6.0 6.2 7.7 57
Sweden
1 2 3
4.6 3.1 8.8 n/a 69
Switzerland
1
2.9 4.7 11.4 8.4 51
Turkey
1
9.4 13.2 13.5 29.5 36
United Kingdom
1 2 3
4.9 5.1 7.0 8.1 58
United States
1
6.5 8.6 13.2 11.6 68
OECD average 5.4 7.3 9.5 11.1 52
EU-15 average 4.3 5.2 7.7 8.1 56
EU-27 average 4.5 6.9 9.0 10.5 51
EURO area average 4.6 6.4 8.5 10.1 50
BR(I)C average 13.6 13.6 14.2 8.3 45

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

66
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
67
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE J - EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Early stage Early stage Early stage Household Household Household
entrepreneurial entrepreneurial entrepreneurial income in income in Income in
activity by adults activity by adults activity by lowest third middle third highest third
in employment not working students/retired of population of population of population
Percentage in Percentage in Percentage in Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
adult population adult population adult population all early stage all early stage all early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Australia
1
12.3 3.2 0.8 12 38 50
Belgium
1 2 3 4
5.9 1.4 1.1 20 35 46
Brazil
5
23.3 1.9 1.0 25 33 41
Chile
1
28.7 6.9 4.2 23 29 48
China
5
29.3 6.8 3.2 29 30 42
Czech Republic
1 3
9.6 5.6 0.9 13 30 57
Denmark
1 2 3
5.7 2.1 0.3 34 23 42
Finland
1 2 3 4
7.6 0.6 0.7 18 36 45
France
1 2 3 4
7.1 2.8 1.5 36 26 38
Germany
1 2 3 4
5.8 4.1 3.0 28 29 44
Greece
1 2 3 4
n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0
Hungary
1 3
8.1 6.2 1.6 23 28 49
Ireland
1 2 3 4
9.1 4.2 1.8 27 33 39
Japan
1
6.5 2.3 1.7 34 28 38
Korea
1
n/a n/a n/a 38 24 38
Latvia
3
12.7 3.9 3.2 14 29 57
Lithuania
3
13.7 3.6 2.2 24 23 53
Mexico
1
14.2 3.0 1.3 29 37 34
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
9.6 1.5 0.6 17 28 55
Norway
1
7.8 4.4 1.2 26 25 49
Poland
1 3
11.7 3.5 0.9 18 28 54
Portugal
1 2 3 4
9.5 3.4 1.1 20 31 48
Romania
3
13.4 4.5 1.7 12 29 59
Russia
5
5.8 3.3 1.0 13 17 70
Slovakia
1 3 4
17.2 7.1 1.6 17 30 52
Slovenia
1 3 4
5.2 2.7 0.8 22 20 58
Spain
1 2 3 4
8.1 3.4 0.7 21 28 51
Sweden
1 2 3
6.7 0.8 0.6 15 32 52
Switzerland
1
8.4 0.9 0.5 23 29 48
Turkey
1
19.8 2.9 1.3 13 28 59
United Kingdom
1 2 3
8.6 5.9 1.0 33 28 38
United States
1
14.8 3.8 2.0 29 31 40
OECD average 10.3 3.4 1.3 24 29 47
EU-15 average 7.6 2.7 1.1 25 30 45
EU-27 average 9.2 3.5 1.3 22 29 49
EURO area average 8.5 3.1 1.3 23 30 48
BR(I)C average 19.5 4.0 1.8 22 27 51

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

66
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
67
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

K

-

A
G
E

O
F

E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
E
D

O
W
N
E
R
S

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
S

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

a
g
e
d

1
8
-
2
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

2
5
-
3
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

3
5
-
4
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

4
5
-
5
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

5
5
-
6
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

1
8
-
2
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

2
5
-
3
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

3
5
-
4
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

4
5
-
5
4
y
r
s

a
g
e
d

5
5
-
6
4
y
r
s

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

a
l
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

a
l
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

a
l
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

a
l
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

a
l
l

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

t
h
i
s

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

t
h
i
s

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

t
h
i
s

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

t
h
i
s

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

t
h
i
s

a
g
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

0
.
7

6
.
4

1
1
.
0

1
3
.
4

1
2
.
2

1

1
6

2
7

3
2

2
4
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

2
.
7

3
.
8

8
.
8

1
0
.
4

6
.
0

5

1
2

3
1

3
6

1
7
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

2
.
1

1
1
.
0

1
4
.
2

2
1
.
7

1
9
.
8

4

2
4

2
7

2
8

1
6
C
h
i
l
e
1

0
.
9

2
.
2

8
.
6

1
4
.
2

1
2
.
7

2

8

3
2

3
6

2
2
C
h
i
n
a
5

2
.
6

1
0
.
0

1
7
.
0

1
6
.
4

1
3
.
2

3

1
8

3
7

2
7

1
4
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

0
.
5

3
.
9

5
.
6

9
.
2

5
.
6

1

1
8

2
4

3
5

2
2
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

n
/
a

3
.
0

4
.
6

8
.
1

7
.
0

n
/
a

1
2

2
1

3
7

2
9
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

0
.
9

4
.
2

1
2
.
0

1
2
.
8

1
1
.
0

1

1
0

2
7

3
3

2
9
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

n
/
a

1
.
2

4
.
2

3
.
0

2
.
6

n
/
a

1
0

4
1

2
8

2
1
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

0
.
4

3
.
3

8
.
2

6
.
0

7
.
9

1

1
1

3
6

2
6

2
6
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

3
.
8

1
6
.
9

1
9
.
8

2
4
.
2

1
0
.
6

4

2
6

2
8

3
0

1
2
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

n
/
a

1
.
0

2
.
6

3
.
5

2
.
6

n
/
a

1
1

2
6

4
1

2
2
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

n
/
a

6
.
8

9
.
5

1
1
.
7

1
2
.
0

n
/
a

2
2

2
7

2
8

2
2
J
a
p
a
n
1

n
/
a

2
.
7

7
.
7

1
0
.
7

1
5
.
9

n
/
a

7

2
2

2
6

4
6
K
o
r
e
a
1

n
/
a

2
.
8

1
4
.
4

1
7
.
9

1
4
.
8

n
/
a

6

3
4

4
0

2
1
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

0
.
3

4
.
2

8
.
4

8
.
2

6
.
1

1

1
7

3
2

3
2

1
9
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

2
.
0

4
.
0

8
.
1

1
0
.
0

6
.
0

5

1
4

2
8

3
8

1
6
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

0
.
7

1
.
7

4
.
6

6
.
0

3
.
1

5

1
5

3
6

3
4

1
1
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

1
.
7

4
.
4

1
3
.
4

9
.
5

1
0
.
7

3

1
0

3
7

2
6

2
5
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

1
.
0

3
.
4

7
.
2

9
.
5

1
0
.
6

2

1
0

2
6

3
1

3
1
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

0
.
2

4
.
3

7
.
0

7
.
0

5
.
4

1

2
1

2
7

3
0

2
1
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

0
.
4

3
.
8

6
.
9

8
.
8

7
.
7

1

1
6

2
8

3
2

2
2
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

1
.
4

5
.
0

4
.
1

5
.
6

6
.
7

5

2
8

1
7

2
6

2
3
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

0
.
8

2
.
2

4
.
7

4
.
2

1
.
6

5

1
8

3
3

3
5

9
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

1
.
9

6
.
8

1
2
.
9

1
5
.
3

1
0
.
0

3

1
8

2
7

3
5

1
8
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

0
.
3

3
.
2

6
.
8

7
.
8

3
.
7

1

1
5

3
2

3
7

1
6
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

1
.
0

4
.
3

1
0
.
7

1
3
.
3

1
1
.
8

1

1
2

3
1

3
3

2
2
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

1
.
2

4
.
2

5
.
5

1
0
.
7

1
1
.
8

2

1
2

1
8

3
2

3
5
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

0
.
4

3
.
5

1
0
.
0

1
8
.
0

1
7
.
0

0

8

2
5

3
8

2
8
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

3
.
3

8
.
5

1
1
.
2

8
.
2

6
.
7

7

3
1

3
3

1
9

9
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

0
.
4

3
.
2

6
.
3

1
1
.
2

1
3
.
8

1

9

2
0

3
4

3
6
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

0
.
7

4
.
7

9
.
7

1
2
.
4

1
6
.
0

1

1
1

2
3

3
2

3
3
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
.
2

4
.
4

8
.
8

1
0
.
9

9
.
6

2

1
4

2
8

3
2

2
4
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
.
4

4
.
9

9
.
1

1
0
.
8

9
.
4

2

1
3

2
9

3
1

2
5
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
.
2

4
.
6

8
.
3

9
.
8

7
.
9

2

1
5

2
8

3
2

2
3
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
.
5

5
.
3

1
0
.
3

1
1
.
2

8
.
5

2

1
5

3
1

3
1

2
1
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
.
9

7
.
7

1
2
.
0

1
4
.
1

1
1
.
5

4

2
0

3
2

3
0

1
3

1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

68
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
69
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

L

-

E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N

L
E
V
E
L

A
N
D

H
O
U
S
E
H
O
L
D

I
N
C
O
M
E

O
F

E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
E
D

O
W
N
E
R

M
A
N
A
G
E
R
S

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n
c
o
m
e

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n
c
o
m
e

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d

i
n
c
o
m
e

w
i
t
h

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
o
m
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

w
i
t
h

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

w
i
t
h

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

w
i
t
h

i
n

l
o
w
e
s
t

t
h
i
r
d

i
n

m
i
d
d
l
e

t
h
i
r
d

i
n

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

t
h
i
r
d

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l

a
s

p
o
s
t
-
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

o
f

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

q
u
a
l
i
?
c
a
t
i
o
n

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

q
u
a
l
i
?
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

q
u
a
l
i
?
c
a
t
i
o
n

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

q
u
a
l
i
?
c
a
t
i
o
n

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

A
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

a
d
u
l
t
s

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

i
n

t
h
i
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

i
n

t
h
i
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

i
n

t
h
i
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

i
n

t
h
i
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

9
.
4

7
.
0

1
0
.
0

8
.
0

6

3
4

6
0
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

3
.
5

6
.
4

6
.
5

5
.
8

1
5

2
6

5
8
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

7
.
2

1
1
.
1

1
3
.
1

1
6
.
3

1
6

3
9

4
5
C
h
i
l
e
1

4
.
5

5
.
6

7
.
6

1
5
.
6

1
1

2
9

6
0
C
h
i
n
a
5

1
7
.
8

1
3
.
0

7
.
2

5
.
3

3
2

2
7

4
1
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

4
.
3

4
.
8

7
.
0

9
.
5

2
0

2
2

5
8
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

4
.
6

3
.
1

4
.
4

8
.
0

1
6

3
0

5
4
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

7
.
8

8
.
7

8
.
7

8
.
2

1
1

3
9

5
0
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

4
.
8

1
.
1

3
.
2

7
.
4

2
3

2
9

4
8
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

4
.
5

4
.
3

7
.
8

n
/
a

1
8

2
4

5
8
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
3
.
4

1
5
.
5

1
6
.
9

1
0
.
7

n
/
a

n
/
a

n
/
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

n
/
a

1
.
8

2
.
0

4
.
8

1
4

3
1

5
5
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

1
1
.
9

6
.
6

7
.
8

6
.
4

1
6

3
3

5
1
J
a
p
a
n
1

6
.
8

7
.
3

8
.
7

3
.
9

3
3

3
3

3
4
K
o
r
e
a
1

7
.
7

1
1
.
4

9
.
0

7
.
9

2
8

3
0

4
1
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

2
.
0

4
.
7

8
.
4

7
.
0

1
7

3
2

5
1
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

1
.
4

1
.
8

7
.
8

n
/
a

1
9

2
6

5
5
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

3
.
8

1
.
6

2
.
0

0
.
8

1
7

4
2

4
1
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

n
/
a

8
.
2

1
0
.
5

n
/
a

1
9

2
7

5
4
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

n
/
a

6
.
9

4
.
8

9
.
2

1
7

2
6

5
7
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

3
.
2

5
.
7

4
.
9

7
.
5

1
9

3
4

4
6
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

5
.
5

1
.
2

7
.
1

n
/
a

1
2

3
0

5
8
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

0
.
5

4
.
8

5
.
3

7
.
9

1
5

2
3

6
2
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

0
.
8

1
.
9

2
.
4

4
.
7

9

2
2

6
9
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

7
.
4

1
2
.
6

1
1
.
3

1
7
.
0

1
5

2
5

6
0
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

4
.
8

4
.
0

6
.
1

n
/
a

1
5

2
3

6
2
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

9
.
8

9
.
5

7
.
2

9
.
0

1
8

2
7

5
5
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

n
/
a

5
.
9

7
.
7

8
.
7

2
1

3
6

4
3
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

6
.
6

8
.
9

1
3
.
2

8
.
3

2
3

3
6

4
1
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

9
.
3

8
.
2

7
.
7

9
.
2

1
1

2
3

6
6
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

4
.
2

4
.
0

7
.
8

5
.
4

2
1

2
6

5
3
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

4
.
4

5
.
1

9
.
0

1
2
.
1

1
5

2
7

5
8
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6
.
5

6
.
4

7
.
7

8
.
3

1
7

3
0

5
3
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

7
.
0

6
.
2

8
.
0

7
.
7

1
7

3
0

5
3
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5
.
5

5
.
7

7
.
4

8
.
2

1
7

2
9

5
4
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

7
.
3

7
.
1

8
.
5

9
.
2

1
6

2
8

5
5
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

8
.
6

8
.
7

7
.
6

8
.
7

1
9

2
9

5
2
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

68
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
69
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE M - ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS

New Entrepreneurs Established
Owner-managers
Nascent New-?rm TEA Established
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs owner-managers
Expected number Number of Number of expected Number of
of owners owners or actual owners owners
Australia
1
2.2 2.1 2.2 1.6
Belgium
1 2 3 4
1.7 2.2 1.9 1.8
Brazil
5
1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3
Chile
1
1.9 2.0 2.0 1.8
China
5
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4
Czech Republic
1 3
1.8 1.8 1.7 n/a
Denmark
1 2 3
2.1 1.5 1.9 1.6
Finland
1 2 3 4
2.3 1.7 2.0 1.7
France
1 2 3 4
2.2 2.0 2.1 2.1
Germany
1 2 3 4
1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8
Greece
1 2 3 4
1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5
Hungary
1 3
2.0 2.2 2.1 2.0
Ireland
1 2 3 4
2.2 1.8 2.0 1.6
Japan
1
2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9
Korea
1
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.1
Latvia
3
2.1 1.9 2.0 1.7
Lithuania
3
1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9
Mexico
1
1.6 1.4 1.5 1.2
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
1.8 1.4 1.6 1.7
Norway
1
2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2
Poland
1 3
1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5
Portugal
1 2 3 4
2.2 1.8 2.1 1.7
Romania
3
1.9 2.3 2.1 1.6
Russia
5
1.6 1.4 1.5 1.2
Slovakia
1 3 4
1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6
Slovenia
1 3 4
1.8 1.3 1.6 1.6
Spain
1 2 3 4
2.0 1.6 1.8 2.3
Sweden
1 2 3
1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0
Switzerland
1
n/a n/a n/a 1.4
Turkey
1
2.0 1.9 1.9 1.4
United Kingdom
1 2 3
1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9
United States
1
3.4 1.8 2.9 3.1
OECD average 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.5
EU-15 average 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.8
EU-27 average 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.7
EURO area average 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8
BR(I)C average 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

70
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
71
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE N - SECTOR OF ACTIVITY OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Extractive Transformative Business Consumer Active in
sectors
6
sectors
7
service service

high or medium
sectors
8
sectors
9
technology
sectors
Percentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all
early stage early stage early stage early stage early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Australia
1
6 29 31 34 11.1
Belgium
1 2 3 4
2 22 30 45 4.6
Brazil
5
2 29 12 57 1.4
Chile
1
3 19 18 60 6.0
China
5
6 16 8 70 2.9
Czech Republic
1 3
5 34 23 38 5.8
Denmark
1 2 3
3 16 33 48 11.3
Finland
1 2 3 4
10 23 31 36 6.3
France
1 2 3 4
1 23 37 40 18.2
Germany
1 2 3 4
3 27 25 45 12.6
Greece
1 2 3 4
3 28 21 49 9.0
Hungary
1 3
9 36 23 33 9.7
Ireland
1 2 3 4
7 23 34 36 11.0
Japan
1
3 15 29 53 5.4
Korea
1
2 20 17 60 1.5
Latvia
3
13 29 21 36 5.5
Lithuania
3
6 36 24 34 4.2
Mexico
1
0 21 7 71 3.0
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
3 18 34 45 4.7
Norway
1
9 24 31 37 5.8
Poland
1 3
4 47 21 28 6.2
Portugal
1 2 3 4
2 29 25 43 6.1
Romania
3
16 26 25 32 5.1
Russia
5
4 33 9 53 2.0
Slovakia
1 3 4
1 36 20 43 3.1
Slovenia
1 3 4
2 24 34 40 12.3
Spain
1 2 3 4
5 18 23 53 6.5
Sweden
1 2 3
4 19 38 39 6.2
Switzerland
1
5 19 29 47 3.8
Turkey
1
4 28 14 54 2.9
United Kingdom
1 2 3
3 17 43 37 10.2
United States
1
4 22 31 43 6.5
OECD average 4 25 27 45 7.3
EU-15 average 4 22 31 43 8.9
EU-27 average 5 27 28 40 7.9
EURO area average 4 25 29 43 8.6
BR(I)C average 4 26 10 60 2.1

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)
6 Includes forestry, ?shing, mining, quarrying.
7 Includes construction, manufacturing, transport, wholesale, utilities.
8 Includes ?nance, insurance, real estate, all business services.
9 Includes retail, motor, lodgings, restaurants, personal ervices, health, education, recreation.

70
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
71
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

O

-

I
N
N
O
V
A
T
I
V
E
N
E
S
S

O
F

E
A
R
L
Y

S
T
A
G
E

E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
/
s
e
r
v
i
c
e

N
e
w

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

h
a
s

N
e
w

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

h
a
s

N
e
w

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

h
a
s

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

u
s
e
s

t
h
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

u
s
e
s

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

u
s
e
s

i
s

n
e
w

t
o

a
l
l

i
s

n
e
w

t
o

s
o
m
e

i
s

n
e
w

t
o

n
o

n
o

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s

f
e
w

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s

m
a
n
y

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s

v
e
r
y

l
a
t
e
s
t

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

n
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s

(
l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

1

y
e
a
r
)

(
1
-
5

y
e
a
r
s
)

(
5
+

y
e
a
r
s
)

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

1
1

3
0

5
9

1
2

4
8

4
0

6

2
6

6
8
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

1
6

1
8

6
6

3

4
8

4
9

1
5

2
0

6
4
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

6

5

8
9

6

3
1

6
3

4

8

8
8
C
h
i
l
e
1

4
8

4
2

1
0

1
1

5
1

3
9

1
6

2
7

5
6
C
h
i
n
a
5

1
1

4
9

4
0

2

1
8

8
0

7

2
2

7
0
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

1
6

4
3

4
1

5

3
8

5
6

1
8

2
9

5
3
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

2
5

4
1

3
3

1
6

5
2

3
2

8

1
6

7
6
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

1
3

3
1

5
6

6

3
5

5
9

1
0

2
1

6
9
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
1

4
3

4
7

6

4
4

5
0

1
0

3
0

6
0
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

9

2
5

6
6

4

4
1

5
5

6

1
4

7
9
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

1
5

2
8

5
7

6

3
8

5
5

1
7

2
4

5
9
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

9

3
8

5
3

1
4

4
2

4
4

8

1
6

7
6
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

1
6

3
4

5
1

1
2

4
7

4
0

6

2
2

7
1
J
a
p
a
n
1

7

2
9

6
4

6

2
7

6
7

9

1
9

7
3
K
o
r
e
a
1

1
1

3
6

5
3

6

1
9

7
5

3

1
8

7
9
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

1
2

4
0

4
8

6

4
3

5
1

6

2
2

7
2
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

1
5

2
2

6
3

1
3

3
3

5
4

1
1

2
3

6
6
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

1
0

3
4

5
7

5

3
8

5
7

5

8

8
7
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

2
4

2
8

4
8

1
4

3
7

4
9

1
1

1
9

7
0
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

4

3
1

6
5

1
3

3
6

5
1

9

1
7

7
4
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

2
2

5
2

2
5

6

3
8

5
6

4

2
0

7
6
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
1

2

3

4

9

2
3

6
8

1
4

3
2

5
3

1
1

2
2

6
7
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

9

3
4

5
7

1
6

4
0

4
4

1
8

3
1

5
2
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

1
2

1
7

7
1

6

3
0

6
4

3

1
1

8
6
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

1
3

3
0

5
8

8

3
2

6
0

2
3

2
0

5
7
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

1
0

4
1

4
9

8

3
8

5
5

6

2
2

7
2
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

1
6

1
9

6
4

1
6

3
6

4
8

1
5

1
9

6
7
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

7

3
4

5
9

1
5

3
3

5
2

6

1
3

8
1
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

1
5

3
0

5
5

9

4
8

4
3

3

1
8

7
9
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

3
9

2
9

3
2

1
5

2
5

6
0

1
0

1
9

7
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

1
5

3
6

4
8

1
3

5
5

3
3

6

2
3

7
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

1
7

2
8

5
5

1
6

4
5

3
9

9

2
1

7
0
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
6

3
3

5
2

1
0

3
9

5
1

1
0

2
0

7
0
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
5

3
0

5
5

1
1

4
2

4
8

1
0

2
0

7
0
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
4

3
3

5
3

1
0

4
0

5
0

1
1

2
1

6
8
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
4

2
9

5
7

9

3
9

5
2

1
2

2
1

6
7
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
0

2
4

6
6

5

2
6

6
9

5

1
4

8
1

1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

72
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
73
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE P - INTERNATIONAL ORIENTATION OF EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

More than 50% More than 50% No customers 1-25% 26-75% 76%-100%
of customers of customers outside country customers customers customers
outside country outside country outside country outside country outside country
Percentage in Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
adult population all early stage all early stage all early stage all early stage all early stage
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Australia
1
1.3 12 23 62 8 7
Belgium
1 2 3 4
1.5 26 20 43 21 16
Brazil
5
0.0 0 94 6 0 0
Chile
1
1.7 7 38 48 10 4
China
5
0.2 1 87 12 1 1
Czech Republic
1 3
0.8 10 11 69 11 8
Denmark
1 2 3
0.9 19 55 23 10 12
Finland
1 2 3 4
0.5 8 63 25 8 4
France
1 2 3 4
0.6 11 43 42 9 7
Germany
1 2 3 4
0.5 9 38 43 15 4
Greece
1 2 3 4
0.8 10 45 39 10 6
Hungary
1 3
1.0 16 39 32 19 10
Ireland
1 2 3 4
1.3 18 40 37 13 10
Japan
1
0.4 7 53 36 9 2
Korea
1
1.0 13 51 31 10 8
Latvia
3
2.2 18 30 40 20 10
Lithuania
3
1.6 14 33 44 14 9
Mexico
1
0.0 0 78 21 1 0
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
0.6 8 47 40 7 6
Norway
1
0.6 9 58 28 8 5
Poland
1 3
1.0 12 21 62 13 4
Portugal
1 2 3 4
1.0 13 24 57 9 11
Romania
3
2.6 26 25 36 26 13
Russia
5
0.1 3 91 5 3 1
Slovakia
1 3 4
2.0 14 30 52 11 8
Slovenia
1 3 4
0.5 14 31 47 14 8
Spain
1 2 3 4
0.2 4 77 16 4 4
Sweden
1 2 3
0.7 11 36 48 10 5
Switzerland
1
0.8 11 32 43 20 5
Turkey
1
0.6 5 55 36 7 3
United Kingdom
1 2 3
1.1 16 40 34 15 11
United States1 1.0 8 23 63 8 5
OECD average 0.9 11 41 41 11 7
EU-15 average 0.8 13 44 37 11 8
EU-27 average 1.1 14 37 41 13 8
EURO area average 0.9 12 41 40 11 8
BR(I)C average 0.1 1 90 8 1 1

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

72
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
73
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

Q

-

G
R
O
W
T
H

A
S
P
I
R
A
T
I
O
N
S

O
F

E
A
R
L
Y

S
T
A
G
E

E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S

A
n
y

j
o
b
s

n
o
w

o
r

a
n
y

j
o
b
s

E
x
p
e
c
t

2
0

o
r

m
o
r
e

j
o
b
s

A
n
y

j
o
b
s

n
o
w

o
r

a
n
y

j
o
b
s

E
x
p
e
c
t

5

o
r

m
o
r
e

j
o
b
s

E
x
p
e
c
t

1
0

o
r

m
o
r
e

j
o
b
s

E
x
p
e
c
t

2
0

o
r

m
o
r
e

j
o
b
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

i
n

?
v
e

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

5

y
e
a
r
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

i
n

?
v
e

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

5

y
e
a
r
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

5

y
e
a
r
s

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

i
n

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

e
a
r
l
y

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s

s
t
a
g
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

8
.
9

1
.
8

8
5

4
0

2
7

1
7
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

4
.
1

0
.
3

7
2

1
6

7

6
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

8
.
8

0
.
5

5
9

1
4

7

4
C
h
i
l
e
1

2
0
.
2

3
.
6

8
5

4
0

2
7

1
5
C
h
i
n
a
5

2
3
.
0

5
.
2

9
6

4
4

2
7

2
2
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

5
.
4

1
.
5

7
0

3
9

2
8

2
0
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

3
.
3

0
.
7

7
1

2
4

2
1

1
5
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

3
.
9

0
.
5

6
3

1
8

1
1

8
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

4
.
4

0
.
7

7
7

3
2

2
1

1
2
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

3
.
9

0
.
5

7
0

2
2

1
5

8
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

5
.
7

0
.
3

7
2

1
5

6

4
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

5
.
0

1
.
0

7
9

3
8

3
1

1
6
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

5
.
2

1
.
5

7
1

4
0

2
9

2
0
J
a
p
a
n
1

3
.
8

0
.
8

7
2

2
5

2
1

1
5
K
o
r
e
a
1

6
.
5

0
.
7

8
3

2
3

1
2

9
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

9
.
5

2
.
2

8
0

4
7

3
3

1
9
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

9
.
4

1
.
7

8
4

3
7

2
8

1
5
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

6
.
9

0
.
2

7
2

2
1

8

2
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

6
.
1

1
.
0

7
5

2
2

1
5

1
2
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

5
.
1

0
.
4

7
3

2
2

1
1

6
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

7
.
2

1
.
7

7
9

4
3

3
0

1
9
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

5
.
2

0
.
8

6
9

2
0

1
3

1
1
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

8
.
5

2
.
0

8
6

4
5

3
5

2
0
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

3
.
5

0
.
6

7
6

3
4

2
1

1
2
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

1
1
.
6

1
.
9

8
2

3
1

2
1

1
4
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

3
.
0

0
.
3

8
1

4
4

2
3

8
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

4
.
0

0
.
3

7
0

2
1

1
1

5
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

4
.
3

0
.
4

7
4

2
6

1
2

7
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

4
.
5

0
.
2

6
8

1
6

1
0

4
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

9
.
8

2
.
6

8
3

4
4

3
1

2
2
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

4
.
5

0
.
6

6
2

2
7

1
3

9
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

9
.
8

2
.
1

8
0

3
2

2
5

1
7
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

6
.
2

1
.
0

7
5

2
9

1
8

1
2
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

4
.
6

0
.
6

7
0

2
4

1
5

1
0
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5
.
7

1
.
0

7
4

3
0

2
0

1
2
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5
.
2

0
.
7

7
3

2
6

1
6

1
0
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

1
1
.
8

2
.
1

7
7

3
1

1
8

1
2
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O

2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)
3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

74
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
75
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE R - INFORMAL INVESTORS: RATES AND AMOUNTS

Informal Total invested in
investors
6
past 3 years
Percentage in EURO
adult population E
Australia
1
3.8 36,000
Belgium
1 2 3 4
3.8 38,000
Brazil
5
2.4 200
Chile
1
16.1 8,000
China
5
9.2 12,000
Czech Republic
1 3
6.8 12,000
Denmark
1 2 3
3.2 45,000
Finland
1 2 3 4
4.4 14,000
France
1 2 3 4
4.6 21,000
Germany
1 2 3 4
3.2 28,000
Greece
1 2 3 4
3.7 47,000
Hungary
1 3
4.7 3,000
Ireland
1 2 3 4
3.2 26,000
Japan
1
1.2 21,000
Korea
1
3.1 200
Latvia
3
7.1 6,000
Lithuania
3
6.1 10,000
Mexico
1
5.6 2,000
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
3.6 33,000
Norway
1
4.9 71,000
Poland
1 3
3.1 18,000
Portugal
1 2 3 4
2.2 26,000
Romania
3
6.3 13,000
Russia
5
1.4 4,000
Slovakia
1 3 4
7.8 42,000
Slovenia
1 3 4
3.4 22,000
Spain
1 2 3 4
3.6 23,000
Sweden
1 2 3
8.7 16,000
Switzerland
1
4.8 42,000
Turkey
1
5.1 16,000
United Kingdom
1 2 3
2.5 16,000
United States
1
4.8 24,000
OECD average 4.7 33,000
EU-15 average 3.9 28,000
EU-27 average 4.6 23,000
EURO area average 4.0 29,000
BR(I)C average 4.4 6,000

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)
6 Provided funds for a new business in the past three year

74
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
75
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE S - INTRAPRENEURSHIP

Irish Adults Employed Irish Adults
Active as an Currently Active as an Currently
intrapreneur active as an intrapreneur active as an
in past 3 years intrapreneur in past 3 years intrapreneur
Percentage in Percentage in Percentage of Percentage of
adult population adult population employed population employed population
Australia
1
6.2 5.0 9.0 7.3
Belgium
1 2 3 4
9.4 8.6 13.5 12.3
Brazil
5
1.0 0.8 3.1 2.6
Chile
1
3.5 2.6 12.9 9.8
China
5
2.1 1.7 4.8 4.0
Czech Republic
1 3
3.8 3.2 6.3 5.2
Denmark
1 2 3
15.1 9.2 20.7 12.6
Finland
1 2 3 4
9.4 8.0 13.4 11.4
France
1 2 3 4
4.7 3.9 7.5 6.1
Germany
1 2 3 4
4.8 3.5 7.6 5.5
Greece
1 2 3 4
1.6 1.3 4.9 3.8
Hungary
1 3
3.9 2.6 7.8 5.2
Ireland
1 2 3 4
5.9 4.6 10.4 8.1
Japan
1
3.4 3.1 5.6 5.2
Korea
1
2.6 2.4 6.7 6.1
Latvia
3
3.0 2.2 5.0 3.6
Lithuania
3
4.9 3.4 8.1 5.6
Mexico
1
0.9 0.8 2.3 2.0
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
7.8 5.6 11.0 7.9
Norway
1
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Poland
1 3
2.8 2.3 5.7 4.7
Portugal
1 2 3 4
4.0 2.6 6.0 3.9
Romania
3
3.9 3.0 7.6 5.8
Russia
5
0.6 0.4 1.0 0.7
Slovakia
1 3 4
3.4 2.7 6.5 5.2
Slovenia
1 3 4
5.1 4.1 9.3 7.4
Spain
1 2 3 4
2.7 2.5 6.0 5.5
Sweden
1 2 3
16.2 13.5 22.2 18.4
Switzerland
1
4.6 3.3 7.2 5.1
Turkey
1
0.7 0.6 2.1 1.8
United Kingdom
1 2 3
5.2 4.3 8.1 6.6
United States
1
6.6 5.2 10.5 8.4
OECD average 5.4 4.2 8.9 7.0
EU-15 average 7.2 5.6 10.9 8.5
EU-27 average 5.9 4.5 9.4 7.2
EURO area average 5.4 4.3 8.7 7.0
BR(I)C average 1.2 1.0 3.0 2.4

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

76
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
77
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE T - GENDER: EARLY STAGE ENTREPRENEURS

Men early stage Women early stage Men : Women
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Percentage in male Percentage in female Rate as
adult population adult population a ratio
Australia
1
12.6 8.4 1.5 : 1
Belgium
1 2 3 4
6.9 4.5 1.5 : 1
Brazil
5
15.3 14.5 1.1 : 1
Chile
1
26.3 21.0 1.2 : 1
China
5
25.7 22.4 1.1 : 1
Czech Republic
1 3
11.0 4.2 2.6 : 1
Denmark
1 2 3
6.3 2.9 2.2 : 1
Finland
1 2 3 4
8.1 4.3 1.9 : 1
France
1 2 3 4
8.6 3.0 2.9 : 1
Germany
1 2 3 4
6.7 4.5 1.5 : 1
Greece
1 2 3 4
10.1 5.8 1.7 : 1
Hungary
1 3
8.3 4.4 1.9 : 1
Ireland
1 2 3 4
10.3 4.2 2.5 : 1
Japan
1
7.2 3.2 2.3 : 1
Korea
1
11.7 3.8 3.1 : 1
Latvia
3
15.7 8.3 1.9 : 1
Lithuania
3
15.6 7.2 2.2 : 1
Mexico
1
10.9 8.5 1.3 : 1
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
10.4 6.0 1.7 : 1
Norway
1
9.6 4.2 2.3 : 1
Poland
1 3
13.1 5.1 2.6 : 1
Portugal
1 2 3 4
10.5 4.7 2.2 : 1
Romania
3
12.5 7.3 1.7 : 1
Russia5 5.1 4.1 1.3 : 1
Slovakia
1 3 4
20.3 8.1 2.5 : 1
Slovenia
1 3 4
4.6 2.7 1.7 : 1
Spain
1 2 3 4
7.1 4.5 1.6 : 1
Sweden
1 2 3
7.1 4.5 1.6 : 1
Switzerland
1
6.6 6.6 1 : 1
Turkey
1
16.5 7.2 2.3 : 1
United Kingdom
1 2 3
9.3 5.2 1.8 : 1
United States
1
14.3 10.4 1.4 : 1
OECD average 10.5 5.8 1.8 : 1
EU-15 average 8.4 4.5 1.9 : 1
EU-27 average 10.1 5.1 2 : 1
EURO area average 9.4 4.8 2 : 1
BR(I)C average 15.4 13.6 1.1 : 1

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

76
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
77
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
TABLE U - GENDER: ESTABLISHED OWNER MANAGERS

Men established Women established Men : Women
entrepreneurs entrepreneurs
Percentage in male Percentage in female Rate as
adult population adult population a ratio
Australia
1
12.3 5.8 2.1 : 1
Belgium
1 2 3 4
9.4 4.1 2.3 : 1
Brazil
5
14.0 10.6 1.3 : 1
Chile
1
9.4 4.7 2 : 1
China
5
15.1 10.2 1.5 : 1
Czech Republic
1 3
8.2 2.2 3.8 : 1
Denmark
1 2 3
7.5 2.3 3.2 : 1
Finland
1 2 3 4
11.5 6.1 1.9 : 1
France
1 2 3 4
3.3 1.5 2.1 : 1
Germany
1 2 3 4
8.3 2.9 2.8 : 1
Greece
1 2 3 4
21.8 9.7 2.2 : 1
Hungary
1 3
2.7 1.3 2 : 1
Ireland
1 2 3 4
10.9 5.0 2.2 : 1
Japan
1
12.8 3.8 3.3 : 1
Korea
1
15.9 5.7 2.8 : 1
Latvia
3
7.9 3.6 2.2 : 1
Lithuania
3
8.9 4.0 2.2 : 1
Mexico
1
3.2 2.9 1.1 : 1
Netherlands
1 2 3 4
11.6 5.7 2 : 1
Norway
1
9.9 3.3 3 : 1
Poland
1 3
7.1 2.9 2.4 : 1
Portugal
1 2 3 4
7.7 3.8 2 : 1
Romania
3
6.3 2.9 2.2 : 1
Russia
5
3.1 2.7 1.2 : 1
Slovakia
1 3 4
13.7 5.6 2.4 : 1
Slovenia
1 3 4
6.5 2.9 2.2 : 1
Spain
1 2 3 4
12.5 5.2 2.4 : 1
Sweden
1 2 3
8.7 5.3 1.6 : 1
Switzerland
1
11.6 8.7 1.3 : 1
Turkey
1
12.7 3.2 4 : 1
United Kingdom
1 2 3
9.6 4.7 2 : 1
United States
1
11.3 6.8 1.7 : 1
OECD average 10.0 4.5 2.2 : 1
EU-15 average 10.2 4.7 2.2 : 1
EU-27 average 9.2 4.1 2.3 : 1
EURO area average 10.7 4.8 2.2 : 1
BR(I)C average 10.7 7.8 1.4 : 1

1 Member of OECD
2 Member of European Union - EU 15
3 Member of European Union - EU 27
4 Member of EURO
5 Brazil Russia China (‘BR(I)C’ country)

78
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
79
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
T
A
B
L
E

V

-

G
E
N
D
E
R
:

P
E
R
S
O
N
A
L

C
O
N
T
E
X
T

K
n
o
w

a

r
e
c
e
n
t

K
n
o
w

a

r
e
c
e
n
t

O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

S
k
i
l
l
s

&

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

S
k
i
l
l
s

&

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

F
e
a
r

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
e
a
r

o
f

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
6

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

a
r
e
a
7

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

a
r
e
a

t
o

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

t
o

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

s
t
a
r
t
-
u
p

M
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

W
o
m
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

M
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

W
o
m
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

M
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

W
o
m
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

M
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

W
o
m
e
n

a
s

a

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
l
l

m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

w
o
m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

w
o
m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

w
o
m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
l

w
o
m
e
n

i
n

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
1

3
3

2
6

5
1

4
5

5
9

3
5

3
9

4
9
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
1

2

3

4

3
2

1
9

5
0

3
4

5
5

3
3

3
7

4
7
B
r
a
z
i
l
5

4
6

3
3

4
8

3
9

6
0

4
6

3
3

3
8
C
h
i
l
e
1

4
1

3
4

6
0

5
3

6
8

5
6

2
6

3
5
C
h
i
n
a
5

6
8

6
8

5
0

4
8

4
8

3
9

3
4

3
5
C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
1

3

2
8

2
0

2
8

2
0

4
8

3
0

3
4

4
6
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
1

2

3

3
4

3
0

4
9

4
4

4
5

2
4

3
9

4
5
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

4
8

4
3

6
1

6
1

4
4

3
0

3
1

4
0
F
r
a
n
c
e
1

2

3

4

5
1

3
6

4
0

3
0

4
8

2
9

3
7

5
1
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
1

2

3

4

2
8

2
3

4
1

2
9

4
4

3
0

4
5

5
5
G
r
e
e
c
e
1

2

3

4

3
4

2
8

1
1

1
1

5
6

4
3

6
5

7
0
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
1

3

3
2

2
5

1
5

1
3

5
1

2
9

4
0

4
9
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
1

2

3

4

4
5

3
4

2
8

2
3

5
5

3
6

3
7

4
6
J
a
p
a
n
1

2
0

1
0

7

6

2
1

7

4
7

4
7
K
o
r
e
a
1

3
1

2
1

1
4

8

3
4

1
9

3
9

4
1
L
a
t
v
i
a
3

3
2

2
6

2
5

2
3

5
3

4
0

3
8

5
1
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
3

3
1

2
6

2
7

2
0

4
5

2
6

4
0

5
6
M
e
x
i
c
o
1

4
7

4
7

4
3

4
4

6
3

5
9

3
1

3
5
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
1

2

3

4

3
9

2
8

5
1

4
4

5
3

3
1

3
3

4
1
N
o
r
w
a
y
1

4
5

3
3

7
1

6
3

4
2

2
4

3
6

4
1
P
o
l
a
n
d
1

3

4
6

3
2

3
5

3
1

6
4

4
0

4
7

6
1
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
1

2

3

4

2
8

2
1

2
0

1
4

5
5

3
9

4
6

5
3
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
3

3
5

2
4

3
7

3
5

4
9

3
4

3
7

4
8
R
u
s
s
i
a
5

4
0

3
6

2
7

2
7

3
8

2
9

4
2

5
1
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
1

3

4

5
1

4
6

2
4

2
3

6
3

4
3

3
8

5
1
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
1

3

4

4
1

3
3

2
1

1
5

5
9

4
3

3
5

4
4
S
p
a
i
n
1

2

3

4

3
2

2
6

1
6

1
3

5
7

4
5

5
0

5
4
S
w
e
d
e
n
1

2

3

4
4

3
9

7
5

6
8

5
0

3
1

3
7

3
7
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
1

3
1

2
4

4
7

4
8

4
8

3
6

3
1

4
0
T
u
r
k
e
y
1

3
2

1
8

3
8

2
7

5
4

3
0

2
3

3
0
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
1

2

3

3
5

2
8

3
7

3
0

5
2

3
3

4
3

4
9
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
1

2
9

2
5

3
8

3
4

6
4

4
7

3
6

3
9
O
E
C
D

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

3
7

2
9

3
7

3
2

5
2

3
5

3
8

4
6
E
U
-
1
5

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

3
8

3
0

4
0

3
3

5
1

3
4

4
2

4
9
E
U
-
2
7

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

3
7

2
9

3
5

2
9

5
2

3
4

4
0

5
0
E
U
R
O

a
r
e
a

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

3
9

3
1

3
3

2
7

5
3

3
7

4
1

5
0
B
R
(
I
)
C

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

5
1

4
5

4
2

3
8

4
9

3
8

3
6

4
1
1

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

O
E
C
D

5

B
r
a
z
i
l

R
u
s
s
i
a

C
h
i
n
a

(
‘
B
R
(
I
)
C
’

c
o
u
n
t
r
y
)
2

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

1
5

6

K
n
o
w
s

s
o
m
e
o
n
e

w
h
o

h
a
s

s
t
a
r
t
e
d

a

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
e

p
a
s
t

2

y
e
a
r
s

3

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

U
n
i
o
n

-

E
U

2
7

7

O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
r
t

a

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

i
n

t
h
e

n
e
x
t

s
i
x

m
o
n
t
h
s

(
J
u
l
y

2
0
1
1
-
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
1
)
4

M
e
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
U
R
O
78
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
79
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
The GEM study includes a wider group of countries than those referenced in this report. GEM groups the
participating countries into three levels: factor driven, ef?ciency driven and innovation driven. These are
based on World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report, which identi?es three phases
of economic growth based on GDP per capita and the share of exports comprising primary goods.
The table below provides an overview of the results of the GEM 2011 research cycle which was
carried out through surveying 140,000 individuals across the 54 countries involved, spanning diverse
geographies and a range of development levels.

APPENDIX 1:
GLOBAL RESULTS
Nascent New ?rm Early stage Established
entrepreneurship ownership entrepreneurial business
rate rate activity (TEA) ownership rate
Factor-driven economies
Algeria 5.3 4.0 9.3 3.1
Bangladesh 7.1 7.1 12.8 11.6
Guatemala 11.8 9.1 19.3 2.5
Iran 10.8 3.9 14.5 11.2
Jamaica 9.0 5.0 13.7 5.1
Pakistan 7.5 1.7 9.1 4.1
Venezuela 13.1 2.6 15.4 1.6
average (unweighted) 9.2 4.8 13.4 5.6
Ef?ciency-driven economies
Argentina 11.8 9.2 20.8 11.8
Barbados 10.8 1.8 12.6 4.2
Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.4 2.8 8.1 5.0
Brazil 4.1 11.0 14.9 12.2
Chile 14.6 9.6 23.7 7.0
China 10.1 14.2 24.0 12.7
Colombia 15.2 6.7 21.4 7.5
Croatia 5.3 2.1 7.3 4.2
Hungary 4.8 1.6 6.3 2.0
Latvia 6.8 5.3 11.9 5.7
Lithuania 6.4 5.0 11.3 6.3
Malaysia 2.5 2.5 4.9 5.2
Mexico 5.7 4.0 9.6 3.0
Panama 12.0 9.1 20.8 6.0
Peru 17.9 5.4 22.9 5.7
Poland 6.0 3.1 9.0 5.0
Romania 5.6 4.5 9.9 4.6
Russia 2.4 2.3 4.6 2.8
Slovakia 9.2 5.3 14.2 9.6
South Africa 5.2 4.0 9.1 2.3
Thailand 8.3 12.2 19.5 30.1
Trinidad & Tobago 13.9 9.3 22.7 6.9
Turkey 6.3 6.0 11.9 8.0
Uruguay 11.0 6.0 16.7 5.9
average (unweighted) 8.4 5.9 14.1 7.2
continued over
80
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
PB
E
N
T
R
E
P
R
E
N
E
U
R
S
H
I
P

I
N

I
R
E
L
A
N
D

2
0
1
1
Nascent New ?rm Early stage Established
entrepreneurship ownership entrepreneurial business
rate rate activity (TEA) ownership rate
Innovation-driven economies
Australia 6.0 4.7 10.5 9.1
Belgium 2.7 3.0 5.7 6.8
Czech Republic 5.1 2.7 7.6 5.2
Denmark 3.1 1.6 4.6 4.9
Finland 3.0 3.3 6.3 8.8
France 4.1 1.7 5.7 2.4
Germany 3.4 2.4 5.6 5.6
Greece 4.4 3.7 8.0 15.8
Ireland 4.3 3.1 7.2 8.0
Japan 3.3 2.0 5.2 8.3
Korea 2.9 5.1 7.8 10.9
Netherlands 4.3 4.1 8.2 8.7
Norway 3.7 3.3 6.9 6.6
Portugal 4.6 3.0 7.5 5.7
Singapore 3.8 2.8 6.6 3.3
Slovenia 1.9 1.7 3.7 4.8
Spain 3.3 2.5 5.8 8.9
Sweden 3.5 2.3 5.8 7.0
Switzerland 3.7 2.9 6.6 10.1
Taiwan 3.6 4.4 7.9 6.3
United Arab Emirates 3.7 2.6 6.2 2.7
United Kingdom 4.7 2.6 7.3 7.2
United States 8.3 4.3 12.3 9.1
average (unweighted) 4.0 3.0 6.9 7.2

doc_125305383.pdf