Description
On this brief illustration in regard to global entrepreneurship monitor 2013 report on switzerland.
Global
Entrepreneurship
Monitor
2013
— Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Acknowledgments
For a study of this scope, an extraordinary contribution on
the part of many individuals is necessary. Most importantly,
the authors would like to thank scientific collaborators,
Pascal Wild and Andrea Huber, who were responsible for
the efficient and effective coordination at the Institute for
Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
The authors are also grateful to the coordination team of
the GEM project, in particular to Chris Aylett, Niels Bosma,
Alicia Corduras, and Yana Litovsky, as well as to the sponsors of the GEM project at Babson College, Babson Park,
MA (USA)?; Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile?;
and University Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia. Some elements
of this report are based on the results of the global report
by José Ernesto Amoros and Niels Bosma (2014) Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 Global Report?: Fifteen
years of assessing entrepreneurship across the globe.
It is available online at www.gemconsortium.org.
All data used in this report are collected and processed
centrally by the GEM consortium. The authors have
exclusive responsibility for evaluation and interpretation
of the data.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
About the Authors
Siegfried Alberton | As Professor of Economics of Innovation, Siegfried Alberton leads the competence center inno3
(innovation, firms and entrepreneurship) at the Department
of Business and Social Sciences of the University of Applied
Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland. He is the scientific contact, responsible for the Master of Science in Business Administration with Major in Innovation Management.
He completed his studies at the University of Fribourg.
His research interests, publications and service activity, cover
the fields of the economics of innovation, entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial dynamics, regional economics,
innovation and entrepreneurship policy, innovation and
entrepreneurship metrics.
Rico J. Baldegger | As Professor of Strategy, Innovation
and Entrepreneurship at the School of Management Fribourg,
Rico J. Baldegger directs the School of Management and
acts as academic coordinator of the Master in Entrepreneurship. He graduated from the University of St Gallen and
obtained his doctorate from the University of Fribourg. He
is the author of numerous publications on entrepreneurship,
internationalization of SMEs, and the reorganization of family businesses. Moreover, he is a serial entrepreneur, as is
demonstrated by the many companies he has created.
Andreas A. Brülhart | Andreas Brülhart teaches undergraduate and graduate students, manages research projects
at HEG Fribourg and is responsible for the applied research
projects of the master program. He has degrees in Business
Administration (Diploma) and in Entrepreneurship (MBA) and
earned his PhD in Economics at the University of Liechtenstein. His research interests are in the areas of opportunity
recognition, entrepreneurship education, and measurement
of entrepreneurship. For more than four years now he has
coordinated collection and analysis of the Swiss GEM data.
Through his involvement in several start-ups, he has gained
significant expertise in entrepreneurship.
Fredrik Hacklin | Fredrik Hacklin is research director and
junior faculty member at ETH Zurich, heading research
activities of the Entrepreneurship group at the Department
of Management, Technology and Economics. Fredrik’s area
of expertise centers around innovation and entrepreneurship
in ICT industries. He has been a visiting professor at Keio
University, Japan, a visiting scholar at Stanford University,
USA, and an associate at Booz & Company. He has published his results in various journals, and is author of the
book “?Management of convergence in innovation?” (Springer
2008). Fredrik holds a PhD in Management from ETH Zurich,
and an MSc in Computer Science from KTH Stockholm.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
I
Management Summary (EN)
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report 2013 on
Switzerland illustrates national differences in entrepreneurial
attitudes, activity, and aspirations between economies,
revealing the factors that determine the nature and level
of national entrepreneurial activity, and identifying policy
implications for enhancing entrepreneurship in Switzerland.
The GEM data complement already existing indicators
of competitiveness and innovation.
In the 2013 census, perceived opportunities to start a
business were higher in Switzerland than in previous
years. Switzerland ranks above the average of innovationbased countries. What is particularly noticeable is the
fact that Fear of Failure has clearly lessened in the past
few years, and in 2013 was even lower than in the USA.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Please see glossary for definitions and references
**Average Innovation-driven Economies
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
II
Entrepreneurial Profile
Switzerland shows a higher potential in 2013 with regard
to creating new jobs via young companies (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA). On the other hand, a clear orientation
on (combined product-market) innovation and orientation
to international markets is clear. In these areas, Switzerland
ranks 13th and 5th respectively, which, in the long term,
reaps positive results?: it is known that product innovation
and a company`s orientation to international markets are
closely related to an increase in global demand. This, in
turn, creates new jobs and economic growth.
With the exception of 2010, the entrepreneurial activity rate
(TEA) fluctuated between six and eight percent. Although
the quantitative aspect of entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
is of great interest to policy makers, more attention should
be paid to its quality (low vs high job expectations) and to
the entrepreneurial behavior of employees. Swiss parameters
related to entrepreneurial employee activity are below
average compared with other innovation-driven economies.
In contrast, Switzerland enjoys one of the best positions
in terms of women`s entrepreneurial activity
rates (TEA) (a practically equal woman-to-man ratio).
In 2013, like in the previous year, Switzerland ranked
in first place of all innovation-based economies.
The age structure of entrepreneurial activity in Switzerland
is noteworthy. Entrepreneurial activity among the young
in Switzerland (18-24) is the lowest of all comparable
countries, whereas the 35-44 age group shows the highest
entrepreneurial activity. Data collected for the first time on
entrepreneurship and well-being shows that entrepreneurs
in Switzerland rate their level of subjective well-being
distinctively high when compared to entrepreneurs in
other innovation-driven countries. An interesting finding
is that Switzerland also holds the highest satisfaction
rates among the groups who have been involved in entrepreneurial activities (both early stage and established
business owners)?; however, what is more impressive is
Switzerland’s distinct position when compared to similar
economies such as Norway, Netherlands and Singapore.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
III
Development of Entrepreneurial Activity
in Switzerland (TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
The overall entrepreneurial framework conditions in
Switzerland — along with those in Singapore — are generally
better than those of other innovation-based economies
included in the study. Switzerland achieves outstanding
results in finance, commercial infrastructure, tertiary
education, and knowledge and technology transfer, as
well as in stable internal market dynamics.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Management Summary (DE)
IV
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
Die Hochschule für Wirtschaft (HSW) Freiburg hat in
Zusammenarbeit mit der ETH Zürich und dem SUPSI
Manno in der Schweiz auch 2013 die Datenerhebung für
den internationalen Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
durchgeführt. Mittels 2000 Telefon- und 36 Experteninterviews wurden die unternehmerischen Einstellungen,
Aktivitäten und Ambitionen ermittelt sowie Einflussfaktoren
erhoben, welche Art und Ausmass der unternehmerischen
Tätigkeiten bestimmen.
Der Länderbericht Schweiz des Global Entrepreneurship
Monitors 2013 dokumentiert nationale Unterschiede
bezüglich unternehmerischer Einstellungen, Aktivitäten
und Ambitionen. Im Weiteren werden die Einflussfaktoren
erhoben, die unternehmerische Tätigkeiten eines Landes
beschreiben. Zudem kann dank des GEM das politische
Engagement für Unternehmertum analysiert werden.
Die GEM-Daten ergänzen bereits bestehende Daten in
den Bereichen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Innovation.
In der Erhebung von 2013 wurden in der Schweiz mehr
Möglichkeiten zur Unternehmensgründung wahrgenommen
als in den Jahren zuvor. Die Schweiz liegt mit der Gründungsrate über dem Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten
Länder. Auffallend ist, dass die Angst vor Scheitern in den
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
35.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
* Für Definitionen und Quellenangaben siehe Glossar
** Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften
letzten Jahren eindeutig gesunken ist und 2013 tiefer ausfällt als in
den USA. Die Schweiz nimmt mit den USA sogar die Spitzenposition
aller innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften ein.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
V
Unternehmerisches Profil
Die Schweiz zeigte 2013 ein grösseres Potential bezüglich
der erwarteten Schaffung neuer Arbeitsstellen durch
Jungunternehmen (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA).
Im Weiteren ist eine Konzentration auf (kombinierte ProduktMarkt-) Innovationen und auf eine internationale Ausrichtung
unbestritten. In diesen Bereichen belegt die Schweiz Platz
dreizehn resp. fünf, was langfristig einen positiven Effekt
hat?: Es ist bekannt, dass Produktinnovationen und die
internationale Ausrichtung von Unternehmen eng mit der
globalen Nachfragesteigerung gekoppelt sind. Diese
generiert wiederum wirtschaftliches Wachstum sowie
neue Arbeitsstellen.
Abgesehen vom Jahr 2010 bewegte sich die Quote der
Gründungsaktivität (TEA) jeweils zwischen sechs und
acht Prozent. Interessiert der quantitative Aspekt vor allem
politische Entscheidungsträger, sollte den qualitativen
Aspekten (bspw. tiefe vs. hohe Joberwartungen) sowie
dem unternehmerischen Verhalten nichtsdestoweniger
vermehrt Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden. Die Schweizer
Ergebnisse im Bereich unternehmerischer Mitarbeiteraktivität
liegen unter dem Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten
Volkswirtschaften. Hingegen rangiert die Schweiz auf einer
der besten Positionen, wenn es um Gründungsaktivität
(TEA) von Frauen geht (praktisch ausgeglichene Frau-
Mann-Ratio). 2013 hielt die Schweiz diesbezüglich sogar
die Spitzenposition aller innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften inne.
Beachtenswert ist in der Schweiz u. a. die Altersstruktur
der Gründungsaktivität. Bei den Jüngeren (18-24 Jahre)
ist die tiefste Gründungsaktivität aller vergleichbaren
Länder feststellbar, hingegen weist die Altersklasse der
35-44-jährigen Personen die höchste Gründungsaktivität
auf. Die zum ersten Mal erhobenen Zahlen bezüglich
Wohlergehen und unternehmerisches Verhalten verdeutlichen, dass Unternehmer in der Schweiz das subjektiv
empfundene Wohlergehen auf einen sehr hohen Level
setzen. Interessant ist zu vermerken, dass der höchste
Befriedigungsgrad für Jungunternehmer wie auch etablierte
Unternehmer zu verzeichnen ist. Die Unterschiede sind
markant auch im Vergleich zu Unternehmern aus Ländern
wie Norwegen, Niederlande und Singapur.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VI
Entwicklung der Gründungsaktivität in der Schweiz
(TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
Die generellen Rahmenbedingungen der Schweiz und
Singapurs sind im Allgemeinen besser als diejenigen
der anderen innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften,
die sich an der Studie beteiligt haben. Die Schweiz erreicht
überragende Ergebnisse in den Bereichen Finanzen,
wirtschaftliche Infrastruktur, tertiäre Ausbildung, Wissensund Technologietransfer sowie in der Stabilität der
inländischen Marktdynamik.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VII
Management Summary (FR)
En Suisse, la Haute école de gestion Fribourg (HEG) a mené
l’enquête 2013 pour l’international Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) en collaboration avec l’ETH Zürich et le
SUPSI Manno. Environ 2’000 entretiens téléphoniques et
interviews d’experts ont été effectués pour identifier les
attitudes, les activités et les aspirations entrepreneuriales,
ainsi que les facteurs de succès déterminant la forme et
l’ampleur de l’entrepreneuriat.
Le rapport du Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 pour
la Suisse illustre les différences entre les économies dans
les attitudes, l’activité et les aspirations entrepreneuriales.
Il relève les facteurs déterminant la nature et le niveau de
l’activité entrepreneuriale nationale et identifie les implications
politiques liées à l’encouragement de l’entrepreneuriat en
Suisse. Les données du GEM complètent les indicateurs
de compétitivité et d’innovation.
Dans l’enquête 2013, les opportunités perçues pour créer
une entreprise se révèlent plus élevées par rapport aux
dernières années. En Suisse, le taux de création se situe
en-dessus de la moyenne des pays basés sur l’innovation.
Ces dernières années, il est intéressant de constater que
la crainte de l’échec a chuté pour se situer à un niveau
aussi bas que celui des Etats-Unis. Avec ce dernier pays,
la Suisse se situe donc à la pointe de toutes les économies
basées sur l’innovation.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Voir le glossaire pour les définitions et sources des indicateurs
** La moyenne des économies basées sur l‘innovation
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VIII
Profil Entrepreneurial
Pour 2013, la Suisse présente un grand potentiel par
rapport à la création d’emplois attendus par le biais de
nouvelles entreprises (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA).
De plus, une concentration sur les innovations (combinaisons
produit-marché) et sur une orientation internationale est
incontestée. Dans ce domaine, la Suisse occupe le 13ème
rang, respectivement le 5ème rang. Cette position représente
un effet positif à long terme. Il est connu, que les innovations
au niveau produit et l’orientation internationale sont étroitement liées à la croissance de la demande globale. Cette
dernière génère, à son tour, une croissance économique
ainsi que de nouveaux emplois.
A l’exception des résultats de l’enquête menée en 2010,
le taux de TEA suisse fluctue généralement entre 6 et 8
pour cent. Bien que l’aspect quantitatif de l’activité entrepreneuriale (TEA) soit d’un grand intérêt pour les décideurs
politiques, une plus grande attention devrait être portée
aux aspects qualitatifs (attentes faibles versus élevées en
matière d’emploi) et au comportement entrepreneurial.
Les résultats suisses liés à l’activité entrepreneuriale des
employés se situent en dessous de la moyenne des pays
basés sur l’innovation. Par contre, la Suisse jouit de l’une
des meilleures positions relative à l’entrepreneuriat féminin
(dans le sens du rapport hommes-femmes pondéré).
En 2013, la Suisse occupait même la première place de
toutes les économies basées sur l’innovation.
La structure des âges relative à la création d’entreprise
en Suisse présente la particularité suivante?: les jeunes
entrepreneurs (18-24 ans) affichent le plus faible taux de
création d’entreprise par rapport aux pays comparables,
alors que la classe d’âge des 35-44 ans présente le taux
le plus élevé de création d’entreprise. Pour la première
fois, les chiffres recueillis concernant le bien-être et le
comportement entrepreneurial explicitent, que les entrepreneurs suisses situent le niveau de bien-être ressenti à
un niveau très élevé. Il est intéressant de remarquer, que
le plus haut niveau de satisfaction est recensé auprès des
jeunes entrepreneurs, mais aussi auprès des entrepreneurs
établis. Les différences sont également marquantes en
comparant les entrepreneurs des pays, comme la Norvège,
les Pays-Bas et Singapour.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
IX
Evolution de l’Activité Entrepreneuriale Nouvelle
(TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
Les conditions-cadres globales du réseau entrepreneurial
en Suisse – comme celles de Singapour – se développent
généralement mieux que celles des autres économies
basées sur l’innovation incluses dans cette étude.
La Suisse atteint d’excellents résultats dans les domaines
de la finance, de l’infrastructure économique, de la formation
tertiaire ainsi que du transfert de connaissances et technologique, tout en affichant des dynamiques de marché
interne stables.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
X
Management Summary (IT)
Il rapporto per la Svizzera del GEM 2013 (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) mostra notevoli differenze per quanto
concerne gli atteggiamenti, le attività e le aspirazioni
imprenditoriali dei diversi paesi che partecipano al rilevamento. Come ogni anno, sono stati rilevati ed analizzati
anche per il 2013 i fattori che influenzano e determinano
la natura e la dimensione delle attività imprenditoriali
in Svizzera, come pure l’impegno politico a sostegno e
promozione dello spirito imprenditoriale. Questi dati completano gli indicatori internazionali già esistenti in materia
di competitività e d’innovazione.
Il rapporto mostra come in Svizzera nel 2013, rispetto agli
anni precedenti, siano state percepite maggiori opportunità
per avviare una nuova attività. La Svizzera si situa al di
sopra della media dei paesi basati sull’innovazione. Colpisce
il fatto che, negli ultimi anni, la paura del fallimento sia
chiaramente diminuita, tanto che nel 2013 si attesta un
livello persino più basso di quello rilevato negli Stati Uniti.
Nel confronto internazionale, la Svizzera si colloca, con
gli Stati Uniti, al primo posto fra tutte le economie basate
sull’innovazione.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Per le definizioni e le fonti si veda il Glossario
**Media dell’economie guidate dall’innovazione
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
XI
Profilo Imprenditoriale
La Svizzera, almeno nel breve periodo, non mostra un
grande potenziale per la creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro
nelle nuove imprese (Tasso di attività imprenditoriale, TEA).
Questa mancanza di potenziale, ad eccezione degli Stati
Uniti, vale anche per le economie degli altri paesi del gruppo
di confronto della Svizzera. Ciononostante, si denota per
il nostro paese un chiaro orientamento all’innovazione
(nella combinazione prodotto mercato) e all’internazionalizzazione. Su queste dimensioni, la Svizzera si situa al
ottavo posto, rispettivamente al sesto. In termini di effetti
sul lungo termine questo posizionamento è sicuramente
di buon auspicio. È noto, infatti, che l’innovazione di prodotto
e l’internazionalizzazione delle imprese sono strettamente
connesse con l’aumento della domanda globale, con la
creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro e, quindi, con la crescita
economica.
Ad eccezione del 2010, il tasso di attività imprenditoriale
(TEA) in Svizzera si è mosso tra il sei e l’otto per cento.
Anche se i decisori politici guardano soprattutto gli aspetti
quantitativi del fenomeno, particolarmente interessanti e
degni di nota sono pure gli elementi qualitativi del fenomeno,
segnatamente, per esempio, le aspettative, più o meno
elevate, in termini di creazione di posti di lavoro, oppure
le attitudini ed i comportamenti imprenditoriali.
I risultati per la Svizzera riguardanti le attività imprenditoriali dei collaboratori (la cosiddetta intraprenditorialità)
sono al di sotto della media delle economie basate, come
il nostro paese, sull’innovazione. Tuttavia, la Svizzera gode
di una delle migliori posizioni per quanto concerne il tasso
d’attività imprenditoriale (TEA) delle donne che, nel 2012,
ha ormai raggiunto un rapporto d’equilibrio (praticamente
1?:1) con gli uomini, posizionando la Svizzera al primo
posto tra tutte le economie basate sull’innovazione.
Degna di nota, inoltre, per la Svizzera, è pure la struttura
per età dell’attività imprenditoriale. Tra i giovani (18-24
anni), si constata il tasso più basso tra tutti i paesi comparabili con il nostro. Al contrario, la fascia di età compresa
tra i 35 e i 44 anni presenta, nel confronto, una più alta
attività imprenditoriale. I dati raccolti per la prima volta su
imprenditorialità e benessere mostrano che gli imprenditori
in Svizzera valutano il loro livello di benessere soggettivo
in modo relativamente alto se comparato agli altri imprenditori nei paesi basati sull’innovazione. E ‘interessante
notare che la Svizzera detiene i tassi di soddisfazione più
alti tra i giovani imprenditori, come pure tra gli imprenditori
affermati. Le differenze sono sorprendenti anche rispetto
a paesi simili economicamente, come la Norvegia, i Paesi
Bassi e Singapore.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
XII
Andamento del Tasso di Attività Imprenditoriale
Early-Stage (TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
In Svizzera, così come a Singapore, le condizioni quadro
sono generalmente migliori rispetto a quelle degli altri
paesi orientati all’innovazione che hanno partecipato allo
studio. La Svizzera ha raggiunto ottimi risultati nei campi
della finanza, delle infrastrutture economiche, nel trasferimento delle conoscenze e delle tecnologie, nonché nel
campo della stabilità delle dinamiche interne del mercato.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction
1.1 The GEM Project
1.2 How GEM Measures Entrepreneurship
1.3 The GEM Conceptual Framework and
Methodology
1
1
2
3
4 I nstitutional Context
(Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions)
26
5 F
ifteen Years of GEM – Indicators and
Trends for Switzerland
32
2 T
he Phases and Profiles of
Entrepreneurship
2.1 Entrepreneurial Attitudes
2.2 Entrepreneurial Activities
2.2.1 Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
2.2.2 Motivations to Start a Business
2.2.3 Established Business Ownership
2.2.4 Discontinuance
2.2.5 Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship
6
6 Entrepreneurship and Well-Being
6.1 GEM 2013 Highlights on Switzerland
40
42
Literature
50
3 Impact
– Growth, Innovation,
and Internationalization
3.1 Growth Orientation
3.2 Innovative Orientation
3.3 International Orientation
19
7
9
10
10
12
13
14
16
20
22
24
Glossary 53
Country List
57
Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEDI)
and Switzerland
58
List of Experts
63
GEM Team Switzerland
65
Copyright 2013 - R. Baldegger, S. Alberton, F. Hacklin, A. Brülhart, A. Huber, O. Saglan and P. Wild
ISBN?: 978-2-940384-26-6
Layout?: By the way studio
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
1
1 Introduction
1.1
The GEM Project
Entrepreneurship has become a term that is increasingly
widespread around the world. According to key players in
society, including policymakers, academics, entrepreneurs
themselves, and the population at large, entrepreneurship
tends to be associated with economic development and
well-being of society. Since its beginning, GEM (Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor) has had as one of its core
principles, the objective to explore and assess the role of
entrepreneurship in national economic growth. This scope
is aligned with the “?Schumpeterian?” view that entrepreneurs
are ambitious and spur innovation, speed up structural
changes in the economy, introduce new competition
and contribute to productivity, job creation and national
competitiveness. However, entrepreneurship has many
faces and also includes initiatives that are accompanied
by less ambitious business activities leading to limited
or no growth. It is important to note that different types
of entrepreneurship may all have important implications
for socio-economic development.
For its 15 years of existence, GEM has measured entrepreneurship in 104 economies, and has gained widespread
recognition as the most authoritative longitudinal study
of entrepreneurship in the world. In 2013, more than 197,000
individuals have been surveyed and approximately 3,800
country experts on entrepreneurship participated in
the study across 70 economies, collectively representing
all regions of the world and a broad range of economic
development levels. The samples in the GEM study
covered an estimated 75% of the world’s population and
90% of the world’s total GDP.
GEM contributes to the understanding of the role played
by new and small businesses in the economy by focusing
on the following objectives?:
• to allow for comparisons with regard to the level and
characteristics of entrepreneurial activity among different
economies?;
• to determine the extent to which entrepreneurial
activity influences economic growth within individual
economies?;
• to identify factors which encourage and/or hinder
entrepreneurial activity?; and
• to guide the formulation of effective and targeted
policies aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship.
GEM provides a comprehensive view of entrepreneurship
across the globe by measuring the attitudes of a population,
and the activities and characteristics of individuals involved
in various phases and types of entrepreneurial activity.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
1.2
2
How GEM Measures Entrepreneurship
Since its beginning, GEM’s focus has been on individuals
as units of observation, men and women who are involved
in different stages of entrepreneurial dynamics.. Entrepreneurship is a process comprising different phases, from
intending to start, to just starting, to running new or
established enterprises and even discontinuing a business.
Given that the context and conditions that affect entrepreneurship in different economies are diverse and complex,
it is not possible to conclude that one phase inevitably
leads to the next. The entrepreneurship process and
GEM’s operational definitions are illustrated in Figure 1.
GEM’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a multiphase
process is useful for assessing the state of entrepreneurship
at different points. This process starts with the involvement
of potential entrepreneurs – those individuals who believe
they possess the capabilities to start businesses, who see
opportunities for entrepreneurship, and who would not
be dissuaded from doing so for fear of failing. For some
potential entrepreneurs, their intentions to start businesses
are underpinned by the perceptions society holds of
entrepreneurs, the status these individuals enjoy in their
society, and whether the media positively represents
entrepreneurs.
The next phase is nascent entrepreneurial activity – i.e.
those starting new enterprises less than three months
old. Given the challenges associated with starting a new
business, many fledgling businesses fail in the first few
months, hence not all nascent entrepreneurs progress to
the next stage. New business owners are defined as those
former nascent entrepreneurs who have been in business
for more than three months, but less than three and a
half years. Nascent and new business owners together
account for the total early-stage entrepreneurial activity
(TEA) in an economy, a key measure of GEM.
Established businesses are those that have been in existence
for more than three and a half years. It is important to
consider both established business owners as well as entrepreneurs who have discontinued or exited businesses
because these two categories represent a key resource
for other entrepreneurs (for example, by providing financing,
mentorship, advice or other types of support). In addition,
former entrepreneurs may reenter entrepreneurship (serving
as serial entrepreneurs) or they may join established
companies and enact their entrepreneurial ambitions as
employees.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3
1.3 The GEM Conceptual Framework and
Methodology
Figure 1?:
The Entrepreneurship Process
Discontinuance
of Business
TOTAL EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA)
Potential
Entrepreneurs:
Opportunities,
Knowledge
and Skills
Nascent Entrepreneur:
Involved in Setting Up
a business
Conception
Owner-Manager of
a new Business
(up to 3.5 years old)
Firm Birth
Persistence
Early-stage Entrepreneurship Profile
Socio-demographics
- Sex
- Age
Industry
- Sector
Owner-Manager
of an Established
Business
(more than
3.5 years old)
Impact
- Business growth
- Innovation
- Internationalization
The current GEM model, shown in Figure 2, sets out key
elements of the relationship between entrepreneurship
and economic growth and the way in which the elements
interact. At the same time, it acknowledges that the
contribution entrepreneurs make to an economy varies
according to that economy`s phase of economic development, which to a certain extent drives the institutional
setting. It also reflects a nuanced distinction between phases
of economic development, in line with Porter’s typology of
“?factor-driven economies?”, “?efficiency-driven economies?”
and “innovation-driven economies” (Porter et al., 2002),
and recognizes that GEM’s unique contribution was to
describe and measure, in detail, the conditions under
which entrepreneurship and innovation can thrive.
The framework incorporates the three main components
that capture the multi-faceted nature of entrepreneurship?:
entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial activity, and entrepreneurial aspirations. These are included as components
of a “?black box?” that produces innovation, economic
growth and job creation, without spelling out in detail how
they affect and reinforce each other. Figure 2 also shows
how GEM measures different components, such as entrepreneurial framework conditions using the national expert
survey, and the entrepreneurship profiles, encompassing
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
4
Figure 2?:
The GEM Conceptual Model
Basic requirements
From other
available
sources
- Institutions
- Infrastructure
- Macroeconomic stability
- Health and primary
education
Etablished Firms
Employee
Entrepreneurial
Activity
From GEM
2011 Adult
Population
Survey (APS)
Efficiency enhancers
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Context
- Higher education &
training
- Goods market efficiency
- Labor market efficiency
- Financial market
sophistication
- Technological readiness
- Market size
Innovation and
entrepreneurship
- Entrepreneurial finance
- Government policy
- Government
entrepreneurship
programs
- Entrepreneurship
education
- R&D transfer
- Internal market openness
- Physical infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Commerical, legal
infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Cultural and social norms
From GEM
National Expert
Surveys (NES)
Entrepreneurship Profile
Attitudes:
Perceived opportunities &
capabilities; Fear of Failure;
Status of entrepreneurship
SocioEconomic
Development
(Jobs,
Innovation,
Social value)
Activity:
Opportunity/Necessity-driven,
Early-stage; Inclusiveness;
Industry; Exits
Aspirations:
Growth, Innovation
International orientation
Social value creation
From GEM
Adult
Population
Survey (APS)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
entrepreneurial attitudes, activity and aspirations using
the adult population survey.
One of the key purposes of GEM is to provide reliable
data on entrepreneurship that will be useful over time
in making meaningful comparisons, both internally and
between economies. For this reason, all participating
economies make use of standard research instruments.
The GEM data is gathered annually and is derived from
two main sources, namely?:
Adult Population Survey (APS)
Each participating economy conducts a survey of a random
representative sample of at least 2,000 adults (aged 18
years old). The surveys are conducted at the same time of
year (generally between April and June), using a standardized
questionnaire developed by the GEM consortium. The raw
data is sent directly to the GEM data team for inspection
and uniform statistical calculations before being made
available to the participating economies.
National Experts Survey (NES)
The NES provides insights into the entrepreneurial startup
environment in each economy with regard to the nine
entrepreneurial framework conditions, namely?:
5
• financing
• governmental policies
• governmental programs
• education and training
• research and development transfer
• commercial infrastructure
• internal market openness
• physical infrastructure
• cultural and social norms
The NES sample comprises a minimum of 36 respondents,
with four experts drawn from each of the entrepreneurial
framework condition categories. Out of this sample, a
minimum of 25% must be entrepreneurs or business owners,
and 50% must be professionals.
Additional aspects such as geographical distribution, gender,
the public versus private sector, and level of experience
are also taken into account in selecting the sample.
In addition to the APS and NES, GEM reports also make
use of standardized national data from international data
sources such as the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund. and the United Nations. This information is used to
add context to the report, and to explain the relationship
between entrepreneurial activity and national economic
growth.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
6
2 The Phases and Profiles of
Entrepreneurship
This section examines the rate of individual participation
in the various phases of entrepreneurship for Switzerland
as compared with other innovation-driven countries.
We discuss potential entrepreneurs, individuals with the
intention of starting businesses, people starting and running
new businesses (early-stage entrepreneurs), those running
established businesses, and the discontinuation of
businesses.
The GEM data collection for Switzerland yields entrepreneurial profiles along three important dimensions.
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions, and intentions
reflect the degree to which individuals tend to appreciate
entrepreneurship, both in terms of general attitudes and
in terms of self-perceptions?: how many individuals recognize
business opportunities, how many believe they have the
skills and knowledge to exploit such opportunities, and
how many would be prevented from exploiting such opportunities due to fear of failure ? Entrepreneurial activity
measures the observed involvement in several phases of
entrepreneurial activity. It also tracks the degree to which
entrepreneurial activities are driven by opportunity and/or
necessity. Moreover, discontinuations of entrepreneurial
activity (and the reasons for doing so) are estimated,
based on the GEM Adult Population Surveys. Finally,
entrepreneurial aspirations are of key importance in
addressing the (socio-) economic impact of entrepreneurial
behavior. Of particular interest are those entrepreneurs
who expect to create jobs, to be involved in international
trade, and/or to contribute to society by offering new
products and services.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Fostering entrepreneurial awareness and positive attitudes
toward entrepreneurship is high on Switzerland’s policy
agenda. The idea is that evolving attitudes and perceptions
toward entrepreneurship could affect those individuals
wishing to venture into entrepreneurship. However, the key
factor that determines whether someone progresses to
entrepreneurship is not the perception of opportunities for
start-ups or of (matching) personal capabilities?: context
also plays a role. Factors such as the availability of (good)
job alternatives in an economy can make a difference
for those who perceive market opportunities and have
confidence in their own entrepreneurial capabilities, and
help to determine whether they engage in independent
entrepreneurial activity or not. So, while in some societies
positive attitudes and perceptions toward entrepreneurship
may be instrumental in achieving new (high-value) entrepreneurial activities, in many others they are certainly not,
on their own, sufficient reason for people to choose to
engage in entrepreneurial activity.
?
Table 1?:
Entrepreneurial Perceptions,
Intentions and Societal Attitudes
in Innovation-Driven Economies, 2013
Belgium
Canada
31.5
57.4
33.8
48.5
46.6
35.2
7.8
13.5
Czech Republic
23.1
42.6
35.8
13.7
Finland
43.8
33.3
36.7
8.3
44.3
85.5
France
22.9
33.2
41.1
12.6
55.3
70.0
41.4
Germany
31.3
37.7
38.6
6.8
49.4
75.2
49.9
Greece
13.5
46.0
49.3
8.8
60.1
65.1
32.4
Ireland
28.3
43.1
40.4
12.6
49.6
81.2
59.9
Israel
46.5
36.2
51.8
24.0
60.6
80.3
49.1
Italy
17.3
29.1
48.6
9.8
65.6
72.4
48.1
7.7
12.9
49.4
4.1
31.3
52.8
57.6
Japan
54.8
60.6
52.2
70.1
Media attention for entrepreneurship +
High Status to successful
entrepreneurs +
Entrepreneurship as a
good career choice +
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
Fear of failure*
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Perceived
capabilities
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
Perceived
opportunities
2.1
7
43.9
69.6
47.8
68.5
Korea
12.7
28.1
42.3
12.1
51.3
67.8
67.6
Luxembourg
45.6
43.3
42.9
14.1
39.4
70.6
36.3
Netherlands
32.7
42.4
36.8
9.1
79.5
66.2
55.2
Norway
63.7
34.2
35.3
5.2
49.3
75.5
56.9
Portugal
20.2
48.7
40.1
13.2
Puerto Rico
28.3
53.0
24.6
13.1
17.9
50.1
68.8
Singapore
22.2
24.8
39.8
15.1
50.9
59.4
75.3
50.5
Slovenia
16.1
51.5
29.6
12.4
57.4
68.1
Spain
16.0
48.4
36.3
8.4
54.3
52.3
45.6
Sweden
64.4
38.8
36.6
9.5
52.0
71.5
58.5
Switzerland
41.5
44.7
28.2
9.8
40.5
65.0
47.8
Taiwan
42.0
27.2
40.7
27.8
73.0
64.5
87.1
Trinidad & Tobago
58.0
75.3
19.8
28.7
79.5
United Kingdom
35.5
43.8
36.4
7.2
54.1
United States
47.2
55.7
31.1
12.2
33.4
40.6
38.2
12.3
average (unweighted)
72.0
79.3
53.5
* fear of failure assessed among those seeing opportunities
** intentions assessed in non-entrepreneur (non-TEA) population
+ These questions were optional and therefore not included by all economies
67.3
61.0
49.6
55.7
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
For example, there may be other excellent options available
to individuals. Bearing this in mind, we can see in Table
1 how Switzerland compares in terms of entrepreneurial
perceptions and attitudes to other innovation-driven economies in general and to the comparison group in particular.
Table 1 reflects the percentage of individuals who believe
there are opportunities to start a business in the area they
live in. Perceived capabilities reflect the percentages of
individuals who believe they have the required skills and
knowledge to start a new business. The measure of fear
of failure (when it comes to starting your own business)
applies to these individuals only. Entrepreneurial intentions
are defined by the percentage of individuals who expect
to start a business within the next three years (those who
are currently already entrepreneurially active are excluded
from this calculation). For all four measures we should
consider that cultural differences and business-cycle
patterns are an important explanation for the differences
in perceptions across countries.
In the 2013 census the perceived opportunities (41.5%)
8
to start a business are higher in Switzerland than in 2012
and higher than the average (33.4%) for innovation-driven
economies. Nordic countries, such as Finland, Sweden,
and Norway, remain at the top when it comes to available
opportunities.
Switzerland shows, as in previous years, a rather high
perception of capabilities paired with a very low fear of
failure. While Switzerland’s perception of capabilities is at
least as good as or even better than the European benchmark,
it still lags behind the United States inhabitants’very strong
belief in their own capacity to start a business. The entrepreneurial intentions of Swiss inhabitants (9.8%) are
higher than in 2012 (7.3%) and under the average (12.3%)
for innovation-driven countries. Most remarkable are the
differences between Switzerland, Singapore, Germany,
and France. While in Germany only 6.8% of the individuals
expect to start a business in the next three years, almost
one-sixth of the individuals in Singapore and 12.6% in
France are thinking about setting up a new business.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
?
Table 2?:
Entrepreneurial Activity
in Innovation-Driven
Economies, 2013
Discontinuation of
businesses
Necessity-driven
(% of TEA)
Improvement-driven
opportunity (% of TEA)
GEM conceptualizes entrepreneurship as a continuous
process that includes nascent entrepreneurs involved in
setting up a business, entrepreneurs who own and manage
a new business, and entrepreneurs who own and manage
an established business. In addition, GEM assesses the
rate and nature of business discontinuations. As a result,
indicators for several phases of the entrepreneurial process
are available. Table 2 shows these entrepreneurial activity
prevalence rates per phase of economic development.
Taken together, these prevalence rates form a first glance
of the entrepreneurial dynamics for each of the economies.
In the remainder of this section, we elaborate on these
phases of entrepreneurial activity. Most attention is paid to
the situation in Switzerland, its development over the last
years, and the comparison with innovation-driven economies.
Established business
ownership rate
3.1
7.8
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
Belgium
Canada
Entrepreneurial Activities
New business
ownership rate
Nascent
entrepreneurship rate
2.2
9
1.9
4.7
4.9
12.2
5.9
8.4
1.9
4.4
29.0
15.1
43.9
66.9
Czech Republic
4.9
2.7
7.3
5.3
3.4
22.7
60.3
Finland
2.7
2.7
5.3
6.6
2.0
17.9
66.0
60.9
France
2.7
1.8
4.6
4.1
1.9
15.7
Germany
3.1
2.0
5.0
5.1
1.5
18.7
55.7
Greece
3.3
2.3
5.5
12.6
5.0
23.5
35.8
Ireland
5.5
3.8
9.2
7.5
2.5
18.0
43.8
Israel
5.3
4.8
10.0
5.9
4.8
17.4
49.2
Italy
2.4
1.1
3.4
3.7
1.9
18.7
18.4
Japan
2.2
1.5
3.7
5.7
1.5
25.0
59.6
Korea
2.7
4.2
6.9
9.0
2.5
36.5
51.1
Luxembourg
6.0
2.8
8.7
2.4
2.8
5.6
56.6
Netherlands
4.7
4.8
9.3
8.7
2.1
8.0
67.1
60.8
Norway
2.9
3.4
6.3
6.2
1.6
4.0
Portugal
4.2
4.2
8.2
7.7
2.8
21.4
50.7
Puerto Rico
6.6
1.8
8.3
2.0
1.8
21.5
42.9
Singapore
6.4
4.4
10.7
4.2
3.3
8.4
68.8
Slovenia
3.6
2.9
6.5
5.7
2.6
24.1
53.4
Spain
3.1
2.2
5.2
8.4
1.9
29.2
33.2
Sweden
5.9
2.5
8.2
6.0
2.4
9.7
58.4
Switzerland
4.5
3.7
8.2
10.0
2.3
7.5
67.2
Taiwan
3.3
5.0
8.2
8.3
5.0
28.7
45.8
Trinidad & Tobago
11.4
8.5
19.5
11.4
4.1
11.2
76.0
United Kingdom
3.6
3.6
7.1
6.6
1.9
16.1
45.2
United States
9.2
3.7
12.7
7.5
3.8
21.2
57.4
average (unweighted)
4.7
3.3
7.9
6.7
2.8
18.3
53.7
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
10
2.2.1 Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
Figure 3?:
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in Innovation-Driven Economies, 2013
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Innovation-Driven Economies
Trinidad & Tobago
United States
Canada
Singapore
Israel
Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
Puerto Rico
Sweden
Portugal
Switzerland
Taiwan
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Korea
Slovenia
Norway
Greece
Finland
Spain
Germany
Belgium
France
Japan
Italy
0%
The Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate is
defined as the prevalence rate of individuals in the workingage population who are actively involved in business start-ups,
either in the phase in advance of the birth of the firm (nascent
entrepreneurs), or the phase spanning 42 months after the
birth of the firm (owner-managers of new firms). As such,
GEM takes the payment of any wages for more than three
months as the “?birth event?” of the firm.
Figure 3 shows the TEA rates for innovation-driven economies. The 95% confidence intervals help to interpret the
differences between countries. They measure the probability that the average value will fall within a certain range.
Although the Swiss TEA rate tends to be higher than in
neighboring countries such as France or Germany, adopting
the 95% certainty, TEA rates of these countries are not
statistically different from their Swiss counterpart. Among
the comparison group, only the United States (12.7%)
and Singapore (10.7%) differ considerably. After the 2010
cycle, which was strongly influenced by the aftermath of
the financial crisis, many Swiss entrepreneurship activity
indicators for 2011 and 2012 turned upward again, with the
total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) being one of them. After
the all-time low of a Swiss TEA rate in 2010 of only 5%,
the most important indicator for entrepreneurial activity
once more reaches a normal level (8.2%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 4?:
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in Switzerland by age, 2009-2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
18-24 Jahre
25-34 Jahre
35-44 Jahre
45-54 Jahre
55-64 Jahre
11
This rebound in entrepreneurial activities in Switzerland
is reflected across most of the different age categories
(Figure 4). When it comes to entrepreneurship, age matters.
On the one hand, young people are often more likely to
have fresh ideas?; they have grown up with digital technologies, and in some societies they have received more
education than their parents. On the other hand, older
people have often accumulated an extensive body of
experience, contacts, and capital over the course of their
careers. This mix of social and financial capital puts this
age group into a particular position.
Entrepreneurial activity among the adult population older
than 35 is high at 10.4%, whereas the TEA rate of younger
Swiss inhabitants still lags considerably behind the 2009
peak. Compared to other innovation-driven countries, the
TEA rate for the 18-24 age group is, at 2.6%, the lowest
and is clearly below average (6.3%) and 10.4% for entrepreneurs between 35-44 years (9.8% innovation-driven
economies). The TEA rate for people older than 55 years
(so-called Senior entrepreneurs) is, at 4.9 %, also above
the average of innovation-driven countries (4.3%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
12
2.2.2 Motivations to Start a Business
The motivations for starting a business differ vastly across
the globe. Individual drivers are traditionally captured within
the GEM framework by setting out necessity-driven entrepreneurship and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship.
A necessity-driven entrepreneur indicates in the GEM Adult
Population Survey that s/he started the business because
there were no better options for work, rather than seeing
Necessity-Driven (% of TEA)
Improvement-Driven opportunity (% of TEA)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
the start-up as an opportunity. For those who did see the
start-up as an opportunity (rather than no other options
for work), a further assessment was made on the nature
of this opportunity. Improvement-driven opportunity (IDO)
entrepreneurs are defined as those opportunity-driven
entrepreneurs who indicate that the opportunity be linked
to either earning more money or being more independent,
as opposed to maintaining income.
As figure 5 and 6 illustrate, entrepreneurs in factor-driven
economies tend to be driven equally by necessity and improvement-driven opportunity (IDO) motives. With greater
economic development levels, necessity gradually falls
off as a motivator, while IDO motives increase. The Swiss
indicator for improvement-driven activities lies slightly
higher than the average for innovation-driven countries
and has remained rather stable over the last three years.
Although the difference in the motivation structure of Swiss
female and male inhabitants is not statistically significant,
one can state that for maintaining income, opportunitydriven entrepreneurship is more strongly represented
among females than among males.
? Figure 5?:
Percentage of Early-Stage Entrepreneurs
0%
Factor-Driven
Economies
Efficiency-Driven
Economies
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Switzerland
(TEA) Motivated by Necessity and
Improvement-Driven, 2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Necessity-driven
13
Improvement-driven opportunity
80%
2.2.3 Established Business Ownership
70%
60%
50%
While it is important to have early-stage entrepreneurs to
generate dynamism in an economy, established businesses
and their owner-managers ensure an important degree of
stability for the private sector. Owner-managers in established
firms provide stable employment, can avail themselves of
the knowledge accumulated in past experiences, and as
such may contribute greatly to their societies – even if they
are small or solo entrepreneurs. A healthy set of business
owners provides some indication of the sustainability of
entrepreneurship in a society.
Together with the TEA, the Swiss rate for established
business is lower in 2012 (Figure 7). It is notable that the
proportion of early entrepreneurial activity and established
business remained almost the same as in 2012 and 2010.
However, in 2007 and 2009 the two rates were much
closer. The distinct prevalence of the established business
rate over the TEA is quite unique within the comparison
group. Switzerland, among other countries with lowerthan-average TEA rates (Sweden, Japan, Finland, and Spain),
shows comparatively high established business ownership.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Factor Driven
Efficency Driven
Innovation Driven
Switzerland
Figure 6?:
Percentage of Entrepreneurs Motivated by Necessity and Opportunity,
by Phase of Economic Development and Switzerland
TEA
Established Businesses
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
?
F
igure 7?:
TEA rates and established business
0%
2003
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
rates from 2003 to 2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
14
2.2.4 Discontinuance
As new businesses emerge, others close. Those individuals
selling or closing their businesses may once again benefit
their societies by re-entering the entrepreneurship process.
Recognizing the importance of this measure, GEM tracks
the number of individuals who have discontinued a business
in the last 12 months. Discontinuance may be considered
along with TEA and established businesses as a component
of entrepreneurial dynamism in an economy. GEM Survey
respondents who had discontinued a business in the
previous 12 months were asked to give the main reason
for doing so.
Financial difficulties and unprofitable businesses are considered “?negative?” reasons for abandoning a business.
In Switzerland, these two reasons account for 18.8% of
business discontinuance. 8.6% of all businesses were
stopped due to financial reasons in Switzerland. Figure 8
shows that the average for innovation-driven countries is
higher and in Finland, Sweden, UK and the USA finances
are less important reasons for stopping a business.
For a substantial portion of entrepreneurs, discontinuance
was already planned in advance (meaning that the business
start-up was merely considered a “?project?”), or resulted
from another job or business opportunity or even from the
opportunity to sell the business. These “?positive?” reasons
for discontinuing businesses explain 40% (compared to
2012?: 20%) of all discontinuations in Switzerland. The opportunity to sell the business as the reason to discontinue
merits attention. In 2013, 14% of businesses that ceased
trading were sold (Figure 8), compared to 9% in 2011 and
12% in 2012. Among innovation-driven economies, Switzerland has the highest number.
Retirement is an issue in innovation-driven economies,
for example, especially in several European countries and
also in Japan — countries that are facing challenges with
their ageing societies. The Swiss data for 2013 reveals that
retirement is the reason why 8.7 % of all businesses were
stopped in the last 12 months. On average one of four
entrepreneurs stopped their business due to personal
reasons. Personal reasons have higher importance in
France (39%) and Norway (41%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 8?:
Reasons for discontinuing a
Business, Selected Countries
and Switzerland, 2013
15
Opportunity to sell
Business not profitable
Problems getting finance
Other job or business opportunity
Exit was planned in advance
Retirement
Personal reasons
Incident
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Innovation-Driven Economies
United States
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Singapore
Norway
Germany
France
Finland
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
16
2.2.5 Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship
Not only do structure and nature of entrepreneurial
activities vary across countries or over time, but gender,
too, plays a determining role in such activities (Acs et al.,
2008). Demographically, Switzerland has an equal proportion of men and women in the 15-64 age groups, which is
also the case in most of the other nations in the world (CIA
World Fact Book, 2013). However, as a global trend, the
number of females engaged in entrepreneurial activity is
in most countries historically lower than for their male
counterparts, which may well be explained by various social,
cultural, or economic factors. In some countries, the number
of males participating in entrepreneurial activities can
be dramatically higher and the male preponderance
is obvious.
There also exist a few “?outlier?” nations where exactly the
opposite scenario can be observed, that is, where female
entrepreneurs outnumber male entrepreneurs?; these include
a few countries in Southeast Asia, Northern Europe and
the USA. In addition to these extreme cases, however,
there are economies where the female and male ratio of
early-stage entrepreneurial activity is balanced. Female
and male numbers that remain in equilibrium may sound
like a desirable scenario since women’s entrepreneurship
brings about additional contributions to economic growth,
such as job creation and the increased GDP that the
global economy urgently needs (OECD Report, 2004).
This category also includes Switzerland, which is very
good news for this innovation-driven economy.
Actually, in terms of early-stage entrepreneurial activity,
Switzerland enjoys the best position (meaning the equalized
female-to-male ratio) when compared with other innovationdriven economies such as those in the Scandinavian
countries or the French, German, Austrian and even U.S.
economies (Figure 9 and 10). In other words, whereas the
female-to-male ratio in Norway is 2?:?5, and in France 1?:?2,
the ratio in Switzerland is 1?:?1.
In 2003 founding activity was still predominantly male, but
this has become increasingly balanced over the last four
years. In 2013 development was stabilised, with efforts
made to set up companies by men and women at almost
the same level. If one analyses female entrepreneurship
in Switzerland, it is striking that the portion of companies
set up out of necessity is significantly lower than in other
countries. This can be interpreted, on one hand, as a sign
of women’s strong position in economic activities combined
with growing self-confidence, and on the other, as an indication of Switzerland’positive overall economic situation.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 9?:
A further reason could lie – according to Eurostat – in the
above-average quota of working women (79.1%) and the
high proportion of part-time work (60%) on an international scale. To maintain or raise the level of entrepreneurial activities carried out by women as far as possible, it is
absolutely crucial to expand social support systems and
force acceptance and promotion of women as entrepreneurs. Efforts of this kind require a change in society, and
therefore much endurance in all respects.
Male and Female Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity 2013, by Country
and Phase of Economic Development
Male
Female
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Switzerland
Italy
Germany
France
United States
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
0.00
Norway
17
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
18
Figure 10?:
Relation Male and Female
Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity 2003 -2013
in Switzerland
Total
Männlich
Weiblich
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
19
3 Impact – Growth, Innovation,
and Internationalization
Ever since Schumpeter’s day (Schumpeter, 1934) scholars
and researchers, and others too, have concurred with the
opinion that entrepreneurs make, in more ways than one,
a significant contribution to economic development.
Entrepreneurial activity, in fact, can boost the welfare
of a nation (or a region) and produce a range of economic
benefits, including?: job creation, greater innovative
capacity, and knowledge spill-over, to mention but a few
(Ács, Autio, & Szerb, 2014). Audretsch (2007) argues that
a region’s welfare depends on its entrepreneurial capital.
However, there is no simple or easy way of measuring
the impacts of a given phenomenon?; and this is mostly
due to the time factor, since any appreciable results may
take long to emerge. Also, the impact indicators tend to
be circumscribed to the economic sphere (Glassey, Leresche,
& Moeschler, 2013). To assess the overall effect of entrepreneurship across an economic system we would need
to extend the current indicators to incorporate further
dimensions. Bear in mind that, besides its economic and
technological components, entrepreneurship is first and
foremost a social process. The present chapter analyses
entrepreneurial aspirations, namely the will of individuals to
achieve the highest possible economic and social value
(Farmer, Yao, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2011). Aspirations refer
to some desire, a yearning, for something that we do not
possess yet. As such, they reflect not only our attitudes,
but also the way we want to see ourselves and, consequently,
they are closely connected with the way we act and behave,
or want to act and behave. The Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) measures the effects of the entrepreneurial
phenomenon based on entrepreneurs’ aspirations, particularly growth expectations (in terms of jobs), innovation
(mostly as applied to products and services and markets)
and, finally, international orientation. These indicators of
entrepreneurial ambition have indeed been convincingly
associated to the economic development of a nation
or region (Bosma & Schutjens, 2011).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.1
20
Growth Orientation
The latest available data on company demographics tell us
that in 2011 over 11,500 firms were created in Switzerland,
generating 20,500 jobs (Swiss Federal Statistical Office,
2011). A dip can be noticed in these figures compared
to the previous year, which was characterised by strong
economic growth. New firms continue nonetheless to
represent a major source of new employment. An average
of two jobs are created during the first year of a firm’s
activity?; after five years the number of new jobs settles
at 3.7 (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2013). In addition,
some enterprises exhibit high growth trajectories, with
annual payroll increasing on average by more than 20%,
and turnover growing exponentially. These firms are often
known as ‘gazelles’ (Birch, 1987). In the international context, Switzerland registers a relatively high rate of gazelles,
approximately 0.5% of all enterprises (OECD, 2012).
Generally speaking, growth aspirations, whether expressed
by payroll figures or by turnover, account for a good deal
of the impact of any entrepreneurial activity. In the survey
entrepreneurs, defined according to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor criteria, were required to indicate their
current number of employees and the number of employees
expected in five years’ time.
Figure 11 illustrates Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA) subdivided by growth expectations reflected
in payroll numbers. The TEA index for Switzerland, at 8.2%
in 2013, is made up of 80% of entrepreneurial activity with
low growth expectations, where permanent staff is anticipated to increase by a maximum of 4 over the next five
years. About 15% represents medium-growth activity (5
- 19 jobs) and the remaining 5.4% is made up of activities
where staff is expected to increase by more than 20, over
10 percentage points less than in the United States and
approximately 8 percentage points lower than the European
Union average. This last figure is influenced mostly by
Eastern-European economies, where activities with high
growth-expectations hit a percentage of over 15% of their
TEA. Even admitting that entrepreneurs with a high growth
potential tend to overestimate the number of jobs they
hope to generate, there is no denying that their activities
will nonetheless influence job creation to a considerable
degree (GEM, 2011).
United States
United Kingdom
Trinidad & Tobago
Taiwan
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
5 - 19 jobs
Slovenia
Singapore
Puerto Rico
Portugal
0 - 5 jobs
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Korea
Japan
Italy
Israel
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
21
Figure 11?:
Job Growth Expectations for Early-Stage
Entrepreneurship Activity
100%
20 or more jobs
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.2
22
Innovative Orientation
Entrepreneurship may be defined as an activity that involves
discovering, assessing, and making the most of opportunities
for launching new goods and services, new productive
processes, new organisation models and new raw materials
by husbanding resources and efforts that had hitherto been
unavailable, or otherwise organised (Shane, 2003). Thus,
the entrepreneurial process is closely associated to the
promotion and launch of some kind of innovation. These innovations need not necessarily be related to Schumpeter’s
concept of creative destruction. They may also be classified
as incremental or as disruptive. Recent data published by
KOF (the Swiss Economic Institute of the Federal Institute
of Technology Zurich) revealed that 40% of Swiss firms
launched one product or process innovation over the 20092011 period (SECO, 2013). This was based on a three-year
study on innovation commissioned by SECO and surveying
6,500 Swiss enterprises. According to the firms that
responded to the survey, the main barriers to innovations
include the high costs of the innovation projects, the long
amortization periods, the risk of imitations and, last but
not least, financial aspects, such as the fact that they do
not have enough of their own money to support innovative
projects. If, on the one hand, well-established, successful
firms are usually rather risk-averse, on the other start-ups in
their early stages have little to lose, inasmuch as they have
no customers yet, no reputation and no turnover. Figure 12
shows the percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs with
a propensity to innovate. Two measurements have been
used?: the percentage of TEA who declare they have
introduced a new product or service for some or all
of their clients, and the percentage of TEA with a market
innovation.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 12?:
Percentage of Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity, new product market combination
% within TEA: new market (few/no businesses offer the same product)
% within TEA: product is new to all or some customers
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
Trinidad & Tobago
Norway
Singapore
Puerto Rico
Korea
Finland
Spain
Japan
Germany
France
Belgium
Average (unweighted)
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Greece
United Kingdom
Italy
Sweden
Portugal
Taiwan
United States
Ireland
Slovenia
Israel
Canada
Luxembourg
0.00%
23
Switzerland’s results appear to be in line with the average
of the European Union countries. With regard to TEA,
the percentage of firms which have launched a product
or service innovation is situated just above 45% (with the
average for EU countries at 46%), respectively just under
47% for firms with a market innovation, which exactly
matches the EU countries` average. Switzerland went up
by some percentage points compared to the previous
year. We infer from the 2012 Activity Report of the Commission for Technology and Innovation that Switzerland is
pursuing a valid innovation programme?: its dual education
system, the close cooperation between public and private,
an attractive working environment, the efficiency of its
labour market, well protected intellectual property rights,
the presence of academic research institutes and of poles
of excellence are but some of the contributing factors underpinning Switzerland’s international ranking for innovation
and competitiveness. Finally, it is worth pointing out that,
for the 2013-2016 period, the Federal government has
pledged investments to promote teaching, research and
innovation, amounting to 26 billion francs, with an average
annual growth of 3.7%.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.3
24
International Orientation
Internationalisation is seen as one of the major drivers of
growth for a company (Sapienza, Autio, George, & Zahra,
2006). These days, large enterprises are not alone in
operating at the global level. Although a considerable
number of small and medium-sized enterprises continue
to be operative on a local, regional or national market,
there is a steadily growing number of micro-firms and
small, dynamic and innovative organisations operating
worldwide or planning to launch an international activity
(Baldegger, 2013). Broadly speaking, entrepreneurs in
economies characterised by small domestic markets tend
to emphasize internationalisation to a greater degree than
economies with big domestic markets, in particular the
BRIC countries and the United States. GEM measures the
extent of internationalisation through the number of clients
outside the country of origin.
Compared to the rest of the world, the International positioning
of Swiss enterprises appears to be medium-high.
The proportion of early-stage entrepreneurs with at least
25% of foreign customers is 28%, more than 5 percentage
points higher compared to the average of the EU countries,
and one of the highest among innovation-driven countries.
Compared with the year before, Switzerland registered
a slight rise, equivalent to 3 percentage points. In most
cases, opening to internationalisation calls for an initial
expansion towards the markets of neighbouring countries,
followed by an interest in the markets of new continents.
Singapore
Luxembourg
Portugal
Belgium
Switzerland
Slovenia
Ireland
Israel
Average EU (unweighted)
Sweden
Taiwan
Average (unweighted)
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Norway
Czech Republic
Germany
Netherlands
Canada
Greece
Korea
United States
Japan
Finland
Puerto Rico
Spain
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
25
Figure 13?:
Percentage of Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity, more than 25% of Customers from Abroad
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
26
4 Institutional Context
(Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions)
Entrepreneurial activity is shaped by a distinct set of factors
called Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions (EFCs). These
EFCs define the climate which defines inputs and outputs
of Entrepreneurship. The GEM model (Figure 2) illustrates
the relevant national conditions that impact on economic
development and activity more generally, and those facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship more specifically in
a society.
The third set of framework conditions is expected to concern
public and policy makers in innovation-driven economies.
The features that are expected to have a significant impact
on the entrepreneurial sector are captured in the nine Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions (EFCs) and are illustrated
and described in Table 3. The National Experts’ Survey
(NES) provides insights into the ways in which these EFCs
either foster or constrain an entrepreneurial climate, activity
and development. In order to assess the Swiss framework
conditions influencing entrepreneurial activity 36 Swiss
experts completed a closed questionnaire on factors relating to our entrepreneurial environment. The responses
are measured on a 5-point Likert scale where a score of
1=completely false and 5=completely true. The statements
are phrased so that a score above 3 would indicate that
the expert regarded the factor as rather positive for entrepreneurship, while a score below 3 would indicate that the
expert regarded the factor as somewhat negative for
entrepreneurship.
Table 4?: displays the assessed values of the nine EFCs in
Switzerland as well as the values of other innovation-driven
countries that serve as a comparison group.
The financial support framework condition describes the
supply and demand of financial resources, especially for
new and expanding businesses. Swiss experts evaluate the
financial environment for entrepreneurship and innovation
positively. This is in line with the results of previous years.
However, the lack of debt finance, venture capital and funding through IPOs for new and growing firms is perceived as
suboptimal. Only Singapore, among the comparison group,
offers a better financial support framework.
The national policy (general policy and regulation) entrepreneurial framework condition relates to the extent to
which government policies, as a whole, influence new and
growing firms. This includes the tax regime, labor market
regulation, social security legislation as well as regulations
and schemes that specifically aim at the small business
sector. Again, this framework requirement is valued positively
in Switzerland and lies clearly above the average of all
innovation-driven economies. However, Swiss experts see
a bigger potential for improvement regarding the administrative processes for the incorporation of an enterprise, i.e.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
27
Table 3?:
The GEM Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions
1. Entrepreneurial Finance. The availability of financial
resources — equity and debt — for small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) (including grants and subsidies).
2. Government Policy. The extent to which public policies
give support to entrepreneurship. This EFC has two
components?:
2a. Entrepreneurship as a relevant economic issue
and
2b. Taxes or regulations are either size-neutral or
encourage new and SMEs.
3. Government Entrepreneurship Programs. The presence
and quality of programs directly assisting SMEs at all
levels of government (national, regional, municipal).
4. Entrepreneurship Education. The extent to which
training in creating or managing SMEs is incorporated
within the education and training system at all levels.
This EFC has two components?:
4a. Entrepreneurship Education at basic school (primary
and secondary) level and,
4b. Entrepreneurship Education at post school levels
(such as vocational, college, business schools).
5. R&D Transfer. The extent to which national research
and development will lead to new commercial opportunities and is available to SMEs.
6. Commercial and Legal Infrastructure. The presence
of property rights, commercial, accounting, and other
legal and assessment services and institutions that
support or promote SMEs.
7. Entry Regulation. Contains two components?:
7a. Market Dynamics?: the level of change in markets
from year to year, and
7b. Market Openness?: the extent to which new firms
are free to enter existing markets.
8. Physical Infrastructure. Ease of access to physical
resources — communication, utilities, transportation,
land or space — at a price that does not discriminate
against SMEs.
9. Cultural and Social Norms. The extent to which social
and cultural norms encourage or allow actions leading
to new business methods or activities that can potentially
increase personal wealth and income.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
reducing the time required to get permits and licenses.
The government programs framework condition relates to
the presence of programs and other initiatives to support
new and growing firms. Experts in Switzerland rate the
presence of programs and other initiatives (science parks,
business incubators, support organizations etc.) to support
new and growing firms throughout positively, i.e. an average
score of 3.5.
The entrepreneurial framework condition education and
training relates to the extent to which entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial qualities receive attention in all phases of
the educational and training system. The variable primary
and secondary education is assessed negatively (below 3)
in Switzerland (2.4). Experts criticize the lack of attention that
is given to creativity, self-sufficiency, and personal initiative,
instruction in market economic principles and entrepre
neurship in primary and secondary education. Again, the
Netherlands (3.1) is the only country with a score above 3
for this item and thus might serve as an example for an
entrepreneurship-friendly primary and secondary education.
On the other hand, Swiss experts estimate that in postsecondary education (colleges, university and professional
education) enough appropriate preparation is provided for
new starting-up and growing firms. 3.4 is the peak value of
the comparison group and virtually identical with the value
of the Netherlands (3.3).
28
The research and development framework condition refers
to the extent to which national research and development
will lead to new commercial opportunities and whether or
not these are available for new, small, and growing firms.
Switzerland has the highest score for that building block
of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The commercial and legal infrastructure framework conditions
relate to the presence of property right, commercial,
accounting, and other legal and assessment services and
institutions that support or promote SMEs. In Switzerland,
this framework requirement has always been assessed
positively. The Swiss value is only topped by the Netherlands.
On the negative side, Swiss experts deplore the high costs
for new and growing firms through the use of subcontractors,
suppliers, and consultants.
Internal market dynamics refers to the level of change in
markets from year to year. The Swiss value for market
dynamics is 2.7, i.e. in the eyes of the experts it tends to be
wrong that both the markets for B2C and for B2B goods
and services change dramatically from year to year. This
component of the EFCs has always been valued negatively
in Switzerland. However a confirmed tendency over the last
5 years towards a more dynamic domestic market can be
observed. Internal market openness relates to the extent
to which new firms are free to enter existing markets and is
valued positively for Switzerland.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Table 4?:
Finance
Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions
in selected innovationdriven countries
29
National Policy - National Policy General Policy
Regulation
Government
Programs
Education?-?Prim.
and Second.
Education Post-School
Belgium
2.6
2.6
2.2
3.3
2.0
3.1
Finland
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.9
France
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.7
Germany
2.8
2.6
2.6
3.4
1.9
2.6
Italy
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.1
1.7
2.6
Netherlands
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.3
Singapore
3.5
3.7
4.1
3.7
2.8
3.2
Sweden
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.3
2.4
Switzerland
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.5
2.4
3.4
United Kingdom
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.6
United States
2.6
2.8
2.2
2.6
2.2
3.1
R&D
Transfer
Commercial
Infrastructure
Physical
Infrastructure
Cultural and
Social Norms
Belgium
2.6
3.3
2.8
2.7
3.7
2.2
Finland
3.0
3.5
2.8
2.9
4.3
2.9
France
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.4
4.2
2.2
Germany
2.8
3.3
3.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
Italy
2.5
3.1
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.1
Netherlands
2.8
3.8
2.9
3.3
4.6
3.1
Singapore
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.4
4.5
3.2
Sweden
2.4
3.0
3.4
2.6
4.2
3.2
Switzerland
3.5
3.6
2.7
3.3
4.7
3.3
United Kingdom
2.5
3.1
2.8
2.7
3.9
3.1
United States
2.4
3.2
3.2
2.9
4.2
3.9
Internal Market – Internal Market –
Dynamics*
Openness
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
30
The EFC physical infrastructure refers to the presence
of and access to available physical resources e.g. communication, utilities, transportation, land or space, at a price
that does not discriminate against new, small or growing
firms. In 2013, Switzerland had again the highest ranking
for physical infrastructure (4.7) of all assessed countries.
The cultural and social norms, which describe the encouraging or restraining environment regarding new business
activities, are positively assessed in Switzerland (3.3).
However, Swiss experts notice that the Swiss culture
doesn’t encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking. This EFC
seems to be significantly better than in the countries of the
comparison group, especially our neighboring countries
(Italy, France and Germany). But it is still considerably lower
than the value of the United States, to which we like to compare.
Figures 3 and 4 show standardized Z-scores for each EFC.
Both illustrations visualize that many EFCs differ by economic
development phase. The clearest differences in the 2013 NES
results are government programs, national policy regulation
and physical infrastructure and R&D transfer. However, some
other EFCs do not present such clear differences?; for
example, cultural and social norms. In addition to that, both
spider charts underline to what extent the Swiss entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived as highly favorable, new
and growing firms.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
31
Figure 14?:
Figure 15?:
Composite indicators on Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions,
Composite indicators on Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions,
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
R&D Transfer
Finance
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
Education —
Post School
0.00
National Policy —
General Policy
Cultural and
Social Norms
-1.00
-1.00
-1.50
-1.50
National Policy —
Regulation
Physical
infrastructure
Internal Market —
Dynamics
Internal Market —
Openness
Government
Programs
Factor-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Commercial & Services
Infrastructure
-0.50
-0.50
Education —
Primary and
Secondary
0.00
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Switzerland
Factor-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
32
5 Fifteen Years of GEM – Indicators and
Trends for Switzerland
In 1997, when the first efforts were made to establish the
GEM Project, entrepreneurship was a topic of growing
interest for scholars from around the world. Many studies
revealed the importance of entrepreneurship for economic
development. On the other hand, the lack of worldwide
comparable data about new venture creation became
apparent. Even though company registers exist in many
countries, the data collection has often not been carried
out systematically and the requirements to be subscribed
to such a register can vary from one country to another
(Reynolds, Storey and Westhead, 1994). The main aim of
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor was therefore to
determine differences in the level of entrepreneurial
activities between economies and to identify the relationship
between entrepreneurship and economic well-being
(Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N., 2014). With the launch of
the first GEM executive report two years later, namely
in 1999, 10 national teams from across the world were
participating. Since its beginning, the GEM is conceived
as a long term project that implies the participation of as
many nations as possible from across the globe in order
to cover all the regions of the world economy. Meanwhile,
the GEM study has gained more and more importance.
The GEM adult population survey database has grown to
nearly two million observations in 104 economies.
The focus of the study developed from an indicator based
view to a more encompassed view on entrepreneurship
(Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N., 2014). In addition to this,
the survey has been enriched through special topics, of
which some new questions have found their way into the
permanent questionnaire.
The first Swiss team, constituted by members of the University of St. Gall, started in 2002 to conduct the national
survey and released a total of four country reports in
the years of 2002, 03, 05 and 07. In 2009 the Institute for
Entrepreneurship from the School of Management in
Fribourg took the lead in the GEM Switzerland Project.
Since then, Switzerland has been participating on an
annual basis and five additional country reports have been
released. Thus, scholars, the media and other interested
parties have been able to get a more and more pronounced
and distinctive idea on entrepreneurial activities and the
entrepreneurial framework conditions in Switzerland.
Thanks to the GEM survey, many particularities have already
been identified for Switzerland?: as one of only a few countries
in the world, Switzerland has, since 2011, a virtually identical
distribution of entrepreneurs among the genders (cf. Box?:
Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship). In addition
to this, the number of entrepreneurs that start with their
activities after the age of 45, so-called “?senior entrepre-
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
neurs?”, a distinctive characteristic of innovation based
economies, is particularly high in Switzerland. Last but not
least, the special topic on immigrant entrepreneurship in
2012 revealed that in our country, immigrants tend to be
involved in entrepreneurial activities twice as often as the
Swiss (Baldegger, R. et al., 2013).
Figure 16 shows the entrepreneurial profile of Switzerland
compared with the average profile of the three country
groups. In order to get more statistical precision, the profile
is merged on the data of the past three studies (2011-2013).
The average across all economies is set at zero and the
standard deviation across all economies equals one.
By applying this method we can consider any difference
between the countries, the economies or from the mean
zero as substantial. According to this graph, innovation
driven economies show a lower entrepreneurial profile in
every aspect than factor and efficiency based economies
and are thereby also below the overall average. The biggest
differences among the stages of development can be
observed via the estimated high job creation of new ventures.
In order to measure this variable, the respondents of the
adult population survey that are involved in early-stage
activities were asked if they expect to grow their business
to more than 20 employees within the next five years.
Whereas new ventures in efficiency driven economies very
33
often estimate such a high job growth for their near future,
factor based and innovation based economies are together
at a much lower level in this aspect. Considering the entrepreneurial profile for Switzerland, we can observe that
this high job growth expectation is at a particularly low
level. In this aspect, we even observe the largest negative
deviation from the average of innovation driven economies
and Switzerland. On the other hand, we can state that the
perceived opportunity rate across the population is at a
very high level, and above the average of innovation based
economies. Many people see good opportunities to start
a business in the area they live in within the next 6 months.
Out of our comparison group, only the United States are
at an equally high level. This characteristic is not very
surprising considering the relatively high number of technical
universities and very competitive global companies that
house research and development centers in Switzerland.
The patent application per capita is the highest in Europe
and one of the highest in the world . On the other hand,
Switzerland lacks in implementing these recognized opportunities into actions. Since the beginning of the survey
in 2002, the TEA rate has moved between 5 and 8 per
cent. Even though our neighboring countries, Germany
and France, are at an equal level regarding early-stage
activities, the average of innovation driven economies is
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
slightly higher and other innovation driven economies such
as Singapore and the United States, two economies we
like to compare with, are characterized by much higher
entrepreneurial activities (cf. figure 17). The strongest
deficit for Switzerland, however, remains in the low rate of
entrepreneurial activities with a high growth job expectation.
A large gap between economies such as Singapore and
the United States and middle European countries can be
observed therefore. Future efforts in the Swiss economy
must be geared towards the transfer of business opportunities
into high growing ventures that create many new jobs and
thus strengthen the national economy.
34
Nevertheless, the Swiss economy is characterized by a
pronounced stability. Most of the new ventures arise from
recognized business opportunities that are put into action.
The opportunity costs for these entrepreneurs are, in general,
quite high. Necessity-driven entrepreneurship, i.e. entrepreneurial activities undertaken from individuals that have no
better choice for work, is rather rare. On a global level, the
GEM research has discovered some interesting interactions
between an economic indicator by country and GEM data.
Initial input was provided by the recent economic crisis,
regarded as the worst since the great depression, and some
growing evidence that in a recession, small firms may
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
35
Figure 16?:
Figure 17?:
The entrepreneurial profile compiled by 2011-2013 data,
The entrepreneurial profile compiled by 2011-2013 data,
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
in selected innovation-driven countries
Perceived
Opportunities
Perceived
Opportunities
1.50
1.0
1.00
0.5
0.50
TEA: Any Job
Growth
0.0
Perceived
Capabilities
0.00
TEA: Any Job
Growth
-0.5
-0.50
-1.0
-1.00
-1.5
-1.50
-2.0
Perceived
Capabilities
Germany
France
Italy
Switzerland
United States
Singapore
TEA: High Job
Growth
Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA)
TEA: Necessity-Driven
Switzerland
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Factor-Driven Economies
TEA: High Job
Growth
Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
TEA: Necessity-Driven
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
react differently to large, established firms ( cf. Moscarini
and Postel-Vinay, 2012?; Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N.,
2014). In the United States, nascent entrepreneurship rates
tend to follow annual rates of GDP. The descending annual
GDP rates between 2005 and 2009 in the US were accompanied by a declining rate of nascent entrepreneurship in
the same period while necessity-driven entrepreneurship,
with a delay of a year, dramatically increased.
In Argentina, a country that was hit hard during their major
crisis in 2000-2002 and that also struggled between 2009
and 2010, we can observe that rates of necessity-driven
entrepreneurship increased together with unemployment
rates and declining GDP growth rates without any time lag.
As an immediate reaction to a recession, the number of
entrepreneurial activities in Argentina that result because
they have no better option for work increases (Amorós, J.
E. and Bosma, N. 2014).
In Switzerland, even though unemployment rates remained
on a remarkably low level during the past decade, GDP
growth rates fluctuated widely from an annual growth of
36
almost 4% during 2006 and 2007 to zero growth in the beginning of the century, namely 2002 and 2003, and even a
negative growth in 2009. As we can see in figure 3, these
wide fluctuations of GDP growth are not accompanied by
drastic changes in necessity entrepreneurship rates.
Necessity entrepreneurship in Switzerland varied only
between 0.5 and 1.1 percent during the last 11 years.
However the number of nascent entrepreneurs seems
to increase simultaneously to a decreasing GDP growth.
Considering the total entrepreneurial activities during the
same period we can observe the same trend?: entrepreneurial
activities are related negatively to economic growth (see
figure 19). This means that in times of declining economic
growth the general entrepreneurial activities tend to increase
and vice versa. Nevertheless we have to consider that we
are looking back at a still relatively short period of GEM
data collection. Increasing and decreasing TEA and necessity
rates could also represent a time delayed reaction on
economic changes. However, such a conclusion could only
be drawn in a longer-term view.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 18?:
5.00
GEM indicators
4.00
and economic indicators
for Switzerland, 2002-2013
37
1.20
1.00
3.00
0.80
2.00
1.00
0.60
0.00
0.40
-1.00
0.20
-2.00
-3.00
0.00
2002
Figure 19?:
GEM indicators
and economic indicators
for Switzerland, 2002-2013
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Necessity-driven entrepreneurship, % of TEA (right axis)
Nascent entrepreneurship, % in 18-64 population
Unemployment rate, % of labor force
GDP growth, % change
2011
2012
2013
Owner-managers in new firms,
% in 18-24 population
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
2002
2003
2004
TEA Rate
2005
2006
2007
GDP growth, % change
2008
2009
2010
2011
Nascent entrepreneurship, % in 18-64 population
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
By looking back to over 10 years of GEM research in
Switzerland we are not only able to illustrate the trends
and highlights in entrepreneurial activities across the population, we can also observe changes in the entrepreneurial
framework conditions. The entrepreneurship framework
conditions (EFC), treated in detail in chapter 4?: Institutional
Context, are rated each year by 36 selected experts from
various fields such as financing, policy-makers, journalists
etc. Many of them are entrepreneurs themselves. Every
expert responds to a closed questionnaire on factors
relating to our entrepreneurial environment. The questionnaire consists of statements that have to be rated on a
five-point Likert scale from 1 for completely false to 5 for
completely true. Out of nine groups of EFC (cf. chapter
4?: Institutional Context) we can clearly identify 4 general
conditions for entrepreneurs that have been rated increasingly better over the last ten years. By looking at figure 20
we can observe that national policy-makers seem to have
steadily improved the conditions for entrepreneurship,
by conditions that were rated rather negatively in the
38
beginning of this century to positive or rather positive
conditions by the end of last year. Policies such as tax
regime, labor market regulations or social security regulations
influence new and growing firms in a positive way and
are above the average of innovation-driven countries in
Switzerland, especially the regulation policy. Government
programs to support new and growing firms (i.e. incubators,
start-up support, science parks etc.) have also been improved over the last decade and are, today, rated positively
by the experts. Nevertheless the rating has stagnated over
the past five years with a value of 3.4. The strongest positive
change can be observed with regard to the extent to which
cultural and social norms in Switzerland are encouraging
entrepreneurial activities. Whereas in the first half of the
last decade, the cultural and social norms have been considered to restrain new business activities, the awareness
of entrepreneurship as a real career opportunity and the
very image of entrepreneurs have increased considerably
in the last few years.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 20?:
Developments of selected
economic framework conditions
in Switzerland (EFCs), 2003-2013
39
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
40
6 Entrepreneurship and Well-Being
Entrepreneurship is a multi-faceted phenomenon and
since the turn of the century, it has been closely monitored
by GEM for a wide range of economies through its various
aspects, such as attitudes, activities and aspirations.
Yet, there are several important dimensions of entrepreneurship that are underexplored and the GEM special
topics3 contribute to the efforts of broadening the scope
of entrepreneurship in this sense. Having said that, this
year’s attention is on a topic that has attracted growing
interest by both academics and policy makers, i.e. the
linkages between entrepreneurship and the well-being
of people engaged in entrepreneurial activities.
Subjective well-being (SWB), defined as the degree of
satisfaction with work- and private-life, is acknowledged
to be an essential but neglected dimension in measuring
a country’s development (Naudé et al., 2014). Historically,
both micro- and macro-level performance measurement
tools have been predominantly finance-oriented (e.g?:
GDP), reflecting a single dimension of more complex
socio-economical structures (GEM Global Report, 2013).
Metrics such as GDP have been highly criticized by the
Special topics conducted so far included for example an assessment
of education and training for entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial employee activity, immigrant entrepreneurship (GEM Global
Report, 2013).
3
popular press4 (see footnote) and scholars, such as Layard
(2003) who labeled it a “?hopeless measure of welfare?”
(Layard, 2003, p. 3). Starting towards the end of the 20th
century, the traditional material component of metrics has
been complemented by non-financial dimensions with the
intention of a holistic and “?balanced?” performance view
of individuals, organizations and economies (e.g?: Balanced
Scorecards in for-profit institutions, Happiness and Satisfaction Indices for countries, etc.). This holistic view has
also had implications for the GEM such that, although
the social context has always played a critical role in the
GEM conceptual framework as an input factor, the social
component as an output factor was introduced only in
the GEM 2009 assessment (Bosma and Levie, 2010).
Against this background, the relationship between entrepreneurship and GDP could only explain a portion of
human development. Therefore, the following questions
naturally arise?: How may entrepreneurship matter for
happiness ? And vice-versa, how may happiness matter
for entrepreneurship? Scholars such as Naudé et al. (2014)
found evidence that the relationship between entrepre4
http? ://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201309/why-the-gdpis-not-good-measure-nations-well-being (accessed February, 2014)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
neurship and happiness is bi-directional in causality,
such that higher levels of life satisfaction increase
entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurship may
contribute to overall life satisfaction and happiness.
This, in turn, contributes to the broadening focus of studies
on entrepreneurship and development. In the light of
the aforementioned motivations to investigate this topic,
the GEM data collection process included a module in
APS to capture the global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. Moreover, to corroborate the opinions
provided by the adult population, NES included four
questions that inquire whether the national (or regional)
conditions help the work-life balance of individuals
and measure the perception that entrepreneurs have,
in general, on work and life satisfaction (GEM Global
Report, 2013).
41
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
6.1
42
GEM 2013 Highlights on Switzerland
The notion of “?well-being?” is not as simple a term as it
may sound. Empirical studies have been struggling to
establish proxies for this theoretical construct with various
measures and a clear consensus has not yet been
achieved on how to measure it (Conceição and Bandura,
2008). That being said, Switzerland enjoys a strong position
in terms of well-being and this has been investigated by
both academic publications and the popular press. For
example, according to a recent report by Forbes Magazine5,
Switzerland was ranked 2nd (behind Norway) among
World’s Happiest Countries in a study by London-based
Legatum Institute. Likewise, in a similar report, Switzerland
was ranked 3rd (behind Denmark and Norway) in overall
happiness by the World Happiness Report, a publication
prepared by Sustainable Development Solutions Network
(SDSN)6 and Columbia University (Helliwell et al., 2013).
Henceforth, it is tempting to explore Switzerland’s status
quo within the dimension of entrepreneurial activities
and its relationship to subjective well-being. Besides the
popular press, the relationship between well-being and
entrepreneurship has also raised a growing interest in
Academia. A recent publication by Naudé et al. (2014)
has tested the relationship between the strength of an
entrepreneurial economy versus the happiness score
of the overall population of that respective economy
(See Figure 21).
5
6
http?://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worldshappiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/ (accessed February, 2014)
http? ://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/
(accessed February, 2014)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
43
Figure 21?:
Relationship between Happiness and the Global Entrepreneurship Index
Source?: Adapted from Naudé et al. (2014, p. 525) where authors based their calculations
on the Gallup World Poll 2005 and the GEINDEX7 of Acs and Szerb (2009).
Iceland
Switzerland
Canada
8
Mexico
Brazil
Finland
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Argentina
Venezuela
Spain
Happiness Score
United Arab Emirates Belgium
United Kingdom
Germany
7
Bolivia
Ecuador
Jamaica
Thailand
Kazakstan
6
Iran
Uruguay
China
Bosnia
Philippine
Egypt
Malaysia
Poland
Jordan
Greece
Sweden
New Zealand
United States
Slovenia
Italy
Singapore
Chile
France
Czech Republic
Japan
Korea
Hong Kong
South
Croatia
Africa
Turkey
India
Norway
Australia
Netherlands
Austria
Denmark
Portugal
Hungary
Latvia
5
Uganda
4
0
2
4
Global Entrepreneurship Index Score
7
lobal Entrepreneurship Index measures the “?entrepreneurial economy?” as reflected
G
in entrepreneurial attitudes, actions, and aspirations rather than entrepreneurship
itself. Hence, it strongly captures the institutional quality (Naudé et al., 2014, p. 524)
6
8
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The figure displays a curvilinear relationship8 with increasing
returns between the strength of entrepreneurial economy
and the overall well-being of the population. Switzerland
(denoted by the red circle) lies above the curve in the
upper right corner of the figure. Here, it could be argued
that, given the strength of entrepreneurial framework
conditions, Switzerland enjoys a status of well-being that
is above the predicted value by the model. Scandinavian
economies, such as Norway, Finland, and Iceland, also
follow a similar pattern, except for Sweden, which is
slightly below the curve. Within the benchmark countries,
Switzerland exhibits a better standing especially when
compared to the other innovation-driven economies such
as the U.S., France, Singapore and Japan. However, an
important caveat is that, this figure does not identify the
independent effect of entrepreneurship in the national
happiness level. As the authors assert, the relationship
N.B.?: This has been the preliminary part of a more comprehensive study
which is published in the authors’ same article.
8
44
between entrepreneurship and national happiness
is bi-directional rather than unidirectional. Studies of a
descriptive or comparative nature could be more vigorous
by exploring the linkage between entrepreneurship and
happiness provided the fact that strong causality claims
between the two may not be conclusive to infer the potential effect that entrepreneurship exerts on subjective
well-being. Therefore, it is essential to demonstrate the
diverse indicators of entrepreneurial activity and subjective
wel-being in various economies in comparison. Table 5
presents the prevalence indicators of Satisfaction With
Life Scale (SWLS)9 in innovation-driven economies. Each
column deals with the scores for individuals involved
in typical phases and types of entrepreneurship (such
as TEA and owner-managers of established businesses,
motivation and gender) and those of employees who
are not involved in such entrepreneurship activities.
As mentioned initially, subjective well-being is a complex construct by nature.
SWLS was developed by Pavot and Diener (2008) to act as a proxy for
subjective well-being. SWLS is a five-item instrument designed to measure
global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. This scale is
standardized and has the hypothetical range of -1.7 (less subjective wellbeing at country-level) to 1.7 (higher rate of subjective well- being).
9
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
45
Table 5??:
Subjective well-being results within innovation-driven
economies (the most satisfied populations are in green
and the less satisfied populations are in red.)
Italy
18-64 population
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business ownership
Non TEA or
Established
0.02
-0.01
0.19
0.02
Japan
-0.23
-0.31
-0.08
-0.23
France
-0.03
0.09
0.08
-0.03
Belgium
0.16
0.16
0.27
0.16
Germany
0.12
0.06
0.27
0.12
Spain
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.08
Finland
0.40
0.39
0.58
0.40
Greece
-0.50
-0.30
-0.48
-0.50
Norway
0.61
0.53
0.70
0.61
Slovenia
0.08
0.16
0.19
0.08
Korea Sr
-0.42
-0.42
-0.47
-0.42
United Kingdom
0.30
0.11
0.32
0.29
Czech Republic
-0.03
0.00
0.10
-0.03
Taiwan
-0.12
-0.08
-0.05
-0.12
Portugal
-0.14
0.11
0.07
-0.14
Sweden
0.24
0.31
0.30
0.24
Luxembourg
0.36
0.23
0.08
0.36
Ireland
0.24
0.31
0.43
0.24
Netherlands
0.29
0.47
0.42
0.28
Israel
0.07
0.16
0.24
0.08
Singapore
0.18
0.25
0.23
0.18
Canada
0.33
0.32
0.51
0.33
United States
0.22
0.14
0.54
0.22
Switzerland
0.62
0.74
0.85
0.62
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.10
AVERAGE
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
46
As easily noted, Switzerland stands out with the highest
satisfaction rates for all groups. The first group (18-64
population) is yet another confirmatory indicator of results
that has taken place previously in various studies on
overall happiness. Being a general trend in all economies,
established business owners have greater satisfaction
rates compared to other groups. An interesting finding
is that Switzerland also holds the highest satisfaction
rates among the groups who have been involved in entrepreneurial activities (both early stage and established
business owners)?; however, what is more impressive is
Switzerland’s distinct position when compared to similar
economies such as Norway, Netherlands and Singapore.
For example, the subjective well-being rates for TEA in
Switzerland is roughly 50% higher than in Norway and
Netherlands and almost three-fold of Singapore’s.
A similar pattern is visible also in the satisfaction rates
of established business owners for these economies.
Owner-managers in established firms tend to rate their
level of subjective well-being higher than early-stage
entrepreneurs, who may have to deal with more uncertainty
and pressure to develop the firm into a sustainable situation
(exceptions include France, Sweden and Singapore).
This also seems to be the case in Switzerland. Here the
main takeaway is arguably as follows?: entrepreneurs in
Switzerland rate their level of subjective well-being distinctively
high when compared to entrepreneurs in their own league.
This is the major good news about entrepreneurial activities
in Switzerland, even though these results are exploratory
in nature and need to be treated in that manner.
One important distinction to be made when interpreting
early-stage entrepreneurial activities (TEA) is the motivation
behind these activities. GEM framework contrasts entrepreneurship driven by necessity and improvement-driven
entrepreneurship as the motivation behind the early-stage
entrepreneurial activities. The following table provides
a comparison of subjective well-being rates among the
innovation-driven economies.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
47
Table 6??:
Comparison of gender and motivation with subjective
well-being results within innovation-driven economies
(the most satisfied populations are in green and
the less satisfied populations are in red.)
Italy
TEA Opportunity
TEA Necessity
TEA male
TEA female
0.13
-0.64
0.01
-0.06
-0.26
-0.43
-0.55
0.14
France
0.17
-0.62
-0.01
0.30
Belgium
0.18
0.17
0.12
0.25
Germany
0.18
-0.40
-0.04
0.22
Spain
0.23
0.01
0.13
0.19
Finland
0.42
0.21
0.36
0.44
Greece
-0.25
-0.46
-0.23
-0.50
Japan
Norway
0.51
0.44
0.49
0.63
Slovenia
0.23
-0.09
0.16
0.16
Korea Sr
-0.27
-0.69
-0.49
-0.24
United Kingdom
0.22
-0.45
0.22
-0.03
Czech Republic
0.05
-0.15
-0.02
0.05
Taiwan
0.01
-0.31
-0.11
-0.03
Portugal
0.20
-0.13
0.10
0.13
Sweden
0.40
-0.34
0.15
0.59
Luxembourg
0.21
-0.51
0.16
0.37
Ireland
0.31
0.36
0.30
0.34
Netherlands
0.50
0.26
0.55
0.35
Israel
0.23
-0.08
0.04
0.41
Singapore
0.25
0.26
0.17
0.39
Canada
0.41
-0.22
0.22
0.46
United States
0.26
-0.38
0.14
0.14
Switzerland
0.78
0.06
0.63
0.85
0.19
-0.18
0.08
0.20
AVERAGE
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Here, TEA-opportunity rates exhibit that early stage entrepreneurs in Switzerland who are motivated by starting up
as an opportunity (rather than no other options for work),
rated their well-being considerably higher than other
benchmark economies. The other end in the dichotomy
of motivations in starting a business, i.e. necessity-driven
entrepreneurship, portrays rather a dissatisfaction as a
general trend in innovation-driven economies. The early
stage entrepreneurs in Switzerland who start up out of
necessity still rate their well-being as somehow satisfied
(0.06/1.7). Although this rating is above most of the other
benchmark economies, economies such as Singapore,
Ireland, Belgium and the “?traditional?” welfare states such
as Norway and Finland display higher rates. Given the high
ratings of subjective well-being of the overall population in
Switzerland, there seems to be a strong potential in bridging
the existing gap. It is also noteworthy to refer to the low
percentage of necessity-driven motivations within TEA
(7.5%) in Switzerland.
Another point that deserves attention is the role of gender
difference in subjective well-being of entrepreneurs among
the innovation-driven economies. This is also another group
where Switzerland exhibits remarkable ratings among all
innovation driven economies. The female early stage entrepreneur ratings for subjective well-being is higher than
their male counterparts as a general trend. This is also the
case in Switzerland and within the benchmark countries,
48
only the Netherlands have male early stage entrepreneurs
with a higher rating of well-being than females.
Finally, it is essential to corroborate the opinions provided
by the adult population with NES which included questions
that inquire whether the national (or regional) conditions
help the work-life balance of individuals and measure the
perception that entrepreneurs have, in general, more work
and life satisfaction. Figure 2 depicts the brief analysis that
correlates SWLS involved in TEA with the NES variables
related to well-being among all economies. There is a weak
but positive curvilinear relationship between both variables.
Switzerland (denoted by the red circle) lies below the
curve to the right end of the figure. Experts’ view on life
and work satisfaction of entrepreneurs in Switzerland
indicate that there is some potential in this perception.
One possible factor could be the effect of the relatively
lower well-being rating of the necessity driven entrepreneurs.
Another possibility is the relatively higher rate of discontinuation of business compared to the other high-end
innovation driven economies. Yet, a significant share of
entrepreneurs who discontinued owning and managing
their business did so for “?positive?” reasons such as being
able to sell the business, or the opportunity to get a good
job, and for some an improvement in their personal
situation (GEM Global Report, 2013). Hence, further
studies could be beneficial to identify the potentials that
possibly remain under expert ratings for Switzerland.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
49
Figure 22??:
Experts opinions versus
subjective well-being indicators
4.30
of individuals involved in TEA
4.10
3.90
Experts evaluation of life and work
satistaftion of the entrepreneurs
R2 = 0.2199
3.70
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
2.70
2.50
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
Standardized rates of subjective well-being of individuals involved in TEA
0.5
1
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Literature
Acs, Z. J., and Szerb, L. (2009)?:
The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX). Foundations
and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(5), 341–435.
Ács, Z., Autio, E., and Szerb, L. (2014)?:
National Systems of Entrepreneurship?: Measurement
issues and policy implications. 476-494.
Baldegger, R., Alberton, S., Hacklin, F., Brülhart, A.,
Huber, A. and Saglam, O. (2013)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 - Report on
Switzerland. Fribourg?: School of Management
Birch, D. (1987). Job Creation in America?: How our Smallest
Companies Put the Most People to Work. New York?:
Free Press.
Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N. (2014)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013. Global Report?:
FIFTEEN YEARS OF ASSESSING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ACROSS THE GLOBE. Babson College, Universidad del
Desarrollo, UnivesitiTun Abdul Razak, and London
Business School.
Bosma, N. and Levie, J. (2010)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2009 executive report.
Babson Park, MA, USA?: Babson College, Santiago, Chile?:
Universidad del Desarrollo and Reykjavik, Iceland?:
Haskolinn Reykjavik University, London, UK?: Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association
Audretsch, D. (2007)?:
Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 63-78.
Bosma, N. and Schutjens, V. (2011)?:
Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity
and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe. The Annals of
Regional Science , 711-74
Baldegger, R. (2013)?:
Swiss International Entrepreneurship Survey 2013?:
Studienergebnisse zum Internationalisierungsverhalten
von Schweizer KMU. Freiburg/Bern.
Conceição, P. and Bandura, R. (2008)?:
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing?: A Summary Review of the
Literature. UNDP Development Studies Working Papers
Series, May. Online?:http?://web.undp.org/developmentstudies/docs/subjective_ wellbeing_conceicao_bandura.pdf.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Farmer, S., Yao, X. and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2011)?:
The Behavioral Impact of Entrepreneur Identiy Aspiration
and Prior Entrepreneurial Experience. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 245-273.
Moscarini, G., and Poste-Vinay, F. (2012)?:
The contribution of large and small employers to job
creation in times of high and low unemployment. American
Economic Review, 102(6), 2509-39.
Glassey, O., Leresche, J. and Moeschler, O. (2013)?:
Penser la valeur d’usage des sciences.
Naudé, W., Amorós, J. E. and Cristi, O. (2012)?:
“?Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken?”?: entrepreneurship
and happiness. Small Business Economics, 1-18.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R. and Sachs, J. (Eds.).
(2013)?:
World Happiness Report. New York?: UN Sustainable
Development Solutions Network.
Kelley, J. D., Singer, S. and Herrington, M. (2012)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2011 Global Report.
Babson College, Universidad del Desarrollo and UniversitiTun
Abdul Razak.
Layard, R. (2003)?:
Happiness?: Has social science a clue ? What is happiness ?
Are we getting happier ? In?: Lionel Robbins Memorial
Lecture Series, 03-05 Mar 2003, London, UK?: London
School of Economics.
OECD (2012)?:
Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2012, OECD Publishing.
Pavot, W., and Diener, E. (2008)?:
The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct
of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3,
137–152.
Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994)?:
Crossnational comparisons of the variation in new firm
Formation Rates. Regional Studies, 28 (4), 443-456.
Sapienza, H., Autio, E., George, E.and Zahra, S. (2006)?:
A capabilities perpective on the effects of early
internationalization on new venture survival and growth.
Academy of Management Review , 914-930.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Schumpeter, J. (1934)?:
The Theory of Economic Development?: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle.
Cambridge?: Harvard University Press.
SECO. (2013)?:
Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft. Eine
Analyse der Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2011.
Bern?: Staatsekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO.
Shane, S. (2003)?:
A general theory of entrepreneurship?: the individualOpportunity Nexus. Edwarg Elgar Publishing.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
GLOSSARY
Table 7?:
Main GEM measures
used in this Report
Measure
Description
Entrepreneurial Attitudes and
Perceptions
Perceived Opportunities
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who see good opportunities to start a firm in the area where they
live.
Perceived Capabilities
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who believe to have the required skills and knowledge to start a
business.
Entrepreneurial Intention
Percentage of 18-64 age groups (individuals involved in any stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded) who intend to start a business within three years.
Fear of Failure Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups with positive perceived opportunities who indicate that fear of
failure would prevent them from setting up a business.
Entrepreneurship as Desirable Career Choice
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, most people
consider starting a business as a desirable career choice.
High-Status Successful Entrepreneurship
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, successful
entrepreneurs enjoy high status.
Media Attention for Entrepreneurship
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, they will often
see stories in the public media about successful new businesses.
Entrepreneurial Activity
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently a nascent entrepreneur, i.e., actively involved in
setting up a business they will own or co-own?; this business has not paid salaries, wages or any
other payments to the owners for more than three months.
New Business Ownership Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently an owner-manager of a new business, i.e.
owning and managing a running business that has paid salaries, wages or any other payments to
the owners for more than three months, but not more than 42 months.
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above).
Established Business Ownership Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently owner-manager of an established business, i.e.
owning and managing a running business that has paid salaries, wages or any other payments to
the owners for more than 42 months.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Measure
Description
Business Discontinuation Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who have, in the past 12 months, discontinued a business, either
by selling, shutting down or otherwise discontinuing an owner/management relationship with the
business. Note?: This is not a measure of business failure rates.
Necessity-Driven Entrepreneurial Activity?:
Relative Prevalence
Percentage of those involved in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who
are involved in entrepreneurship because they had no other option for work.
Improvement-Driven Opportunity Entrepreneurial Activity?: Relative Prevalence
Percentage of those involved in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who
(i) claim to be driven by opportunity, as opposed to finding no other option for work?; and (ii) who
indicate the main driver for being involved in this opportunity is being independent or increasing
their income, rather than just maintaining their income.
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
Solo/Low Job Expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (SLEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above) AND expect to provide fewer than 5 jobs five years from now.
Based on 2009-2011 data.
Medium/High Job Expectation early-stage
Entrepreneurial Activity (MHEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above) AND expect to provide 5 or more jobs five years from now. Based
on 2009-2011 data.
New Product-Market Oriented Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial Activity?: Relative Prevalence
Percentage of total early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined above) who indicate that product or
service is new to at least some customers and indicate that not many businesses offer the same
product or service. Based on 2009-2011 data.
International Orientation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity
Percentage of total early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined above) with more than 25% of the
customers coming from other countries. Based on 2009-2011 data.
Entrepreneurial Employee
Activity
Entrepreneurial Employee Activity (EEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently involved in developing new entrepreneurial
activities for their employer and fulfill a leading role in this activity.
Private Sector Entrepreneurial Employee
Activity (PEEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently involved in developing new entrepreneurial
activities for their employer, active in the private sector, and fulfill a leading role in this activity.
Hence the PEEA measure constitutes a subset of the EEA measure.
Employers’ Support for Entrepreneurial
Employee Activity
Percentage of 18-64 employees indicating that their employer provides at least some support
when employees come up with new ideas.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Table 8?:
Measures from other
Data Sources used in
Measure
Source
Description
Economic Freedom Index
Heritage Foundation
The Economic Freedom index uses 10 specific freedoms, some as composites
of even further detailed and quantifiable components. Each of these freedoms
is weighted equally and turned into an index ranging from 0 to 100, where 100
represents the maximum economic freedom. Cross section data 2002.
Employment protection deters
employees from starting business
GEM National Expert Survey
Statement assessed by experts in the 2011 GEM National Expert Survey
(mean values per economy?; based on the likert scale 1-5).
Entrepreneurs have much lower
access to social security than
employees
GEM National Expert Survey
Statement assessed by experts in the 2011 GEM National Expert Survey
(mean values per economy?; based on the likert scale 1-5).
GDP Per Capita (PPP)
IMF World Development Indicators, October 2011.
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parities (PPP), US Dollars, 2011
Gender Gap Index
World Economic Forum Gender
Gap 2011 Report
All scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 representing maximum
gender equality. The study measures the extent to which women have
achieved full equality with men in five critical areas?: economic participation,
economic opportunity, political empowerment, educational attainment and
health & well-being.
Global Entrepreneurship Index
(GEI)?:
Acs, Z., Szerb, L. (2012)
Global Entrepreneurship & Development Index
The GEI combines measures of activity, aspiration, and attitudes with
relevant measures of the favorability of the environment for entrepreneurship.
The GEI is simply the average of three sub-indices?: one for attitudes, one for
activity, and one for aspiration. Similarly, each sub-index is the average of
four or five normalized indicator scores, after adjustment for “?bottlenecks?”,
or the weakest indicator in a country.
Income inequality
(Gini index)
World Bank World Development
Indicators
Gini measure of economic inequality, where greater values represent greater
inequality. Data are based on primary household survey data
obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country
departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg
Income Study database.
Informal investment
prevalence rate
GEM Adult Population Survey
Percentage of 18-64 groups who have personally invested funds in business
start-ups in the past three years
Investment Freedom Index
Heritage Foundation
This factor scrutinizes each country’s policies toward foreign investment, as
well as its policies toward capital flows internally, in order to determine its
overall investment climate. The county’s investment freedom ranges between
0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum degree of investment freedom.
Cross section data 2002.
this Report
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Measure
Source
Description
Old age, disability and death
benefit index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures the level of old age, disability and death benefits as the average of
the following four normalized variables?: (1) the difference between retirement
age and life expectancy at birth, (2) the number of months of contributions
or employment required for normal retirement by law, (3) the percentage of
the worker’s monthly salary deducted by law to cover old-age, disability, and
death benefits, and (4) the percentage of the net pre-retirement salary covered
by the net old - age cash-benefit pension. Cross section data covering the
1997-2002 period.
Political Stability
World Bank Governance
Indicators
Political Stability combines several indicators which measure perceptions of
the likelihood that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown
by possibly unconstitutional and/or violent means, including domestic violence
and terrorism. Cross section data covering 2002-2006.
Secular-rational
(versus traditional) values
World Value Survey?; Inglehart
and Baker (2000)
Principal components factor index based on religiousness, autonomy, abortion
attitudes, respect for authority and national pride.
Social security laws index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures social benefits as the average of the three variables?: Old Age,
Disability and Death Benefit Index?; and Unemployment Benefits Index. Cross
section data covering 1997-2002.
Unemployment benefits index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures the level of unemployment benefits as the average of the following
four normalized variables?: (1) the number of months of contributions or
employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits by law, (2) the
percentage of the worker’s monthly salary deducted by law to cover unemployment benefits, (3) the waiting period for unemployment benefits, and (4)
the percentage of a one-year unemployment spell. Cross section data
covering the 1997-2002 period.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Country List
Country / Intcode
Algeria
DZ
Angola
AO
Argentina
AR
Belgium
BE
Bosnia BA
Botswana
BW
Brazil
BR
Canada
CA
Chile
CL
China
CN
Colombia
CO
Croatia
HR
Czech Republic
CZ
Ecuador
EC
Estonia
EE
Finland
FI
France
FR
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Libya
Lithuania
DE
GH
GR
GT
HU
IN
ID
IR
IE
IL
IT
JM
JP
KR
LV
LY
LT
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
Singapore
LU
MK
MW
MY
MX
NL
NG
NO
PA
PE
PH
PL
PT
PR
RO
RU
SG
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad & Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
Uruguay
United States
Vietnam
Zambia
SK
SI
ZA
ES
SR
SE
SW
TW
TH
TT
UG
UK
UY
US
VN
ZM
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEDI)
and Switzerland
Size of population 2013 (in million)
Per capita GDP in international US$ 2013 (PPP, World Bank)
Cluster membership
Rank in Doing Business Index 2011-2012
8.0
39’344
???
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness Index 2011-2012
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom index 2011-2012
4/178
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index rank (point)
5 (70.9)
Entrepreneurial Attitudes sub-index rank (point)
5 (66.0)
Entrepreneurial Ability sub-index rank (point)
9 (75.0)
Entrepreneurial Aspirations sub-index rank (point)
7 (71.7)
Weakest pillar to improve (value)
Weakest variable to improve (value)
High Growth (0.41)
Gazelle (0.44)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The relative position of Switzerland in the Global Entrepreneurship
and Development Index and in the sub-index level
Entrepreneurial Attitudes Sub-index
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
Switzerland
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
Switzerland
0.60
70 000
0.00
0
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
Entrepreneurial Abilities Sub-index
Entrepreneurial Aspiration Sub-Index
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
Switzerland
0.60
10 000
Switzerland
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
70 000
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
70 000
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The relative position of Switzerland in the variable level
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
Institutional variables
Market Agglomeration
Individual variables
Pillars
0,71
Opportunity Recognition
0,65
Opportunity Perception
0,60
Tertiary Education
0,72
Skill Perception
0,48
Start-up Skills
0,47
Business Risk
1,00
Risk Acceptance
0,67
Nonfear of Failure
0,93
Internet Usage
0,98
Know Entrepreneurs
0,44
Networking
0,70
Corruption
0,96
Career Status
0,48
Cultural Support
0,87
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
66,0
Entrepreneurial Abilities
Institutional variables
Individual variables
Pillars
Economic Freedom
0,69
Opportunity Motivation
0,79
Opportunity Startup
0,62
Gender Equality
0,94
TEA Female
1,00
Gender
1,00
Tech Absorption
1,00
Technology Level
0,79
Technology Absorption
0,80
Staff Training
1,00
Educational Level
0,71
Human Capital
0,77
Market Dominance
1,00
Competitors
0,92
Competition
1,00
Entrepreneurial Abilities
75,0
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
Institutional variables
Individual variables
Pillars
Technology Transfer
1,00
New Product
0,63
Product Innovation
0,88
GERD
Business Strategy
0,96
1,00
New Tech
Gazelle
0,47
0,44
Process Innovation
High Growth
0,81
0,41
Globalization
0,78
Export
0,94
Internationalization
0,91
Capital Market
0,94
Informal Investment
1,00
Institutional
0.80
Individual
0.50
Risk Capital
1,00
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
71,7
GEDI
0.56
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The position of Switzerland in the pillar level
1. Opportunity Perception (ATT)
15. Risk Capital (ASP)
14. Internationalization (ASP)
13. High Growth (ASP)
1.50
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2. Start-up Skills (ATT)
3. Risk Acceptance (ATT)
4. Networking (ATT)
12. Process Innovation (ASP)
5. Cultural Support (ATT)
11. Product Innovation (ASP)
6. Opportunity Startup (ABT)
10. Competition (ABT)
9. Human Capital (ABT)
Switzerland
7. Gender (ABT)
8. Technology Absorption (ABT)
33% percentile
67% percentile
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The position of Switzerland in the pillar level
Pillar
High Growth
Pillar
score
Percentage of total new effort
for a 10 point improvement in GEDI score
0.41
43%
Start-up Skills
0.47
35%
Opportunity Perception
0.60
13%
Opportunity Startup
0.62
10%
Networking
0.70
0%
Quality of Human Resources
0.77
0%
Tech Sector
0.80
0%
Process Innovation
0.81
0%
Cultural Support
0.87
0%
Product Innovation
0.88
0%
Internationalization
0.91
0%
Nonfear of Failure
0.93
0%
Competition
1.00
0%
Risk Capital
1.00
0%
Gender
1.00
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
List of Experts
Urs Gauch
Head of SME Business, Credit Suisse
Pascale Vonmont
Delegate at the pre-seed-fund Venture Kick, member of
the jury of the Venture Leader program
Fabio Casati
Head Corporate Finance and Development, BSI AG
Steffen Wagner
CEO and co-founder, Verve Capital Partners AG
Valesko Wild
Head of the Economic Development Office, Canton of Ticino
Stefano Modenini
Director of the Industrial Association of the Canton of Ticino
Philippe Monnier
General Director of the Greater Geneva Berne Area
Development Agency
Rudolf Minsch
Chairman of the Executive Board, Economiesuisse (Swiss
Business Federation)
Bendict Stalder
Managing Director at BST Management Consulting
Lorenzo Leoni
Director at the Innovation Agency of the Canton of Ticino
Marco Cavadini
Business Development Partner at Commission for Technology
and Innovation CTI
Fabian Dieziger
Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Supertext.ch (a top
100 start-up from 2005)
Jerome Schaufeld
Professor of Practice at WPI Worcester Polytechnics
Institute in Boston, Former Entrepreneur in Switzerland
Giambattista Ravano
Director of the Department of Innovative Technologies
at SUPSI (University of Applied Sciences Southern
Switzerland)
Marc Gruber
Chair of Entrepreneurship and Technology Commercialization,
ETH Zurich
Dietmar Grichnik
Professor of Entrepreneurship and Technology Management,
University of St. Gallen
Markus Schneider
Serial Entrepreneur and Consultant
Stephan Kocher
CEO Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Pascal Dutheil de la Rochère
Independant Advisor to Entrepreneurs and Investors,
Business Coach at the Commission for Technology and
Innovation (CTI)
Lesley Spiegel
Founder and CEO Spiegel Ventures, Lecturer, Advisory
Board Member
Gerhard Roth
Lawyer, Founder and Partner of GHR Law Office
Robert Rudolph
Member of the Executive Board / Education & Innovation at
Swissmem (association of the Swiss mechanical and e
lectrical engineering industry)
Daniel Bloch
Director of Chocolates Camille Bloch, a third-generation
family business
Ralph Siegl
CEO Läderach Chocolatier Suisse
Kurt Schaer
Managing Director Biketec AG
Enzo Lucibello
Managing Director Media Markt Grancia
Sebastien Jeanneret
Founder and CEO Delafee
Martin Waeber
Chief Marketing Officer at Eny Finance (Start-up)
Raphael Waeber
Managing Director Westiform AG
Charles Merkle President and CEO CBC Marketing
Research
Charles Merkle
President and CEO CBC Marketing Research
Vincent Bardy
International Sales, Export and Team-Sponsoring Manager
at Wild Duck SA
Sven Bleicher
Co-Founder and CEO of mySwissChocolate AG
Mariana Christen
Managing Partner and Founder of SEIF (Social
Entrepreneurship Initiative and Foundation)
Paola Ghillani
Entrepreneur for sustainable development and ethics,
Founder of Paola Ghillani & Friends Ltd.
Thomas Minder
Owner and Managing Director of Trybol AG and Politician
Annette Heimlicher
CEO Contrinex AG
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
GEM Team Switzerland
Siegfried Alberton
Rico J. Baldegger
Andreas Brülhart
Andrea Huber
Onur Saglam
Pascal Wild
Fredrik Hacklin
doc_119742380.pdf
On this brief illustration in regard to global entrepreneurship monitor 2013 report on switzerland.
Global
Entrepreneurship
Monitor
2013
— Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Acknowledgments
For a study of this scope, an extraordinary contribution on
the part of many individuals is necessary. Most importantly,
the authors would like to thank scientific collaborators,
Pascal Wild and Andrea Huber, who were responsible for
the efficient and effective coordination at the Institute for
Entrepreneurship and SMEs.
The authors are also grateful to the coordination team of
the GEM project, in particular to Chris Aylett, Niels Bosma,
Alicia Corduras, and Yana Litovsky, as well as to the sponsors of the GEM project at Babson College, Babson Park,
MA (USA)?; Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile?;
and University Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia. Some elements
of this report are based on the results of the global report
by José Ernesto Amoros and Niels Bosma (2014) Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 Global Report?: Fifteen
years of assessing entrepreneurship across the globe.
It is available online at www.gemconsortium.org.
All data used in this report are collected and processed
centrally by the GEM consortium. The authors have
exclusive responsibility for evaluation and interpretation
of the data.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
About the Authors
Siegfried Alberton | As Professor of Economics of Innovation, Siegfried Alberton leads the competence center inno3
(innovation, firms and entrepreneurship) at the Department
of Business and Social Sciences of the University of Applied
Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland. He is the scientific contact, responsible for the Master of Science in Business Administration with Major in Innovation Management.
He completed his studies at the University of Fribourg.
His research interests, publications and service activity, cover
the fields of the economics of innovation, entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial dynamics, regional economics,
innovation and entrepreneurship policy, innovation and
entrepreneurship metrics.
Rico J. Baldegger | As Professor of Strategy, Innovation
and Entrepreneurship at the School of Management Fribourg,
Rico J. Baldegger directs the School of Management and
acts as academic coordinator of the Master in Entrepreneurship. He graduated from the University of St Gallen and
obtained his doctorate from the University of Fribourg. He
is the author of numerous publications on entrepreneurship,
internationalization of SMEs, and the reorganization of family businesses. Moreover, he is a serial entrepreneur, as is
demonstrated by the many companies he has created.
Andreas A. Brülhart | Andreas Brülhart teaches undergraduate and graduate students, manages research projects
at HEG Fribourg and is responsible for the applied research
projects of the master program. He has degrees in Business
Administration (Diploma) and in Entrepreneurship (MBA) and
earned his PhD in Economics at the University of Liechtenstein. His research interests are in the areas of opportunity
recognition, entrepreneurship education, and measurement
of entrepreneurship. For more than four years now he has
coordinated collection and analysis of the Swiss GEM data.
Through his involvement in several start-ups, he has gained
significant expertise in entrepreneurship.
Fredrik Hacklin | Fredrik Hacklin is research director and
junior faculty member at ETH Zurich, heading research
activities of the Entrepreneurship group at the Department
of Management, Technology and Economics. Fredrik’s area
of expertise centers around innovation and entrepreneurship
in ICT industries. He has been a visiting professor at Keio
University, Japan, a visiting scholar at Stanford University,
USA, and an associate at Booz & Company. He has published his results in various journals, and is author of the
book “?Management of convergence in innovation?” (Springer
2008). Fredrik holds a PhD in Management from ETH Zurich,
and an MSc in Computer Science from KTH Stockholm.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
I
Management Summary (EN)
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report 2013 on
Switzerland illustrates national differences in entrepreneurial
attitudes, activity, and aspirations between economies,
revealing the factors that determine the nature and level
of national entrepreneurial activity, and identifying policy
implications for enhancing entrepreneurship in Switzerland.
The GEM data complement already existing indicators
of competitiveness and innovation.
In the 2013 census, perceived opportunities to start a
business were higher in Switzerland than in previous
years. Switzerland ranks above the average of innovationbased countries. What is particularly noticeable is the
fact that Fear of Failure has clearly lessened in the past
few years, and in 2013 was even lower than in the USA.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Please see glossary for definitions and references
**Average Innovation-driven Economies
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
II
Entrepreneurial Profile
Switzerland shows a higher potential in 2013 with regard
to creating new jobs via young companies (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA). On the other hand, a clear orientation
on (combined product-market) innovation and orientation
to international markets is clear. In these areas, Switzerland
ranks 13th and 5th respectively, which, in the long term,
reaps positive results?: it is known that product innovation
and a company`s orientation to international markets are
closely related to an increase in global demand. This, in
turn, creates new jobs and economic growth.
With the exception of 2010, the entrepreneurial activity rate
(TEA) fluctuated between six and eight percent. Although
the quantitative aspect of entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
is of great interest to policy makers, more attention should
be paid to its quality (low vs high job expectations) and to
the entrepreneurial behavior of employees. Swiss parameters
related to entrepreneurial employee activity are below
average compared with other innovation-driven economies.
In contrast, Switzerland enjoys one of the best positions
in terms of women`s entrepreneurial activity
rates (TEA) (a practically equal woman-to-man ratio).
In 2013, like in the previous year, Switzerland ranked
in first place of all innovation-based economies.
The age structure of entrepreneurial activity in Switzerland
is noteworthy. Entrepreneurial activity among the young
in Switzerland (18-24) is the lowest of all comparable
countries, whereas the 35-44 age group shows the highest
entrepreneurial activity. Data collected for the first time on
entrepreneurship and well-being shows that entrepreneurs
in Switzerland rate their level of subjective well-being
distinctively high when compared to entrepreneurs in
other innovation-driven countries. An interesting finding
is that Switzerland also holds the highest satisfaction
rates among the groups who have been involved in entrepreneurial activities (both early stage and established
business owners)?; however, what is more impressive is
Switzerland’s distinct position when compared to similar
economies such as Norway, Netherlands and Singapore.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
III
Development of Entrepreneurial Activity
in Switzerland (TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
The overall entrepreneurial framework conditions in
Switzerland — along with those in Singapore — are generally
better than those of other innovation-based economies
included in the study. Switzerland achieves outstanding
results in finance, commercial infrastructure, tertiary
education, and knowledge and technology transfer, as
well as in stable internal market dynamics.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Management Summary (DE)
IV
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
Die Hochschule für Wirtschaft (HSW) Freiburg hat in
Zusammenarbeit mit der ETH Zürich und dem SUPSI
Manno in der Schweiz auch 2013 die Datenerhebung für
den internationalen Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
durchgeführt. Mittels 2000 Telefon- und 36 Experteninterviews wurden die unternehmerischen Einstellungen,
Aktivitäten und Ambitionen ermittelt sowie Einflussfaktoren
erhoben, welche Art und Ausmass der unternehmerischen
Tätigkeiten bestimmen.
Der Länderbericht Schweiz des Global Entrepreneurship
Monitors 2013 dokumentiert nationale Unterschiede
bezüglich unternehmerischer Einstellungen, Aktivitäten
und Ambitionen. Im Weiteren werden die Einflussfaktoren
erhoben, die unternehmerische Tätigkeiten eines Landes
beschreiben. Zudem kann dank des GEM das politische
Engagement für Unternehmertum analysiert werden.
Die GEM-Daten ergänzen bereits bestehende Daten in
den Bereichen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Innovation.
In der Erhebung von 2013 wurden in der Schweiz mehr
Möglichkeiten zur Unternehmensgründung wahrgenommen
als in den Jahren zuvor. Die Schweiz liegt mit der Gründungsrate über dem Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten
Länder. Auffallend ist, dass die Angst vor Scheitern in den
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
35.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
* Für Definitionen und Quellenangaben siehe Glossar
** Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften
letzten Jahren eindeutig gesunken ist und 2013 tiefer ausfällt als in
den USA. Die Schweiz nimmt mit den USA sogar die Spitzenposition
aller innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften ein.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
V
Unternehmerisches Profil
Die Schweiz zeigte 2013 ein grösseres Potential bezüglich
der erwarteten Schaffung neuer Arbeitsstellen durch
Jungunternehmen (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA).
Im Weiteren ist eine Konzentration auf (kombinierte ProduktMarkt-) Innovationen und auf eine internationale Ausrichtung
unbestritten. In diesen Bereichen belegt die Schweiz Platz
dreizehn resp. fünf, was langfristig einen positiven Effekt
hat?: Es ist bekannt, dass Produktinnovationen und die
internationale Ausrichtung von Unternehmen eng mit der
globalen Nachfragesteigerung gekoppelt sind. Diese
generiert wiederum wirtschaftliches Wachstum sowie
neue Arbeitsstellen.
Abgesehen vom Jahr 2010 bewegte sich die Quote der
Gründungsaktivität (TEA) jeweils zwischen sechs und
acht Prozent. Interessiert der quantitative Aspekt vor allem
politische Entscheidungsträger, sollte den qualitativen
Aspekten (bspw. tiefe vs. hohe Joberwartungen) sowie
dem unternehmerischen Verhalten nichtsdestoweniger
vermehrt Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden. Die Schweizer
Ergebnisse im Bereich unternehmerischer Mitarbeiteraktivität
liegen unter dem Durchschnitt der innovationsbasierten
Volkswirtschaften. Hingegen rangiert die Schweiz auf einer
der besten Positionen, wenn es um Gründungsaktivität
(TEA) von Frauen geht (praktisch ausgeglichene Frau-
Mann-Ratio). 2013 hielt die Schweiz diesbezüglich sogar
die Spitzenposition aller innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften inne.
Beachtenswert ist in der Schweiz u. a. die Altersstruktur
der Gründungsaktivität. Bei den Jüngeren (18-24 Jahre)
ist die tiefste Gründungsaktivität aller vergleichbaren
Länder feststellbar, hingegen weist die Altersklasse der
35-44-jährigen Personen die höchste Gründungsaktivität
auf. Die zum ersten Mal erhobenen Zahlen bezüglich
Wohlergehen und unternehmerisches Verhalten verdeutlichen, dass Unternehmer in der Schweiz das subjektiv
empfundene Wohlergehen auf einen sehr hohen Level
setzen. Interessant ist zu vermerken, dass der höchste
Befriedigungsgrad für Jungunternehmer wie auch etablierte
Unternehmer zu verzeichnen ist. Die Unterschiede sind
markant auch im Vergleich zu Unternehmern aus Ländern
wie Norwegen, Niederlande und Singapur.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VI
Entwicklung der Gründungsaktivität in der Schweiz
(TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
Die generellen Rahmenbedingungen der Schweiz und
Singapurs sind im Allgemeinen besser als diejenigen
der anderen innovationsbasierten Volkswirtschaften,
die sich an der Studie beteiligt haben. Die Schweiz erreicht
überragende Ergebnisse in den Bereichen Finanzen,
wirtschaftliche Infrastruktur, tertiäre Ausbildung, Wissensund Technologietransfer sowie in der Stabilität der
inländischen Marktdynamik.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VII
Management Summary (FR)
En Suisse, la Haute école de gestion Fribourg (HEG) a mené
l’enquête 2013 pour l’international Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) en collaboration avec l’ETH Zürich et le
SUPSI Manno. Environ 2’000 entretiens téléphoniques et
interviews d’experts ont été effectués pour identifier les
attitudes, les activités et les aspirations entrepreneuriales,
ainsi que les facteurs de succès déterminant la forme et
l’ampleur de l’entrepreneuriat.
Le rapport du Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 pour
la Suisse illustre les différences entre les économies dans
les attitudes, l’activité et les aspirations entrepreneuriales.
Il relève les facteurs déterminant la nature et le niveau de
l’activité entrepreneuriale nationale et identifie les implications
politiques liées à l’encouragement de l’entrepreneuriat en
Suisse. Les données du GEM complètent les indicateurs
de compétitivité et d’innovation.
Dans l’enquête 2013, les opportunités perçues pour créer
une entreprise se révèlent plus élevées par rapport aux
dernières années. En Suisse, le taux de création se situe
en-dessus de la moyenne des pays basés sur l’innovation.
Ces dernières années, il est intéressant de constater que
la crainte de l’échec a chuté pour se situer à un niveau
aussi bas que celui des Etats-Unis. Avec ce dernier pays,
la Suisse se situe donc à la pointe de toutes les économies
basées sur l’innovation.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Voir le glossaire pour les définitions et sources des indicateurs
** La moyenne des économies basées sur l‘innovation
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
VIII
Profil Entrepreneurial
Pour 2013, la Suisse présente un grand potentiel par
rapport à la création d’emplois attendus par le biais de
nouvelles entreprises (Total Entrepreneurial Activity, TEA).
De plus, une concentration sur les innovations (combinaisons
produit-marché) et sur une orientation internationale est
incontestée. Dans ce domaine, la Suisse occupe le 13ème
rang, respectivement le 5ème rang. Cette position représente
un effet positif à long terme. Il est connu, que les innovations
au niveau produit et l’orientation internationale sont étroitement liées à la croissance de la demande globale. Cette
dernière génère, à son tour, une croissance économique
ainsi que de nouveaux emplois.
A l’exception des résultats de l’enquête menée en 2010,
le taux de TEA suisse fluctue généralement entre 6 et 8
pour cent. Bien que l’aspect quantitatif de l’activité entrepreneuriale (TEA) soit d’un grand intérêt pour les décideurs
politiques, une plus grande attention devrait être portée
aux aspects qualitatifs (attentes faibles versus élevées en
matière d’emploi) et au comportement entrepreneurial.
Les résultats suisses liés à l’activité entrepreneuriale des
employés se situent en dessous de la moyenne des pays
basés sur l’innovation. Par contre, la Suisse jouit de l’une
des meilleures positions relative à l’entrepreneuriat féminin
(dans le sens du rapport hommes-femmes pondéré).
En 2013, la Suisse occupait même la première place de
toutes les économies basées sur l’innovation.
La structure des âges relative à la création d’entreprise
en Suisse présente la particularité suivante?: les jeunes
entrepreneurs (18-24 ans) affichent le plus faible taux de
création d’entreprise par rapport aux pays comparables,
alors que la classe d’âge des 35-44 ans présente le taux
le plus élevé de création d’entreprise. Pour la première
fois, les chiffres recueillis concernant le bien-être et le
comportement entrepreneurial explicitent, que les entrepreneurs suisses situent le niveau de bien-être ressenti à
un niveau très élevé. Il est intéressant de remarquer, que
le plus haut niveau de satisfaction est recensé auprès des
jeunes entrepreneurs, mais aussi auprès des entrepreneurs
établis. Les différences sont également marquantes en
comparant les entrepreneurs des pays, comme la Norvège,
les Pays-Bas et Singapour.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
IX
Evolution de l’Activité Entrepreneuriale Nouvelle
(TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
Les conditions-cadres globales du réseau entrepreneurial
en Suisse – comme celles de Singapour – se développent
généralement mieux que celles des autres économies
basées sur l’innovation incluses dans cette étude.
La Suisse atteint d’excellents résultats dans les domaines
de la finance, de l’infrastructure économique, de la formation
tertiaire ainsi que du transfert de connaissances et technologique, tout en affichant des dynamiques de marché
interne stables.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
X
Management Summary (IT)
Il rapporto per la Svizzera del GEM 2013 (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) mostra notevoli differenze per quanto
concerne gli atteggiamenti, le attività e le aspirazioni
imprenditoriali dei diversi paesi che partecipano al rilevamento. Come ogni anno, sono stati rilevati ed analizzati
anche per il 2013 i fattori che influenzano e determinano
la natura e la dimensione delle attività imprenditoriali
in Svizzera, come pure l’impegno politico a sostegno e
promozione dello spirito imprenditoriale. Questi dati completano gli indicatori internazionali già esistenti in materia
di competitività e d’innovazione.
Il rapporto mostra come in Svizzera nel 2013, rispetto agli
anni precedenti, siano state percepite maggiori opportunità
per avviare una nuova attività. La Svizzera si situa al di
sopra della media dei paesi basati sull’innovazione. Colpisce
il fatto che, negli ultimi anni, la paura del fallimento sia
chiaramente diminuita, tanto che nel 2013 si attesta un
livello persino più basso di quello rilevato negli Stati Uniti.
Nel confronto internazionale, la Svizzera si colloca, con
gli Stati Uniti, al primo posto fra tutte le economie basate
sull’innovazione.
General Characteristics*
Rank in Doing Business Index
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness
Index
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom Index
4/178
Global Innovation Index
Rank in GEDI Index
- Entrepreneurial Attitudes
- Entrepreneurial Ability
- Entrepreneurial Aspiration
1/142
0.56 (8/123)
10/123
12-14/123
5-7/123
GEM Entrepreneurial Indicators??: *
2013 **
2013 **
Perceived Opportunities
41.52
33.44 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity Rate (TEA)
8.18
7.89
Perceived Capabilities
44.72
40.62 - Necessity-Driven
(in % of TEA rate)
7.49
18.26
Fear of Failure
35.47
43.18 - Improvement-driven
(in % of TEA rate)
67.19
53.66
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
4.55
4.65 Well-being?:
18-64 population
0.62
0.10
Owner-Managers in New
Businesses Rate
3.70
3.35 Well-being?:
early stage TEA
0.74
0.12
Owner-Managers in Established
Businesses Rate
9.96
6.72 Well-being?: established
business ownership
0.85
0.20
*Per le definizioni e le fonti si veda il Glossario
**Media dell’economie guidate dall’innovazione
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
XI
Profilo Imprenditoriale
La Svizzera, almeno nel breve periodo, non mostra un
grande potenziale per la creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro
nelle nuove imprese (Tasso di attività imprenditoriale, TEA).
Questa mancanza di potenziale, ad eccezione degli Stati
Uniti, vale anche per le economie degli altri paesi del gruppo
di confronto della Svizzera. Ciononostante, si denota per
il nostro paese un chiaro orientamento all’innovazione
(nella combinazione prodotto mercato) e all’internazionalizzazione. Su queste dimensioni, la Svizzera si situa al
ottavo posto, rispettivamente al sesto. In termini di effetti
sul lungo termine questo posizionamento è sicuramente
di buon auspicio. È noto, infatti, che l’innovazione di prodotto
e l’internazionalizzazione delle imprese sono strettamente
connesse con l’aumento della domanda globale, con la
creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro e, quindi, con la crescita
economica.
Ad eccezione del 2010, il tasso di attività imprenditoriale
(TEA) in Svizzera si è mosso tra il sei e l’otto per cento.
Anche se i decisori politici guardano soprattutto gli aspetti
quantitativi del fenomeno, particolarmente interessanti e
degni di nota sono pure gli elementi qualitativi del fenomeno,
segnatamente, per esempio, le aspettative, più o meno
elevate, in termini di creazione di posti di lavoro, oppure
le attitudini ed i comportamenti imprenditoriali.
I risultati per la Svizzera riguardanti le attività imprenditoriali dei collaboratori (la cosiddetta intraprenditorialità)
sono al di sotto della media delle economie basate, come
il nostro paese, sull’innovazione. Tuttavia, la Svizzera gode
di una delle migliori posizioni per quanto concerne il tasso
d’attività imprenditoriale (TEA) delle donne che, nel 2012,
ha ormai raggiunto un rapporto d’equilibrio (praticamente
1?:1) con gli uomini, posizionando la Svizzera al primo
posto tra tutte le economie basate sull’innovazione.
Degna di nota, inoltre, per la Svizzera, è pure la struttura
per età dell’attività imprenditoriale. Tra i giovani (18-24
anni), si constata il tasso più basso tra tutti i paesi comparabili con il nostro. Al contrario, la fascia di età compresa
tra i 35 e i 44 anni presenta, nel confronto, una più alta
attività imprenditoriale. I dati raccolti per la prima volta su
imprenditorialità e benessere mostrano che gli imprenditori
in Svizzera valutano il loro livello di benessere soggettivo
in modo relativamente alto se comparato agli altri imprenditori nei paesi basati sull’innovazione. E ‘interessante
notare che la Svizzera detiene i tassi di soddisfazione più
alti tra i giovani imprenditori, come pure tra gli imprenditori
affermati. Le differenze sono sorprendenti anche rispetto
a paesi simili economicamente, come la Norvegia, i Paesi
Bassi e Singapore.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
XII
Andamento del Tasso di Attività Imprenditoriale
Early-Stage (TEA)
Entrepreneurial activity (TEA) from 2002-2013
of the 18-64 year-old population in %
In Svizzera, così come a Singapore, le condizioni quadro
sono generalmente migliori rispetto a quelle degli altri
paesi orientati all’innovazione che hanno partecipato allo
studio. La Svizzera ha raggiunto ottimi risultati nei campi
della finanza, delle infrastrutture economiche, nel trasferimento delle conoscenze e delle tecnologie, nonché nel
campo della stabilità delle dinamiche interne del mercato.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction
1.1 The GEM Project
1.2 How GEM Measures Entrepreneurship
1.3 The GEM Conceptual Framework and
Methodology
1
1
2
3
4 I nstitutional Context
(Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions)
26
5 F
ifteen Years of GEM – Indicators and
Trends for Switzerland
32
2 T
he Phases and Profiles of
Entrepreneurship
2.1 Entrepreneurial Attitudes
2.2 Entrepreneurial Activities
2.2.1 Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
2.2.2 Motivations to Start a Business
2.2.3 Established Business Ownership
2.2.4 Discontinuance
2.2.5 Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship
6
6 Entrepreneurship and Well-Being
6.1 GEM 2013 Highlights on Switzerland
40
42
Literature
50
3 Impact
– Growth, Innovation,
and Internationalization
3.1 Growth Orientation
3.2 Innovative Orientation
3.3 International Orientation
19
7
9
10
10
12
13
14
16
20
22
24
Glossary 53
Country List
57
Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEDI)
and Switzerland
58
List of Experts
63
GEM Team Switzerland
65
Copyright 2013 - R. Baldegger, S. Alberton, F. Hacklin, A. Brülhart, A. Huber, O. Saglan and P. Wild
ISBN?: 978-2-940384-26-6
Layout?: By the way studio
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
1
1 Introduction
1.1
The GEM Project
Entrepreneurship has become a term that is increasingly
widespread around the world. According to key players in
society, including policymakers, academics, entrepreneurs
themselves, and the population at large, entrepreneurship
tends to be associated with economic development and
well-being of society. Since its beginning, GEM (Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor) has had as one of its core
principles, the objective to explore and assess the role of
entrepreneurship in national economic growth. This scope
is aligned with the “?Schumpeterian?” view that entrepreneurs
are ambitious and spur innovation, speed up structural
changes in the economy, introduce new competition
and contribute to productivity, job creation and national
competitiveness. However, entrepreneurship has many
faces and also includes initiatives that are accompanied
by less ambitious business activities leading to limited
or no growth. It is important to note that different types
of entrepreneurship may all have important implications
for socio-economic development.
For its 15 years of existence, GEM has measured entrepreneurship in 104 economies, and has gained widespread
recognition as the most authoritative longitudinal study
of entrepreneurship in the world. In 2013, more than 197,000
individuals have been surveyed and approximately 3,800
country experts on entrepreneurship participated in
the study across 70 economies, collectively representing
all regions of the world and a broad range of economic
development levels. The samples in the GEM study
covered an estimated 75% of the world’s population and
90% of the world’s total GDP.
GEM contributes to the understanding of the role played
by new and small businesses in the economy by focusing
on the following objectives?:
• to allow for comparisons with regard to the level and
characteristics of entrepreneurial activity among different
economies?;
• to determine the extent to which entrepreneurial
activity influences economic growth within individual
economies?;
• to identify factors which encourage and/or hinder
entrepreneurial activity?; and
• to guide the formulation of effective and targeted
policies aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship.
GEM provides a comprehensive view of entrepreneurship
across the globe by measuring the attitudes of a population,
and the activities and characteristics of individuals involved
in various phases and types of entrepreneurial activity.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
1.2
2
How GEM Measures Entrepreneurship
Since its beginning, GEM’s focus has been on individuals
as units of observation, men and women who are involved
in different stages of entrepreneurial dynamics.. Entrepreneurship is a process comprising different phases, from
intending to start, to just starting, to running new or
established enterprises and even discontinuing a business.
Given that the context and conditions that affect entrepreneurship in different economies are diverse and complex,
it is not possible to conclude that one phase inevitably
leads to the next. The entrepreneurship process and
GEM’s operational definitions are illustrated in Figure 1.
GEM’s conceptualization of entrepreneurship as a multiphase
process is useful for assessing the state of entrepreneurship
at different points. This process starts with the involvement
of potential entrepreneurs – those individuals who believe
they possess the capabilities to start businesses, who see
opportunities for entrepreneurship, and who would not
be dissuaded from doing so for fear of failing. For some
potential entrepreneurs, their intentions to start businesses
are underpinned by the perceptions society holds of
entrepreneurs, the status these individuals enjoy in their
society, and whether the media positively represents
entrepreneurs.
The next phase is nascent entrepreneurial activity – i.e.
those starting new enterprises less than three months
old. Given the challenges associated with starting a new
business, many fledgling businesses fail in the first few
months, hence not all nascent entrepreneurs progress to
the next stage. New business owners are defined as those
former nascent entrepreneurs who have been in business
for more than three months, but less than three and a
half years. Nascent and new business owners together
account for the total early-stage entrepreneurial activity
(TEA) in an economy, a key measure of GEM.
Established businesses are those that have been in existence
for more than three and a half years. It is important to
consider both established business owners as well as entrepreneurs who have discontinued or exited businesses
because these two categories represent a key resource
for other entrepreneurs (for example, by providing financing,
mentorship, advice or other types of support). In addition,
former entrepreneurs may reenter entrepreneurship (serving
as serial entrepreneurs) or they may join established
companies and enact their entrepreneurial ambitions as
employees.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3
1.3 The GEM Conceptual Framework and
Methodology
Figure 1?:
The Entrepreneurship Process
Discontinuance
of Business
TOTAL EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA)
Potential
Entrepreneurs:
Opportunities,
Knowledge
and Skills
Nascent Entrepreneur:
Involved in Setting Up
a business
Conception
Owner-Manager of
a new Business
(up to 3.5 years old)
Firm Birth
Persistence
Early-stage Entrepreneurship Profile
Socio-demographics
- Sex
- Age
Industry
- Sector
Owner-Manager
of an Established
Business
(more than
3.5 years old)
Impact
- Business growth
- Innovation
- Internationalization
The current GEM model, shown in Figure 2, sets out key
elements of the relationship between entrepreneurship
and economic growth and the way in which the elements
interact. At the same time, it acknowledges that the
contribution entrepreneurs make to an economy varies
according to that economy`s phase of economic development, which to a certain extent drives the institutional
setting. It also reflects a nuanced distinction between phases
of economic development, in line with Porter’s typology of
“?factor-driven economies?”, “?efficiency-driven economies?”
and “innovation-driven economies” (Porter et al., 2002),
and recognizes that GEM’s unique contribution was to
describe and measure, in detail, the conditions under
which entrepreneurship and innovation can thrive.
The framework incorporates the three main components
that capture the multi-faceted nature of entrepreneurship?:
entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial activity, and entrepreneurial aspirations. These are included as components
of a “?black box?” that produces innovation, economic
growth and job creation, without spelling out in detail how
they affect and reinforce each other. Figure 2 also shows
how GEM measures different components, such as entrepreneurial framework conditions using the national expert
survey, and the entrepreneurship profiles, encompassing
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
4
Figure 2?:
The GEM Conceptual Model
Basic requirements
From other
available
sources
- Institutions
- Infrastructure
- Macroeconomic stability
- Health and primary
education
Etablished Firms
Employee
Entrepreneurial
Activity
From GEM
2011 Adult
Population
Survey (APS)
Efficiency enhancers
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Context
- Higher education &
training
- Goods market efficiency
- Labor market efficiency
- Financial market
sophistication
- Technological readiness
- Market size
Innovation and
entrepreneurship
- Entrepreneurial finance
- Government policy
- Government
entrepreneurship
programs
- Entrepreneurship
education
- R&D transfer
- Internal market openness
- Physical infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Commerical, legal
infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
- Cultural and social norms
From GEM
National Expert
Surveys (NES)
Entrepreneurship Profile
Attitudes:
Perceived opportunities &
capabilities; Fear of Failure;
Status of entrepreneurship
SocioEconomic
Development
(Jobs,
Innovation,
Social value)
Activity:
Opportunity/Necessity-driven,
Early-stage; Inclusiveness;
Industry; Exits
Aspirations:
Growth, Innovation
International orientation
Social value creation
From GEM
Adult
Population
Survey (APS)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
entrepreneurial attitudes, activity and aspirations using
the adult population survey.
One of the key purposes of GEM is to provide reliable
data on entrepreneurship that will be useful over time
in making meaningful comparisons, both internally and
between economies. For this reason, all participating
economies make use of standard research instruments.
The GEM data is gathered annually and is derived from
two main sources, namely?:
Adult Population Survey (APS)
Each participating economy conducts a survey of a random
representative sample of at least 2,000 adults (aged 18
years old). The surveys are conducted at the same time of
year (generally between April and June), using a standardized
questionnaire developed by the GEM consortium. The raw
data is sent directly to the GEM data team for inspection
and uniform statistical calculations before being made
available to the participating economies.
National Experts Survey (NES)
The NES provides insights into the entrepreneurial startup
environment in each economy with regard to the nine
entrepreneurial framework conditions, namely?:
5
• financing
• governmental policies
• governmental programs
• education and training
• research and development transfer
• commercial infrastructure
• internal market openness
• physical infrastructure
• cultural and social norms
The NES sample comprises a minimum of 36 respondents,
with four experts drawn from each of the entrepreneurial
framework condition categories. Out of this sample, a
minimum of 25% must be entrepreneurs or business owners,
and 50% must be professionals.
Additional aspects such as geographical distribution, gender,
the public versus private sector, and level of experience
are also taken into account in selecting the sample.
In addition to the APS and NES, GEM reports also make
use of standardized national data from international data
sources such as the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund. and the United Nations. This information is used to
add context to the report, and to explain the relationship
between entrepreneurial activity and national economic
growth.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
6
2 The Phases and Profiles of
Entrepreneurship
This section examines the rate of individual participation
in the various phases of entrepreneurship for Switzerland
as compared with other innovation-driven countries.
We discuss potential entrepreneurs, individuals with the
intention of starting businesses, people starting and running
new businesses (early-stage entrepreneurs), those running
established businesses, and the discontinuation of
businesses.
The GEM data collection for Switzerland yields entrepreneurial profiles along three important dimensions.
Entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions, and intentions
reflect the degree to which individuals tend to appreciate
entrepreneurship, both in terms of general attitudes and
in terms of self-perceptions?: how many individuals recognize
business opportunities, how many believe they have the
skills and knowledge to exploit such opportunities, and
how many would be prevented from exploiting such opportunities due to fear of failure ? Entrepreneurial activity
measures the observed involvement in several phases of
entrepreneurial activity. It also tracks the degree to which
entrepreneurial activities are driven by opportunity and/or
necessity. Moreover, discontinuations of entrepreneurial
activity (and the reasons for doing so) are estimated,
based on the GEM Adult Population Surveys. Finally,
entrepreneurial aspirations are of key importance in
addressing the (socio-) economic impact of entrepreneurial
behavior. Of particular interest are those entrepreneurs
who expect to create jobs, to be involved in international
trade, and/or to contribute to society by offering new
products and services.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Fostering entrepreneurial awareness and positive attitudes
toward entrepreneurship is high on Switzerland’s policy
agenda. The idea is that evolving attitudes and perceptions
toward entrepreneurship could affect those individuals
wishing to venture into entrepreneurship. However, the key
factor that determines whether someone progresses to
entrepreneurship is not the perception of opportunities for
start-ups or of (matching) personal capabilities?: context
also plays a role. Factors such as the availability of (good)
job alternatives in an economy can make a difference
for those who perceive market opportunities and have
confidence in their own entrepreneurial capabilities, and
help to determine whether they engage in independent
entrepreneurial activity or not. So, while in some societies
positive attitudes and perceptions toward entrepreneurship
may be instrumental in achieving new (high-value) entrepreneurial activities, in many others they are certainly not,
on their own, sufficient reason for people to choose to
engage in entrepreneurial activity.
?
Table 1?:
Entrepreneurial Perceptions,
Intentions and Societal Attitudes
in Innovation-Driven Economies, 2013
Belgium
Canada
31.5
57.4
33.8
48.5
46.6
35.2
7.8
13.5
Czech Republic
23.1
42.6
35.8
13.7
Finland
43.8
33.3
36.7
8.3
44.3
85.5
France
22.9
33.2
41.1
12.6
55.3
70.0
41.4
Germany
31.3
37.7
38.6
6.8
49.4
75.2
49.9
Greece
13.5
46.0
49.3
8.8
60.1
65.1
32.4
Ireland
28.3
43.1
40.4
12.6
49.6
81.2
59.9
Israel
46.5
36.2
51.8
24.0
60.6
80.3
49.1
Italy
17.3
29.1
48.6
9.8
65.6
72.4
48.1
7.7
12.9
49.4
4.1
31.3
52.8
57.6
Japan
54.8
60.6
52.2
70.1
Media attention for entrepreneurship +
High Status to successful
entrepreneurs +
Entrepreneurship as a
good career choice +
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
Fear of failure*
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Perceived
capabilities
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
Perceived
opportunities
2.1
7
43.9
69.6
47.8
68.5
Korea
12.7
28.1
42.3
12.1
51.3
67.8
67.6
Luxembourg
45.6
43.3
42.9
14.1
39.4
70.6
36.3
Netherlands
32.7
42.4
36.8
9.1
79.5
66.2
55.2
Norway
63.7
34.2
35.3
5.2
49.3
75.5
56.9
Portugal
20.2
48.7
40.1
13.2
Puerto Rico
28.3
53.0
24.6
13.1
17.9
50.1
68.8
Singapore
22.2
24.8
39.8
15.1
50.9
59.4
75.3
50.5
Slovenia
16.1
51.5
29.6
12.4
57.4
68.1
Spain
16.0
48.4
36.3
8.4
54.3
52.3
45.6
Sweden
64.4
38.8
36.6
9.5
52.0
71.5
58.5
Switzerland
41.5
44.7
28.2
9.8
40.5
65.0
47.8
Taiwan
42.0
27.2
40.7
27.8
73.0
64.5
87.1
Trinidad & Tobago
58.0
75.3
19.8
28.7
79.5
United Kingdom
35.5
43.8
36.4
7.2
54.1
United States
47.2
55.7
31.1
12.2
33.4
40.6
38.2
12.3
average (unweighted)
72.0
79.3
53.5
* fear of failure assessed among those seeing opportunities
** intentions assessed in non-entrepreneur (non-TEA) population
+ These questions were optional and therefore not included by all economies
67.3
61.0
49.6
55.7
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
For example, there may be other excellent options available
to individuals. Bearing this in mind, we can see in Table
1 how Switzerland compares in terms of entrepreneurial
perceptions and attitudes to other innovation-driven economies in general and to the comparison group in particular.
Table 1 reflects the percentage of individuals who believe
there are opportunities to start a business in the area they
live in. Perceived capabilities reflect the percentages of
individuals who believe they have the required skills and
knowledge to start a new business. The measure of fear
of failure (when it comes to starting your own business)
applies to these individuals only. Entrepreneurial intentions
are defined by the percentage of individuals who expect
to start a business within the next three years (those who
are currently already entrepreneurially active are excluded
from this calculation). For all four measures we should
consider that cultural differences and business-cycle
patterns are an important explanation for the differences
in perceptions across countries.
In the 2013 census the perceived opportunities (41.5%)
8
to start a business are higher in Switzerland than in 2012
and higher than the average (33.4%) for innovation-driven
economies. Nordic countries, such as Finland, Sweden,
and Norway, remain at the top when it comes to available
opportunities.
Switzerland shows, as in previous years, a rather high
perception of capabilities paired with a very low fear of
failure. While Switzerland’s perception of capabilities is at
least as good as or even better than the European benchmark,
it still lags behind the United States inhabitants’very strong
belief in their own capacity to start a business. The entrepreneurial intentions of Swiss inhabitants (9.8%) are
higher than in 2012 (7.3%) and under the average (12.3%)
for innovation-driven countries. Most remarkable are the
differences between Switzerland, Singapore, Germany,
and France. While in Germany only 6.8% of the individuals
expect to start a business in the next three years, almost
one-sixth of the individuals in Singapore and 12.6% in
France are thinking about setting up a new business.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
?
Table 2?:
Entrepreneurial Activity
in Innovation-Driven
Economies, 2013
Discontinuation of
businesses
Necessity-driven
(% of TEA)
Improvement-driven
opportunity (% of TEA)
GEM conceptualizes entrepreneurship as a continuous
process that includes nascent entrepreneurs involved in
setting up a business, entrepreneurs who own and manage
a new business, and entrepreneurs who own and manage
an established business. In addition, GEM assesses the
rate and nature of business discontinuations. As a result,
indicators for several phases of the entrepreneurial process
are available. Table 2 shows these entrepreneurial activity
prevalence rates per phase of economic development.
Taken together, these prevalence rates form a first glance
of the entrepreneurial dynamics for each of the economies.
In the remainder of this section, we elaborate on these
phases of entrepreneurial activity. Most attention is paid to
the situation in Switzerland, its development over the last
years, and the comparison with innovation-driven economies.
Established business
ownership rate
3.1
7.8
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
Belgium
Canada
Entrepreneurial Activities
New business
ownership rate
Nascent
entrepreneurship rate
2.2
9
1.9
4.7
4.9
12.2
5.9
8.4
1.9
4.4
29.0
15.1
43.9
66.9
Czech Republic
4.9
2.7
7.3
5.3
3.4
22.7
60.3
Finland
2.7
2.7
5.3
6.6
2.0
17.9
66.0
60.9
France
2.7
1.8
4.6
4.1
1.9
15.7
Germany
3.1
2.0
5.0
5.1
1.5
18.7
55.7
Greece
3.3
2.3
5.5
12.6
5.0
23.5
35.8
Ireland
5.5
3.8
9.2
7.5
2.5
18.0
43.8
Israel
5.3
4.8
10.0
5.9
4.8
17.4
49.2
Italy
2.4
1.1
3.4
3.7
1.9
18.7
18.4
Japan
2.2
1.5
3.7
5.7
1.5
25.0
59.6
Korea
2.7
4.2
6.9
9.0
2.5
36.5
51.1
Luxembourg
6.0
2.8
8.7
2.4
2.8
5.6
56.6
Netherlands
4.7
4.8
9.3
8.7
2.1
8.0
67.1
60.8
Norway
2.9
3.4
6.3
6.2
1.6
4.0
Portugal
4.2
4.2
8.2
7.7
2.8
21.4
50.7
Puerto Rico
6.6
1.8
8.3
2.0
1.8
21.5
42.9
Singapore
6.4
4.4
10.7
4.2
3.3
8.4
68.8
Slovenia
3.6
2.9
6.5
5.7
2.6
24.1
53.4
Spain
3.1
2.2
5.2
8.4
1.9
29.2
33.2
Sweden
5.9
2.5
8.2
6.0
2.4
9.7
58.4
Switzerland
4.5
3.7
8.2
10.0
2.3
7.5
67.2
Taiwan
3.3
5.0
8.2
8.3
5.0
28.7
45.8
Trinidad & Tobago
11.4
8.5
19.5
11.4
4.1
11.2
76.0
United Kingdom
3.6
3.6
7.1
6.6
1.9
16.1
45.2
United States
9.2
3.7
12.7
7.5
3.8
21.2
57.4
average (unweighted)
4.7
3.3
7.9
6.7
2.8
18.3
53.7
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
10
2.2.1 Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
Figure 3?:
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in Innovation-Driven Economies, 2013
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Innovation-Driven Economies
Trinidad & Tobago
United States
Canada
Singapore
Israel
Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
Puerto Rico
Sweden
Portugal
Switzerland
Taiwan
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Korea
Slovenia
Norway
Greece
Finland
Spain
Germany
Belgium
France
Japan
Italy
0%
The Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate is
defined as the prevalence rate of individuals in the workingage population who are actively involved in business start-ups,
either in the phase in advance of the birth of the firm (nascent
entrepreneurs), or the phase spanning 42 months after the
birth of the firm (owner-managers of new firms). As such,
GEM takes the payment of any wages for more than three
months as the “?birth event?” of the firm.
Figure 3 shows the TEA rates for innovation-driven economies. The 95% confidence intervals help to interpret the
differences between countries. They measure the probability that the average value will fall within a certain range.
Although the Swiss TEA rate tends to be higher than in
neighboring countries such as France or Germany, adopting
the 95% certainty, TEA rates of these countries are not
statistically different from their Swiss counterpart. Among
the comparison group, only the United States (12.7%)
and Singapore (10.7%) differ considerably. After the 2010
cycle, which was strongly influenced by the aftermath of
the financial crisis, many Swiss entrepreneurship activity
indicators for 2011 and 2012 turned upward again, with the
total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) being one of them. After
the all-time low of a Swiss TEA rate in 2010 of only 5%,
the most important indicator for entrepreneurial activity
once more reaches a normal level (8.2%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 4?:
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in Switzerland by age, 2009-2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
18-24 Jahre
25-34 Jahre
35-44 Jahre
45-54 Jahre
55-64 Jahre
11
This rebound in entrepreneurial activities in Switzerland
is reflected across most of the different age categories
(Figure 4). When it comes to entrepreneurship, age matters.
On the one hand, young people are often more likely to
have fresh ideas?; they have grown up with digital technologies, and in some societies they have received more
education than their parents. On the other hand, older
people have often accumulated an extensive body of
experience, contacts, and capital over the course of their
careers. This mix of social and financial capital puts this
age group into a particular position.
Entrepreneurial activity among the adult population older
than 35 is high at 10.4%, whereas the TEA rate of younger
Swiss inhabitants still lags considerably behind the 2009
peak. Compared to other innovation-driven countries, the
TEA rate for the 18-24 age group is, at 2.6%, the lowest
and is clearly below average (6.3%) and 10.4% for entrepreneurs between 35-44 years (9.8% innovation-driven
economies). The TEA rate for people older than 55 years
(so-called Senior entrepreneurs) is, at 4.9 %, also above
the average of innovation-driven countries (4.3%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
12
2.2.2 Motivations to Start a Business
The motivations for starting a business differ vastly across
the globe. Individual drivers are traditionally captured within
the GEM framework by setting out necessity-driven entrepreneurship and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship.
A necessity-driven entrepreneur indicates in the GEM Adult
Population Survey that s/he started the business because
there were no better options for work, rather than seeing
Necessity-Driven (% of TEA)
Improvement-Driven opportunity (% of TEA)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
the start-up as an opportunity. For those who did see the
start-up as an opportunity (rather than no other options
for work), a further assessment was made on the nature
of this opportunity. Improvement-driven opportunity (IDO)
entrepreneurs are defined as those opportunity-driven
entrepreneurs who indicate that the opportunity be linked
to either earning more money or being more independent,
as opposed to maintaining income.
As figure 5 and 6 illustrate, entrepreneurs in factor-driven
economies tend to be driven equally by necessity and improvement-driven opportunity (IDO) motives. With greater
economic development levels, necessity gradually falls
off as a motivator, while IDO motives increase. The Swiss
indicator for improvement-driven activities lies slightly
higher than the average for innovation-driven countries
and has remained rather stable over the last three years.
Although the difference in the motivation structure of Swiss
female and male inhabitants is not statistically significant,
one can state that for maintaining income, opportunitydriven entrepreneurship is more strongly represented
among females than among males.
? Figure 5?:
Percentage of Early-Stage Entrepreneurs
0%
Factor-Driven
Economies
Efficiency-Driven
Economies
Innovation-Driven
Economies
Switzerland
(TEA) Motivated by Necessity and
Improvement-Driven, 2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Necessity-driven
13
Improvement-driven opportunity
80%
2.2.3 Established Business Ownership
70%
60%
50%
While it is important to have early-stage entrepreneurs to
generate dynamism in an economy, established businesses
and their owner-managers ensure an important degree of
stability for the private sector. Owner-managers in established
firms provide stable employment, can avail themselves of
the knowledge accumulated in past experiences, and as
such may contribute greatly to their societies – even if they
are small or solo entrepreneurs. A healthy set of business
owners provides some indication of the sustainability of
entrepreneurship in a society.
Together with the TEA, the Swiss rate for established
business is lower in 2012 (Figure 7). It is notable that the
proportion of early entrepreneurial activity and established
business remained almost the same as in 2012 and 2010.
However, in 2007 and 2009 the two rates were much
closer. The distinct prevalence of the established business
rate over the TEA is quite unique within the comparison
group. Switzerland, among other countries with lowerthan-average TEA rates (Sweden, Japan, Finland, and Spain),
shows comparatively high established business ownership.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Factor Driven
Efficency Driven
Innovation Driven
Switzerland
Figure 6?:
Percentage of Entrepreneurs Motivated by Necessity and Opportunity,
by Phase of Economic Development and Switzerland
TEA
Established Businesses
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
?
F
igure 7?:
TEA rates and established business
0%
2003
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
rates from 2003 to 2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
14
2.2.4 Discontinuance
As new businesses emerge, others close. Those individuals
selling or closing their businesses may once again benefit
their societies by re-entering the entrepreneurship process.
Recognizing the importance of this measure, GEM tracks
the number of individuals who have discontinued a business
in the last 12 months. Discontinuance may be considered
along with TEA and established businesses as a component
of entrepreneurial dynamism in an economy. GEM Survey
respondents who had discontinued a business in the
previous 12 months were asked to give the main reason
for doing so.
Financial difficulties and unprofitable businesses are considered “?negative?” reasons for abandoning a business.
In Switzerland, these two reasons account for 18.8% of
business discontinuance. 8.6% of all businesses were
stopped due to financial reasons in Switzerland. Figure 8
shows that the average for innovation-driven countries is
higher and in Finland, Sweden, UK and the USA finances
are less important reasons for stopping a business.
For a substantial portion of entrepreneurs, discontinuance
was already planned in advance (meaning that the business
start-up was merely considered a “?project?”), or resulted
from another job or business opportunity or even from the
opportunity to sell the business. These “?positive?” reasons
for discontinuing businesses explain 40% (compared to
2012?: 20%) of all discontinuations in Switzerland. The opportunity to sell the business as the reason to discontinue
merits attention. In 2013, 14% of businesses that ceased
trading were sold (Figure 8), compared to 9% in 2011 and
12% in 2012. Among innovation-driven economies, Switzerland has the highest number.
Retirement is an issue in innovation-driven economies,
for example, especially in several European countries and
also in Japan — countries that are facing challenges with
their ageing societies. The Swiss data for 2013 reveals that
retirement is the reason why 8.7 % of all businesses were
stopped in the last 12 months. On average one of four
entrepreneurs stopped their business due to personal
reasons. Personal reasons have higher importance in
France (39%) and Norway (41%).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 8?:
Reasons for discontinuing a
Business, Selected Countries
and Switzerland, 2013
15
Opportunity to sell
Business not profitable
Problems getting finance
Other job or business opportunity
Exit was planned in advance
Retirement
Personal reasons
Incident
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Innovation-Driven Economies
United States
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Singapore
Norway
Germany
France
Finland
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
16
2.2.5 Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship
Not only do structure and nature of entrepreneurial
activities vary across countries or over time, but gender,
too, plays a determining role in such activities (Acs et al.,
2008). Demographically, Switzerland has an equal proportion of men and women in the 15-64 age groups, which is
also the case in most of the other nations in the world (CIA
World Fact Book, 2013). However, as a global trend, the
number of females engaged in entrepreneurial activity is
in most countries historically lower than for their male
counterparts, which may well be explained by various social,
cultural, or economic factors. In some countries, the number
of males participating in entrepreneurial activities can
be dramatically higher and the male preponderance
is obvious.
There also exist a few “?outlier?” nations where exactly the
opposite scenario can be observed, that is, where female
entrepreneurs outnumber male entrepreneurs?; these include
a few countries in Southeast Asia, Northern Europe and
the USA. In addition to these extreme cases, however,
there are economies where the female and male ratio of
early-stage entrepreneurial activity is balanced. Female
and male numbers that remain in equilibrium may sound
like a desirable scenario since women’s entrepreneurship
brings about additional contributions to economic growth,
such as job creation and the increased GDP that the
global economy urgently needs (OECD Report, 2004).
This category also includes Switzerland, which is very
good news for this innovation-driven economy.
Actually, in terms of early-stage entrepreneurial activity,
Switzerland enjoys the best position (meaning the equalized
female-to-male ratio) when compared with other innovationdriven economies such as those in the Scandinavian
countries or the French, German, Austrian and even U.S.
economies (Figure 9 and 10). In other words, whereas the
female-to-male ratio in Norway is 2?:?5, and in France 1?:?2,
the ratio in Switzerland is 1?:?1.
In 2003 founding activity was still predominantly male, but
this has become increasingly balanced over the last four
years. In 2013 development was stabilised, with efforts
made to set up companies by men and women at almost
the same level. If one analyses female entrepreneurship
in Switzerland, it is striking that the portion of companies
set up out of necessity is significantly lower than in other
countries. This can be interpreted, on one hand, as a sign
of women’s strong position in economic activities combined
with growing self-confidence, and on the other, as an indication of Switzerland’positive overall economic situation.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 9?:
A further reason could lie – according to Eurostat – in the
above-average quota of working women (79.1%) and the
high proportion of part-time work (60%) on an international scale. To maintain or raise the level of entrepreneurial activities carried out by women as far as possible, it is
absolutely crucial to expand social support systems and
force acceptance and promotion of women as entrepreneurs. Efforts of this kind require a change in society, and
therefore much endurance in all respects.
Male and Female Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity 2013, by Country
and Phase of Economic Development
Male
Female
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Switzerland
Italy
Germany
France
United States
Singapore
Finland
Sweden
0.00
Norway
17
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
18
Figure 10?:
Relation Male and Female
Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity 2003 -2013
in Switzerland
Total
Männlich
Weiblich
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
19
3 Impact – Growth, Innovation,
and Internationalization
Ever since Schumpeter’s day (Schumpeter, 1934) scholars
and researchers, and others too, have concurred with the
opinion that entrepreneurs make, in more ways than one,
a significant contribution to economic development.
Entrepreneurial activity, in fact, can boost the welfare
of a nation (or a region) and produce a range of economic
benefits, including?: job creation, greater innovative
capacity, and knowledge spill-over, to mention but a few
(Ács, Autio, & Szerb, 2014). Audretsch (2007) argues that
a region’s welfare depends on its entrepreneurial capital.
However, there is no simple or easy way of measuring
the impacts of a given phenomenon?; and this is mostly
due to the time factor, since any appreciable results may
take long to emerge. Also, the impact indicators tend to
be circumscribed to the economic sphere (Glassey, Leresche,
& Moeschler, 2013). To assess the overall effect of entrepreneurship across an economic system we would need
to extend the current indicators to incorporate further
dimensions. Bear in mind that, besides its economic and
technological components, entrepreneurship is first and
foremost a social process. The present chapter analyses
entrepreneurial aspirations, namely the will of individuals to
achieve the highest possible economic and social value
(Farmer, Yao, & Kung-Mcintyre, 2011). Aspirations refer
to some desire, a yearning, for something that we do not
possess yet. As such, they reflect not only our attitudes,
but also the way we want to see ourselves and, consequently,
they are closely connected with the way we act and behave,
or want to act and behave. The Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) measures the effects of the entrepreneurial
phenomenon based on entrepreneurs’ aspirations, particularly growth expectations (in terms of jobs), innovation
(mostly as applied to products and services and markets)
and, finally, international orientation. These indicators of
entrepreneurial ambition have indeed been convincingly
associated to the economic development of a nation
or region (Bosma & Schutjens, 2011).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.1
20
Growth Orientation
The latest available data on company demographics tell us
that in 2011 over 11,500 firms were created in Switzerland,
generating 20,500 jobs (Swiss Federal Statistical Office,
2011). A dip can be noticed in these figures compared
to the previous year, which was characterised by strong
economic growth. New firms continue nonetheless to
represent a major source of new employment. An average
of two jobs are created during the first year of a firm’s
activity?; after five years the number of new jobs settles
at 3.7 (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2013). In addition,
some enterprises exhibit high growth trajectories, with
annual payroll increasing on average by more than 20%,
and turnover growing exponentially. These firms are often
known as ‘gazelles’ (Birch, 1987). In the international context, Switzerland registers a relatively high rate of gazelles,
approximately 0.5% of all enterprises (OECD, 2012).
Generally speaking, growth aspirations, whether expressed
by payroll figures or by turnover, account for a good deal
of the impact of any entrepreneurial activity. In the survey
entrepreneurs, defined according to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor criteria, were required to indicate their
current number of employees and the number of employees
expected in five years’ time.
Figure 11 illustrates Total early-stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA) subdivided by growth expectations reflected
in payroll numbers. The TEA index for Switzerland, at 8.2%
in 2013, is made up of 80% of entrepreneurial activity with
low growth expectations, where permanent staff is anticipated to increase by a maximum of 4 over the next five
years. About 15% represents medium-growth activity (5
- 19 jobs) and the remaining 5.4% is made up of activities
where staff is expected to increase by more than 20, over
10 percentage points less than in the United States and
approximately 8 percentage points lower than the European
Union average. This last figure is influenced mostly by
Eastern-European economies, where activities with high
growth-expectations hit a percentage of over 15% of their
TEA. Even admitting that entrepreneurs with a high growth
potential tend to overestimate the number of jobs they
hope to generate, there is no denying that their activities
will nonetheless influence job creation to a considerable
degree (GEM, 2011).
United States
United Kingdom
Trinidad & Tobago
Taiwan
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
5 - 19 jobs
Slovenia
Singapore
Puerto Rico
Portugal
0 - 5 jobs
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Korea
Japan
Italy
Israel
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Czech Republic
Canada
Belgium
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
21
Figure 11?:
Job Growth Expectations for Early-Stage
Entrepreneurship Activity
100%
20 or more jobs
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.2
22
Innovative Orientation
Entrepreneurship may be defined as an activity that involves
discovering, assessing, and making the most of opportunities
for launching new goods and services, new productive
processes, new organisation models and new raw materials
by husbanding resources and efforts that had hitherto been
unavailable, or otherwise organised (Shane, 2003). Thus,
the entrepreneurial process is closely associated to the
promotion and launch of some kind of innovation. These innovations need not necessarily be related to Schumpeter’s
concept of creative destruction. They may also be classified
as incremental or as disruptive. Recent data published by
KOF (the Swiss Economic Institute of the Federal Institute
of Technology Zurich) revealed that 40% of Swiss firms
launched one product or process innovation over the 20092011 period (SECO, 2013). This was based on a three-year
study on innovation commissioned by SECO and surveying
6,500 Swiss enterprises. According to the firms that
responded to the survey, the main barriers to innovations
include the high costs of the innovation projects, the long
amortization periods, the risk of imitations and, last but
not least, financial aspects, such as the fact that they do
not have enough of their own money to support innovative
projects. If, on the one hand, well-established, successful
firms are usually rather risk-averse, on the other start-ups in
their early stages have little to lose, inasmuch as they have
no customers yet, no reputation and no turnover. Figure 12
shows the percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs with
a propensity to innovate. Two measurements have been
used?: the percentage of TEA who declare they have
introduced a new product or service for some or all
of their clients, and the percentage of TEA with a market
innovation.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 12?:
Percentage of Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity, new product market combination
% within TEA: new market (few/no businesses offer the same product)
% within TEA: product is new to all or some customers
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
Trinidad & Tobago
Norway
Singapore
Puerto Rico
Korea
Finland
Spain
Japan
Germany
France
Belgium
Average (unweighted)
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Greece
United Kingdom
Italy
Sweden
Portugal
Taiwan
United States
Ireland
Slovenia
Israel
Canada
Luxembourg
0.00%
23
Switzerland’s results appear to be in line with the average
of the European Union countries. With regard to TEA,
the percentage of firms which have launched a product
or service innovation is situated just above 45% (with the
average for EU countries at 46%), respectively just under
47% for firms with a market innovation, which exactly
matches the EU countries` average. Switzerland went up
by some percentage points compared to the previous
year. We infer from the 2012 Activity Report of the Commission for Technology and Innovation that Switzerland is
pursuing a valid innovation programme?: its dual education
system, the close cooperation between public and private,
an attractive working environment, the efficiency of its
labour market, well protected intellectual property rights,
the presence of academic research institutes and of poles
of excellence are but some of the contributing factors underpinning Switzerland’s international ranking for innovation
and competitiveness. Finally, it is worth pointing out that,
for the 2013-2016 period, the Federal government has
pledged investments to promote teaching, research and
innovation, amounting to 26 billion francs, with an average
annual growth of 3.7%.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
3.3
24
International Orientation
Internationalisation is seen as one of the major drivers of
growth for a company (Sapienza, Autio, George, & Zahra,
2006). These days, large enterprises are not alone in
operating at the global level. Although a considerable
number of small and medium-sized enterprises continue
to be operative on a local, regional or national market,
there is a steadily growing number of micro-firms and
small, dynamic and innovative organisations operating
worldwide or planning to launch an international activity
(Baldegger, 2013). Broadly speaking, entrepreneurs in
economies characterised by small domestic markets tend
to emphasize internationalisation to a greater degree than
economies with big domestic markets, in particular the
BRIC countries and the United States. GEM measures the
extent of internationalisation through the number of clients
outside the country of origin.
Compared to the rest of the world, the International positioning
of Swiss enterprises appears to be medium-high.
The proportion of early-stage entrepreneurs with at least
25% of foreign customers is 28%, more than 5 percentage
points higher compared to the average of the EU countries,
and one of the highest among innovation-driven countries.
Compared with the year before, Switzerland registered
a slight rise, equivalent to 3 percentage points. In most
cases, opening to internationalisation calls for an initial
expansion towards the markets of neighbouring countries,
followed by an interest in the markets of new continents.
Singapore
Luxembourg
Portugal
Belgium
Switzerland
Slovenia
Ireland
Israel
Average EU (unweighted)
Sweden
Taiwan
Average (unweighted)
France
Italy
United Kingdom
Norway
Czech Republic
Germany
Netherlands
Canada
Greece
Korea
United States
Japan
Finland
Puerto Rico
Spain
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
25
Figure 13?:
Percentage of Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity, more than 25% of Customers from Abroad
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
26
4 Institutional Context
(Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions)
Entrepreneurial activity is shaped by a distinct set of factors
called Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions (EFCs). These
EFCs define the climate which defines inputs and outputs
of Entrepreneurship. The GEM model (Figure 2) illustrates
the relevant national conditions that impact on economic
development and activity more generally, and those facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship more specifically in
a society.
The third set of framework conditions is expected to concern
public and policy makers in innovation-driven economies.
The features that are expected to have a significant impact
on the entrepreneurial sector are captured in the nine Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions (EFCs) and are illustrated
and described in Table 3. The National Experts’ Survey
(NES) provides insights into the ways in which these EFCs
either foster or constrain an entrepreneurial climate, activity
and development. In order to assess the Swiss framework
conditions influencing entrepreneurial activity 36 Swiss
experts completed a closed questionnaire on factors relating to our entrepreneurial environment. The responses
are measured on a 5-point Likert scale where a score of
1=completely false and 5=completely true. The statements
are phrased so that a score above 3 would indicate that
the expert regarded the factor as rather positive for entrepreneurship, while a score below 3 would indicate that the
expert regarded the factor as somewhat negative for
entrepreneurship.
Table 4?: displays the assessed values of the nine EFCs in
Switzerland as well as the values of other innovation-driven
countries that serve as a comparison group.
The financial support framework condition describes the
supply and demand of financial resources, especially for
new and expanding businesses. Swiss experts evaluate the
financial environment for entrepreneurship and innovation
positively. This is in line with the results of previous years.
However, the lack of debt finance, venture capital and funding through IPOs for new and growing firms is perceived as
suboptimal. Only Singapore, among the comparison group,
offers a better financial support framework.
The national policy (general policy and regulation) entrepreneurial framework condition relates to the extent to
which government policies, as a whole, influence new and
growing firms. This includes the tax regime, labor market
regulation, social security legislation as well as regulations
and schemes that specifically aim at the small business
sector. Again, this framework requirement is valued positively
in Switzerland and lies clearly above the average of all
innovation-driven economies. However, Swiss experts see
a bigger potential for improvement regarding the administrative processes for the incorporation of an enterprise, i.e.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
27
Table 3?:
The GEM Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions
1. Entrepreneurial Finance. The availability of financial
resources — equity and debt — for small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) (including grants and subsidies).
2. Government Policy. The extent to which public policies
give support to entrepreneurship. This EFC has two
components?:
2a. Entrepreneurship as a relevant economic issue
and
2b. Taxes or regulations are either size-neutral or
encourage new and SMEs.
3. Government Entrepreneurship Programs. The presence
and quality of programs directly assisting SMEs at all
levels of government (national, regional, municipal).
4. Entrepreneurship Education. The extent to which
training in creating or managing SMEs is incorporated
within the education and training system at all levels.
This EFC has two components?:
4a. Entrepreneurship Education at basic school (primary
and secondary) level and,
4b. Entrepreneurship Education at post school levels
(such as vocational, college, business schools).
5. R&D Transfer. The extent to which national research
and development will lead to new commercial opportunities and is available to SMEs.
6. Commercial and Legal Infrastructure. The presence
of property rights, commercial, accounting, and other
legal and assessment services and institutions that
support or promote SMEs.
7. Entry Regulation. Contains two components?:
7a. Market Dynamics?: the level of change in markets
from year to year, and
7b. Market Openness?: the extent to which new firms
are free to enter existing markets.
8. Physical Infrastructure. Ease of access to physical
resources — communication, utilities, transportation,
land or space — at a price that does not discriminate
against SMEs.
9. Cultural and Social Norms. The extent to which social
and cultural norms encourage or allow actions leading
to new business methods or activities that can potentially
increase personal wealth and income.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
reducing the time required to get permits and licenses.
The government programs framework condition relates to
the presence of programs and other initiatives to support
new and growing firms. Experts in Switzerland rate the
presence of programs and other initiatives (science parks,
business incubators, support organizations etc.) to support
new and growing firms throughout positively, i.e. an average
score of 3.5.
The entrepreneurial framework condition education and
training relates to the extent to which entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial qualities receive attention in all phases of
the educational and training system. The variable primary
and secondary education is assessed negatively (below 3)
in Switzerland (2.4). Experts criticize the lack of attention that
is given to creativity, self-sufficiency, and personal initiative,
instruction in market economic principles and entrepre
neurship in primary and secondary education. Again, the
Netherlands (3.1) is the only country with a score above 3
for this item and thus might serve as an example for an
entrepreneurship-friendly primary and secondary education.
On the other hand, Swiss experts estimate that in postsecondary education (colleges, university and professional
education) enough appropriate preparation is provided for
new starting-up and growing firms. 3.4 is the peak value of
the comparison group and virtually identical with the value
of the Netherlands (3.3).
28
The research and development framework condition refers
to the extent to which national research and development
will lead to new commercial opportunities and whether or
not these are available for new, small, and growing firms.
Switzerland has the highest score for that building block
of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The commercial and legal infrastructure framework conditions
relate to the presence of property right, commercial,
accounting, and other legal and assessment services and
institutions that support or promote SMEs. In Switzerland,
this framework requirement has always been assessed
positively. The Swiss value is only topped by the Netherlands.
On the negative side, Swiss experts deplore the high costs
for new and growing firms through the use of subcontractors,
suppliers, and consultants.
Internal market dynamics refers to the level of change in
markets from year to year. The Swiss value for market
dynamics is 2.7, i.e. in the eyes of the experts it tends to be
wrong that both the markets for B2C and for B2B goods
and services change dramatically from year to year. This
component of the EFCs has always been valued negatively
in Switzerland. However a confirmed tendency over the last
5 years towards a more dynamic domestic market can be
observed. Internal market openness relates to the extent
to which new firms are free to enter existing markets and is
valued positively for Switzerland.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Table 4?:
Finance
Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions
in selected innovationdriven countries
29
National Policy - National Policy General Policy
Regulation
Government
Programs
Education?-?Prim.
and Second.
Education Post-School
Belgium
2.6
2.6
2.2
3.3
2.0
3.1
Finland
2.8
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.9
France
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.2
1.7
2.7
Germany
2.8
2.6
2.6
3.4
1.9
2.6
Italy
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.1
1.7
2.6
Netherlands
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.3
Singapore
3.5
3.7
4.1
3.7
2.8
3.2
Sweden
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.3
2.4
Switzerland
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.5
2.4
3.4
United Kingdom
2.7
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.2
2.6
United States
2.6
2.8
2.2
2.6
2.2
3.1
R&D
Transfer
Commercial
Infrastructure
Physical
Infrastructure
Cultural and
Social Norms
Belgium
2.6
3.3
2.8
2.7
3.7
2.2
Finland
3.0
3.5
2.8
2.9
4.3
2.9
France
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.4
4.2
2.2
Germany
2.8
3.3
3.2
2.8
3.7
2.8
Italy
2.5
3.1
3.5
2.5
3.3
2.1
Netherlands
2.8
3.8
2.9
3.3
4.6
3.1
Singapore
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.4
4.5
3.2
Sweden
2.4
3.0
3.4
2.6
4.2
3.2
Switzerland
3.5
3.6
2.7
3.3
4.7
3.3
United Kingdom
2.5
3.1
2.8
2.7
3.9
3.1
United States
2.4
3.2
3.2
2.9
4.2
3.9
Internal Market – Internal Market –
Dynamics*
Openness
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
30
The EFC physical infrastructure refers to the presence
of and access to available physical resources e.g. communication, utilities, transportation, land or space, at a price
that does not discriminate against new, small or growing
firms. In 2013, Switzerland had again the highest ranking
for physical infrastructure (4.7) of all assessed countries.
The cultural and social norms, which describe the encouraging or restraining environment regarding new business
activities, are positively assessed in Switzerland (3.3).
However, Swiss experts notice that the Swiss culture
doesn’t encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking. This EFC
seems to be significantly better than in the countries of the
comparison group, especially our neighboring countries
(Italy, France and Germany). But it is still considerably lower
than the value of the United States, to which we like to compare.
Figures 3 and 4 show standardized Z-scores for each EFC.
Both illustrations visualize that many EFCs differ by economic
development phase. The clearest differences in the 2013 NES
results are government programs, national policy regulation
and physical infrastructure and R&D transfer. However, some
other EFCs do not present such clear differences?; for
example, cultural and social norms. In addition to that, both
spider charts underline to what extent the Swiss entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived as highly favorable, new
and growing firms.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
31
Figure 14?:
Figure 15?:
Composite indicators on Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions,
Composite indicators on Entrepreneurship Framework Conditions,
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
R&D Transfer
Finance
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
Education —
Post School
0.00
National Policy —
General Policy
Cultural and
Social Norms
-1.00
-1.00
-1.50
-1.50
National Policy —
Regulation
Physical
infrastructure
Internal Market —
Dynamics
Internal Market —
Openness
Government
Programs
Factor-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Commercial & Services
Infrastructure
-0.50
-0.50
Education —
Primary and
Secondary
0.00
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Switzerland
Factor-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
32
5 Fifteen Years of GEM – Indicators and
Trends for Switzerland
In 1997, when the first efforts were made to establish the
GEM Project, entrepreneurship was a topic of growing
interest for scholars from around the world. Many studies
revealed the importance of entrepreneurship for economic
development. On the other hand, the lack of worldwide
comparable data about new venture creation became
apparent. Even though company registers exist in many
countries, the data collection has often not been carried
out systematically and the requirements to be subscribed
to such a register can vary from one country to another
(Reynolds, Storey and Westhead, 1994). The main aim of
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor was therefore to
determine differences in the level of entrepreneurial
activities between economies and to identify the relationship
between entrepreneurship and economic well-being
(Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N., 2014). With the launch of
the first GEM executive report two years later, namely
in 1999, 10 national teams from across the world were
participating. Since its beginning, the GEM is conceived
as a long term project that implies the participation of as
many nations as possible from across the globe in order
to cover all the regions of the world economy. Meanwhile,
the GEM study has gained more and more importance.
The GEM adult population survey database has grown to
nearly two million observations in 104 economies.
The focus of the study developed from an indicator based
view to a more encompassed view on entrepreneurship
(Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N., 2014). In addition to this,
the survey has been enriched through special topics, of
which some new questions have found their way into the
permanent questionnaire.
The first Swiss team, constituted by members of the University of St. Gall, started in 2002 to conduct the national
survey and released a total of four country reports in
the years of 2002, 03, 05 and 07. In 2009 the Institute for
Entrepreneurship from the School of Management in
Fribourg took the lead in the GEM Switzerland Project.
Since then, Switzerland has been participating on an
annual basis and five additional country reports have been
released. Thus, scholars, the media and other interested
parties have been able to get a more and more pronounced
and distinctive idea on entrepreneurial activities and the
entrepreneurial framework conditions in Switzerland.
Thanks to the GEM survey, many particularities have already
been identified for Switzerland?: as one of only a few countries
in the world, Switzerland has, since 2011, a virtually identical
distribution of entrepreneurs among the genders (cf. Box?:
Women’s Participation in Entrepreneurship). In addition
to this, the number of entrepreneurs that start with their
activities after the age of 45, so-called “?senior entrepre-
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
neurs?”, a distinctive characteristic of innovation based
economies, is particularly high in Switzerland. Last but not
least, the special topic on immigrant entrepreneurship in
2012 revealed that in our country, immigrants tend to be
involved in entrepreneurial activities twice as often as the
Swiss (Baldegger, R. et al., 2013).
Figure 16 shows the entrepreneurial profile of Switzerland
compared with the average profile of the three country
groups. In order to get more statistical precision, the profile
is merged on the data of the past three studies (2011-2013).
The average across all economies is set at zero and the
standard deviation across all economies equals one.
By applying this method we can consider any difference
between the countries, the economies or from the mean
zero as substantial. According to this graph, innovation
driven economies show a lower entrepreneurial profile in
every aspect than factor and efficiency based economies
and are thereby also below the overall average. The biggest
differences among the stages of development can be
observed via the estimated high job creation of new ventures.
In order to measure this variable, the respondents of the
adult population survey that are involved in early-stage
activities were asked if they expect to grow their business
to more than 20 employees within the next five years.
Whereas new ventures in efficiency driven economies very
33
often estimate such a high job growth for their near future,
factor based and innovation based economies are together
at a much lower level in this aspect. Considering the entrepreneurial profile for Switzerland, we can observe that
this high job growth expectation is at a particularly low
level. In this aspect, we even observe the largest negative
deviation from the average of innovation driven economies
and Switzerland. On the other hand, we can state that the
perceived opportunity rate across the population is at a
very high level, and above the average of innovation based
economies. Many people see good opportunities to start
a business in the area they live in within the next 6 months.
Out of our comparison group, only the United States are
at an equally high level. This characteristic is not very
surprising considering the relatively high number of technical
universities and very competitive global companies that
house research and development centers in Switzerland.
The patent application per capita is the highest in Europe
and one of the highest in the world . On the other hand,
Switzerland lacks in implementing these recognized opportunities into actions. Since the beginning of the survey
in 2002, the TEA rate has moved between 5 and 8 per
cent. Even though our neighboring countries, Germany
and France, are at an equal level regarding early-stage
activities, the average of innovation driven economies is
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
slightly higher and other innovation driven economies such
as Singapore and the United States, two economies we
like to compare with, are characterized by much higher
entrepreneurial activities (cf. figure 17). The strongest
deficit for Switzerland, however, remains in the low rate of
entrepreneurial activities with a high growth job expectation.
A large gap between economies such as Singapore and
the United States and middle European countries can be
observed therefore. Future efforts in the Swiss economy
must be geared towards the transfer of business opportunities
into high growing ventures that create many new jobs and
thus strengthen the national economy.
34
Nevertheless, the Swiss economy is characterized by a
pronounced stability. Most of the new ventures arise from
recognized business opportunities that are put into action.
The opportunity costs for these entrepreneurs are, in general,
quite high. Necessity-driven entrepreneurship, i.e. entrepreneurial activities undertaken from individuals that have no
better choice for work, is rather rare. On a global level, the
GEM research has discovered some interesting interactions
between an economic indicator by country and GEM data.
Initial input was provided by the recent economic crisis,
regarded as the worst since the great depression, and some
growing evidence that in a recession, small firms may
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
35
Figure 16?:
Figure 17?:
The entrepreneurial profile compiled by 2011-2013 data,
The entrepreneurial profile compiled by 2011-2013 data,
by stage of development compared to Switzerland
in selected innovation-driven countries
Perceived
Opportunities
Perceived
Opportunities
1.50
1.0
1.00
0.5
0.50
TEA: Any Job
Growth
0.0
Perceived
Capabilities
0.00
TEA: Any Job
Growth
-0.5
-0.50
-1.0
-1.00
-1.5
-1.50
-2.0
Perceived
Capabilities
Germany
France
Italy
Switzerland
United States
Singapore
TEA: High Job
Growth
Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA)
TEA: Necessity-Driven
Switzerland
Efficiency-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Factor-Driven Economies
TEA: High Job
Growth
Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)
TEA: Necessity-Driven
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
react differently to large, established firms ( cf. Moscarini
and Postel-Vinay, 2012?; Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N.,
2014). In the United States, nascent entrepreneurship rates
tend to follow annual rates of GDP. The descending annual
GDP rates between 2005 and 2009 in the US were accompanied by a declining rate of nascent entrepreneurship in
the same period while necessity-driven entrepreneurship,
with a delay of a year, dramatically increased.
In Argentina, a country that was hit hard during their major
crisis in 2000-2002 and that also struggled between 2009
and 2010, we can observe that rates of necessity-driven
entrepreneurship increased together with unemployment
rates and declining GDP growth rates without any time lag.
As an immediate reaction to a recession, the number of
entrepreneurial activities in Argentina that result because
they have no better option for work increases (Amorós, J.
E. and Bosma, N. 2014).
In Switzerland, even though unemployment rates remained
on a remarkably low level during the past decade, GDP
growth rates fluctuated widely from an annual growth of
36
almost 4% during 2006 and 2007 to zero growth in the beginning of the century, namely 2002 and 2003, and even a
negative growth in 2009. As we can see in figure 3, these
wide fluctuations of GDP growth are not accompanied by
drastic changes in necessity entrepreneurship rates.
Necessity entrepreneurship in Switzerland varied only
between 0.5 and 1.1 percent during the last 11 years.
However the number of nascent entrepreneurs seems
to increase simultaneously to a decreasing GDP growth.
Considering the total entrepreneurial activities during the
same period we can observe the same trend?: entrepreneurial
activities are related negatively to economic growth (see
figure 19). This means that in times of declining economic
growth the general entrepreneurial activities tend to increase
and vice versa. Nevertheless we have to consider that we
are looking back at a still relatively short period of GEM
data collection. Increasing and decreasing TEA and necessity
rates could also represent a time delayed reaction on
economic changes. However, such a conclusion could only
be drawn in a longer-term view.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 18?:
5.00
GEM indicators
4.00
and economic indicators
for Switzerland, 2002-2013
37
1.20
1.00
3.00
0.80
2.00
1.00
0.60
0.00
0.40
-1.00
0.20
-2.00
-3.00
0.00
2002
Figure 19?:
GEM indicators
and economic indicators
for Switzerland, 2002-2013
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Necessity-driven entrepreneurship, % of TEA (right axis)
Nascent entrepreneurship, % in 18-64 population
Unemployment rate, % of labor force
GDP growth, % change
2011
2012
2013
Owner-managers in new firms,
% in 18-24 population
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
2002
2003
2004
TEA Rate
2005
2006
2007
GDP growth, % change
2008
2009
2010
2011
Nascent entrepreneurship, % in 18-64 population
2012
2013
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
By looking back to over 10 years of GEM research in
Switzerland we are not only able to illustrate the trends
and highlights in entrepreneurial activities across the population, we can also observe changes in the entrepreneurial
framework conditions. The entrepreneurship framework
conditions (EFC), treated in detail in chapter 4?: Institutional
Context, are rated each year by 36 selected experts from
various fields such as financing, policy-makers, journalists
etc. Many of them are entrepreneurs themselves. Every
expert responds to a closed questionnaire on factors
relating to our entrepreneurial environment. The questionnaire consists of statements that have to be rated on a
five-point Likert scale from 1 for completely false to 5 for
completely true. Out of nine groups of EFC (cf. chapter
4?: Institutional Context) we can clearly identify 4 general
conditions for entrepreneurs that have been rated increasingly better over the last ten years. By looking at figure 20
we can observe that national policy-makers seem to have
steadily improved the conditions for entrepreneurship,
by conditions that were rated rather negatively in the
38
beginning of this century to positive or rather positive
conditions by the end of last year. Policies such as tax
regime, labor market regulations or social security regulations
influence new and growing firms in a positive way and
are above the average of innovation-driven countries in
Switzerland, especially the regulation policy. Government
programs to support new and growing firms (i.e. incubators,
start-up support, science parks etc.) have also been improved over the last decade and are, today, rated positively
by the experts. Nevertheless the rating has stagnated over
the past five years with a value of 3.4. The strongest positive
change can be observed with regard to the extent to which
cultural and social norms in Switzerland are encouraging
entrepreneurial activities. Whereas in the first half of the
last decade, the cultural and social norms have been considered to restrain new business activities, the awareness
of entrepreneurship as a real career opportunity and the
very image of entrepreneurs have increased considerably
in the last few years.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Figure 20?:
Developments of selected
economic framework conditions
in Switzerland (EFCs), 2003-2013
39
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
40
6 Entrepreneurship and Well-Being
Entrepreneurship is a multi-faceted phenomenon and
since the turn of the century, it has been closely monitored
by GEM for a wide range of economies through its various
aspects, such as attitudes, activities and aspirations.
Yet, there are several important dimensions of entrepreneurship that are underexplored and the GEM special
topics3 contribute to the efforts of broadening the scope
of entrepreneurship in this sense. Having said that, this
year’s attention is on a topic that has attracted growing
interest by both academics and policy makers, i.e. the
linkages between entrepreneurship and the well-being
of people engaged in entrepreneurial activities.
Subjective well-being (SWB), defined as the degree of
satisfaction with work- and private-life, is acknowledged
to be an essential but neglected dimension in measuring
a country’s development (Naudé et al., 2014). Historically,
both micro- and macro-level performance measurement
tools have been predominantly finance-oriented (e.g?:
GDP), reflecting a single dimension of more complex
socio-economical structures (GEM Global Report, 2013).
Metrics such as GDP have been highly criticized by the
Special topics conducted so far included for example an assessment
of education and training for entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurial employee activity, immigrant entrepreneurship (GEM Global
Report, 2013).
3
popular press4 (see footnote) and scholars, such as Layard
(2003) who labeled it a “?hopeless measure of welfare?”
(Layard, 2003, p. 3). Starting towards the end of the 20th
century, the traditional material component of metrics has
been complemented by non-financial dimensions with the
intention of a holistic and “?balanced?” performance view
of individuals, organizations and economies (e.g?: Balanced
Scorecards in for-profit institutions, Happiness and Satisfaction Indices for countries, etc.). This holistic view has
also had implications for the GEM such that, although
the social context has always played a critical role in the
GEM conceptual framework as an input factor, the social
component as an output factor was introduced only in
the GEM 2009 assessment (Bosma and Levie, 2010).
Against this background, the relationship between entrepreneurship and GDP could only explain a portion of
human development. Therefore, the following questions
naturally arise?: How may entrepreneurship matter for
happiness ? And vice-versa, how may happiness matter
for entrepreneurship? Scholars such as Naudé et al. (2014)
found evidence that the relationship between entrepre4
http? ://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201309/why-the-gdpis-not-good-measure-nations-well-being (accessed February, 2014)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
neurship and happiness is bi-directional in causality,
such that higher levels of life satisfaction increase
entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurship may
contribute to overall life satisfaction and happiness.
This, in turn, contributes to the broadening focus of studies
on entrepreneurship and development. In the light of
the aforementioned motivations to investigate this topic,
the GEM data collection process included a module in
APS to capture the global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. Moreover, to corroborate the opinions
provided by the adult population, NES included four
questions that inquire whether the national (or regional)
conditions help the work-life balance of individuals
and measure the perception that entrepreneurs have,
in general, on work and life satisfaction (GEM Global
Report, 2013).
41
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
6.1
42
GEM 2013 Highlights on Switzerland
The notion of “?well-being?” is not as simple a term as it
may sound. Empirical studies have been struggling to
establish proxies for this theoretical construct with various
measures and a clear consensus has not yet been
achieved on how to measure it (Conceição and Bandura,
2008). That being said, Switzerland enjoys a strong position
in terms of well-being and this has been investigated by
both academic publications and the popular press. For
example, according to a recent report by Forbes Magazine5,
Switzerland was ranked 2nd (behind Norway) among
World’s Happiest Countries in a study by London-based
Legatum Institute. Likewise, in a similar report, Switzerland
was ranked 3rd (behind Denmark and Norway) in overall
happiness by the World Happiness Report, a publication
prepared by Sustainable Development Solutions Network
(SDSN)6 and Columbia University (Helliwell et al., 2013).
Henceforth, it is tempting to explore Switzerland’s status
quo within the dimension of entrepreneurial activities
and its relationship to subjective well-being. Besides the
popular press, the relationship between well-being and
entrepreneurship has also raised a growing interest in
Academia. A recent publication by Naudé et al. (2014)
has tested the relationship between the strength of an
entrepreneurial economy versus the happiness score
of the overall population of that respective economy
(See Figure 21).
5
6
http?://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worldshappiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/ (accessed February, 2014)
http? ://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/
(accessed February, 2014)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
43
Figure 21?:
Relationship between Happiness and the Global Entrepreneurship Index
Source?: Adapted from Naudé et al. (2014, p. 525) where authors based their calculations
on the Gallup World Poll 2005 and the GEINDEX7 of Acs and Szerb (2009).
Iceland
Switzerland
Canada
8
Mexico
Brazil
Finland
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Argentina
Venezuela
Spain
Happiness Score
United Arab Emirates Belgium
United Kingdom
Germany
7
Bolivia
Ecuador
Jamaica
Thailand
Kazakstan
6
Iran
Uruguay
China
Bosnia
Philippine
Egypt
Malaysia
Poland
Jordan
Greece
Sweden
New Zealand
United States
Slovenia
Italy
Singapore
Chile
France
Czech Republic
Japan
Korea
Hong Kong
South
Croatia
Africa
Turkey
India
Norway
Australia
Netherlands
Austria
Denmark
Portugal
Hungary
Latvia
5
Uganda
4
0
2
4
Global Entrepreneurship Index Score
7
lobal Entrepreneurship Index measures the “?entrepreneurial economy?” as reflected
G
in entrepreneurial attitudes, actions, and aspirations rather than entrepreneurship
itself. Hence, it strongly captures the institutional quality (Naudé et al., 2014, p. 524)
6
8
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The figure displays a curvilinear relationship8 with increasing
returns between the strength of entrepreneurial economy
and the overall well-being of the population. Switzerland
(denoted by the red circle) lies above the curve in the
upper right corner of the figure. Here, it could be argued
that, given the strength of entrepreneurial framework
conditions, Switzerland enjoys a status of well-being that
is above the predicted value by the model. Scandinavian
economies, such as Norway, Finland, and Iceland, also
follow a similar pattern, except for Sweden, which is
slightly below the curve. Within the benchmark countries,
Switzerland exhibits a better standing especially when
compared to the other innovation-driven economies such
as the U.S., France, Singapore and Japan. However, an
important caveat is that, this figure does not identify the
independent effect of entrepreneurship in the national
happiness level. As the authors assert, the relationship
N.B.?: This has been the preliminary part of a more comprehensive study
which is published in the authors’ same article.
8
44
between entrepreneurship and national happiness
is bi-directional rather than unidirectional. Studies of a
descriptive or comparative nature could be more vigorous
by exploring the linkage between entrepreneurship and
happiness provided the fact that strong causality claims
between the two may not be conclusive to infer the potential effect that entrepreneurship exerts on subjective
well-being. Therefore, it is essential to demonstrate the
diverse indicators of entrepreneurial activity and subjective
wel-being in various economies in comparison. Table 5
presents the prevalence indicators of Satisfaction With
Life Scale (SWLS)9 in innovation-driven economies. Each
column deals with the scores for individuals involved
in typical phases and types of entrepreneurship (such
as TEA and owner-managers of established businesses,
motivation and gender) and those of employees who
are not involved in such entrepreneurship activities.
As mentioned initially, subjective well-being is a complex construct by nature.
SWLS was developed by Pavot and Diener (2008) to act as a proxy for
subjective well-being. SWLS is a five-item instrument designed to measure
global cognitive judgments of satisfaction with one’s life. This scale is
standardized and has the hypothetical range of -1.7 (less subjective wellbeing at country-level) to 1.7 (higher rate of subjective well- being).
9
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
45
Table 5??:
Subjective well-being results within innovation-driven
economies (the most satisfied populations are in green
and the less satisfied populations are in red.)
Italy
18-64 population
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business ownership
Non TEA or
Established
0.02
-0.01
0.19
0.02
Japan
-0.23
-0.31
-0.08
-0.23
France
-0.03
0.09
0.08
-0.03
Belgium
0.16
0.16
0.27
0.16
Germany
0.12
0.06
0.27
0.12
Spain
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.08
Finland
0.40
0.39
0.58
0.40
Greece
-0.50
-0.30
-0.48
-0.50
Norway
0.61
0.53
0.70
0.61
Slovenia
0.08
0.16
0.19
0.08
Korea Sr
-0.42
-0.42
-0.47
-0.42
United Kingdom
0.30
0.11
0.32
0.29
Czech Republic
-0.03
0.00
0.10
-0.03
Taiwan
-0.12
-0.08
-0.05
-0.12
Portugal
-0.14
0.11
0.07
-0.14
Sweden
0.24
0.31
0.30
0.24
Luxembourg
0.36
0.23
0.08
0.36
Ireland
0.24
0.31
0.43
0.24
Netherlands
0.29
0.47
0.42
0.28
Israel
0.07
0.16
0.24
0.08
Singapore
0.18
0.25
0.23
0.18
Canada
0.33
0.32
0.51
0.33
United States
0.22
0.14
0.54
0.22
Switzerland
0.62
0.74
0.85
0.62
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.10
AVERAGE
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
46
As easily noted, Switzerland stands out with the highest
satisfaction rates for all groups. The first group (18-64
population) is yet another confirmatory indicator of results
that has taken place previously in various studies on
overall happiness. Being a general trend in all economies,
established business owners have greater satisfaction
rates compared to other groups. An interesting finding
is that Switzerland also holds the highest satisfaction
rates among the groups who have been involved in entrepreneurial activities (both early stage and established
business owners)?; however, what is more impressive is
Switzerland’s distinct position when compared to similar
economies such as Norway, Netherlands and Singapore.
For example, the subjective well-being rates for TEA in
Switzerland is roughly 50% higher than in Norway and
Netherlands and almost three-fold of Singapore’s.
A similar pattern is visible also in the satisfaction rates
of established business owners for these economies.
Owner-managers in established firms tend to rate their
level of subjective well-being higher than early-stage
entrepreneurs, who may have to deal with more uncertainty
and pressure to develop the firm into a sustainable situation
(exceptions include France, Sweden and Singapore).
This also seems to be the case in Switzerland. Here the
main takeaway is arguably as follows?: entrepreneurs in
Switzerland rate their level of subjective well-being distinctively
high when compared to entrepreneurs in their own league.
This is the major good news about entrepreneurial activities
in Switzerland, even though these results are exploratory
in nature and need to be treated in that manner.
One important distinction to be made when interpreting
early-stage entrepreneurial activities (TEA) is the motivation
behind these activities. GEM framework contrasts entrepreneurship driven by necessity and improvement-driven
entrepreneurship as the motivation behind the early-stage
entrepreneurial activities. The following table provides
a comparison of subjective well-being rates among the
innovation-driven economies.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
47
Table 6??:
Comparison of gender and motivation with subjective
well-being results within innovation-driven economies
(the most satisfied populations are in green and
the less satisfied populations are in red.)
Italy
TEA Opportunity
TEA Necessity
TEA male
TEA female
0.13
-0.64
0.01
-0.06
-0.26
-0.43
-0.55
0.14
France
0.17
-0.62
-0.01
0.30
Belgium
0.18
0.17
0.12
0.25
Germany
0.18
-0.40
-0.04
0.22
Spain
0.23
0.01
0.13
0.19
Finland
0.42
0.21
0.36
0.44
Greece
-0.25
-0.46
-0.23
-0.50
Japan
Norway
0.51
0.44
0.49
0.63
Slovenia
0.23
-0.09
0.16
0.16
Korea Sr
-0.27
-0.69
-0.49
-0.24
United Kingdom
0.22
-0.45
0.22
-0.03
Czech Republic
0.05
-0.15
-0.02
0.05
Taiwan
0.01
-0.31
-0.11
-0.03
Portugal
0.20
-0.13
0.10
0.13
Sweden
0.40
-0.34
0.15
0.59
Luxembourg
0.21
-0.51
0.16
0.37
Ireland
0.31
0.36
0.30
0.34
Netherlands
0.50
0.26
0.55
0.35
Israel
0.23
-0.08
0.04
0.41
Singapore
0.25
0.26
0.17
0.39
Canada
0.41
-0.22
0.22
0.46
United States
0.26
-0.38
0.14
0.14
Switzerland
0.78
0.06
0.63
0.85
0.19
-0.18
0.08
0.20
AVERAGE
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Here, TEA-opportunity rates exhibit that early stage entrepreneurs in Switzerland who are motivated by starting up
as an opportunity (rather than no other options for work),
rated their well-being considerably higher than other
benchmark economies. The other end in the dichotomy
of motivations in starting a business, i.e. necessity-driven
entrepreneurship, portrays rather a dissatisfaction as a
general trend in innovation-driven economies. The early
stage entrepreneurs in Switzerland who start up out of
necessity still rate their well-being as somehow satisfied
(0.06/1.7). Although this rating is above most of the other
benchmark economies, economies such as Singapore,
Ireland, Belgium and the “?traditional?” welfare states such
as Norway and Finland display higher rates. Given the high
ratings of subjective well-being of the overall population in
Switzerland, there seems to be a strong potential in bridging
the existing gap. It is also noteworthy to refer to the low
percentage of necessity-driven motivations within TEA
(7.5%) in Switzerland.
Another point that deserves attention is the role of gender
difference in subjective well-being of entrepreneurs among
the innovation-driven economies. This is also another group
where Switzerland exhibits remarkable ratings among all
innovation driven economies. The female early stage entrepreneur ratings for subjective well-being is higher than
their male counterparts as a general trend. This is also the
case in Switzerland and within the benchmark countries,
48
only the Netherlands have male early stage entrepreneurs
with a higher rating of well-being than females.
Finally, it is essential to corroborate the opinions provided
by the adult population with NES which included questions
that inquire whether the national (or regional) conditions
help the work-life balance of individuals and measure the
perception that entrepreneurs have, in general, more work
and life satisfaction. Figure 2 depicts the brief analysis that
correlates SWLS involved in TEA with the NES variables
related to well-being among all economies. There is a weak
but positive curvilinear relationship between both variables.
Switzerland (denoted by the red circle) lies below the
curve to the right end of the figure. Experts’ view on life
and work satisfaction of entrepreneurs in Switzerland
indicate that there is some potential in this perception.
One possible factor could be the effect of the relatively
lower well-being rating of the necessity driven entrepreneurs.
Another possibility is the relatively higher rate of discontinuation of business compared to the other high-end
innovation driven economies. Yet, a significant share of
entrepreneurs who discontinued owning and managing
their business did so for “?positive?” reasons such as being
able to sell the business, or the opportunity to get a good
job, and for some an improvement in their personal
situation (GEM Global Report, 2013). Hence, further
studies could be beneficial to identify the potentials that
possibly remain under expert ratings for Switzerland.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
49
Figure 22??:
Experts opinions versus
subjective well-being indicators
4.30
of individuals involved in TEA
4.10
3.90
Experts evaluation of life and work
satistaftion of the entrepreneurs
R2 = 0.2199
3.70
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
2.70
2.50
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
Standardized rates of subjective well-being of individuals involved in TEA
0.5
1
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Literature
Acs, Z. J., and Szerb, L. (2009)?:
The Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEINDEX). Foundations
and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(5), 341–435.
Ács, Z., Autio, E., and Szerb, L. (2014)?:
National Systems of Entrepreneurship?: Measurement
issues and policy implications. 476-494.
Baldegger, R., Alberton, S., Hacklin, F., Brülhart, A.,
Huber, A. and Saglam, O. (2013)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 - Report on
Switzerland. Fribourg?: School of Management
Birch, D. (1987). Job Creation in America?: How our Smallest
Companies Put the Most People to Work. New York?:
Free Press.
Amorós, J. E. and Bosma, N. (2014)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013. Global Report?:
FIFTEEN YEARS OF ASSESSING ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ACROSS THE GLOBE. Babson College, Universidad del
Desarrollo, UnivesitiTun Abdul Razak, and London
Business School.
Bosma, N. and Levie, J. (2010)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2009 executive report.
Babson Park, MA, USA?: Babson College, Santiago, Chile?:
Universidad del Desarrollo and Reykjavik, Iceland?:
Haskolinn Reykjavik University, London, UK?: Global
Entrepreneurship Research Association
Audretsch, D. (2007)?:
Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford
Review of Economic Policy, 63-78.
Bosma, N. and Schutjens, V. (2011)?:
Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity
and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe. The Annals of
Regional Science , 711-74
Baldegger, R. (2013)?:
Swiss International Entrepreneurship Survey 2013?:
Studienergebnisse zum Internationalisierungsverhalten
von Schweizer KMU. Freiburg/Bern.
Conceição, P. and Bandura, R. (2008)?:
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing?: A Summary Review of the
Literature. UNDP Development Studies Working Papers
Series, May. Online?:http?://web.undp.org/developmentstudies/docs/subjective_ wellbeing_conceicao_bandura.pdf.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Farmer, S., Yao, X. and Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2011)?:
The Behavioral Impact of Entrepreneur Identiy Aspiration
and Prior Entrepreneurial Experience. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 245-273.
Moscarini, G., and Poste-Vinay, F. (2012)?:
The contribution of large and small employers to job
creation in times of high and low unemployment. American
Economic Review, 102(6), 2509-39.
Glassey, O., Leresche, J. and Moeschler, O. (2013)?:
Penser la valeur d’usage des sciences.
Naudé, W., Amorós, J. E. and Cristi, O. (2012)?:
“?Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken?”?: entrepreneurship
and happiness. Small Business Economics, 1-18.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R. and Sachs, J. (Eds.).
(2013)?:
World Happiness Report. New York?: UN Sustainable
Development Solutions Network.
Kelley, J. D., Singer, S. and Herrington, M. (2012)?:
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2011 Global Report.
Babson College, Universidad del Desarrollo and UniversitiTun
Abdul Razak.
Layard, R. (2003)?:
Happiness?: Has social science a clue ? What is happiness ?
Are we getting happier ? In?: Lionel Robbins Memorial
Lecture Series, 03-05 Mar 2003, London, UK?: London
School of Economics.
OECD (2012)?:
Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2012, OECD Publishing.
Pavot, W., and Diener, E. (2008)?:
The Satisfaction with Life Scale and the emerging construct
of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3,
137–152.
Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994)?:
Crossnational comparisons of the variation in new firm
Formation Rates. Regional Studies, 28 (4), 443-456.
Sapienza, H., Autio, E., George, E.and Zahra, S. (2006)?:
A capabilities perpective on the effects of early
internationalization on new venture survival and growth.
Academy of Management Review , 914-930.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Schumpeter, J. (1934)?:
The Theory of Economic Development?: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle.
Cambridge?: Harvard University Press.
SECO. (2013)?:
Innovationsaktivitäten in der Schweizer Wirtschaft. Eine
Analyse der Ergebnisse der Innovationserhebung 2011.
Bern?: Staatsekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO.
Shane, S. (2003)?:
A general theory of entrepreneurship?: the individualOpportunity Nexus. Edwarg Elgar Publishing.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
GLOSSARY
Table 7?:
Main GEM measures
used in this Report
Measure
Description
Entrepreneurial Attitudes and
Perceptions
Perceived Opportunities
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who see good opportunities to start a firm in the area where they
live.
Perceived Capabilities
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who believe to have the required skills and knowledge to start a
business.
Entrepreneurial Intention
Percentage of 18-64 age groups (individuals involved in any stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded) who intend to start a business within three years.
Fear of Failure Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups with positive perceived opportunities who indicate that fear of
failure would prevent them from setting up a business.
Entrepreneurship as Desirable Career Choice
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, most people
consider starting a business as a desirable career choice.
High-Status Successful Entrepreneurship
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, successful
entrepreneurs enjoy high status.
Media Attention for Entrepreneurship
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who agree with the statement that in their country, they will often
see stories in the public media about successful new businesses.
Entrepreneurial Activity
Nascent Entrepreneurship Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently a nascent entrepreneur, i.e., actively involved in
setting up a business they will own or co-own?; this business has not paid salaries, wages or any
other payments to the owners for more than three months.
New Business Ownership Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently an owner-manager of a new business, i.e.
owning and managing a running business that has paid salaries, wages or any other payments to
the owners for more than three months, but not more than 42 months.
Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above).
Established Business Ownership Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently owner-manager of an established business, i.e.
owning and managing a running business that has paid salaries, wages or any other payments to
the owners for more than 42 months.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Measure
Description
Business Discontinuation Rate
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who have, in the past 12 months, discontinued a business, either
by selling, shutting down or otherwise discontinuing an owner/management relationship with the
business. Note?: This is not a measure of business failure rates.
Necessity-Driven Entrepreneurial Activity?:
Relative Prevalence
Percentage of those involved in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who
are involved in entrepreneurship because they had no other option for work.
Improvement-Driven Opportunity Entrepreneurial Activity?: Relative Prevalence
Percentage of those involved in total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who
(i) claim to be driven by opportunity, as opposed to finding no other option for work?; and (ii) who
indicate the main driver for being involved in this opportunity is being independent or increasing
their income, rather than just maintaining their income.
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
Solo/Low Job Expectation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (SLEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above) AND expect to provide fewer than 5 jobs five years from now.
Based on 2009-2011 data.
Medium/High Job Expectation early-stage
Entrepreneurial Activity (MHEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a
new business (as defined above) AND expect to provide 5 or more jobs five years from now. Based
on 2009-2011 data.
New Product-Market Oriented Early-Stage
Entrepreneurial Activity?: Relative Prevalence
Percentage of total early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined above) who indicate that product or
service is new to at least some customers and indicate that not many businesses offer the same
product or service. Based on 2009-2011 data.
International Orientation early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity
Percentage of total early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined above) with more than 25% of the
customers coming from other countries. Based on 2009-2011 data.
Entrepreneurial Employee
Activity
Entrepreneurial Employee Activity (EEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently involved in developing new entrepreneurial
activities for their employer and fulfill a leading role in this activity.
Private Sector Entrepreneurial Employee
Activity (PEEA)
Percentage of 18-64 age groups who are currently involved in developing new entrepreneurial
activities for their employer, active in the private sector, and fulfill a leading role in this activity.
Hence the PEEA measure constitutes a subset of the EEA measure.
Employers’ Support for Entrepreneurial
Employee Activity
Percentage of 18-64 employees indicating that their employer provides at least some support
when employees come up with new ideas.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Table 8?:
Measures from other
Data Sources used in
Measure
Source
Description
Economic Freedom Index
Heritage Foundation
The Economic Freedom index uses 10 specific freedoms, some as composites
of even further detailed and quantifiable components. Each of these freedoms
is weighted equally and turned into an index ranging from 0 to 100, where 100
represents the maximum economic freedom. Cross section data 2002.
Employment protection deters
employees from starting business
GEM National Expert Survey
Statement assessed by experts in the 2011 GEM National Expert Survey
(mean values per economy?; based on the likert scale 1-5).
Entrepreneurs have much lower
access to social security than
employees
GEM National Expert Survey
Statement assessed by experts in the 2011 GEM National Expert Survey
(mean values per economy?; based on the likert scale 1-5).
GDP Per Capita (PPP)
IMF World Development Indicators, October 2011.
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parities (PPP), US Dollars, 2011
Gender Gap Index
World Economic Forum Gender
Gap 2011 Report
All scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 representing maximum
gender equality. The study measures the extent to which women have
achieved full equality with men in five critical areas?: economic participation,
economic opportunity, political empowerment, educational attainment and
health & well-being.
Global Entrepreneurship Index
(GEI)?:
Acs, Z., Szerb, L. (2012)
Global Entrepreneurship & Development Index
The GEI combines measures of activity, aspiration, and attitudes with
relevant measures of the favorability of the environment for entrepreneurship.
The GEI is simply the average of three sub-indices?: one for attitudes, one for
activity, and one for aspiration. Similarly, each sub-index is the average of
four or five normalized indicator scores, after adjustment for “?bottlenecks?”,
or the weakest indicator in a country.
Income inequality
(Gini index)
World Bank World Development
Indicators
Gini measure of economic inequality, where greater values represent greater
inequality. Data are based on primary household survey data
obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country
departments. Data for high-income economies are from the Luxembourg
Income Study database.
Informal investment
prevalence rate
GEM Adult Population Survey
Percentage of 18-64 groups who have personally invested funds in business
start-ups in the past three years
Investment Freedom Index
Heritage Foundation
This factor scrutinizes each country’s policies toward foreign investment, as
well as its policies toward capital flows internally, in order to determine its
overall investment climate. The county’s investment freedom ranges between
0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum degree of investment freedom.
Cross section data 2002.
this Report
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Measure
Source
Description
Old age, disability and death
benefit index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures the level of old age, disability and death benefits as the average of
the following four normalized variables?: (1) the difference between retirement
age and life expectancy at birth, (2) the number of months of contributions
or employment required for normal retirement by law, (3) the percentage of
the worker’s monthly salary deducted by law to cover old-age, disability, and
death benefits, and (4) the percentage of the net pre-retirement salary covered
by the net old - age cash-benefit pension. Cross section data covering the
1997-2002 period.
Political Stability
World Bank Governance
Indicators
Political Stability combines several indicators which measure perceptions of
the likelihood that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown
by possibly unconstitutional and/or violent means, including domestic violence
and terrorism. Cross section data covering 2002-2006.
Secular-rational
(versus traditional) values
World Value Survey?; Inglehart
and Baker (2000)
Principal components factor index based on religiousness, autonomy, abortion
attitudes, respect for authority and national pride.
Social security laws index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures social benefits as the average of the three variables?: Old Age,
Disability and Death Benefit Index?; and Unemployment Benefits Index. Cross
section data covering 1997-2002.
Unemployment benefits index
Botero, Djankov, La Porta,
López-de-Silanes & Shleifer
(2004) Regulation of Labor Data
Measures the level of unemployment benefits as the average of the following
four normalized variables?: (1) the number of months of contributions or
employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits by law, (2) the
percentage of the worker’s monthly salary deducted by law to cover unemployment benefits, (3) the waiting period for unemployment benefits, and (4)
the percentage of a one-year unemployment spell. Cross section data
covering the 1997-2002 period.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Country List
Country / Intcode
Algeria
DZ
Angola
AO
Argentina
AR
Belgium
BE
Bosnia BA
Botswana
BW
Brazil
BR
Canada
CA
Chile
CL
China
CN
Colombia
CO
Croatia
HR
Czech Republic
CZ
Ecuador
EC
Estonia
EE
Finland
FI
France
FR
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Libya
Lithuania
DE
GH
GR
GT
HU
IN
ID
IR
IE
IL
IT
JM
JP
KR
LV
LY
LT
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
Singapore
LU
MK
MW
MY
MX
NL
NG
NO
PA
PE
PH
PL
PT
PR
RO
RU
SG
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad & Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
Uruguay
United States
Vietnam
Zambia
SK
SI
ZA
ES
SR
SE
SW
TW
TH
TT
UG
UK
UY
US
VN
ZM
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEDI)
and Switzerland
Size of population 2013 (in million)
Per capita GDP in international US$ 2013 (PPP, World Bank)
Cluster membership
Rank in Doing Business Index 2011-2012
8.0
39’344
???
29/189
Rank in Global Competitiveness Index 2011-2012
1/148
Rank in Economic Freedom index 2011-2012
4/178
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index rank (point)
5 (70.9)
Entrepreneurial Attitudes sub-index rank (point)
5 (66.0)
Entrepreneurial Ability sub-index rank (point)
9 (75.0)
Entrepreneurial Aspirations sub-index rank (point)
7 (71.7)
Weakest pillar to improve (value)
Weakest variable to improve (value)
High Growth (0.41)
Gazelle (0.44)
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The relative position of Switzerland in the Global Entrepreneurship
and Development Index and in the sub-index level
Entrepreneurial Attitudes Sub-index
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
Switzerland
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
Switzerland
0.60
70 000
0.00
0
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
Entrepreneurial Abilities Sub-index
Entrepreneurial Aspiration Sub-Index
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
Switzerland
0.60
10 000
Switzerland
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
70 000
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
GDP Per Capita in Purchasing Power Parities PPP
70 000
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The relative position of Switzerland in the variable level
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
Institutional variables
Market Agglomeration
Individual variables
Pillars
0,71
Opportunity Recognition
0,65
Opportunity Perception
0,60
Tertiary Education
0,72
Skill Perception
0,48
Start-up Skills
0,47
Business Risk
1,00
Risk Acceptance
0,67
Nonfear of Failure
0,93
Internet Usage
0,98
Know Entrepreneurs
0,44
Networking
0,70
Corruption
0,96
Career Status
0,48
Cultural Support
0,87
Entrepreneurial Attitudes
66,0
Entrepreneurial Abilities
Institutional variables
Individual variables
Pillars
Economic Freedom
0,69
Opportunity Motivation
0,79
Opportunity Startup
0,62
Gender Equality
0,94
TEA Female
1,00
Gender
1,00
Tech Absorption
1,00
Technology Level
0,79
Technology Absorption
0,80
Staff Training
1,00
Educational Level
0,71
Human Capital
0,77
Market Dominance
1,00
Competitors
0,92
Competition
1,00
Entrepreneurial Abilities
75,0
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
Institutional variables
Individual variables
Pillars
Technology Transfer
1,00
New Product
0,63
Product Innovation
0,88
GERD
Business Strategy
0,96
1,00
New Tech
Gazelle
0,47
0,44
Process Innovation
High Growth
0,81
0,41
Globalization
0,78
Export
0,94
Internationalization
0,91
Capital Market
0,94
Informal Investment
1,00
Institutional
0.80
Individual
0.50
Risk Capital
1,00
Entrepreneurial Aspirations
71,7
GEDI
0.56
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The position of Switzerland in the pillar level
1. Opportunity Perception (ATT)
15. Risk Capital (ASP)
14. Internationalization (ASP)
13. High Growth (ASP)
1.50
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2. Start-up Skills (ATT)
3. Risk Acceptance (ATT)
4. Networking (ATT)
12. Process Innovation (ASP)
5. Cultural Support (ATT)
11. Product Innovation (ASP)
6. Opportunity Startup (ABT)
10. Competition (ABT)
9. Human Capital (ABT)
Switzerland
7. Gender (ABT)
8. Technology Absorption (ABT)
33% percentile
67% percentile
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
The position of Switzerland in the pillar level
Pillar
High Growth
Pillar
score
Percentage of total new effort
for a 10 point improvement in GEDI score
0.41
43%
Start-up Skills
0.47
35%
Opportunity Perception
0.60
13%
Opportunity Startup
0.62
10%
Networking
0.70
0%
Quality of Human Resources
0.77
0%
Tech Sector
0.80
0%
Process Innovation
0.81
0%
Cultural Support
0.87
0%
Product Innovation
0.88
0%
Internationalization
0.91
0%
Nonfear of Failure
0.93
0%
Competition
1.00
0%
Risk Capital
1.00
0%
Gender
1.00
0%
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
List of Experts
Urs Gauch
Head of SME Business, Credit Suisse
Pascale Vonmont
Delegate at the pre-seed-fund Venture Kick, member of
the jury of the Venture Leader program
Fabio Casati
Head Corporate Finance and Development, BSI AG
Steffen Wagner
CEO and co-founder, Verve Capital Partners AG
Valesko Wild
Head of the Economic Development Office, Canton of Ticino
Stefano Modenini
Director of the Industrial Association of the Canton of Ticino
Philippe Monnier
General Director of the Greater Geneva Berne Area
Development Agency
Rudolf Minsch
Chairman of the Executive Board, Economiesuisse (Swiss
Business Federation)
Bendict Stalder
Managing Director at BST Management Consulting
Lorenzo Leoni
Director at the Innovation Agency of the Canton of Ticino
Marco Cavadini
Business Development Partner at Commission for Technology
and Innovation CTI
Fabian Dieziger
Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Supertext.ch (a top
100 start-up from 2005)
Jerome Schaufeld
Professor of Practice at WPI Worcester Polytechnics
Institute in Boston, Former Entrepreneur in Switzerland
Giambattista Ravano
Director of the Department of Innovative Technologies
at SUPSI (University of Applied Sciences Southern
Switzerland)
Marc Gruber
Chair of Entrepreneurship and Technology Commercialization,
ETH Zurich
Dietmar Grichnik
Professor of Entrepreneurship and Technology Management,
University of St. Gallen
Markus Schneider
Serial Entrepreneur and Consultant
Stephan Kocher
CEO Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
Pascal Dutheil de la Rochère
Independant Advisor to Entrepreneurs and Investors,
Business Coach at the Commission for Technology and
Innovation (CTI)
Lesley Spiegel
Founder and CEO Spiegel Ventures, Lecturer, Advisory
Board Member
Gerhard Roth
Lawyer, Founder and Partner of GHR Law Office
Robert Rudolph
Member of the Executive Board / Education & Innovation at
Swissmem (association of the Swiss mechanical and e
lectrical engineering industry)
Daniel Bloch
Director of Chocolates Camille Bloch, a third-generation
family business
Ralph Siegl
CEO Läderach Chocolatier Suisse
Kurt Schaer
Managing Director Biketec AG
Enzo Lucibello
Managing Director Media Markt Grancia
Sebastien Jeanneret
Founder and CEO Delafee
Martin Waeber
Chief Marketing Officer at Eny Finance (Start-up)
Raphael Waeber
Managing Director Westiform AG
Charles Merkle President and CEO CBC Marketing
Research
Charles Merkle
President and CEO CBC Marketing Research
Vincent Bardy
International Sales, Export and Team-Sponsoring Manager
at Wild Duck SA
Sven Bleicher
Co-Founder and CEO of mySwissChocolate AG
Mariana Christen
Managing Partner and Founder of SEIF (Social
Entrepreneurship Initiative and Foundation)
Paola Ghillani
Entrepreneur for sustainable development and ethics,
Founder of Paola Ghillani & Friends Ltd.
Thomas Minder
Owner and Managing Director of Trybol AG and Politician
Annette Heimlicher
CEO Contrinex AG
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013 — Report on Switzerland
GEM Team Switzerland
Siegfried Alberton
Rico J. Baldegger
Andreas Brülhart
Andrea Huber
Onur Saglam
Pascal Wild
Fredrik Hacklin
doc_119742380.pdf