Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014 Global Report

Description
In such a brief outline in relation to global entrepreneurship monitor 2014 global report.

GEM 2014 FORROS.indd 1 1/29/15 12:41 AM
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP MONITOR
2014 GLOBAL REPORT
Slavica Singer,
J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship , Croatia
José Ernesto Amorós,
Universidad del Desarrollo and Global Entrepreneurship Research Association , Chile
Daniel Moska Arreola,
Tecnológico de Monterrey and Global Entrepreneurship Research Association , México
Founding and Sponsoring Institutions
Babson College, Babson Park, MA, United States
Lead Sponsoring Institution and Founding Institution
Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
Sponsoring Institution
Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Sponsoring Institution
Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
Sponsoring Institution
London Business School, London, United Kingdom
Founding Institution
Although GEM data were used in the preparation of this report, their interpretation and use are the sole responsibility
of the authors.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all participating GEM 2014 national teams for their crucial role in
conducting the GEM survey in their respective economies. The usual disclaimer applies.
The authors would like to extend special thanks to Yana Litovsky for her contribution in the data collection procedures
and data analysis. Special thanks to José Manuel Aguirre Guillén and Nancy Luna Rubio for their help on the report.
© 2015 by Slavica Singer, José Ernesto Amorós, Daniel Moska Arreola and Global Entrepreneurship Research
Association (GERA)
ISBN: 978-1-939242-05-1
Edition and Design: Gilda Moreno Manzur, José Antonio García Rosas, Juan Carlos González Juárez,
Alejandro González Luna
Cover Design: Speed Wagon online marketing
CONTENTS

GEM SPONSORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FOREWORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.1 The GEM conceptual framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2 GEM methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3 GEM indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2. A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1 Social values towards entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2 Individual attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3 Entrepreneurial activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3. ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 The GEM National Experts Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2 The State of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4. DATA IN ACTION: HOW GEM IMPACTS ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.1 Benchmark policy examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2 Country examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
ABOUT GEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Geographical coverage of the 2014 GEM survey cycle (countries in green). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1.2 Conventional Model of National Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 1.3 Model of Entrepreneurial Processes A?ecting National Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 1.4 The GEM Conceptual Framework (used in GEM surveys up to 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 1.5 The Revised GEM Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 1.6 2014 GEM’s survey timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 1.7 The Entrepreneurship Process and GEM Operational De?nitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 2.1 GEM Conceptual Framework–Social Values, Individual Attributes and Entrepreneurial Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 2.2 Social values toward entrepreneurship in the GEM economies in 2014, by phase of economic
development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 2.3 Individual attributes in the GEM economies in 2014, by phase of economic development.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 2.4 Total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in the GEM economies in 2014,
by phase of economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 2.5 Correlation of perceived opportunities with the level of TEA, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 2.6 Correlation of perceived capability (skills) with the level of TEA, 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 2.7 Correlation of fear of failure with the level of TEA, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 2.8 Percentage of entrepreneurs motivated by necessity and improvement-driven opportunity in 2014,
by phase of economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 2.9 Early-stage entrepreneurial activity rates (TEA) within age groups in 2014, by geographic regions . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 2.10 Male and female early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in 2014, by geographic regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 2.11 TEA and established business owners in 2014, by geographic regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 2.12 Reasons for business discontinuance in 2014, by geographic regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 2.13 Job expectations for early-stage entrepreneurs in 2014, by geographic regions (as % of TEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 2.14 Innovative orientation of early-stage entrepreneurs (TEA) in 2014, by geographic regions (as % of TEA) . . . . . . 49
Figure 2.15 International orientation of early-stage entrepreneurs in 2014, by geographic regions (as % of TEA). . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 2.16 Entrepreneurial employee activity (EEA) in 2014, by phase of economic development
(as % of adult population 18-64 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 2.17 Comparison of presence of TEA and EEA in 2014, by geographic regions
(as % of adult population, 18-64 years). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 2.18 TEA rate and GDP per capita, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 2.19 EEA rate and GDP per capita, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 3.1 The revised GEM framework and the relationship with Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 3.2 Indicators on entrepreneurship framework conditions among regions—Africa vs North America . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 3.3 Indicators on entrepreneurship framework conditions—Singapore vs Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.4 Composite indicators on entrepreneurship institutions, by stage of development (1/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.5 Composite indicators on entrepreneurship institutions, by stage of development (2/2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 4.1 Mexico: GDP growth and unemployment rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 4.2 Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 4.3 Creating industrial delta robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 4.4 Promoting a small business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 4.5 Running a small shop in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 4.6 A Policy Day in GEM Toronto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
7
LIST OF TABLES
GEM Economies by geographic region and economic development level, 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 1.1 Social, cultural, political and economic context and economic development phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 2.1 GEM economies by geographic region and economic development level, 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 2.2 Perception of social values toward entrepreneurship in the GEM economies in 2014 by geographic region
(% of population aged 18-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 2.3 Individual attributes in the GEM economies in 2014, by geographic region (% of population aged 18-64) . . . . . . 32
Table 2.4 Phases of entrepreneurial activity in the GEM economies in 2014, by geographic region
(% of population aged 18-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 2.5 Motivation for early-stage entrepreneurial activity in the GEM economies in 2014, by region
(% of population aged 18-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 3.1 GEM’S key entrepreneurial framework conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 3.2 Entrepreneurship framework conditions main indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table A.1 Perceptions of social values regarding entrepreneurship in the GEM economies in 2014,
by stages of economic development (% of population aged 18-64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table A.2 Individual attributes in the GEM economies in 2014, by stages of economic development
(% of population aged 18-64). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Table A.3 Total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in the GEM economies in 2014,
by stages of economic development (% of population aged 18-64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table A.4 Motivation for early-stage entrepreneurial activity in the GEM economies in 2014,
by stages of economic development (% of population aged 18-64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table A.5 Gender Distribution of Early-stage Entrepreneurs (TEA) & Necessity vs Opportunity Entrepreneurship
by Geographic Region, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table A.6 Job Growth Expectations for Early-Stage Entrepreneurship Activity, by Geographic Regions, 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . 87
8
GEM SPONSORS
Babson College is a founding
institution and lead sponsor of
the Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM). Located in
Wellesley, Massachusetts,
USA, Babson is recognized internationally as a leader in
entrepreneurial management education. U.S. News and World
Report has ranked Babson #1 in entrepreneurship education
for 18 years in a row.
Babson grants B.S. degrees through its innovative
undergraduate program, and offers MBA and M.S. degrees
through its F.W. Olin Graduate School of Business. The
School of Executive Education offers executive development
programs to experienced managers worldwide. Babson’s
student body is globally diverse, hailing from 45 U.S. states
and 57 economies (non-U.S. students comprise more than
20% of undergraduates and 40% of full-time MBA students).
Students can choose from over 100 entrepreneurship courses
offered each year, taught by 17 tenure or tenure-track faculty,
all with entrepreneurship experience, seven faculty from
other divisions around the college, and highly accomplished
business leaders serving as adjunct faculty.
Entrepreneurial Thought and Action (ETA) is at the center of the
Babson experience, where students are taught to experiment
with their ideas in real-life, learning and adapting these as
they leverage who and what they know to create valuable
opportunities. “Entrepreneurship of All Kinds” emphasizes that
entrepreneurship is crucial and applicable to organizations
of all types and sizes, whether a new launched independent
startup, a multigenerational family business, a social venture,
or an established organization. Through an emphasis on Social,
Environmental, Economic Responsibility, and Sustainability
(SEERS), students learn that economic and social value creation
are not mutually exclusive, but integral to each other.
Babson shares its methodology and educational model with
other institutions around the world through Babson Global,
and in the process brings new knowledge and opportunities
back to our campus. Besides GEM, Babson has co-founded and
continues to sponsor the Babson College Entrepreneurship
Research Conference (BCERC), the largest academic research
conference focused exclusively on entrepreneurship and the
Successful Transgenerational Entrepreneurship Project (STEP),
a global family business research project.
For more information visit www.babson.edu
True to the spirit and
enterprising drive of its
founders, the Universidad
del Desarrollo is today
one of the top three private prestigious universities in Chile.
The project started 25 years ago in Concepción, a southern
city of Chile with 100 business administration students.
Twenty-five years later, the facts speak for themselves. Its
rapid growth has become an expression of the university’s
main facet: entrepreneurship. The UDD MBA program is
rated one of the best in South America and also a leader
in entrepreneurship education, according to America
Economia magazine, an achievement that once again
represents the “entrepreneurial” seal that is embedded in
the spirit of the University. Today the University has more
than 13,521 undergraduates, 3,023 postgraduates and over
11,752 graduates from 26 careers that cover all areas of
human knowledge. The UDD also has 15 research centers
in many disciplines. One of these research centers, the
Entrepreneurship Institute of the School of Business and
Economics, coordinates the GEM Chile project and is one
of the most important research centers in South America
dedicated to entrepreneurship studies.
For more information visit www.udd.cl
9
Universiti Tun Abdul Razak
(UNIRAZAK) was established
on 18 December 1997 as one
of the first private universities
in Malaysia. The University was
named after Malaysia’s second Prime Minister, the late YAB Tun
Abdul Razak bin Dato’ Hussein, and was officially launched on
21 December 1998 by Tun Abdul Razak’s eldest son, YAB Dato’
Seri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak, current Prime Minister
of Malaysia. UNIRAZAK recognized the imperative need for
Malaysia’s future entrepreneurs to equip themselves with the
proper tools and expertise to survive and flourish in today’s
modern competitive economic climate.
Thus UNIRAZAK founded The Bank Rakyat School of Business
and Entrepreneurship (BRSBE), a unique school, dedicated to
providing quality education in entrepreneurial and business
leadership in Malaysia. The BRSBE was formed with the view
that entrepreneurial activity is one of the pillars of a strong
and vibrant economy. Although big business is extremely vital
for economic health and prosperity, a strong cadre of SMIs
and SMEs is also essential to ensure a diverse economy and to
provide the required support to big business companies and
the community. In fact the dramatic economic development
in Asia over the past two decades highlights the importance
of understanding entrepreneurship in the region. In this
regard UNIRAZAK through BRSBE is ideally poised to play both
a national and regional role in developing entrepreneurship
and meeting challenges unique to Asia.
For more information visit www.unirazak.edu.my
Tecnológico de Monterrey was
founded in 1943, as a private
non-profit institution, thanks to
the vision and commitment of Don Eugenio Garza Sada and a
group of entrepreneurs.
We educate leaders with an entrepreneurial spirit, committed
to ethics and civic values, and internationally competitive.
We are a multi-campus internationally prestigious
university with a leading-edge educational model:
TEC21, addressed to transforming lives and solving the
challenges posed by the 21st century. We have 31 campuses
distributed throughout the diverse regions of Mexico with
around 90,000 students, 19 international sites and liaison
offices in 12 countries, and more than 250,000 alumni in
Mexico and around the world.
We have been awarded institution-wide national
and international accreditations for our high school,
undergraduate and graduate academic programs. In 2013,
we became the first university in Latin America to be granted
the QS 5-Star rating, positioning our institution among the
38 universities worldwide with this distinction, according
to the British ranking agency Quacquarelli Symonds (QS).
In 2014 the Mexican Government has conferred on Tec
de Monterrey the National Entrepreneurship Award
2014 for Education Institutions. We conduct scientific and
technological applied research in strategic areas to meet the
nation’s social, economic and environmental demands.
The Eugenio Garza Lagüera Entrepreneurship Institute
promotes an entrepreneurship and innovation-based culture
among all our students, as well as the communities and
regions, through academic entrepreneurship programs and
a network of business incubators (high impact, basic and
social incubators), business accelerators, a technology parks
network, centers for entrepreneurial families, venture capital
development activities, and Enlace E+E Mentor Network.
The entrepreneurship initiatives contribute to job creation and
to strengthen the national economy and social development
through the transfer of knowledge for businesses’ creation,
development and growth. We act in favor of a more inclusive,
caring society with ethical values.
For more information visit www.itesm.mx
10
FOREWORD
“All that is valuable in human society depends upon
the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.”
—Albert Einstein
Opportunities, capabilities to detect and seize them, and to
transform them into a venture… that’s at the core of the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey. It is with this in mind
that, since 1999, GEM has been collecting, analyzing and
interpreting data across the world on the capacity of individuals
to act entrepreneurially (i.e., proactively, innovatively and
responsibly). By doing so, GEM confirms that everywhere
around the globe there are opportunities to be captured for
development, but their transformation into venturing depends
on individual attributes (skills, intentions), social values and the
entrepreneurship ecosystem (from access to finance, education
and R&D transfer, to government policies and programs, as well
as physical and professional infrastructure…).
The survey, which started as an initiative of two researchers
(Michael Hay, London Business School, and Bill Bygrave,
Babson College) in 1997, by asking a simple question (”Why
are some countries more entrepreneurial than others?”),
evolved into a global survey conducted annually, which
covers all the regions in the world (Africa, Latin America &
Caribbean, Asia & Oceania, Europe, North America). The 2014
GEM survey covered 73 economies, representing 72.4% of the
world’s population and 90% of the world’s GDP.
The GEM survey monitors entrepreneurial attributes and
activities both individually and globally. It therefore provides
a unique primary database, which allows to obtain insights
on the patterns and trends that prevail in the participating
economies, from two perspectives: geographic regions
and economic development stages. The GEM’s outputs are
highly valuable for governments’ work in evidence-based
interventions addressed to improve the entrepreneurship
ecosystem and/or education institutions, in order to
offer research-based educational programs and build
entrepreneurial competencies.
The collective effort of more than 500 researchers participating
in the GEM survey through national teams has important
results: the research soundness and a pragmatic orientation
toward designing indicators that capture an economy’s
entrepreneurial capacity. To all of these researchers, listed at the
end of this report, our deepest thanks.
We also express our gratitude to more than 206,000 adults
around the world who anonymously participated in the 2014
GEM survey, and to 3,936 national experts who provided their
thoughts on the entrepreneurship ecosystem.
The continuity of this world’s largest survey on
entrepreneurship would not be possible without the financial
support of many national sponsors (ministries, government
agencies, banks, universities, chambers of commerce,
international development organizations, all listed at the end
of the report), as well as of our four global sponsors: Babson
College (U.S.A.), Universidad del Desarrollo (Chile), University
Tun Abdul Razak (Malaysia), and as of 2015 the Tecnológico de
Monterrey (México).
We thank Arjan de Haan, Dominique Garro-Straus, and Ann
Weston, from IDRC; Jonathan Levie, co-director of GEM
UK; Siri Roland Xavier, GEM Malaysia team leader; Mike
Herrington, South Africa’s GEM team leader; Peter Josty
and Adam Holbrook, from GEM Canada, who contributed
decisively to Chapter 4 with examples of how GEM impacts
the entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Our thanks also to Rebecca Namatovu, from GEM Uganda,
who provided a short summary of the forthcoming report
on youth entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa
(Chapter 2).
Our special thanks to Yana Litovsky for her crucial contribution
to the data collection procedures, as well as to all the GERA
staff, led by Mike Herrington, Executive Director, and the
Mexican team lead by José Manuel Aguirre Guillén, for
designing, editing and publishing the work.
The authors
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report provides
the results of its sixteenth survey on entrepreneurship held
every year across the world. The rising number of participating
countries and consistent conceptual framework, surveying
tools and applied methodology contribute to build the
biggest database on entrepreneurship in the world. The GEM
survey generates a variety of relevant primary information
on different aspects of entrepreneurship and provides
harmonized measures about individuals’ attributes and their
activities in different phases of venturing (from nascent to
start-up, established business and discontinuation). GEM
also tracks highly ambitious entrepreneurship (by identifying
aspirations to grow among owner-managed businesses
and the presence of entrepreneurial employee activity). All
harmonized measures can be enriched with information
on inclusiveness, using as lenses age, gender and income.
The GEM survey also provides insights on the perception
of whether the entrepreneurship ecosystem’s components
support or hinder entrepreneurial activity in the economy.
In 2014, more than 206,000 individuals were surveyed across
73 economies and 3936 national experts on entrepreneurship
from 73 economies participated in the survey. Using the United
Nations classification for regions, and the World Economic
Forum Global Competitiveness Index Report’s classification
for economic development levels, GEM participant economies
represent 72.4% of the world’s population and 90% of the
world’s GDP, enables GEM to feature different profiles of
entrepreneurship according to regions and the economic
development stage.
According to those two dimensions (geographic region and
economic development level), participating economies in the
2014 GEM survey are the following:
GEM ECONOMIES BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT LEVEL, 2014
Factor-driven Economies Effciency-driven Economies Innovation-driven Economies
Africa Angola
1)
, Botswana
1)
, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Uganda
South Africa
Asia & Oceania India, Iran
1)
, Kuwait
1)
, Philippines
1)
,
Vietnam
China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan
2)
, Malaysia
2)
,
Thailand
Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Qatar
Latin America
& Caribbean
Bolivia
1)
Argentina
2)
, Barbados
2
, Belize, Brazil
2)
, Chile
2)
,
Colombia, Costa Rica
2)
, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico
2).
, Panama
2)
,
Peru, Suriname
2)
, Uruguay
2)
Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago
European
Union
Croatia
2)
, Hungary
2)
, Lithuania
2)
, Poland
2)
,
Romania
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Por-
tugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom
Non-European
Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo,
Russian Federation
2)
, Turkey
2)

Norway, Switzerland
North America Canada, United States
1) In transition to Efficiency-driven economies
2) In transition to Innovation-driven economies
In 2014, in addition to the standard GEM survey, the research
on youth and entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa (Angola,
Botswana, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa,
Uganda and Zambia) has been conducted, with financial
support of the International Development Research Council
(IDRC). The results of this research will be published in a
special GEM and IDRC report in April, 2015.
KEY OVERALL FINDINGS
Individual attributes and social values towards
entrepreneurship
GEM provides insights on several individual attributes
(perception of opportunities, perception of own capabilities
12
to act entrepreneurially, fear of failure and entrepreneurial
intentions), which—within a specific context defined
by entrepreneurship framework conditions—lead to
entrepreneurship activities.
Individuals in factor-driven economies expressed a more
positive attitude towards entrepreneurial measures—such
as perceived opportunities to start a venture and perceived
capabilities to do it— in comparison to those in efficiency-
driven and innovation-driven economies. The same holds
for entrepreneurial intentions. But, fear of failure is the
highest among individuals in innovation-driven economies.
Using a geographic perspective, some patterns also can be
identified. Individuals in African economies tend to report the
highest perception of opportunities, perceived skills to act
entrepreneurially and entrepreneurial intentions, accompanied
with the lowest fear of failure. In the European Union an
interesting additional pattern emerges: individuals from
countries that experience long- term economic problems do
not differ much from others in perceiving capabilities to act
entrepreneurially, but they expressed the lowest perception
of opportunities (17.2% in Slovenia; 18.4% in Croatia; 19.9%
in Greece; 22.6% in Spain; 22.9% in Portugal). At the same
time, the lowest level of entrepreneurial intentions is found in
European and North American economies, while the highest
corresponds to African economies.
Social values are an important part of the context in which
individuals behave entrepreneurially or not. Starting a venture
is seen as a good career choice mostly in African economies,
while individuals in the European Union show the lowest level
in this regard. Entrepreneurs in African and North American
economies share the value of high status to successful
entrepreneurs, which indicates that there is an entrepreneurial
culture in those economies. This is additionally supported by
high media attention for entrepreneurship. EU economies
show the lowest social values towards entrepreneurship, in all
three dimensions: starting a new business is a desirable career
choice, high social status and media positively contributes to
developing an entrepreneurial culture.
Entrepreneurial activities
Entrepreneurial activities are presented by using the
organizational life-cycle approach (nascent, new business,
established business, discontinuation), by adding insights on
ambitious entrepreneurial activity (both from the standpoint
of an owner-managed venture and of an entrepreneurial
employee). Gender and age descriptors are used to emphasize
some distinctive patterns.
Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) includes
individuals in the process of starting a venture and those
running a new business less than 3 ½ years old. As a
percentage of the adult population (18-64 years old) this
measure tends to be the highest among factor-driven
economies, and declines in economies with higher GDP
pc. It is consistent with the pattern of intentions to start a
venture. Among innovation-driven economies the highest
TEA rates are found in Qatar (16.4% TEA), Trinidad & Tobago
(14.6% TEA), the United States (13.8% TEA), Australia (13.1%
TEA) and Canada (13.0% TEA). Japan, with 3.8% TEA, and
Italy, with 4.4% TEA, have the lowest share of early-stage
entrepreneurs among their respective adult populations.
From the geographic perspective, the highest TEAs are found
in African economies (37.4% TEA in Cameroon, 35.5% in
Uganda, 32.8% in Botswana), joined only by Ecuador (from the
rest of the world economies) with 32.6% TEA. Only in those
four economies one third of adult population is early-stage
entrepreneurs. European economies have the lowest TEA rates
(7.8% TEA in EU economies, 6.0% TEA in non-EU economies).
Motivational reasons (necessity-driven or improvement-
driven opportunity) provide additional understanding
of an economy’s entrepreneurial profile. High early-stage
entrepreneurial activity in factor-driven and efficiency-driven
economies is motivated by necessity in 28% or 27% of the cases,
respectively. The share of early-stage entrepreneurs who started
their ventures out of improvement-driven opportunities as
motives is the highest in innovation-driven economies (54.9%)
in comparison with 45.1% in efficiency-driven economies
or 47.0% in factor-driven economies. In several economies
(Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Trinidad
& Tobago, United States and Taiwan) two out of three early-
stage entrepreneurs were motivated by improvement-driven
opportunity. Singapore, Norway, France and Japan stand out
with around 70% of early-stage entrepreneurs motivated by
improvement-driven opportunity. Low share of improvement-
driven opportunity motive (less than 33%) is found in Bosnia and
Herzegovina (25.2%), Croatia (28.7%), Uruguay (27.3%), Kosovo
(29.1%), Greece (30.5%), Georgia (30.9%), Spain (33.5%), Jamaica
(33.5%) and Kazakhstan (33.7%).
In order to build a stable, but vibrant business sector, it
is important to have an appropriate business structure
(consisting of early-stage entrepreneurs and established
businesses) and an appropriate business dynamics
(reasonable difference between higher rate of entrance and
lower rate of exits from the business sector). GEM tracks
business dynamics, by capturing the rate of established
businesses among adult population and the rate of
discontinuation of businesses.
European Union economies have a quite balanced level of
the early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) rate of 7.8%
and the rate of established business ownership rate of
6.7%. It seems a low dynamics that can be explained by the
presence of a more efficient entrepreneurship ecosystem
(education, R&D transfer, access to finance, friendly regulatory
framework) supporting new entrants in business activity.
But so thin a basis of early-stage entrepreneurial activity can
jeopardize economic canvas in crisis situation. The example
of Greece and Spain supports such statement, because those
countries have a lower level of TEA compared to their level
of established business ownership rates (Greece: 7.9 TEA vs.
12.8 EB; Spain: 5.5 TEA vs. 7.3 EB). The difference between the
rates of early-stage entrepreneurs and established businesses
is melting along the stages of economic development: in
factor-driven economies this ratio is 23.3 vs. 12.7; in efficiency-
driven economies it is 14.0 vs. 8.5 and in innovation-driven
13
economies it is almost leveled (8.5 vs. 6.7). The same tendency
is observed in the rates of discontinuation of businesses:
the highest (11.0%) is found in factor-driven economies,
lowering to 4.5% in efficiency-driven economies and to 2.7%
in innovation-driven economies.
The dominant reason for discontinuation of the venture is
lack of profitability (except in North American economies,
where personal reasons are in first place and non-profitability
in second). Personal reasons are in second place in all other
regions. Lack of finances is in third place, but much less
intensely in North America than in the rest of the world. This
problem prevails in African economies.
GEM tracks ambitious entrepreneurship by observing
early-stage entrepreneurs with high expectations related
to job creation (20+ in the next five years), innovation (new
products/services) and internationalization. Additionally, since
2011 GEM captures entrepreneurial employee activities.
North American early-stage entrepreneurs stand out with
optimistic expectations of high growth in job creation (2.4%
of early-stage entrepreneurs). Non-EU economies (with 6.6%),
African economies (6.8%) and Latin American and Caribbean
economies (7.5%) have the lowest expectations. In the group
of EU economies, only 3.2% of early-stage entrepreneurs in
Greece and 4.4% in Spain expect to have high creation of new
jobs. On the other hand, there are economies with almost full
employment where low expectations for growth of jobs are
connected with the lack of skilled labor force (for example
Thailand or Luxembourg).
GEM looks at innovative orientation of early-stage
entrepreneurs through two lenses (product/market): how
much an entrepreneur’s product/service is new to all or some
customers and if few or no other businesses offer the same
product/service. This measure of innovative orientation
is a quite context-dependent measure, because despite
globalization, the internal market in many economies can
recognize some products/services as new, but at the same
time they already exist on some other markets. North
American economies are more innovation-oriented than
those of the rest of the world. Asia & Oceania are showing
a different pattern: high product innovation, but less
orientation to new markets due to their own huge markets.
Both measures are low in Africa, except in South Africa. There
are countries which are trying to develop both aspects of
innovation capacity; a good example is Chile, with a very
high share of early-stage entrepreneurs saying that they
have a product/ service which is new to all or some of their
customers (89%), while 59% of them also say that they sell in
markets where they have only a few competitors.
Every economy, big or small, is inevitably a part of the
global economy. Therefore, it is important to track how
internationalization contributes to the growth of businesses.
GEM is using a categorization of four levels of intensity in
internationalization measured by the share of customers
living outside the early-stage entrepreneur’s country.
African economies involved in the GEM survey have the
least intensive internationalization (almost 70% of early-
stage entrepreneurs do not have a customer outside their
respective countries). The exception is South Africa with
26% of early-stage entrepreneurs having more than 25%
customers abroad. The highest level of internationalization
(more than 25% of customers abroad) is present among early-
stage entrepreneurs in EU economies. Several EU economies,
all small, are leading in internationalization: Luxembourg (42%
of businesses), Croatia (38%), Belgium (33%), Estonia (24%).
Same holds for non-EU economies, where Kosovo leads with
33% of early-stage entrepreneurs selling abroad, followed by
Switzerland with 31% of entrepreneurs intensively exporting.
Small countries as Suriname, Singapore or Barbados are also
examples of a high internationalization intensity.
Since 2011, GEM captures entrepreneurial employee
activity (EEA), acknowledging the existence of different types
of entrepreneurship (early-stage entrepreneurs, established
businesses, and ambitious entrepreneurial employee
activity), which together build an economy’s entrepreneurial
capacity. GEM operationalizes entrepreneurial employee
activity as a situation where an employee in the past three
years was actively involved in and had a leading role in either
the idea development for a new activity or the preparation
and implementation of a new activity. The measure of
entrepreneurial employee activity (EEA) is increasing along
the development stages, higher in innovation-driven
economies, the lowest in factor-driven economies.
Entrepreneurial employee activity is much scarcer than TEA
across the world, and in African as well and Latin American
and Caribbean economies this difference is the highest. North
America and EU economies have the highest incidence of
entrepreneurial employee activity.
GEM tracks demographic characteristics (age, gender, income)
of early-stage entrepreneurs, which contributes to estimate the
level of inclusiveness. Due to many reasons (lack of resources
among younger persons, lack of regulatory conditions for
entrepreneurial activity of 60+ individuals) some age groups are
less represented in early-stage entrepreneurial activity (Figure
2.9), which is a complex policy issue (involving many aspects of
entrepreneurial framework conditions, like access to finance,
taxation policy, retirement policy, etc.). Across the world, the
most active persons in early-stage entrepreneurial activity are
in the 25-35 age group. The most balanced participation takes
place in North American economies.
In 2014, the GEM survey confirmed again that while the early-
stage entrepreneurial activity is mostly performed by men,
there are no differences in individual attributes, like perceived
opportunities and perceived capabilities. Only in expressing
fear of failure there is a slightly higher presence of women
than men. A different pattern emerges when comparing
motives for early-stage entrepreneurial activity: across the
regions, women start a business venture more often out
of necessity than men. The most gender-balanced rates of
starting the business out of necessity are found in Australia,
the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria, Kazakhstan,
South Africa, Singapore and Thailand.
14
Entrepreneurship Ecosystems (Entrepreneurship Framework
Conditions)
Since its inception, the GEM has proposed that
entrepreneurship dynamics can be linked to conditions that
enhance (or hinder) new business creation. In the GEM´s
methodology these conditions are known as Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions (EFCs). The EFCs can be considered
an essential part of the puzzle that understanding
businesses’ creation and growth represents. The state
of these conditions directly influences the existence of
entrepreneurial opportunities, entrepreneurial capacity and
preferences, which in turn determines business dynamics.
By collecting information through interviewing national
experts on EFCs (access to finance, government policies,
government entrepreneurship programs, entrepreneurship
education, R&D transfer, commercial and legal infrastructure,
market openness, physical infrastructure and cultural
and social norms), GEM captures informed judgments of
national key informants regarding the entrepreneurship
ecosystems. In most economies participating in the 2014
GEM survey, the best evaluated component is physical
infrastructure and commercial infrastructure, and the
lowest evaluation corresponded to primary and secondary
education, government policies toward regulation and
access to finance. From a geographic perspective, African
economies have the lowest scores in almost all EFCs. North
American economies have the highest scores for almost
all EFCs. From the perspective of economic development
levels, higher scores go to EFCs in more developed
economies, which also confirms that building a supportive
entrepreneurship ecosystem requires time, resources and
political commitment.
Data in action: how GEM impacts entrepreneurship
ecosystems
High stated goals for closing development gaps around the
world (as identified in the New Millennium Goals) require
knowledge/evidence- and action-based policies of all major
stakeholders of the Quadruple Helix (government, university,
business sector, civil society). There is an increasing body
of knowledge about many aspects of the quality of life in
all countries around the world. Official statistical coverage
is different among countries, but it is complemented by
various international surveys. GEM is one of the very few
surveys based on the collection of primary data on
individual entrepreneurial activities, as well as on social
values and personal attributes that contribute to or
hinder such activities. The GEM survey covers more than
100 countries (73 participated in 2014) and has collected
data since 1999 using standardized tools; this has generated
a huge database which can be used by international
institutions or by national governments to design evidence-
based policy interventions, or by some institutions (such
as universities) to develop research-based educational
programs.
After sixteen years of building a database on individuals’
entrepreneurial behavior around the world, GEM is an
extremely valuable source for learning about related patterns
and trends. In order to show how GEM data is used to develop
evidence-based policy activities, six examples are provided in
the 2014 GEM Global Report:
• How state aid can be used to have an impact on developing
countries: The International Development Research Centre
(IDRC), Canada—how to use GEM’s unique knowledge on
entrepreneurship in developing countries—with links to
Canada
• How to develop evidence-based policies and have
better insights on entrepreneurial capacity at a national
level: the EU funded a three-year project for the
collection of data on entrepreneurial activity and self-
employment, complementing the core GEM survey with
specific questions, in order to obtain better insights on
entrepreneurial capacity in the EU
• Four national examples, which confirm that the “one
approach fits all” method does not work in designing an
adequate entrepreneurship ecosystem, but that insights
on entrepreneurial attributes and activities of individuals in
different contexts are needed:
o GEM Mexico—how GEM data is being used by the
Mexican government to build an institutional framework
for SME’s support
o GEM Malaysia—how GEM data is being used by
the Malaysian government to monitor trends in
entrepreneurship in Malaysia and to design some policy
interventions
o GEM South Africa—governments can be slow in
recognizing the need for evidence-based policies, but
persistence of researchers in finding common language
with policy makers pays off
o GEM Canada—building understanding of the evidence-
based approach in designing and monitoring policy
interventions requires collaboration among different
actors (researchers, government officials, the business
sector, any other stakeholders), by using the concept of
GEM Policy Day
The Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA),
which coordinates GEM national teams, is ready to participate
in the challenge of the New Millennium Goals and to join
the multi-stakeholder global partnership in actions aimed to
identify information gaps (and overlaps), as well as to develop
collective actions required to replace the competition in the
industry of indicators with collaborative efforts to increase
access to information and data literacy at the institutional and
individual levels.
17
CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This new edition of The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014
Global Report (GEM) provides the results of the 16th survey
cycle held every year since 1999. Seventy-three countries
participated in the 2014 survey and the report provides the
results on entrepreneurial attributes and activities of 70 of
these countries and on entrepreneurship ecosystem of 73
countries.
1
Figure 1.1 shows the geographical coverage of the
survey cycle.
Countries participating in the 2014 GEM survey represent
72.4% of the world’s population and 90% of the world’s GDP,
thus providing a very significant basis for identifying different
features of the entrepreneurship phenomenon, as spelled out
in the conceptual framework used here.
1.1 THE GEM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The GEM survey was initially conceived with the
intention of detecting the interdependence between
1
While 73 economies participated in the GEM survey cycle in 2014,
Kuwait, Latvia and Turkey did not submit their Adult Population Survey
(APS) data in time to be processed and included in the Global Report.
However, their National Expert Survey (NES) data is included in the
corresponding chapter and their APS results will eventually be released
and incorporated into the 2014 PDF version of the Global Report.
entrepreneurship and economic development. During
the last 16 years, its conceptual framework and basic
definitions evolved gradually without compromising
the comparability of collected information, but bringing
more clarity into assumed relationships. This process was
supported by the work of many researchers who, using
GEM data, contributed to build the entrepreneurship
paradigm (Álvarez et al., 2014, Bosma, 2013, Levie and
Autio, 2008, Reynolds et al., 2015).
The initial definition of entrepreneurship is still valid, but
three research questions made since 1999 were modified,
as some of them were answered by the findings of
annual surveys.
The definition of entrepreneurship—in the context
of understanding its role in economic growth—is as
follows:
“Any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such
as self-employment, a new business organization, or the
expansion of an existing business, by an individual, a team
of individuals, or an established business.” (Reynolds et al.,
1999, p. 3)
18
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF THE 2014 GEM SURVEY CYCLE (COUNTRIES IN GREEN)
Three questions that paved the way to the GEM survey were
posed as follows (Reynolds et al., 1999, p. 3):
? Does the level of entrepreneurial activity vary between
countries, and, if so, to what extent?
? Does the level of entrepreneurial activity affect a country’s
rate of economic growth and prosperity?
? What makes a country entrepreneurial?
In order to answer those questions GEM had to depart
from the conventional approach to thinking about national
economic growth and brought the new conceptual
framework that underwent a series of adjustments since its
implementation in 1999.
The GEM conceptual framework, as identified in 1999
(Figure 1.3) in contrast to the conventional model of national
economic growth (Figure 1.2), depicted the basic assumption
that national economic growth is the result of the individuals’
(wherever they are located and regardless of whether they
are self-employed or the size of businesses) personal ability to
identify and seize opportunities, and that this process is taking
place in the interaction with the environment.
Using the findings of GEM surveys over the years, this initial
conceptual framework evolved into the GEM conceptual
framework shown in Figure 1.4.
The major revision of this GEM conceptual framework was to
open the “black box” called Entrepreneurship Profile, as shown
in Figure 1.4. Since the GEM survey’s early beginnings, the
FIGURE 1.2 CONVENTIONAL MODEL OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH
Source: Reynolds, P. D., M. Hay, S.M. Camp, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 1999 Executive Report, p. 9.
Micro, Small, and
Medium Firms
(Secondary Economy)
National
Economic
Growth
(GDP, Jobs)
Major Established Firms
(Primary Economy)
General National
Framework Conditions
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Contex
19
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.3 MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESSES AFFECTING NATIONAL ECONOMIC
GROWTH
Source: Reynolds, P. D., M. Hay, S.M. Camp, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 1999 Executive Report, p. 10.
Entrepreneurial Capacity
Entrepreneurial Opportunities
Business
Dynamics
National
Economic
Growth
(GDP, Jobs)
Social,
Cultural,
Political
Context
Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions
FIGURE 1.4 THE GEM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (USED IN GEM SURVEYS UP TO 2014)
Social, Cultural,
Political Context
Basic requirements
• Institutions
• Infrastructure
• Macroeconomic stability
•Health and primary
education
Attitudes:
Perceived opportunities &
capabilities; Fear of Failure;
Status of entrepreneurship
Socio-
Economic
Development
(Jobs,
innovation,
Social value)
Activity:
Opportunity/Necessity-driven,
Early-stage; Inclusiveness;
Industry, Exits
Aspirations:
Growth, Innovation
International orientation
Social value creation
From other
available
sources
From GEM
Adult
Population
Surveys (APS)
From GEM
Adult
Population
Surveys (APS)
E?ciency enhancers
• Higher education &
training
• Goods market efciency
• Labor market efciency
• Financial market
sophistication
•Technological readiness
•Market size
Innovation and
entrepreneurship
• Entrepreneurial fnance
• Government policy
• Government
entrepreneurship
programs
• Entrepreneurship
education
• R&D transfer
• Internal market openness
• Physical infrastructure
for entrepreneurship
• Commercial, legal
infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
• Cultural and social norms
From GEM
National Expert
Surveys (NES)
Established Firms
Entrepreneurship Pro?le
Employee
Entrepreneurial
Activity
20
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.5 THE REVISED GEM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
The GEM framework
Social, Cultural,
Political,
Economic
Context
Basic Requirements
Efciency Enhancers
Innovation and
Business Sophistication
Social Values
Towards
Entrepreneurship
Outcome
(socio-economic
development)
Entrepreneurial Output
(new jobs, new value added)
Entrepreneurial Activity
• By phases of organisational
life cycle
– Nascent, new, established,
discontinuation
• Types of activity
– High growth, innovative,
internationalization
• Sectors of activity
– Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA), Social Entrepreneurial Activity (SEA),
Employee Entrepreneurial Activity (EEA)
Individual
Attributes
(psychological,
demographic,
motivation)
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
implicit assumption of mutual relationships among attitudes,
aspirations and activities was in-built in the conceptual
framework, without spelling out the nature of these relation
ships.
In the revised GEM conceptual framework shown in Figure
1.5, this “black box” has been opened in order to test the
characteristics of the assumed relationships between
social values, personal attributes and various forms of
entrepreneurial activity.
In all conceptual frameworks, basic assumptions have
remained unchanged:
1. Entrepreneurial activity is not a heroic act of an individual,
regardless of the environment in which the activity is
performed.
2. Entrepreneurial activity is an output of the interaction of
an individual’s perception of an opportunity and capacity
(motivation and skills) to act upon this AND the distinct
conditions of the respective environment in which the
individual is located.
GEM surveys confirmed that the level of entrepreneurial
activity varies among countries at a fairly constant rate, thus
additionally confirming that it requires time and consistency
in policy interventions in order to build factors that contribute
to entrepreneurial activity. Surveys also confirmed that
entrepreneurial activity, in different forms (nascent, start-up,
intrapreneurship), is positively correlated with the economic
growth, but that this relationship differs along phases of
economic development (Acs and Amorós, 2008; Van Stel et al.,
2005; Wennekers et al., 2010).
This is further confirmed by recent policy interventions
around the world that focus on components of the GEM
conceptual framework—environment (entrepreneurial
framework conditions), individual capacity to identify and
seize opportunities, and ability of the society to develop
entrepreneurial culture. The Report on Entrepreneurial
Ambition and Innovation (WEF-GEM, 2015) highlights the
cases of Colombia and Chile, which are implementing several
public and private initiatives to enhance their entrepreneurial
ecosystems (Drexler and Amorós, 2015) (more examples of the
use of GEM data in the design of national policies are included
in Chapter 4).
21
CHAPTER 1
Therefore, GEM continues to focus on contributing to global
economic development through surveying/researching
entrepreneurship initiatives that are helping to improve
research-based education and research-based design of
public policies in the field of entrepreneurship. For this
purpose it follows three objectives (with slight modifications
as reflected in the revised GEM conceptual framework):
? Determine the extent to which entrepreneurial activity
influences economic growth within individual economies.
? Identify factors which encourage or hinder entrepreneurial
activity, especially the relationships between the National
Entrepreneurship Conditions, social values, personal
attributes and entrepreneurial activity (opening the black
box of the GEM conceptual framework shown in Figure 1.4
into a revised GEM conceptual framework as presented in
Figure 1.5).
? Identify policy implications for enhancing entrepreneurial
capacity in an economy.
Since 2008 (Bosma et al., 2009), GEM followed the World
Economic Forum’s typology of countries based on Porter’s
(Porter et al., 2002) definitions of economic development
levels: factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven
economies. It contributed to show how the uniqueness of
the GEM entrepreneurship survey (based on individuals)
is complementing other major surveys on new business
creation, by providing important information on individuals
(attributes, values, activities) and their interaction with
the environment in practicing entrepreneurial behavior
(proactiveness, innovativeness and responsible choices).
The following are the components of the revised GEM
conceptual framework:
Social, cultural, political and economic context: This is
defined by using the World Economic Forum’s twelve pillars
for profiling economic development phases when surveying
competitiveness and nine components of the GEM National
Entrepreneurial Conditions (Table 1.1). It is important to
emphasize that those components may be dispersed in
different combinations in different economies, but the levels
of economic development are determined by the dominant
presence of the identified group of pillars.
It should be noted that all components of the environment in
which women and men act with an entrepreneurial mindset
(or cannot act proactively and innovatively) are mutually
dependent. This dependence demands a holistic approach
not only in research but also in designing appropriate policies
to build a supportive environment in which people can adopt
an entrepreneurial behavior.
Social Values towards Entrepreneurship: including how
society values entrepreneurship as a good career choice;
if entrepreneurs have a high social status; and how media
attention to entrepreneurship is contributing (or not) to the
development of a national entrepreneurial culture.
TABLE 1.1 SOCIAL, CULTURAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PHASES
From other available sources From GEM National Expert Surveys (NES)
Economic development phases National Framework Conditions, based
on World Economic Forum pillars for
pro?ling economic development phases
Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions
Basic requirements—key to factor-driven
economies
? Institutions
? Infrastructure
? Macroeconomic stability
? Health and primary education
Efciency enhancers—key to e?ciency-
driven economies
? Higher education and training
? Goods market efciency
? Labor market efciency
? Financial market sophistication
? Technological readiness
? Market size
Innovation and sophistication factors—
key to innovation-driven economies
? Business sophistication
? Innovation
? Entrepreneurial ?nance
? Education for entrepreneurship
? Government policy
? Government entrepreneurship programs
? R&D transfer
? Internal market openness
? Physical infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
? Commercial and legal infrastructure for
entrepreneurship
? Cultural and social norms
22
CHAPTER 1
Individual Attributes: including several demographic
factors (gender, age, geographic location), psychological
factors (perceived capabilities, perceived opportunities,
fear of failure) and motivational aspects (necessity-based
vs. opportunity-based venturing, improvement-driven
venturing, etc.).
Entrepreneurial Activity: defined according to the
ventures’ life cycle phases (nascent, new venture, established
venture, discontinuation), the types of activity (high growth,
innovation, internationalization) and the sector of the activity
(Total Early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity—TEA, Social
Entrepreneurial Activity—SEA, Employee Entrepreneurial
Activity—EEA). See detailed definitions in section 1.3.

1.2 GEM METHODOLOGY
Implementing the GEM survey requires a strong collaboration
between each national team and the Global Entrepreneurship
Research Association (GERA) expert team, supported by two
bodies of representatives of national teams: the Research
and Innovation Advisory Committee (which clarifies
the conceptual framework, operational definitions and
methodology, including surveying tools) and the Data Quality
team (which works on data quality issues).
The Research and Innovation Advisory Committee, the
Data Quality team and the GERA expert team analyze the
lessons learned in the previous cycle and make the necessary
adjustments. The GERA expert team conducts the whole
process of testing surveying tools and coordinates with
national teams the process of collecting data, from identifying
samples to implementing surveying tools and coding
collected information.
In order to capture the interactions between individuals and
their environment, GEM uses two tools for collecting data on
attributes, attitudes and activities of individuals (Adult Population
Survey) and on experts’ opinions about the components of the
Entrepreneurial Conditions Framework (National Experts Survey).
A minimum of 2000 randomly selected adults (over 18 years old)
must be surveyed in each country. The Adult Population Survey is
conducted each year, from April to June, by independent survey
vendors, using the GEM questionnaire (Appendix 2 contains a
list of the countries surveyed, as well as information about the
sample size). The National Experts Survey is conducted every
year, during the same period of time, by GEM national teams,
comprised of at least 36 experts (four experts for each of the nine
components of the Entrepreneurial Conditions Framework), using
the GEM questionnaire.
In order to fulfill one of the basic expectations of the GEM
survey, i.e. to provide reliable data on entrepreneurial
attributes and activities among women and men around the
world and the quality of their environment, the methodology
has to enable comparisons in time, both on a country level
and among countries. Therefore, all countries/economies
participating in the GEM survey use the same standardized
surveying tools (questionnaires) and procedures (updated
information about the data collection procedures is available
in the GEM Data Manual at www.gemconsortium.org).
Data collected by national teams is part of the GEM global
data set, the GERA expert team carries out all computing
activities, and the annual global report is generated by
volunteer-researchers from the national teams.
National teams get back their own data set, as well as insights
on the global data set for further researching and production
of national reports (Figure 1.6).
FIGURE 1.6 2014 GEM’S SURVEY TIMELINE

APS Pilot
Conducted

Survey Tools
Distributed to
National
Teams
APS and NES
Conducted by
National Teams
Data
Processed by
Central Data
Team

2014 2015 2013
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Global
Report
Written

Global
Report
Published
After three years the GEM global data set is available as an
open source at www.gemconsortium.org.
Besides the annual surveys based on collecting data through
Adult Population Survey and National Expert Survey
instruments, GEM conducts in-depth surveys on special
topics, by adding specific questions to the standard APS
questionnaire. Building on the richness of GEM collected data,
until 2014, the following topics were analyzed and reported in
separate publications (www.gemconsortium.org):
? On financing, in 2004 and 2006.
? On women and entrepreneurship, in 2005, 2006, 2007,
2009, 2010, 2012.
? On high expectation entrepreneurship, on high-growth
entrepreneurship, on high impact entrepreneurship, in
2005, 2007, 2011.
? On innovation confidence index—EU funded project, in
2007, 2008, 2009.
23
CHAPTER 1
? On social entrepreneurship, in 2009.
? On education and training, in 2010.
? On youth, in 2013.
? On entrepreneurial employee activity, in 2013.
? On Sub-Saharan Africa, in 2013, 2014 (on youth).
? On Entrepreneurship, Competitiveness and Development,
2015.
1.3 GEM INDICATORS
Based on the GEM conceptual framework and collected data,
a set of numerous indicators are calculated and included in
global and national reports.
Three basic GEM indicators provide good insight on the
degree of entrepreneurship of an economy:
? Total Early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA).

Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 who are either a
nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a new business.

This indicator can be additionally enhanced by providing
information related to inclusiveness (gender, age), impact
(business growth, innovation, internationalization) and
industry (sectors) (see definitions in Figure 1. 7).
? Entrepreneurial Employee Activity (EEA).

Rate of involvement of employees in entrepreneurial
activities, such as developing or launching new goods
or services, or setting up a new business unit, a new
establishment or subsidiary.
? Social Entrepreneurial Activity (SEA).

Rate of individuals engaged in entrepreneurial activities
with a social goal.
FIGURE 1.7 THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROCESS AND GEM OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Owner-Manager of an
Established Business
(more than 3.5 years old)
Discontinuation
of Business
Conception
Individual attributes
Gender

Age
Industry
Sector
Impact
Business growth

Innovation

Internationalization
Early-stage Entrepreneurship Pro?le
Firm Birth Persistence
TOTAL EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA)
Owner-Manager
of a New Business
(up to 3.5 years old)
Nascent Entrepreneur:
Involved in Setting Up a
Business (0-3 months)
Potential Entrepreneur:
Opportunities, Knowledge
and Skills
> >
>

Motivation (opportunity,
necessity)
>

>
>
>
24
CHAPTER 1
GEM OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS:
Total Early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 who are either
a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a new
business.
Nascent entrepreneurship rate
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 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 individuals aged 18-64 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.
Characteristics of early-stage entrepreneurial activity
Opportunity-based early-stage entrepreneurial activity
Percentage of individuals involved in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who claim to
be purely or partly driven by opportunity as opposed to
finding no other option for work. This includes taking
advantage of a business opportunity or having a job but
seeking better opportunity.
Necessity-based early-stage entrepreneurial activity
Percentage of individuals involved in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who claim
to be driven by necessity (having no better choice for
work) as opposed to opportunity.
Improvement-driven opportunity early-stage
entrepreneurial activity
Percentage of individuals involved in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity (as defined above) who (1) claim
to be driven by opportunity as opposed to finding no
other option for work; and (2) who indicate that the main
driver for being involved in this opportunity is being
independent or increasing their income, rather than just
maintaining their income.
High-growth expectation early-stage entrepreneurial
activity: relative prevalence
Percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined
above) who expect to employ at least 20 people five
years from now.
New product-market-oriented early-stage
entrepreneurial activity: relative prevalence
Percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined
above) who report that their product or service is new to
at least some customers and that not many businesses
offer the same product or service.
International-oriented early-stage entrepreneurial
activity: relative prevalence
Percentage of early-stage entrepreneurs (as defined
above) who report that at least 25% of their customers
are from foreign countries.
Established business ownership rate
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 who are currently
an 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.
Business discontinuation rate
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 who, in the past
12 months, have 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.
Individual attributes of a potential entrepreneur
Perceived opportunities
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 involved in any
stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded who see good
opportunities to start a business in the area where they live.
Perceived capabilities
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 involved in any
stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded who believe
they have the required skills and knowledge to start a
business.
Entrepreneurial intentions
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 involved in any
stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded who are latent
entrepreneurs and who intend to start a business within
three years.
Fear of failure rate
Percentage of individuals aged 18-64 involved in any
stage of entrepreneurial activity excluded who report
that fear of failure would prevent them from setting up a
business.
27
CHAPTER 2
2. A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN 2014
Collected data by the GEM 2014 Adult Population Survey
provide the basis for presenting entrepreneurial profiles of 70
economies
1
along three components of the GEM Conceptual
Framework (Figure 2.1).
The three components of the GEM Conceptual Framework
and the assumed relationships among them are at the
heart of the GEM contribution to a better understanding of
entrepreneurial energy in any economy. The analysis is based
on the following data:
• Individual attributes—which reflect perceptions about
opportunities, capabilities to act entrepreneurially,
entrepreneurial intentions and fear of failure;
• Social values— which reflect how the society values
entrepreneurial behavior, and
• Entrepreneurship indicators—different forms of
entrepreneurial activity along the life cycle of a venture
1
The APS results of Kuwait, Latvia and Turkey will be incorporated into the
2014 PDF version of the Global Report.
(nascent, new business, established business, share of
high ambitious ventures, discontinuation) and motivation
for venturing (opportunity vs. necessity based ventures).
All those indicators can be enriched with insights
regarding how age, gender and personal income are
affecting entrepreneurial activity.
Since 2008, GEM Global reports have categorized
the participating economies by phase of economic
development, namely factor-driven, efficiency-driven
and innovation-driven economies. The growing number
of participating economies additionally provided the
opportunity to compare results within and across
geographic regions of the world and phases of economic
development. This report presents the findings from the
geographic perspective (global regions) and by phase of
economic development.
Table 2.1 shows 70 participating economies by global
regions and phases of economic development which are
profiled for their respective individual attributes, social
values and entrepreneurship activities in the 2014 Global
Report.
28
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.1 GEM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK–SOCIAL VALUES, INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES AND
ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
Social Values
Towards
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial Activity
• By phases of organisational
life cycle
– Nascent, new, established,
discontinuation
• Types of activity
– High growth, innovative,
internationalization
• Sectors of activity
– Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA), Social Entrepreneurial Activity (SEA),
Employee Entrepreneurial Activity (EEA)
Individual
Attributes
(psychological,
demographic,
motivation)
TABLE 2.1 GEM ECONOMIES BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LEVEL,
2014 (WITHOUT KUWAIT, LATVIA AND TURKEY)
Factor-driven economies Effciency-driven economies Innovation-driven economies
Africa Angola
1
, Botswana
1
, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Uganda
South Africa
Asia &
Oceania
India, Iran
1
, Philippines
1
, Vietnam China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan
2
,
Malaysia
2
, Thailand
Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan,
Qatar
Latin
America &
Caribbean
Bolivia
1
Argentina
2
, Barbados
2
, Belize, Brazil
2
,
Chile
2
, Colombia, Costa Rica
2
, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico
2
,
Panama
2
, Peru, Suriname
2
, Uruguay
2
Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago
European
Union
Croatia
2
, Hungary
2
, Lithuania
2
, Poland
2
,
Romania
Austria, Belgium, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia,
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United
Kingdom
Non-
European
Union

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia,
Kosovo, Russian Federation
2
Norway, Switzerland
North
America
Canada, United States
1) In transition from factor-driven to efficiency-driven economy.
2) In transition from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven economy.
2.1 SOCIAL VALUES TOWARDS
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Social values play a key role to determine whether individuals
are behaving entrepreneurially or not, as literature confirms
(Kwon and Arenius, 2010). In GEM survey social values are
revised through three dimensions:
• If most people consider starting a new business a desirable
career choice;
• If those individuals who are successful at starting a new
business enjoy a high level of status and respect in the
society; and
• If media attention to entrepreneurship (by promoting
successful ventures) contribute or not to develop an
entrepreneurial culture in a country.
Perceptions related to the former three features showed on
Table 2.2 that describe social values towards entrepreneurship
reveal some patterns that must be remarked:
29
CHAPTER 2
TABLE 2.2 PERCEPTION OF SOCIAL VALUES TOWARD ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE GEM
ECONOMIES IN 2014 BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Region and economies
Entrepreneurship as
a good career choice
High status
to successful
entrepreneurs
Media attention for
entrepreneurship
Africa
Angola 75.1 81.7 71.7
Botswana 69.9 78.1 74.5
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
South Africa 69.6 72.9 72.6
Uganda
Average (unweighted) 71.5 77.6 72.9
Asia & Oceania
Australia 53.4 67.1 72.6
China 65.7 72.9 69.3
India 57.9 66.2 56.6
Indonesia 72.9 78.0 84.8
Iran 52.3 75.6 55.1
Japan 31.0 55.8 58.7
Kazakhstan 78.6 74.3 83.0
Malaysia 50.4 50.0 69.8
Philippines 81.8 78.1 84.7
Qatar 75.8 87.1 76.8
Singapore 51.7 62.9 79.1
Taiwan 75.2 62.6 83.5
Thailand 73.6 71.1 80.3
Vietnam 67.2 75.9 86.8
Average (unweighted) 63.4 69.8 74.4
Latin America &
Caribbean
Argentina 57.8 52.2 63.6
Barbados 57.6 58.5 46.3
Belize 57.8 55.5 43.3
Bolivia 70.3 77.0 76.5
Brazil
Chile 69.4 64.4 65.2
Colombia 70.5 67.1 74.4
Costa Rica 61.3 59.0 79.7
Ecuador 66.4 67.1 82.9
El Salvador 82.6 59.5 59.5
Guatemala 95.3 76.9 60.6
Jamaica 83.5 84.0 83.9
Mexico 53.2 50.8 45.5
Panama
Peru 82.4 81.4 83.6
Puerto Rico 18.5 51.1 72.7
Suriname 66.7 67.2 80.7
Trinidad and Tobago 79.5 69.5 65.6
Uruguay 62.1 56.7 60.8
Average (unweighted) 66.8 64.6 67.3
30
CHAPTER 2
Region and economies
Entrepreneurship as
a good career choice
High status
to successful
entrepreneurs
Media attention for
entrepreneurship
European Union
Austria
Belgium 52.4 51.7 50.8
Croatia 63.3 46.6 40.4
Denmark
Estonia 55.6 64.9 43.3
Finland 41.2 84.4 66.9
France 59.0 70.4 39.0
Germany 51.7 79.1 51.4
Greece 58.4 66.4 45.8
Hungary 47.4 72.4 33.5
Ireland 49.4 76.9 75.7
Italy 65.1 72.1 48.3
Lithuania 68.8 58.3 55.1
Luxembourg 40.7 68.2 43.5
Netherlands 79.1 67.8 55.7
Poland 63.3 56.5 54.5
Portugal 62.2 62.9 69.7
Romania 73.6 75.2 71.3
Slovakia 45.4 58.1 52.6
Slovenia 53.4 72.3 57.6
Spain 53.9 49.0 46.3
Sweden 51.6 70.9 60.3
United Kingdom 60.3 75.0 58.4
Average (unweighted) 56.9 66.6 53.3
Non-European Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.1 69.9 39.8
Georgia 66.0 75.9 58.5
Kosovo 68.3 76.2 57.2
Norway 58.2 83.5
Russia 67.1 65.9 50.4
Switzerland 42.3 65.8 50.4
Average (unweighted) 63.3 72.9 51.3
North America
Canada 57.2 69.7 67.7
United States 64.7 76.9 75.8
Average (unweighted) 61.0 73.3 71.8
The African economies showed the highest social values
towards entrepreneurship, the European economies the
lowest, especially European Union countries. It is interesting
that the North American and African economies highly
evaluate successful entrepreneurs, whereas their media pay
great attention to promote successful entrepreneurial stories
(as well as in Asia and Oceania). The lowest media attention
takes place in Europe. The biggest difference occurs in
relation to the perception whether starting a new business
is a desirable career choice—the highest one is observed in
the African economies, the lowest in the European Union
economies.
Based on the phase of economic development, there are
more similarities between factor-driven and efficiency-driven
economies, which consider starting a business a desirable
career choice at a much higher level than in innovation-driven
economies. This is in line with the findings of previous GEM
surveys, which showed that more people are interested in
having own business venture in less developed countries
where job options are less available. The Netherlands is an
exemption with 79.1%, or Italy, with 65.1%, Trinidad and
Tobago (79.5%), Taiwan (75.2%), or Qatar (75.8%), which
confirms that the context, derived from historical economic
development, is important. The appreciation of successful
31
CHAPTER 2
entrepreneurs are more similar in efficiency-driven and
innovation-driven economies, as well as their perception of
the role of media in building entrepreneurial culture within
the society, but on lower level than in factor-driven economies
(Figure 2.2).
Appendix 1, Table A.1 presents detailed data on three
components of social values by the phase of economic
development.
In building an entrepreneurial culture, education and media
play crucial roles, particularly regarding the education of very
young people (on primary and secondary levels). Therefore, it
is important to observe that education is evaluated by experts
with the lowest scores in many countries (see more details in
Table 3.2, Chapter 3). If a country wants to be more proactive
in developing an entrepreneurial culture, it is relevant to
implement consistent policies and programs on restructuring
the capability of education system toward providing
entrepreneurial competences as a kind of transversal skills
for everyone (where such competences are defined in
the broadest meaning as proactiveness, innovativeness,
responsibility for own choices).
2.2 INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES
The GEM Conceptual Framework provides insights in
several individual attributes (perception of opportunities,
perception of own capabilities to act entrepreneurially, fear
of failure and entrepreneurial intentions), which, in a specific
context defined by entrepreneurship framework conditions,
lead to entrepreneurship activities (as presented in the
fragment of the GEM Conceptual Framework, Figure 2.2).
Table 2.3 shows how economies differ in terms of individual
attributes, by geographic regions, whereas Figure 2.3 presents
the differences determined by the phases of economic
development, as measured by the GEM 2014 Adult Population
Survey.
Detailed information on individual attributes on each
2014 GEM economy by phase of economic development is
presented in Appendix 1, Table A.2.
Perceived opportunities reflect the percentage of individuals
who believe there is occasion to start a venture in the next six
months in their immediate environment. Perceived capabilities
reflect the percentage of individuals who believe they have
the required skills, knowledge and experience to start a
new venture. The measure of fear of failure (when it comes
to starting own venture) only applies to those who perceive
opportunities. Entrepreneurial intentions are defined by the
percentage of individuals who expect to start a business
within the next three years (those already entrepreneurially
active are excluded from this measure).
In order to compare those measures across different
countries, it must be underlined that contextualization is very
important—individuals in different economies are likely to
have different kind of business in mind when they express
their perceptions about opportunities, and then related
measures on capabilities, fear of failure and entrepreneurial
intentions.
FIGURE 2.2 SOCIAL VALUES TOWARD ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE GEM
ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY PHASE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
Factor-driven Efficiency-driven Innovation-driven
Entrepreneurship as a good
career choice
High status to successful
entrepreneurs
Media attention for
entrepreneurship
32
CHAPTER 2
TABLE 2.3 INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE GEM ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION
(% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Region and economies
Perceived
opportunities
Perceived
capabilities
Fear of
failure*
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
Africa
Angola 69.7 61.7 44.8 39.3
Botswana 57.2 67.1 13.7 63.4
Burkina Faso 63.6 65.9 23.7 42.3
Cameroon 69.3 73.8 22.8 55.6
South Africa 37.0 37.6 25.4 10.1
Uganda 76.9 84.9 12.6 60.2
Average (unweighted) 62.3 65.2 23.8 45.1
Asia & Oceania
Australia 45.7 46.8 39.2 10.0
China 31.9 33.0 39.5 19.3
India 38.9 36.7 37.7 7.7
Indonesia 45.5 60.2 38.1 27.4
Iran 27.7 59.5 32.7 25.5
Japan 7.3 12.2 54.5 2.5
Kazakhstan 26.5 52.5 23.8 15.4
Malaysia 43.4 38.4 26.8 11.6
Philippines 45.9 66.1 37.7 42.8
Qatar 63.4 60.9 25.5 50.4
Singapore 16.7 21.4 39.4 9.4
Taiwan 33.5 29.0 37.4 25.6
Thailand 47.3 50.1 42.4 21.8
Vietnam 39.4 58.2 50.1 18.2
Average (unweighted) 36.6 44.6 37.5 20.5
Latin America & Caribbean
Argentina 31.9 57.8 23.5 27.8
Barbados 38.2 63.5 23.4 11.5
Belize 49.6 69.0 32.6 10.1
Bolivia 57.7 73.1 38.4 46.9
Brazil 55.5 50.0 35.6 24.5
Chile 67.0 64.9 28.4 50.1
Colombia 65.7 57.4 30.7 47.0
Costa Rica 39.0 59.4 36.8 29.0
Ecuador 62.0 72.8 30.7 43.1
El Salvador 44.7 70.8 34.9 23.1
Guatemala 45.4 64.2 33.0 35.8
Jamaica 57.0 81.2 22.0 35.3
Mexico 48.9 53.5 29.6 17.4
Panama 43.3 54.4 14.6 19.7
Peru 62.3 69.4 29.1 50.6
Puerto Rico 25.1 48.8 24.0 12.5
Suriname 41.0 77.4 16.1 4.6
Trinidad and Tobago 58.6 75.2 16.8 33.9
Uruguay 45.6 63.1 26.7 24.8
Average (unweighted) 49.4 64.5 27.7 28.8
33
CHAPTER 2
In general, perceived capabilities are higher than perceived
opportunities, but they decline along the economic
development level—in innovation-driven economies both
perceived opportunities and perceived capabilities are lower
than in economies from an efficiency-driven or factor-driven
development stage. In the European Union an interesting
additional pattern emerges: in countries that experience
long-term economic troubles this discrepancy is the highest
(perceived capabilities are 45.5% vs. perceived opportunities
19.9% in Greece; 45.9% vs. 18.4% in Croatia; 48.6% vs. 17.2%
in Slovenia; 48.1% vs. 22.6% in Spain; 46.6% vs. 22.9% in
Portugal). The same holds for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
a non-EU country (19.6% vs. 47.3%). On the other hand,
Sweden, Denmark and Finland show an opposite pattern—
much higher perceived opportunity measure in comparison
with the measure of perceived capabilities (70.1% vs. 36.7;
59.7% vs.34.9%; 42.4% vs. 34.9%, respectively). The same
holds for Norway, a non-EU country (63.5% vs. 30.5%). Low
level of perceived opportunities in countries with economic
development problems is a quite relevant information
for governments, but also for many other institutions, like
professional infrastructure institutions, education sector
which can help in building the individuals’ capacity of
recognizing opportunities.
Region and economies
Perceived
opportunities
Perceived
capabilities
Fear of
failure*
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
European Union
Austria 44.4 48.7 34.9 8.1
Belgium 35.9 30.4 49.4 10.6
Croatia 18.4 45.9 30.3 19.5
Denmark 59.7 34.9 41.0 6.9
Estonia 49.4 42.5 41.8 9.8
Finland 42.4 34.9 36.8 7.9
France 28.3 35.4 41.2 14.2
Germany 37.6 36.4 39.9 5.9
Greece 19.9 45.5 61.6 9.5
Hungary 23.4 40.9 42.0 13.9
Ireland 33.4 47.2 39.3 7.2
Italy 26.6 31.3 49.1 11.4
Lithuania 31.7 33.4 44.8 19.7
Luxembourg 42.5 37.6 42.0 11.9
Netherlands 45.6 44.3 34.8 9.3
Poland 31.3 54.3 51.1 15.6
Portugal 22.9 46.6 38.4 15.8
Romania 32.4 48.4 41.3 31.7
Slovakia 23.5 54.4 36.0 15.1
Slovenia 17.2 48.6 29.0 11.4
Spain 22.6 48.1 38.0 7.1
Sweden 70.1 36.7 36.5 8.5
United Kingdom 41.0 46.4 36.8 6.9
Average (unweighted) 34.8 42.3 40.7 12.1
Non-European Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina 19.6 47.3 26.8 20.4
Georgia 36.6 37.5 34.8 15.6
Kosovo 65.6 65.2 26.7 6.3
Norway 63.5 30.5 37.6 5.0
Russia 26.5 27.8 39.5 3.5
Switzerland 43.7 41.6 29.0 7.1
Average (unweighted) 42.6 41.7 32.4 9.7
North America
Canada 55.5 49.0 36.5 12.0
United States 50.9 53.3 29.7 12.1
Average (unweighted) 53.2 51.2 33.1 12.0
* Denominator: 18-64 age group perceives good opportunities to start a business.
** Respondent expects to start a business within three years; denominator: 18-64 age group that is currently not involved in entrepreneurial
activity.
34
CHAPTER 2
Again, a similar pattern as in the case of social values brings
African and North American economies close to each
other: both groups of economies have high and balanced
values of those measures, additionally confirming strong
entrepreneurial attributes of individuals in those economies.
This pattern conveys a lot of information, reinforcing the idea
that entrepreneurship framework conditions are important
along the three phases of economic development, not only
for economies which belong to the most developed ones
(as shown in Table 1.1, Chapter 1). All 2014 GEM African
economies are factor-driven economies (except South Africa,
which belongs to the efficiency-driven group of economies),
while North American economies belong to the innovation-
driven phase of economic development, but both groups
present high social values towards entrepreneurship (Table
2.2) and high measures of perceived opportunities (regarding
the next six months to start a business in the area where their
citizens live) and perceived capabilities (the required skills and
knowledge to start a business). It means that in both group
of economies entrepreneurship framework conditions are
needed in order to support such individual preferences.
Fear of failure can be a strong inhibitor for seizing
opportunities and transforming entrepreneurial intentions into
entrepreneurial activity. The highest fear of failure (measured
among the group with perceived opportunities) was expressed
by respondents in 2104 GEM EU economies (40.7%), followed by
respondents in Asia and Oceania region (37.5%). In the most
developed countries (innovation-driven economies), the fear
of failure is higher than in factor-driven and efficiency-driven
economies. In the group of GEM EU economies, the highest rates
of fear of failure are observed in Greece (61.6%), Poland (51.1%),
Belgium (49.4%) and Italy (49.1%). In the group of Asian and
Oceania economies, the highest fear of failure was expressed by
respondents in Japan (54.5%) and Vietnam (50.1%).
Entrepreneurial intentions are the highest among factor-
driven economies and the lowest among innovation-driven
economies, which confirm the already known pattern that
starting an own business is dominant where other options
to provide income for living are limited. At the same time,
it is obvious that the existence of social values towards
entrepreneurship and the quality of the entrepreneurship
framework conditions provide support or hindering factors in
building entrepreneurial intentions. On the level of individual
economies, there are some interesting cases: in Japan the
relatively low share of respondents see entrepreneurship as
a good career choice (31%), only 7.3% perceive the existence
of opportunities in their surroundings, and only 12.2%
think that they have abilities to start a business, but 54.5%
expressed fear of failure, which led to the lowest share of
respondents with entrepreneurial intentions (2.5%). The
case of Botswana provides a very different pattern of social
values and individual attributes: 70% of respondents see
entrepreneurship as a good career choice, there is a high
share of respondents with perceived opportunities (57.2%)
and perceived capabilities (67.1%), and a very low level
of fear of failure (13.7%) led to 63.4% of respondents with
entrepreneurial intentions. Economies with higher rates
of entrepreneurial intentions, beside Botswana, are Uganda
(60.2%), Cameroon (55.6%), Qatar (50.4%), Peru (50.6%) and
Chile (50.1%). The economic context of those economies
is quite different, which also confirms that entrepreneurial
activity is needed everywhere—no matter if it stems from
FIGURE 2.3 INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE GEM ECONOMIES IN 2014,
BY PHASE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
Factor-driven Efficiency-driven Innovation-driven
Perceived
opportunities
Perceived
capabilities
Fear of failure Entrepreneurial
intentions
35
CHAPTER 2
necessity or desire to seize opportunities—and that such an
entrepreneurial activity can take a wide variety of forms, from
self-employment in less demanding ventures regarding skills
and other resources to knowledge-based ventures.
2.3 ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES
Entrepreneurial activities in this report will be presented by
using the organizational life-cycle approach (nascent, new
business, established business, discontinuation), by adding
insights in ambitious entrepreneurial activity (both from
the standpoint of an owner-managed venture and from an
entrepreneurial employee’s standpoint). Gender and age
descriptors are used to emphasize some distinctive patterns.
Two criteria are applied to differentiate between “young” and
established business:
• “Birth event”—the payment of wages for more than three
months proved to be the best criteria for international
comparisons. Nascent entrepreneurs are labeled as those
who are committing resources to start a business, but
the business has not yet yielded wages or salaries. New
businesses are those managed by their owners and which
are paying wages, up to 42 months of existence of the firm.
• Cut-off of 42 months for differentiating between new
businesses and established firms has been made by
combining theoretical and practical considerations
(Reynolds et al., 2005) and it is consistently used from the
very beginning of GEM survey.
Table 2.4 presents entrepreneurial activity prevalence rates
along the phases of the life-cycle of a venture, providing
the information on entrepreneurial dynamics for each of
the GEM economies, grouped by regions, whereas Figure
2.4 provides insight into differences related to the phase of
development:
• Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate (percentage
of individuals aged 18-64 in an economy who are in the
process of starting a business or are already running a new
business, not older than 42 months).
• Established Business Ownership rate (percentage of
individuals aged 18-64 in an economy who own and
manage a business older than 42 months).
• Discontinuation rate (percentage of individuals aged 18-64
who owned a business but discontinued it for different
reasons during the last 12 months).
TABLE 2.4 PHASES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE GEM ECONOMIES IN 2014,
BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Region and economies
Nascent
entrepreneur-
ship rate
New business
ownership
rate
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business
ownership rate
Discontinuation
of businesses (%
of TEA)
Africa
Angola 9.5 12.4 21.5 6.5 15.1
Botswana 23.1 11.1 32.8 5.0 15.1
Burkina Faso 12.7 9.7 21.7 17.7 10.8
Cameroon 26.4 13.7 37.4 11.5 17.7
South Africa 3.9 3.2 7.0 2.7 3.9
Uganda 8.9 28.1 35.5 35.9 21.2
Average (unweighted) 14.1 13.0 26.0 13.2 14.0
Asia &
Oceania
Australia 7.6 5.7 13.1 9.8 3.9
China 5.4 10.2 15.5 11.6 1.4
India 4.1 2.5 6.6 3.7 1.2
Indonesia 4.4 10.1 14.2 11.9 4.2
Iran 7.5 8.7 16.0 10.9 5.7
Japan 2.7 1.3 3.8 7.2 1.1
Kazakhstan 8.1 6.2 13.7 7.4 2.9
Malaysia 1.4 4.6 5.9 8.5 2.0
Philippines 8.2 10.5 18.4 6.2 12.6
Qatar 11.3 5.4 16.4 3.5 4.8
Singapore 6.4 4.8 11.0 2.9 2.4
Taiwan 4.4 4.1 8.5 12.2 5.1
Thailand 7.6 16.7 23.3 33.1 4.2
Vietnam 2.0 13.3 15.3 22.2 3.6
Average (unweighted) 5.8 7.4 13.0 10.8 3.9
36
CHAPTER 2
Region and economies
Nascent
entrepreneur-
ship rate
New business
ownership
rate
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business
ownership rate
Discontinuation
of businesses (%
of TEA)
Latin America
& Caribbean
Argentina 9.5 5.2 14.4 9.1 4.9
Barbados 8.5 4.2 12.7 7.1 3.7
Belize 4.3 3.0 7.1 3.7 4.7
Bolivia 21.5 7.1 27.4 7.6 6.9
Brazil 3.7 13.8 17.2 17.5 4.1
Chile 16.6 11.0 26.8 8.8 8.3
Colombia 12.4 6.7 18.5 4.9 5.6
Costa Rica 7.6 3.7 11.3 2.5 4.9
Ecuador 24.5 9.9 32.6 17.7 8.1
El Salvador 11.4 8.7 19.5 12.7 10.8
Guatemala 12.0 9.2 20.4 7.4 4.4
Jamaica 7.9 11.9 19.3 14.4 6.3
Mexico 12.7 6.4 19.0 4.5 5.6
Panama 13.1 4.1 17.1 3.4 4.5
Peru 23.1 7.3 28.8 9.2 8.0
Puerto Rico 8.8 1.3 10.0 1.3 3.6
Suriname 1.9 0.2 2.1 5.2 0.2
Trinidad and Tobago 7.5 7.4 14.6 8.5 2.8
Uruguay 10.5 5.7 16.1 6.7 4.4
Average (unweighted) 11.4 6.7 17.6 8.0 5.4
European
Union
Austria 5.8 3.1 8.7 9.9 2.7
Belgium 2.9 2.5 5.4 3.5 2.3
Croatia 6.0 2.0 8.0 3.6 3.8
Denmark 3.1 2.5 5.5 5.1 2.2
Estonia 6.3 3.5 9.4 5.7 2.0
Finland 3.4 2.3 5.6 6.6 2.3
France 3.7 1.7 5.3 2.9 1.7
Germany 3.1 2.3 5.3 5.2 1.7
Greece 4.6 3.4 7.9 12.8 2.8
Hungary 5.6 3.9 9.3 7.9 3.1
Ireland 4.4 2.5 6.5 9.9 1.9
Italy 3.2 1.3 4.4 4.3 2.1
Lithuania 6.1 5.3 11.3 7.8 2.9
Luxembourg 4.9 2.3 7.1 3.7 2.6
Netherlands 5.2 4.5 9.5 9.6 1.8
Poland 5.8 3.6 9.2 7.3 4.2
Portugal 5.8 4.4 10.0 7.6 3.0
Romania 5.3 6.2 11.3 7.6 3.2
Slovakia 6.7 4.4 10.9 7.8 5.2
Slovenia 3.8 2.7 6.3 4.8 1.5
Spain 3.3 2.2 5.5 7.0 1.9
Sweden 4.9 1.9 6.7 6.5 2.1
United Kingdom 6.3 4.5 10.7 6.5 1.9
Average (unweighted) 4.8 3.2 7.8 6.7 2.6
37
CHAPTER 2
Region and economies
Nascent
entrepreneur-
ship rate
New business
ownership
rate
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business
ownership rate
Discontinuation
of businesses (%
of TEA)
Non-
European
Union
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
4.5 2.9 7.4 6.7 4.5
Georgia 4.1 3.2 7.2 7.3 2.5
Kosovo 2.5 1.8 4.0 2.1 6.6
Norway 2.8 3.0 5.7 5.4 1.9
Russia 2.4 2.4 4.7 3.9 1.2
Switzerland 3.4 3.8 7.1 9.1 1.5
Average (unweighted) 3.3 2.8 6.0 5.7 3.0
North
America
Canada 7.9 5.6 13.0 9.4 4.2
United States 9.7 4.3 13.8 6.9 4.0
Average (unweighted) 8.8 4.9 13.4 8.2 4.1
FIGURE 2.4 TOTAL EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA) IN THE GEM ECONOMIES
IN 2014, BY PHASE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Note: vertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of TEA.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Factor-driven
economies
E?ciency-driven economies Innovation-driven economies
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
I
n
d
i
a
V
i
e
t
n
a
m
I
r
a
n
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
A
n
g
o
l
a
B
u
r
k
i
n
a

F
a
s
o
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
B
o
t
s
w
a
n
a
U
g
a
n
d
a
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e
K
o
s
o
v
o
R
u
s
s
i
a
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
B
e
l
i
z
e
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
B
o
s
n
i
a

a
n
d

H
e
r
z
e
g
o
v
i
n
a
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
P
o
l
a
n
d
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
K
a
z
a
k
h
s
t
a
n
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
C
h
i
n
a
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
P
a
n
a
m
a
B
r
a
z
i
l
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
M
e
x
i
c
o
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
E
l

S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
C
h
i
l
e
P
e
r
u
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
J
a
p
a
n
I
t
a
l
y
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
r
a
n
c
e
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
S
p
a
i
n
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
N
o
r
w
a
y
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
G
r
e
e
c
e
T
a
i
w
a
n
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e
C
a
n
a
d
a
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
T
r
i
n
i
d
a
d

a
n
d

T
o
b
a
g
o
Q
a
t
a
r
38
CHAPTER 2
Detailed information on individual attributes on each
2014 GEM economy by phase of economic development is
presented in Appendix 1, Table A.3.
Entrepreneurial dynamics is the highest among 2014 GEM
African economies and the lowest among European economies
(both in EU and non-EU). A high discontinuance rate can be an
indicator of the low level of preparedness of business ventures;
at the same time, the low rate of discontinuance can be an
indicator of the absence of the entrepreneurship ecosystem
which supports a fast exit from the bad designed venture and a
fast re-entering into new venturing process.
Early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) correlates
strongly with capabilities (skills)
Building on the analysis of social values towards
entrepreneurship and individual attributes, it is obvious that
linking any descriptor of entrepreneurship only to the level of
economic development would be misleading. It holds also for
indicators of entrepreneurial activity.
In order to show interlinked components needed for building
entrepreneurial activity, measured by TEA, several correlations
were calculated. Perceived opportunity and perceived
capability (skills) are positively correlated with the level of TEA
(Figures 2.5 and 2.6).
Fear of failure could influences entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
negatively, but the correlation is not strong, as it is showed in
Figure 2.7.
Strong correlation between perceived capability (skills) and
TEA indicates how all forms of education (formal, informal,
non-formal) are important in developing entrepreneurial
competences.
FIGURE 2.5 CORRELATION OF PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE LEVEL OF TEA, 2014
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Opportunities recognition-percentage of adult population (18-64 years)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
y=0.0049x
2
- 0.1257x + 8.3554
R
2
=0.3638
T
E
A
-
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
39
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.6 CORRELATION OF PERCEIVED CAPABILITY (SKILLS) WITH THE LEVEL OF TEA, 2014

FIGURE 2.7 CORRELATION OF FEAR OF FAILURE WITH THE LEVEL OF TEA, 2014
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Perceived skills-percentage of adult population (18-64 years)
y=0.0041x
2
- 0.0564x + 4.4522
R
2
=0.4757
T
E
A
-
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fear of failure percentage of adult population (18-64 years)
y=0.0043x
2
- 0.6376x + 30.602
R
2
=0.1768
T
E
A
-
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
40
CHAPTER 2
Motivation for starting a business matters
The identification of differences among economies around
the world as for social values, individual attributes and TEA
can be better understood if the motivational aspect of starting
businesses is included. The GEM Conceptual Framework
introduced from the very beginning a differentiation between
necessity-driven and opportunity-driven motives for
entrepreneurial activity. A necessity-driven entrepreneur is an
individual who indicates in the GEM Adult Population Survey
that he/she started the business because there were no better
options to obtain resources for living, rather than starting it as
a result of the opportunity recognition. Those who indicated
that their motive in starting the business was a recognized
opportunity (rather than no other options for work) were
additionally asked about the nature of the identified
opportunity. Improvement-driven opportunity entrepreneurs
are those who either started the business because they want
to earn more money or to be more independent. Table 2.5
and Figure 2.8 present motivation differences in early-stage
entrepreneurial activity in 2014, by regions and phases of
economic development.
TABLE 2.5 MOTIVATION FOR EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE GEM
ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY REGION
Region and economies
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
(% of adult
population)
Necessity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Opportunity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Improvement-
driven
opportunity
(% of TEA)
Motivational
index*
Africa
Angola 21.5 24.5 72.1 43.4 1.8
Botswana 32.8 30.3 67.2 54.7 1.8
Burkina Faso 21.7 22.3 75.3 52.8 2.4
Cameroon 37.4 33.5 59.2 40.5 1.2
South Africa 7.0 28.2 71.3 35.5 1.3
Uganda 35.5 18.9 80.8 54.3 2.9
Average (unweighted) 26.0 26.3 71.0 46.9 1.8
Asia & Oceania
Australia 13.1 17.6 81.5 63.8 3.6
China 15.5 33.2 65.7 45.4 1.4
India 6.6 31.7 60.0 36.5 1.2
Indonesia 14.2 20.5 78.6 38.0 1.9
Iran 16.0 38.7 60.6 49.6 1.3
Japan 3.8 18.8 76.2 68.2 3.6
Kazakhstan 13.7 26.4 69.1 33.7 1.3
Malaysia 5.9 17.5 82.5 64.0 3.7
Philippines 18.4 29.4 70.5 33.5 1.1
Qatar 16.4 21.5 77.1 54.4 2.5
Singapore 11.0 11.4 84.3 70.8 6.2
Taiwan 8.5 13.3 86.7 66.0 5.0
Thailand 23.3 17.8 80.9 71.2 4.0
Vietnam 15.3 29.7 70.3 53.3 1.8
Average (unwighted) 13.0 23.4 74.6 53.5 2.3
41
CHAPTER 2
Region and economies
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
(% of adult
population)
Necessity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Opportunity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Improvement-
driven
opportunity
(% of TEA)
Motivational
index*
Latin America
& Caribbean
Argentina 14.4 28.0 67.8 43.5 1.6
Barbados 12.7 14.6 73.8 53.1 3.7
Belize 7.1 13.1 82.9 47.6 3.6
Bolivia 27.4 22.8 76.7 51.7 2.3
Brazil 17.2 29.0 70.6 57.8 2.0
Chile 26.8 17.6 81.0 62.2 3.5
Colombia 18.6 33.3 66.0 51.6 1.6
Costa Rica 11.3 19.3 79.4 63.5 3.3
Ecuador 32.6 29.4 70.1 35.0 1.2
El Salvador 19.5 32.0 67.8 54.5 1.7
Guatemala 20.4 40.6 59.2 38.9 1.0
Jamaica 19.3 32.1 65.6 33.5 1.0
Mexico 19.0 22.5 76.3 50.0 2.2
Panama 17.1 26.3 73.1 60.2 2.3
Peru 28.8 16.4 82.5 58.9 3.6
Puerto Rico 10.0 20.5 79.1 51.1 2.5
Suriname 2.1 5.4 73.2 39.8 7.3
Trinidad & Tobago 14.6 12.0 86.5 64.3 5.4
Uruguay 16.1 16.0 82.4 27.3 1.7
Average (unweighted) 17.6 22.7 74.4 49.7 2.2
European
Union
Austria 8.7 11.0 81.7 37.4 3.4
Belgium 5.4 30.7 63.2 43.1 1.4
Croatia 8.0 46.6 51.3 28.7 0.6
Denmark 5.5 5.4 91.1 60.2 11.1
Estonia 9.4 15.1 74.5 41.2 2.7
Finland 5.6 15.6 81.1 63.1 4.0
France 5.3 16.1 82.0 69.2 4.3
Germany 5.3 23.2 75.8 53.7 2.3
Greece 7.9 34.8 61.5 30.5 0.9
Hungary 9.3 33.2 64.7 36.3 1.1
Ireland 6.5 29.7 68.4 48.6 1.6
Italy 4.4 13.6 78.4 38.6 2.8
Lithuania 11.3 19.6 79.6 43.8 2.2
Luxembourg 7.1 11.8 85.4 59.8 5.1
Netherlands 9.5 15.7 80.4 62.8 4.0
Poland 9.2 36.8 59.2 47.1 1.3
Portugal 10.0 27.4 71.3 49.3 1.8
Romania 11.4 28.9 70.1 49.8 1.7
Slovakia 10.9 32.6 64.2 51.8 1.6
Slovenia 6.3 25.5 71.4 44.8 1.8
Spain 5.5 29.8 66.1 33.5 1.1
Sweden 6.7 7.9 84.2 56.2 7.1
United Kingdom 10.7 12.9 83.6 52.7 4.1
Average (unweighted) 7.8 22.8 73.4 47.9 2.1
42
CHAPTER 2
Region and economies
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
(% of adult
population)
Necessity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Opportunity-
driven
(% of TEA)
Improvement-
driven
opportunity
(% of TEA)
Motivational
index*
Non-European
Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina 7.4 50.8 48.5 25.2 0.5
Georgia 7.2 48.6 50.6 31.0 0.6
Kosovo 4.0 22.0 59.9 29.1 1.3
Norway 5.7 3.5 86.7 69.0 19.5
Russia 4.7 39.0 58.7 41.6 1.1
Switzerland 7.1 14.4 74.9 58.1 4.1
Average (unweighted) 6.0 29.7 63.2 42.3 1.4
North America
Canada 13.0 15.7 76.3 63.3 4.0
United States 13.8 13.5 81.5 66.9 5.0
Average (unweighted) 13.4 14.6 78.9 65.1 4.5
* Ratio between improvement-driven opportunity and necessity-driven entrepreneurs.
FIGURE 2.8 PERCENTAGE OF ENTREPRENEURS MOTIVATED BY NECESSITY AND
IMPROVEMENT-DRIVEN OPPORTUNITY IN 2014, BY PHASE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
E
A
Factor-driven Efficiency-driven
Necessity-driven
Opportunity-driven
Innovation-driven
43
CHAPTER 2
Detailed information on motivation for early-stage
entrepreneurial activity, by economies and by phase of
economic development, is shown in Appendix A.4.
Full employment should be the utmost goal of any economy
that cares about the well-being of their citizens. To this
respect, it does not matter if someone started a business
because of necessity or a recognized opportunity. However,
for many other reasons (like expectations about the venture,
temporary solution or long-term investment) motivation
matters.
Motivational index, as a ratio between necessity-driven
entrepreneurs and improvement-driven entrepreneurs,
contributes to better understand the entrepreneurial capacity
of a country. A high motivational index indicates a high
share of improvement-driven entrepreneurs that brings more
long-term and ambitious expectations related to the venture.
The lowest motivational index is observed in non-EU
countries (despite the high motivational index in Norway
and Switzerland) and in GEM African economies. The
highest motivational index is presented in North America.
Motivational index below 1 warns that the majority of early-
stage entrepreneurs started their business out of necessity,
which derives also as a result of the economic situation in
such economies (Croatia 0.64, Greece 0.88).
How much is early-stage entrepreneurial activity inclusive?
Age and early-stage entrepreneurial activity
Being entrepreneurial is not exclusive of a specific age group,
which has been confirmed by many specialized research
works (Lévesque and Minniti, 2006; Isele and Rogoff, 2014).
Due to many reasons (lack of resources among younger
persons, lack of regulatory conditions for entrepreneurial
activity of 60+), some age groups are less presented in early-
stage entrepreneurial activity (Figure 2.9), which is a complex
policy issue (involving many aspects of entrepreneurial
framework conditions, like access to finance, taxation policy,
retirement policy, etc.).
FIGURE 2.9 EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY RATES (TEA) WITHIN AGE GROUPS IN
2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America &
Caribbean
European Union Non-European
Union
North America
18-24 years 25-35 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years
44
CHAPTER 2
Across the world, the most dynamic individuals in early-
stage entrepreneurial activity are in the age group of
25-35 years. The most balanced participation is in the
North American economies. Due to the extremely high
unemployment rate of young people in many economies
(e.g., during 2013, in Bosnia and Herzegovina 60.4%, Greece
57%, Spain 54.9%, Croatia 48.7% and Italy 43%)
2
, it is not
anymore only an economic problem, but a social and
political one that demands the highest priority to be solved.
In many economies, the long-term high unemployment
among the young people is generating a chain of interlinked
demographic, economic and political changes whose
2
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS and http://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_
statistics.
consequences will have an impact for a long time if policy
measures are not taken.
Since identifying unemployment among the young is a
crucial social, economic and political issue, in 2013 the
Canadian IDRC (International Development Research Centre)
supported the GEM’s survey in Africa focusing on perceptions
of youth about making entrepreneurship a career choice.
The main goal of this joint effort was to help governments
design an appropriate entrepreneurship ecosystem in order
to lead to a more intensive involvement of young people in
entrepreneurial activities (Exhibit 2.1).
The report Fostering Sustainable Livelihoods in Youth
Entrepreneurship is authored by Jacqui Kew, Rebecca
Namatovu, Francis Chigunta and Rilwan Aderinto; it
will be published by April 2015.
Short description: In large portions of Africa, the
youth employment challenge is as much a problem
of poor employment quality as one of unemployment.
Moreover, young people are more likely to be among
the working poor* than adults. It is common for
youth to begin their working lives engaged in family
businesses (likely to be an informal enterprise),
and very few of them make the transition to paid
employment in the formal sector.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the formal and public
sectors will offer work opportunities to the increasing
number of young people looking for employment
(Schoof, 2006). Therefore alternative employment
options that are more productive and can lead to
sustainable livelihoods are needed to counter the
increasing number of unemployed, underemployed
youths and youth in vulnerable employment.
Entrepreneurship is acknowledged as a driver of
sustainable economic growth as entrepreneurs
create new businesses, drive and shape innovation,
speed up structural changes in the economy, and
introduce new competition—thereby contributing to
productivity. Entrepreneurship can drive job creation
and contribute to economic growth that is inclusive
and reduces poverty. With young people being
disproportionately affected by unemployment, policy
makers and governments throughout Africa are
ensuring that inhabitants have access to sustainable
livelihoods. It is imperative that the youth become
active participants’ in the future economic activity of
sub-Saharan Africa.
With the generous funding of the International
Development Research Council (IDRC) research into
youth and entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa
has been done. The research has been conducted in
the following countries: Angola, Botswana, Ghana,
Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda and
Zambia. In this project, Youth is defined as people
between the ages of 18-34 years.
This will be the first in-depth report on youth
entrepreneurship in Africa. It will provide a regional
understanding of youth in sub-Saharan Africa, by
exposing their entrepreneurial attitudes and whether
they lead them to become active entrepreneurs. It
will further examine the factors influencing/inhibiting
the entrepreneurial activity of this group and provide
insights on the growth potential of youth enterprises
in the region.
GEM measures societal attitudes of entrepreneurship
by establishing whether individuals believe that
starting a business is considered a good career
choice, their opinion relating to the association
of entrepreneurship with high status and their
awareness of positive media attention with respect to
entrepreneurship. On average, individuals in Sub-
Saharan Africa countries (all belonging to factor-driven
economies except South Africa and Namibia) have
higher positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship
than other geographic regions covered by GEM.
Individuals in sub-Saharan Africa, excluding South
Africa, generally have high perceptions about the
presence of good opportunities for starting a business
in the country and believe that they have the skills
and knowledge necessary to start a business. It is
important to note that, since most of sub-Saharan
EXHIBIT 2.1
* Working poor are those who earn less than USD 2 per day- Africa’s
Job Challenge, DRPU, University of Cape Town.
45
CHAPTER 2
Africa is comprised of factor-driven economies, the
type of businesses in which they would commonly
engage in differs from businesses commonly engaged
in more developed economies.
Uganda recorded the highest youth entrepreneurial
propensity with 55.4% followed by Malawi (52.3%)
and Namibia (44.1%). South Africa had the lowest
youth entrepreneurial propensity of only 23.3%.
Among the sub-Sahara African countries surveyed,
Uganda recorded the highest youth entrepreneurs
with 55.6% of the youth population involved in
nascent, new or established businesses. Uganda is
followed by Zambia (53.4%) and Nigeria (52.7%).
In Angola, 26.5% of the youth were entrepreneurs;
in Botswana, there were 21.6%; Ghana, 40.6%;
Malawi, 37.9% and Namibia, 32.9%. South Africa
had the lowest youth entrepreneurship participation
of only 12.8%. At least 60% of youth population
in all countries except South Africa showed
entrepreneurial propensity or were currently actively
pursuing an entrepreneurial opportunity. Non-
entrepreneurial youths are youths without propensity
to become entrepreneurs and with no involvement in
an entrepreneurial activity. South Africa recorded the
highest level non-entrepreneurial youth with 63.9%
of the youth population who were non-entrepreneurs.
In Angola, 35.7% of youth were non-entrepreneurs;
while 10% or less of youth population in Zambia,
Malawi and Uganda were non-entrepreneurs.
A lot of the entrepreneurial activity in sub-Saharan
Africa is currently concentrated in over-traded sectors
such as retail. On average, the level of employment
generated per entrepreneur in sub-Saharan Africa is
very low. In Malawi (81.5%), Ghana (59.1%) and Uganda
(58.8%) the impact entrepreneurs have on job creation
is minimal, with the majority of enterprises being own
account ventures. However, countries such as Angola
(6.1%), South Africa (4.5%) and Namibia (3.1%) have
a small pool of entrepreneurs that are currently offering
employment to 20 or more employees.
The general level of innovation tends to be low with
many entrepreneurs indicating that none of their
customers would consider their products and services
to be new and that there were many competitors
selling similar products and services. With respect to
entrepreneurial activity, the issue in much of sub-Saharan
Africa seems to be less about developing entrepreneurial
activity 79% self-employed but recognizing that much of
the current entrepreneurial activity within the region is not
leading to sustainable livelihoods.
In addition to the standard GEM measures, this
report will provide an understanding of the nature of
youth businesses, location challenges/advantages,
internet usage and business use of technology. It will
also review environmental issues like the available
financing options, business support initiatives, the
role of family and friends and the available Youth
Entrepreneurship programmes.
References:
Bhorat, H. and Naidoo, K. (2013), Africa’s Job Challenge,
DRPU, University of Cape Town.
Schoof, U. (2006), Stimulating Youth Entrepreneurship:
Barriers and incentives to enterprise start-ups by young
people, SEED Working Paper, No. 76, ILO, Geneva.
EXHIBIT 2.1 (Cont.)
Gender aspect of early-stage entrepreneurial activity
GEM surveys (including GEM special reports on women)
consistently confirm that early-stage entrepreneurial activity
is gender sensitive, due to combination of cultural, societal
and economic reasons. Early-stage entrepreneurial activity
is dominated by men (Figure 2.10), but as previous surveys
showed, there are no differences in individual attributes, like
perceived opportunities and perceived capabilities. Only in
expressing fear of failure there is a slightly higher presence
of women than men’s. Different pattern emerges when
comparing motives for early-stage entrepreneurial activity:
across the regions, women start a business venture more
often out of necessity than men (Table A.5 in Appendix).
There is a group of countries (UK, India, Iran and Italy)
showing the opposite pattern, where there are relatively
more men who started their businesses out of necessity.
Additionally, there are also countries (Australia, Austria,
Denmark, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore,
South Africa and Thailand) with quite balanced share of
necessity-driven early-stage entrepreneurial activity. One
country stands out for the balanced, but very high level of
necessity-driven entrepreneurs regardless of gender—in
Croatia there are 46.3% men and 47.2% women who started
their businesses out of necessity. Two countries have the
widest gender span—Chile, with 27.1% women necessity-
driven entrepreneurs vs. 9.9% men, and Burkina Faso, with
32.9% women vs. 12.7% men.
All those findings call for more consistent long-term
interlinked policy measures in order to build a culture of
inclusiveness (especially in the field of education), parallel to
building an institutional framework and supply of services
that help women fulfill their entrepreneurial goals (from
access to finance to the provision of services that help families
care about children and elderly family members).
46
CHAPTER 2
Established business ownership
Established businesses are the core of the economic canvas
of any country. The balanced dynamics of entering early-
stage entrepreneurial activity and successful transition
toward established businesses should be one of the key
concerns of any government and other stakeholders
responsible for the well-being of their citizens. In order to
provide a stable economic structure, the rate of early-stage
entrepreneurial activity should always be higher than the
rate of established business ownership (because of the
discontinuance rate). Table 2.4 presents comparison of
TEA rates and established business ownership rates, by
economies, and Figure 2.11 presents this comparison
by regions.
European Union economies have quite low dynamics in their
economic systems: rate of early-stage entrepreneurial activity
(TEA) of 7.82% is very close to the rate of established business
ownership rate of 6.68%. This low dynamics can be explained
also by the presence of a more efficient entrepreneurship
ecosystem (education, R&D transfer, access to finance, friendly
regulatory framework) supporting new entrants in business
activity. The fact that EU is still struggling with many downfalls
resulted from the years-long recession warns that the thin
basis of early-stage entrepreneurial activity is jeopardizing
economic canvas of many EU economies. Economic situation
in Greece and Spain supports such a statement, because those
countries have lower level of TEA as compared to their level
of established business ownership rates (Greece: 7.85 TEA vs.
12.84 EB; Spain: 5.47 TEA vs. 7.28 EB).
FIGURE 2.10 MALE AND FEMALE EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA) IN 2014, BY
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
TEA male
TEA female
47
CHAPTER 2
Business discontinuations
An outstanding part of the business dynamics is when the
businesses discontinue their operations, for many different
reasons (as planned in advance, bad financial results,
unexpected events, etc.). Table 2.4 provides insights into
business discontinuations rates, by economies, based on
collected information from GEM Adult Population Survey.
This rate measures the number of individuals who have
discontinued a business during the last 12 months.
A too high intensity of discontinuations might point out
potential reasons, e.g. starting a business venture which
is not well prepared, bad management of the venture, or
extremely strong influences of market distortions—in any
case, this is an indicator of wasted resources. On the contrary,
too low intensity of business discontinuations might also be
an indicator of low dynamics of the economic system, which
is preserving a non-efficient business structure (for instance,
the reason could be an inefficient judicial system). The rate of
business discontinuation is usually higher in less developed
economies and it declines as economic development
increases, although it is not always the case—North American
economies have higher rate of discontinuation than GEM
European economies (both EU and non-EU, whose majority
of economies belong to the highest level of development, as
are North American economies). To maintain the economic
canvas in healthy conditions, it is necessary to have some
degree of intensity of “draft” to get rid of inefficient business
ventures faster and be able to re-enter entrepreneurship
activities. In order to get a better insight into business
dynamics, business discontinuation rate should be analyzed
jointly with the early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) and
the established business ownership rate.
GEM also tracks reasons why business owners discontinue
their ventures, by asking those who discontinued their
businesses during the last 12 months about the main reason
for doing so. Figure 2.12 displays such reasons by geographic
regions.
As in previous years, the dominant reason for discontinuation
of the venture is that the business is not profitable (except
in North American economies, where personal reasons are
on the first place and non-profitability on the second one).
Personal reasons are on the second place in all other regions.
Lack of finances is on the third place, but at much less
intensity in North American than in the rest of the world. This
FIGURE 2.11 TEA AND ESTABLISHED BUSINESS OWNERS IN 2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
TEA Establised business owners
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
48
CHAPTER 2
problem is very present in African economies. Another job or
business opportunity as a reason for discontinuation is mostly
present in North American economies, the least in African
economies. Striking information is that in advance planned
exit is the last or next to last reasons for discontinuation of
business (North American economies have the lowest number
of respondents who opted for this reason).
These findings should be contextualized by each GEM
economy and then be used to analyze prevailing business
models, as well as input information to intervene in national
entrepreneurship ecosystems.
Ambitious entrepreneurial activities
Through its conceptual framework and surveying tool, GEM
captures ambitious entrepreneurial activities. Starting an
own business venture is a very important component to build
economic structure in any economy; but without growing
businesses, goals of full employment and wealth creation
cannot be achieved. Growing businesses are a minority in
all economies by number, but they are major provider of
new jobs (Bravo-Biosca et al., 2013)
3
. Despite it, growing
3
For example, in UK and Norway high-growth firms account only for 6.4% and
3.2% of all surviving firms with ten or more employees, respectively, but they
account for 64% of all jobs created by those firms in UK and 40% in Norway.
FIGURE 2.12 REASONS FOR BUSINESS DISCONTINUANCE IN 2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
An incident
Personal reasons
Retirement
Exit was planned in advance
Another job or business
opportunity
Business not pro?table
Problems getting ?nance
Opportunity to sell
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
businesses—except in rare cases, like in Ireland—do not
attract enough attention among policy makers, who usually
struggle with designing appropriate policies for this specific
group of businesses. GEM surveys profile ambitious early-
stage entrepreneurs as those with aspirations to increase
number of employed, to innovate (product or process) and to
internationalize.
Ambitious early-stage entrepreneurs: job creation
By asking early-stage entrepreneurs how many employees
(other than the owners) they currently have and how many
they expect to hire in the next five years, GEM collects
information on expectations for job creation. The variations in
expectations usually reflect the variations in the created jobs
across countries (Stam et al., 2012).
Figure 2.13 shows job expectation as percentage of early-
stage entrepreneurs (TEA) by geographic regions and results
for all 2014 GEM economies are presented in Appendix, Table
A.6. Growth levels are identified in the time span of 5 years, as
low (expected 0-5 new employees), medium (6-19 employees)
or high (20+ new employees).
49
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.13 JOB EXPECTATIONS FOR EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURS IN 2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC
REGIONS (AS % OF TEA)
FIGURE 2.14 INNOVATIVE ORIENTATION OF EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURS (TEA) IN 2014, BY
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS (AS % OF TEA)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
E
A
Job creation expectations:
20 or more jobs
Job creation expectations:
5-19 jobs
Job creation expectations:
0-5 jobs
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
% within TEA: product is new for some or all customers
% within TEA: new market (few/no businesses o?er the same product)
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
50
CHAPTER 2
North America stands out with optimistic expectations of
high growth. The lowest expectations are observed among
the European economies, especially in those with the highest
unemployment rates. In Italy only 0.23%, in Spain 4.4% and in
Greece 3.2% early-stage entrepreneurs expect to have high
creation of new jobs. On other side, there are economies with
almost full employment where low expectations for growth
of jobs are connected with the lack of skilled labor force (for
instance Thailand or Luxembourg).
Innovative orientation
GEM looks at innovative orientation of early-stage
entrepreneurs through two lenses (product/market): how
much an entrepreneur’s product/service is new to all or some
customers and if few or no other businesses offer the same
product/service. This measure of innovative orientation
is quite a context-dependent measure, because despite
globalization, internal market in many economies can
recognize some products/services as new one, which already
exists on some other markets.
Figure 2.14 presents the percentage of early-stage
entrepreneurs (TEA) with innovative orientations, measured by:
• The percentage of TEA that declare to have a product/
service which is new for all or some of their customers.
• The percentage of TEA that declare to be new on the market
with few or not other businesses offering the same product/
service.
North American economies are more innovation-oriented than
the rest of the world on both criteria, despite they enjoy own
big markets, with higher purchasing power than many other
regions. Asia & Oceania are showing a different pattern, high
product innovation, but less orientation to new markets due to
their own huge markets. Africa is low in both measures, except
South Africa. There are countries which are trying to develop
both aspects of innovation capacity—a good example is Chile,
with very high share of early-stage entrepreneurs saying that
they have a product/ service which is new to all or some of their
customers (89%), and at the same time 59% of them also say that
they sell on the market where they have only few competitors.
International orientation
Every economy, big or small, is inevitably a part of the
global economy. Therefore, it is relevant to track how
internationalization contributes to the growth of businesses.
GEM is using a categorization of four levels of intensity in
internationalization measured by the share of customers living
outside of the early-stage entrepreneur’s country. Figure 2.15
shows the intensity of internationalization, by geographic
regions.
FIGURE 2.15 INTERNATIONAL ORIENTATION OF EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURS IN 2014,
BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS (AS % OF TEA)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

T
E
A
% TEA: no customers outside country
% TEA: 25-75% of customers outside country
% TEA: 1-25% of customers outside country
% TEA: 75-100% of customers outside country
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
51
CHAPTER 2
African economies involved in the GEM survey have the
least intensive internationalization (almost 70% of early-
stage entrepreneurs do not have a customer outside their
respective countries). The exception is South Africa with
26% of early-stage entrepreneurs having more than 25%
customers abroad. The highest level of internationalization
(more than 25% of customers abroad) is observed among
early-stage entrepreneurs in EU economies. Several EU
economies are leading in internationalization, all of them
small countries: Luxembourg 42% businesses, Croatia 38%,
Belgium 33%, Estonia 24%. The same holds for non-EU
economies, where Kosovo is leading with 33% of early-stage
entrepreneurs selling abroad, followed by Switzerland with
31% of entrepreneurs intensively exporting. Small countries
as Suriname, Singapore or Barbados are also examples of high
intensity of internationalization.
Entrepreneurial employee activities
The broadest and best-known definition that “entrepreneurship
is the process by which individuals pursue opportunities
without regard to the resources they currently control”
(Gartner and Baker, 2010) is the basis to look for
entrepreneurial behavior everywhere. Such definition bridges
usual division between “independent entrepreneurship” and
“entrepreneurship within and existing organization”.
Since its inception, GEM focuses on “independent
entrepreneurship” from nascent to start-up phase of
business venture. In 2011, the first survey of entrepreneurial
activity of employees confirmed that besides early-stage
entrepreneurial activity, there is also entrepreneurial
activity performed by proactive, innovative and responsible
employees (Bosma et al., 2013).
GEM operationalizes entrepreneurial employee activity
as a situation in which employees develop new products/
services, or set up a new business entity, but not—for
instance—work on optimizing internal operations of a
firm. Respondents participating in the GEM survey were
asked if they, in the past three years, were actively involved
in and had a leading role in either idea development for
a new activity or in preparation and implementation of a
new activity. GEM collects data for measuring intensity of
entrepreneurial employee activity. The results of 2014 survey
are presented in Figure 2.16.
FIGURE 2.16 ENTREPRENEURIAL EMPLOYEE ACTIVITY (EEA) IN 2014, BY PHASE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT (AS % OF ADULT POPULATION 18-64 YEARS)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Factor-driven
economies
E?ciency-driven economies Innovation-driven economies
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
I
n
d
i
a
B
u
r
k
i
n
a

F
a
s
o
V
i
e
t
n
a
m
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
I
r
a
n
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
U
g
a
n
d
a
B
o
t
s
w
a
n
a
A
n
g
o
l
a
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
K
o
s
o
v
o
P
a
n
a
m
a
S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
E
l

S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e
C
h
i
n
a
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
R
u
s
s
i
a
C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a
M
e
x
i
c
o
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
B
r
a
z
i
l
K
a
z
a
k
h
s
t
a
n
P
e
r
u
B
o
s
n
i
a

a
n
d

H
e
r
z
e
g
o
v
i
n
a
T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
H
u
n
g
a
r
y
P
o
l
a
n
d
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
B
e
l
i
z
e
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
C
h
i
l
e
I
t
a
l
y
G
r
e
e
c
e
J
a
p
a
n
T
r
i
n
i
d
a
d

a
n
d

T
o
b
a
g
o
P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o
S
p
a
i
n
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
F
r
a
n
c
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e
S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
B
e
l
g
i
u
m
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
S
w
e
d
e
n
S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
I
r
e
l
a
n
d
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m
L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
T
a
i
w
a
n
N
o
r
w
a
y
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
Q
a
t
a
r
The confidence intervals constitute the range within which the average value of 95 out of 100 replications of the survey would be expected
to lie.
52
CHAPTER 2
The measure of entrepreneurial employee activity (EEA)
is increasing along the development stages, higher in
innovation-driven economies, the lowest in factor-driven
economies.
Entrepreneurial employee activity is much scarcer than
TEA across the world, with Africa and Latin America and
Caribbean presenting the highest difference (Figure 2.17).
North America and EU economies have the highest incidence
of entrepreneurial employee activity, which confirms
the presence of more entrepreneurial culture (proactive,
innovative) in their business sectors.
Two important features emerge from the analysis of TEA and
EEA in relation with the level of economic development (GDP
per capita, ppp):
• TEA rate is decreasing along the development phases—in
innovation-driven economies, TEA rate is the lowest (Figure
2.18); exceptions are the U.S.A. and Singapore.
• EEA rate is increasing along the development phases—in
innovation-driven economies, EEA rate is the highest
(Figure 2.19).
These features confirm that the entrepreneurial activity
can be carried out in different forms, and in order to
evaluate the level of entrepreneurial capacity of an
economy, it is necessary to combine both indicators
(TEA and EEA). By combining TEA and EEA, it is possible
to cover entrepreneurial behavior of two major
segments of business sector (owners and employees).
It opens the new calls not only toward the stakeholders
responsible of entrepreneurship framework conditions,
but to business associations and directly to business
sectors in order to build a new business culture based
on infusion of innovativeness and pro-activeness at all
organizational levels.
FIGURE 2.17 COMPARISON OF PRESENCE OF TEA AND EEA IN 2014, BY GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
(AS % OF ADULT POPULATION, 18-64 YEARS)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
TEA Entrepreneurial employee activity
Africa Asia & Oceania Latin America
& Caribbean
European
Union
Non-European
Union
North America
53
CHAPTER 2
FIGURE 2.18 TEA RATE AND GDP PER CAPITA, 2014
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
GDP per capita (PPP)
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000
y=-6.107ln(x) + 73.542
R
2
=0.3742
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
CM
UG
EC
BW
PE
BO
CL
TH
BF
CO
MX
PA BR
IR
CN
ID
BB
UY
AR
KZ
TT
CR RO
HR
HR
HR
IT
JP
FI
FP
BE
CU
DE
SE
IE
TW
AT
NL
CAAU
US
SW
NO
SG
LT
SK
PT
ET
TH
PL
GR
ZA
BA GE
EZ
IN
TH
SI
ES
UK
AO
GT
SV
JM
PH
VN
Angola AO Estonia EE Peru PE
Argentina AR Finland FI Philippines PH
Australia AU France FR Poland PL
Austria AT Georgia GE Portugal PT
Barbados BB Germany DE Romania RO
Belgium BE Greece GR Russia RU
Belize BZ Guatemala GT Singapore SG
Bolivia BO Hungary HU Slovakia SK
Bosnia and Herzegovina BA India IN Slovenia SI
Botswana BW Indonesia ID South Africa ZA
Brazil BR Iran IR Spain ES
Burkina Faso BF Ireland IE Suriname SR
Cameroon CM Italy IT Sweden SE
Canada CA Jamaica JM Switzerland SW
Chile CL Japan JP Taiwan TW
China CN Kazakhstan KZ Thailand TH
Colombia CO Lithuania LT Trinidad and Tobago TT
Costa Rica CR Malaysia MY Uganda UG
Croatia HR Mexico MX United Kingdom UK
Denmark DK Netherlands NL United States US
Ecuador EC Norway NO Uruguay UY
El Salvador SV Panama PA Venezuela VN
FIGURE 2.19 EEA RATE AND GDP PER CAPITA, 2014
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
GDP per capita (PPP)
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000
y=0.0001x + 0.2584
R
2
=0.52062
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

a
d
u
l
t

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

(
1
8
-
6
4

y
e
a
r
s
)
CM
IN
VN
BL
PH
IM
ID
ECZA
CN
BR
BB
MX
KZ
GR
RU
AO
CO
BZ
RO
CL
LT
SK
SI
UK
TW
AU
DK
NO
SG
NL
IE
US
SW
SE
AT
BE
FI
CA
DE
FR
HR
UV
IR
BA
BW
AR
PE
TH
EE
PL
PT
HU
ES
TT
IT
JP
CR
SR
PA
UG
UG
55
CHAPTER 3
3. ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM
Since its inception, the GEM has proposed that
entrepreneurship dynamics can be linked to conditions that
enhance (or hinder) new business creation. In the GEM´s
methodology these conditions are known as Entrepreneurial
Framework Conditions (EFCs). EFCs are one of the most
important components of any entrepreneurship ecosystem
and constitute “the necessary oxygen of resources, incentives,
markets and supporting institutions for the creation and
growth of new firms” (cf. Bosma et al., 2008: p. 40). In the GEM
1999 Executive Report, Paul D. Reynolds, Michael Hay and S.
Michael Camp stated: “The model captures a number of things
ignored in the conventional framework. First is the recognition
that entrepreneurial activity is shaped by a distinct set
of factors (referred to as Entrepreneurial Framework
Conditions)” (p. 10). The original GEM conceptual framework
therefore established a clear relationship between the EFCs,
entrepreneurship dynamics and economic growth (see Figure
1.3). Even though the GEM conceptual framework has been
revised in due course, this key feature was constant as the
revised GEM framework shows (Figure 3.1).
The EFCs can be considered an essential part of the
puzzle that understanding businesses’ creation and
growth represents. The state of these conditions directly
influences the existence of entrepreneurial opportunities,
entrepreneurial capacity and preferences, which in turn
determines business dynamics. Hence, it is expected that
different economies and regions have different structures and
quality of EFCs or different “rules of the game,”
1
that directly
affect entrepreneurial activity’s inputs and outputs. That is
why, since the beginning, the GEM survey needed a source
of information to assess the state of EFCs. This source of
information is the National Experts Survey.
3.1 THE GEM NATIONAL EXPERTS SURVEY
The National Experts Survey (NES) is part of the standard
GEM methodology and it assesses various EFCs as well
as some other topics related to entrepreneurship. It is
intended to obtain the views of additional experts (e.g. on
women entrepreneurship support, high growth business
encouragement and questions related to the special topic
included in the current GEM cycle). The NES was initiated due
to a lack of nationally harmonized measures that could be
used as indices of specific EFCs (Reynolds et al., 2005). While
some secondary data provide analogous information to
several EFCs,
2
the NES remains the sole source of harmonized,
internationally comparable data that specifically addresses
1
These EFCs could be related to the “rules of the game” notion (Baumol,
1990) that determines to what extent is entrepreneurial activity
productive in a given society.
2
For NES results and linkage of EFCs with other international
measurements, see Bosma et al. (2008).
56
CHAPTER 3
the environmental factors that enhance (or hinder) new and
growing firms’ performance.
The NES is similar to other surveys that capture expert
judgments to evaluate specific national conditions.
For example, the World Economic Forum´s “Global
Competitiveness Index” or the World Bank´s “Doing Business”
use similar surveys to build their indices. With regards to the
NES, its main methodological difference is that it focuses only
on EFCs, rather than on general economic factors.
3
The NES questionnaire is used to collect the views of experts
on a wide range of items, each of which was designed
to capture a different dimension of a specific EFC. Table
3.1 summarizes the main nine EFCs at the core of the
questionnaire.
The NES was carefully designed and refined to capture
informed judgments of national, and in some cases regional,
key informants regarding the status of EFCs in their own
country/region’s economies. National and regional experts are
selected on the basis of reputation and experience (through a
convenience sample approach).
3
As stated in the ?rst GEM theoretical model, the general national conditions
in?uence the entrepreneurial conditions, so there is room to argue that these
two sources of information are related but are not exactly the same.
Each year at least 36 experts in each GEM economy are
personally interviewed or surveyed and asked to fill out the
NES self-administered questionnaire
4
.
When all data are collected, the national and regional files are
centrally harmonized. The harmonization process includes
an internal quality control process and the calculation of site
variables that summarize each block of questions designed to
measure a certain aspect of the EFCs. Using this methodology,
each expert in each country is assigned individual values,
allowing for international comparisons to be made. To
illustrate the way each EFC is created, the first condition,
“finance for entrepreneurs,” is built with a block of six items
that includes information on access to different sources of
finance (equity, government funding, debt, business angels
and IPOs). The same logic applies to the remaining EFCs.
The responses to the items follow a five-point Likert scale,
where 1 means the statement is completely false according
to the expert and 5 means the statement is completely true.
Experts are also asked to express their views about the most
important institutional successes and constraints for fostering
entrepreneurship in their country. They also provide some
key recommendations for the same purpose. Finally, some
4
Since 2010, a standardized online survey is available in English and
Spanish using the web-based survey tool, Qualtrics®. Some National
Teams also implement their own systems in their languages.
FIGURE 3.1 THE REVISED GEM FRAMEWORK AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ENTREPRENEURIAL
FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
+
–
Social, Cultural,
Political,
Economic
Context
Basic Requirements
Efciency Enhancers
Innovation and
Business Sophistication
Social Values
Towards
Entrepreneurship
Outcome
(socio-economic
development)
Entrepreneurial Output
(new jobs, new value added)
Entrepreneurial Activity
• By phases of organisational
life cycle
– Nascent, new, established,
discontinuation
• Types of activity
– High growth, innovative,
internationalization
• Sectors of activity
– Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity
(TEA), Social Entrepreneurial Activity (SEA),
Employee Entrepreneurial Activity (EEA)
Individual
Attributes
(psychological,
demographic,
motivation)
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
57
CHAPTER 3
background information on the experts is recorded. NES
questionnaires are copyrighted; they are available at the GEM
web site: www.gemconsortium.org
3.2 THE STATE OF THE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEM IN 2014
Table 3.2 provides a general overview of the results of each
EFC for the 73 economies participating in the NES in 2014,
in the geographic regions covered in this report
5
. The table
shows the rates in a 1-5 scale for the main EFCs analyzed
in each economy. The highest-rated EFCs in each country
are highlighted in green and the lowest rated EFCs are
highlighted in red.
The averages included in Table 3.2 show some patterns
among country-groups. For example, entrepreneurship
education at basic levels (primary and secondary school) is
rated rather unfavorably in most economies—only a few of
them (Denmark, Singapore, Philippines and the Netherlands)
stand out. This information is very important for policy
makers, as this score shows the extent to which primary and
secondary education encourages creativity, self-sufficiency,
and personal initiative, provides adequate instruction on
5
As explained in Chapter 2, three economies did not fully comply with
the requirements for the Adult Population Survey (Kuwait, Latvia and
Turkey) but completed the NES data. Hence the difference in the number
of economies mentioned in Chapter 2 (70) and in Chapter 3 (73).
market economic principles, and pays adequate attention to
entrepreneurship and new firms’ creation.
Other EFCs that have relatively low evaluations across
countries are national policies related to regulation and R&D
transfer.
In contrast, as in previous years, physical infrastructure (roads,
utilities, communications, water disposal) tends to obtain the
highest evaluations in experts’ ratings, with averages close to
4 or over 4 in all regions except Africa (whose EFC is evaluated
as the best among other EFCs, but still at a much lower
level than in other parts of the world). This EFC was granted
outstanding evaluations in the Netherlands, Denmark and
Japan.
Experts are usually quite critical about their country´s
entrepreneurship ecosystem, although they recognize it has
some strong factors. In general, experts in more economically
developed countries, like the members of the European Union
and North America, tend to evaluate their EFCs with higher
ratings. In contrast, African countries’ evaluations, on average,
were low. Figure 3.2 shows these patterns.
Notably, governmental policies and internal market dynamics
in Africa are better evaluated than in North America. This
confirms the relevance of understanding the particularities
and characteristics of each country (or region). In Figure 3.3, in
the Asia & Oceania region, a comparison of Singapore (highest
TABLE 3.1 GEM’S KEY ENTREPRENEURIAL FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS
1. Entrepreneurial Finance. The availability of ?nancial resources—equity and debt—for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
(including grants and subsidies).
2. Government Policy. The extent to which public policies support 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) and
4b. Entrepreneurship Education at post-secondary levels (higher education such as vocational, college, business schools, etc.).
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. This EFC 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 ?rms 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.
58
CHAPTER 3
TABLE 3.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS MAIN INDICATORS
1 Finance 2a National Policy—General Policy 2b National Policy—Regulation 3 Government Programs 4a Education—Primary &
Secondary 4b Education—Post-Secondary 5 R&D Transfer 6 Commercial Infrastructure 7a Internal Market—Dynamics 7b Internal
Market—Openness 8 Physical Infrastructure 9 Cultural and Social Norms
1 2a 2b 3 4a 4b 5 6 7a 7b 8 9
Africa
Angola 2.63 2.58 2.16 2.40 1.91 2.22 1.77 2.73 2.98 2.17 2.36 2.88
Botswana 2.71 2.61 2.62 2.71 2.74 3.09 2.45 2.56 2.88 2.04 3.00 2.91
Burkina Faso 2.09 2.88 3.09 3.04 1.26 2.78 1.77 2.80 2.24 2.37 3.04 3.08
Cameroon 2.16 3.18 2.80 2.86 2.19 3.23 2.05 2.86 2.40 2.77 3.30 3.16
South Africa 3.02 3.02 2.13 2.33 1.83 2.61 2.19 2.64 2.94 2.27 3.06 2.52
Uganda 2.32 2.74 2.20 2.54 2.42 3.11 2.21 3.09 3.53 2.84 3.34 3.39
Average 2.49 2.84 2.50 2.65 2.06 2.84 2.07 2.78 2.83 2.41 3.02 2.99
Asia and Oceania
Australia 2.34 1.83 2.44 2.23 2.19 2.85 2.18 3.42 3.03 2.79 3.91 3.19
China 2.59 3.07 2.76 2.54 1.77 2.81 2.48 2.69 3.81 2.64 4.19 2.89
India 3.11 3.00 2.43 2.94 2.33 3.09 2.86 3.40 3.45 2.87 3.96 3.43
Indonesia 3.03 2.91 2.48 2.57 2.60 3.31 2.63 2.96 3.56 2.89 3.46 3.31
Iran 1.89 1.75 1.57 1.60 1.75 2.22 2.08 2.15 3.18 1.69 3.98 2.25
Japan 3.01 3.12 2.56 2.80 1.64 2.82 3.15 2.44 3.92 2.85 4.47 2.58
Kazakhstan 2.21 3.49 2.65 2.92 2.41 2.73 2.13 3.11 3.06 2.30 3.58 3.40
Kuwait 2.67 1.90 2.45 1.93 1.52 2.57 2.09 3.06 3.89 2.05 3.50 2.68
Malaysia 3.34 3.35 2.86 3.28 2.45 3.12 2.68 3.31 3.55 2.83 4.08 3.54
Philippines 2.57 2.42 2.11 2.43 2.89 3.28 2.07 2.92 3.09 2.53 3.12 3.05
Qatar 2.72 3.15 2.95 2.90 2.72 3.33 2.41 2.95 3.25 2.08 3.44 2.89
Singapore 3.56 3.48 3.98 3.68 3.02 3.34 3.17 3.23 3.42 3.04 4.45 3.16
Taiwan 2.98 2.71 2.91 2.73 2.19 2.77 2.68 2.65 3.86 2.78 3.90 3.26
Thailand 2.51 2.52 2.61 2.11 1.94 2.79 2.13 3.22 3.60 2.37 3.72 2.85
Vietnam 2.37 2.93 2.46 2.35 1.83 2.64 2.30 2.93 3.71 2.43 3.75 3.13
Average 2.73 2.78 2.61 2.60 2.22 2.91 2.47 2.96 3.49 2.54 3.83 3.04
Latin America & Caribbean
Argentina 2.03 2.08 1.49 2.70 1.82 3.11 2.49 2.85 3.24 2.53 3.31 3.01
Barbados 2.42 2.42 1.87 2.30 1.71 2.96 1.78 2.72 2.06 2.42 3.75 2.61
Belize 2.14 2.55 2.20 2.45 2.05 2.53 1.77 2.68 2.31 2.54 3.41 2.65
Bolivia 2.25 2.15 1.97 2.34 2.13 3.11 2.33 2.81 2.98 2.65 3.30 2.79
Brazil 2.46 2.40 1.46 2.24 1.48 2.54 2.00 2.50 3.36 2.24 2.93 2.36
Chile 2.35 2.77 2.91 3.06 1.63 2.98 2.20 2.80 2.18 2.57 4.33 3.09
Colombia 2.37 2.75 2.41 2.95 2.14 2.97 2.17 2.79 2.70 2.55 3.38 2.97
Costa Rica 1.90 2.39 2.02 2.80 1.93 3.07 2.12 2.63 2.42 2.58 3.39 2.90
Ecuador 2.19 2.98 2.19 2.66 2.36 3.18 2.35 2.76 2.46 2.72 4.05 2.99
El Salvador 1.88 2.26 1.92 2.50 1.64 2.76 1.88 2.65 2.68 2.46 3.89 2.79
Guatemala 2.04 1.91 2.10 1.87 1.73 3.06 2.09 2.89 2.41 2.53 3.83 2.44
Jamaica 2.24 2.20 1.99 2.34 2.07 3.03 1.97 2.86 2.90 2.22 3.43 2.96
Mexico 2.20 2.27 1.87 2.69 2.00 3.12 2.44 2.64 2.81 2.21 3.29 2.99
Panama 1.99 2.11 2.95 2.52 1.67 2.78 2.35 2.68 2.36 2.53 4.01 2.75
Peru 2.20 2.21 2.14 2.13 1.98 2.87 1.87 2.81 2.43 2.70 3.52 3.09
Puerto Rico 1.96 2.42 1.78 2.56 1.66 3.07 2.28 2.84 2.61 2.30 3.25 2.76
Suriname 2.30 2.69 2.36 2.42 2.11 3.53 2.01 3.15 3.00 2.98 3.01 2.96
Trinidad and Tobago 2.66 1.81 2.38 2.34 1.83 2.51 1.95 2.94 2.29 2.34 3.76 2.85
Uruguay 2.21 2.22 2.78 2.89 1.41 3.43 2.49 3.02 2.09 2.40 3.79 2.11
Average 2.20 2.35 2.15 2.51 1.86 2.98 2.13 2.79 2.59 2.50 3.56 2.79
Europe Non-European Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.29 2.13 1.74 2.07 2.06 2.43 1.96 2.92 3.35 2.16 3.35 2.15
Georgia 2.15 2.94 3.95 2.37 2.35 2.91 1.83 3.10 2.61 2.92 4.02 3.19
Kosovo 2.08 2.17 3.07 2.21 1.86 2.87 1.96 3.31 3.07 2.61 4.06 3.15
Norway 2.58 2.49 3.18 3.18 2.48 2.56 2.78 3.42 2.59 2.64 4.43 2.86
59
CHAPTER 3
1 2a 2b 3 4a 4b 5 6 7a 7b 8 9
Russia 2.27 2.36 2.27 2.40 2.31 3.10 2.37 3.25 3.14 2.55 3.47 2.74
Switzerland 3.23 3.08 3.70 3.48 2.56 3.42 3.57 3.51 2.34 2.97 4.45 3.40
Turkey 2.41 2.69 1.99 2.32 2.04 2.88 2.59 2.85 3.56 2.35 3.66 3.07
Average 2.43 2.55 2.84 2.58 2.24 2.88 2.44 3.19 2.95 2.60 3.92 2.94
Europe- European Union
Austria 2.51 2.46 2.60 3.58 1.66 3.02 2.82 3.40 2.49 3.33 4.12 2.46
Belgium 3.38 2.62 1.98 2.71 1.95 2.75 2.99 3.74 2.50 3.19 3.79 2.15
Croatia 2.32 2.15 1.55 2.27 1.68 2.35 2.04 2.90 3.37 2.08 3.67 2.02
Denmark 2.73 3.33 3.31 3.43 3.10 3.43 2.77 3.56 2.43 3.44 4.49 2.82
Estonia 2.86 2.43 3.58 3.39 2.63 2.99 2.92 3.21 3.39 3.12 4.39 3.39
Finland 2.82 3.17 2.95 2.77 2.28 2.70 2.61 3.20 3.23 2.72 4.25 2.76
France 2.77 2.99 2.96 3.17 1.75 2.92 2.73 3.06 3.02 2.34 4.04 2.14
Germany 2.84 2.93 2.87 3.46 2.13 2.81 2.75 3.34 2.84 2.81 3.82 2.65
Greece 2.11 2.07 1.74 1.95 1.50 2.31 2.26 3.05 3.42 2.12 3.53 2.47
Hungary 2.63 2.43 1.93 2.41 1.68 2.82 2.41 3.29 3.13 2.62 3.94 2.32
Ireland 2.87 3.24 2.64 3.26 2.09 2.95 2.82 3.29 2.59 3.13 3.71 2.95
Italy 2.55 2.40 1.50 2.08 1.68 2.33 2.18 2.83 3.50 2.61 2.92 2.22
Latvia 2.55 2.60 2.50 2.75 2.51 3.17 2.33 3.74 2.27 2.78 4.00 2.85
Lithuania 3.19 2.39 2.46 2.72 2.37 3.07 2.61 3.90 3.38 2.66 4.19 3.09
Luxembourg 2.76 3.41 3.22 3.47 2.13 2.90 2.98 3.50 2.76 3.05 4.04 2.56
Netherlands 2.81 2.59 3.13 3.15 2.85 3.17 2.88 3.68 2.85 3.40 4.82 3.58
Poland 2.77 3.07 2.16 2.77 1.75 2.54 2.44 2.77 4.04 2.75 3.79 2.96
Portugal 2.73 2.57 2.01 3.00 2.04 3.04 2.76 3.34 2.40 2.75 4.43 2.55
Romania 2.43 2.53 2.24 2.51 2.34 2.68 2.59 3.09 3.14 2.86 2.89 2.61
Slovakia 2.73 2.28 2.16 2.26 2.21 2.98 2.13 3.07 2.63 2.84 3.94 2.40
Slovenia 2.33 2.13 1.92 2.43 1.77 2.34 2.29 2.71 3.04 2.56 3.56 2.06
Spain 2.14 2.50 2.40 2.88 1.84 2.61 2.45 3.03 2.87 2.47 3.64 2.64
Sweden 2.63 2.74 2.53 3.00 2.55 2.75 2.65 3.28 3.13 2.80 4.25 3.07
United Kingdom 2.77 2.90 2.33 2.62 2.44 3.02 2.20 2.95 3.28 2.73 3.54 2.83
Average 2.68 2.66 2.44 2.84 2.12 2.82 2.57 3.25 2.99 2.80 3.91 2.65
North America
Canada 3.10 2.50 2.85 2.86 2.32 3.14 2.57 3.49 2.31 2.95 4.28 3.28
United States 2.99 2.69 2.33 2.61 2.21 2.87 2.64 3.12 3.30 2.67 3.98 3.75
Average 3.05 2.60 2.59 2.74 2.27 3.01 2.61 3.31 2.81 2.81 4.13 3.52
FIGURE 3.2 INDICATORS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS AMONG
REGIONS—AFRICA VS NORTH AMERICA
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

–

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

–

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

–

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

&

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

–

P
o
s
t
-
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
R
&
D
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

–

D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

–

O
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

S
o
c
i
a
l

N
o
r
m
s
Africa North America
60
CHAPTER 3
evaluated EFCs) and Iran (lowest evaluated EFCs) shows that
the perceptions about factors like physical infrastructure
and internal market dynamics do not significantly differ.
Perception is always relative, and experts are evaluating
each of the EFCs in relation to how much they satisfy some
expectations of individuals interested in venturing in the
specific economy/country.
The observed relatively higher rates in developed countries
(the innovation-driven economies) are consistent with the
GEM conceptual framework and the notion that EFCs have
different priorities and impact, according to the stage of their
country’s economic development. At the same time, it should
be noted that reference points may differ across economies:
what is perceived to be good in one country may be perceived
to be poor in others.
To visualize the differences in EFCs scorings, Figure 3.4 and
Figure 3.5 include standardized mean Z-scores for each EFC.
These figures show that many EFCs do differ according to the
FIGURE 3.3 INDICATORS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS—
SINGAPORE VS IRAN
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

–

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

–

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

–

P
r
i
m
a
r
y

&

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

–

P
o
s
t
-
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
R
&
D
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

–

D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

M
a
r
k
e
t

–

O
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

S
o
c
i
a
l

N
o
r
m
s
Iran Singapore
FIGURE 3.4 COMPOSITE INDICATORS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP INSTITUTIONS,
BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT (1/2)
Finance
0.30
0.10
–0.10
–0.30
–0.50
Factor-Driven Economies E?ciency-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Government Programs
National Policy – General
Policy
National Policy – Regulation
Education – Post-
Secondary
Education – Primary &
Secondary
Note: Values of indicators are based on averaging the Z-scores (standardized values) for the economies in each of the three phases of economic
development.
61
CHAPTER 3
economic development phase. The items with the clearest
differences in the 2014 NES results are finance, government
programs, national policy regulation (Figure 3.4), and R&D
transfer and physical infrastructure (Figure 3.5). However,
some other EFCs do not have such clear differences; for
FIGURE 3.5 COMPOSITE INDICATORS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP INSTITUTIONS, BY STAGE
OF DEVELOPMENT (2/2)
R&D Transfer
Factor-Driven Economies E?ciency-Driven Economies
Innovation-Driven Economies
Internal Market – Openness
Commercial Infrastructure
Internal Market – Dynamics
Cultural and Social Norms
Physical Infrastructure
0.40
0.20
0.00
–0.20
–0.40
–0.60
Note: Values of indicators are based on averaging the Z-scores (standardized values) for the economies in each of the three phases of economic
development.
example, entrepreneurship education at post-secondary
level gets a higher evaluation in efficiency-driven economies,
whereas cultural and social norms are evaluated much higher
in factor-driven economies.
63
CHAPTER 4
4. DATA IN ACTION: HOW GEM IMPACTS
ENTREPRENEURSHIP ECOSYSTEMS
People have blamed each other for not solving problems for
a very long time—citizens blame governments, governments
blame citizens for their lack of interest, the business sector
usually blames government (for not providing supportive
policies and an efficient regulatory environment) and the
education sector (for not providing the competences needed
by the business sector). Academia usually blames the business
sector for the low demand for research collaboration, and
government for not providing enough financial support of
research activities. Governments are normally unhappy with
the research institutions’ level of involvement in solving
national development issues, or with the business sector for
not showing enough accountability. A vicious circle is formed
and unsolved problems surround us.
It is important to learn how some countries find the way to
obtain a better quality of life for their inhabitants. Can this
way work in our environment? If so, how? If not, why?
The lack of international comparisons is no longer an excuse
for the lack of government action intended to improve the
national level of prosperity. There is an increasing body of
knowledge about many aspects of the quality of life in all
countries around the world. Official statistical coverage is
different among countries, but it is complemented by various
international surveys. GEM is one of the very few surveys
based on the collection of primary data on individual
entrepreneurial activities, as well as on social values and
personal attributes which contribute to or hinder such
activities (see Figure 1.5). The GEM survey covers more than
100 countries (73 participated in 2014) and has collected data
since 1999 using standardized tools; this has generated a
huge database that can be used by international institutions
or by national governments to design evidence-based policy
interventions, or by some institutions (such as universities) to
develop research-based educational programs.
The New Millennium Goals are a challenging starting point
for everyone to detect their own responsibility in solving
eight identified goals, some of which are to eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger, and to develop a global
partnership for development. The Secretary-General’s
synthesis report “The Road to Dignity by 2030: ending
poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the
planet” (UN, 2014) charts a road map and proposes a
transformative agenda for sustainable development. One
of the six components of this agenda is prosperity based
on efforts to grow a strong, inclusive and transformative
economy. And GEM is precisely collecting data that offers
insights on the country’s capacity to contribute to it.
64
CHAPTER 4
In order to achieve such goals, this road map specifically
mentions “lighting the way—the role of data” in designing
an evidence-based course for realizing the agenda of the
New Millennium Goals (The Road to Dignity, UN, 2014, p.
38). “The world must acquire a new ‘data literacy’ in order
to be equipped with the tools, methodologies, capacities,
and information necessary to shine a light on the challenges
of responding to the new agenda. Enhanced national and
international statistical capacities, rigorous indicators,
reliable and timely data sets, new and non-traditional data
sources, and broader and systematic disaggregation to reveal
inequities will all be fundamental for implementing it”
(The Road to Dignity, UN, 2014, pp. 38-39).
Furthermore, The Road to Dignity identifies the issue of key
data gaps, between developed and developing countries,
between information-rich and information-poor people,
and between the private and public sectors (UN, 2014, p. 13).
The conclusion is that the new paradigm of accountability
requires evidence-based activities of all actors who are
accountable to the people for results. Therefore, in order to
achieve transparency through evidence-based activities, it
calls for a data revolution, and the indicators and data that
emerge from it (“… to make information and data more
available, more accessible, and more broadly disaggregated,
as well as for measurable goals and targets, and a
participatory mechanism to review implementation at the
national, regional, and global levels”) (UN, 2014, p. 16).
After sixteen years of building a database on individuals’
entrepreneurial behaviour around the world, GEM is an
extremely valuable source for learning about related patterns
and trends. In order to show how GEM data is used to develop
evidence-based policy activities, six examples are provided in
this chapter:
? How state aid can be used to have an impact on
developing countries: The International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), Canada—how to use GEM’s unique
knowledge on entrepreneurship in developing countries—
with links to Canada
? How to develop evidence-based policies and have
better insights on entrepreneurial capacity at a national
level: the EU funded a three-year project for the
collection of data on entrepreneurial activity and self-
employment, complementing the core GEM survey with
specific questions, in order to obtain better insights on
entrepreneurial capacity in the EU
? Four national examples:
o GEM Mexico—how GEM data is being used by the
Mexican government to build an institutional framework
for SMEs’ support
o GEM Malaysia—how GEM data is being used by
the Malaysian government to monitor trends in
entrepreneurship in Malaysia and to design some policy
interventions
o GEM South Africa—governments can be slow in
recognizing the need for evidence-based policies, but
persistence of researchers in finding common language
with policy makers pays off
o GEM Canada—building understanding of the evidence-
based approach in designing and monitoring policy
interventions requires collaboration among different
actors (researchers, government officials, the business
sector, any other stakeholders)—GEM Policy Day
These examples (and numerous others) and GEM data
introduced in previous chapters, as well as the GEM database
built since 1999, are our basis for accepting the challenge
expressed by the Road to Dignity document.
The Road to Dignity by 2030, a Synthesis Report of the
Secretary General (December 4, 2014), announced that a
comprehensive programme of action on data should be
established. “This includes the building of a global consensus,
applicable principles and standards for data, a web of data
innovation networks to advance innovation and analysis,
a new innovative financing stream to support national
data capacities and a global data partnership to promote
leadership and governance” (UN, 2014, p. 39).
The Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA),
which represents the GEM national teams, is ready to
participate in this challenge and to join the multi-stakeholder
global partnership in actions aimed to identify information
gaps (and overlaps), as well as to develop collective actions
required to replace the competition in the industry of
indicators with collaborative efforts to increase access
to information and data literacy at the institutional and
individual levels.
4.1 BENCHMARK POLICY EXAMPLES
4.1.1 Evidence Based Policy Activities
EXAMPLE 1: HOW STATE AID CAN BE USED TO HAVE
AN IMPACT ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE
(IDRC), CANADA – HOW TO USE GEM’S UNIQUE
KNOWLEDGE ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES – WITH LINKS TO CANADA
Arjan de Haan, Program Leader in IDRC’s Supporting
Inclusive Growth program; Dominique Garro-Strauss,
Project Management Officer in the same program; Ann
Weston, Director of IDRC’s Special Initiatives Division
Knowledge generated through GEM can provide a
base of evidence for policies and interventions to foster
entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods in much of the
developing world. With support from Canada’s International
Development Research Centre (IDRC) since 2009, GEM’s
scope has broadened to reflect developing-country
realities. IDRC provides financial and technical support to
GEM research teams in over 30 developing countries across
Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the Caribbean.
65
CHAPTER 4
GEM’s 2012 Global Report was the first to enable developing
countries to compare themselves with similar economies.
In 2013, IDRC support also helped bring Canada back into
the GEM research community, with surveys in Canada itself
and with Canadian researchers collaborating on studies in
Francophone Africa.
GEM has been instrumental in allowing governments and
businesses to compare their entrepreneurial climate against
others. It helps them better understand the key bottlenecks
constraining business owners and opportunities for nurturing
their potential. IDRC support has brought developing regions
into the picture: sub-Saharan Africa, for example, previously
had very little data on entrepreneurship, but will now have
reliable and comparable data from 12 countries (Angola,
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Ethiopia, Malawi,
Namibia, Nigeria, Uganda, South Africa and Zambia.) And
another two African countries will join in 2015 (Morocco and
Senegal).
IDRC’s support has helped to enhance capacity to inform
policy on entrepreneurship. GEM standards ensure
sound national data and strong project planning. In
many countries, this has helped to generate baseline
estimates and data about entrepreneurial activity and
their constraints. Technical support was critical to enhance
capacity, including to distil policy messages to specific
audiences. In the Middle East and North Africa this led to the
publication of a special issue of the International Journal of
Business and Globalization (Schøtt, 2013).
There is already clear evidence of impact. In Uganda, GEM
findings informed the Ministry of Finance Planning and
Economic Development’s policies on small and medium
enterprise. In South Africa, the National Planning Commission
consulted GEM findings and the project team was asked
for advice. Jamaican GEM research provided a base for the
Development Bank to develop strategies for rolling out small
business development centres.
Research findings give decision-makers insights on how their
choices may affect the business climate. For example, New
Entrepreneurs and High Performance Enterprises in the Middle
East and North Africa — an IDRC co-publication with the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
—outlines directions which governments can take to foster
enterprise development and growth.
2012 sub-Saharan Africa Report — the first to examine
entrepreneurial dynamics in the region
For the first time, in 2012 a GEM report gave sub-Saharan
African countries a firm base of evidence to use in comparing
their entrepreneurial activity. The report (Herrington,
2014) drew on data collected during a three-year study
of entrepreneurial attitudes, perceptions, and intentions
in 10 sub-Saharan African countries funded by IDRC. It
found entrepreneurship rates amongst the highest in the
world with a high proportion of the population already, or
intending soon to be, involved in business. These high levels
of enthusiasm are countered by a high number of failed
businesses and limited growth potential for those businesses
that survive. The hurdles preventing businesses from
prospering include lack of government support, difficulty in
accessing funding, corruption, bureaucracy, and lack of access
to research and development.
In 2013, IDRC supported another phase of GEM’s analysis in
the region to focus on youth and their perceptions about
making entrepreneurship a career choice. National reports
and a comparative regional report will help governments
understand how to support young people to achieve viable
self-employment and to become successful entrepreneurs
contributing to economic growth and job creation.
Southeast Asia
The launch of the ASEAN economic community in 2015,
and the prospects of a market of 600 million, creates new
opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurs in member
countries. Some of these issues are addressed by the IDRC-
funded national team reports for Indonesia, the Philippines
and Vietnam, while the GEM Malaysia team will present a 2014
ASEAN GEM report at one of the ASEAN summits in 2015. The
aim is to shift government attitudes and help entrepreneurs
to position themselves in the regional market.
Links to Canada
With support from IDRC amongst others, a team of
researchers from across Canada undertook the first GEM
survey in Canada since 2003. Rejoining GEM has generated
data that allows for comparison of Canadian entrepreneurship
with the G7, similar countries like Australia, and the other
80 or so others now participating in GEM each year. It
also stimulated seven provincial governments to support
province-specific GEM surveys and analyses. And the IDRC
grant has funded a few visiting scholars from GEM teams in
developing countries to join and share lessons with Canadian
GEM researchers.
Resource links
O’Neill, M. (2014). IDRC Insight Brief: Private sector
development: Aligning goals for economic growth and
poverty reduction. Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/
Documents/PSD-InSight-WEB-ENG.pdf
Melesse, M. and C. Foy (2014). IDRC: Africans want to do
business. Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/
Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=1261
IDRC (2012). IDRC Article: Research to Policy: IDRC-supported
study informs policy debates on entrepreneurship in
the Caribbean. Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/
Programs/Social_and_Economic_Policy/Supporting_
Inclusive_Growth/Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=483
GEM Canada Reports: www.gemcanada.org
The following are two examples of IDRC funded publications
on the policy aspect of using GEM data:
66
CHAPTER 4
UGANDA—EXAMPLE OF A POLICY INTERVENTION,
2012, PUBLISHED IN HERRINGTON, M., AFRICAN
ENTREPRENEURSHIP: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN REPORT, P. 65
1. Country: Uganda
2. Key Indicators: Nascent business rate—26%: New
business rate—28%: TEA—36%: established business
rate—31%: Potential entrepreneurs—88%: intentional
entrepreneurs—79%
3. Name of initiative, policy, or programme: The Youth
Opportunities Programme (YOP) under the Northern
Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF)
4. Target market: Poor youth (15 to 30), who are
unemployed or underemployed
5. Geographic Scope: 18 Districts of Northern Uganda
6. Description
i. Goal of initiative, policy, or programme

To provide youth with specific vocational skills and
tool kits, to enable them earn incomes and improve
their livelihoods, to contribute towards community
reconciliation and conflict management and to build
capacity of NGOs, CBOs and vocational training
institutes (VTIs) to respond to the needs of youth.
ii. Description of initiative, policy or programme

Under YOP, small groups of youth self-organise,
identify a vocational skill of interest and a VTI and
apply to NUSAF District Technical Offices (NDTOs)
for funding. The NDTOs process and recommend
proposals to the District and the central NUSAF
Management Unit (NUMU), who screen for
incomplete or inappropriate proposals.

Youth groups with successfully approved proposals
receive a cash transfer of up to the equivalent of
US$10,000 to a community bank account. These funds
are used to enroll in the VTI, purchase training materials
and equip graduates with the tools and start-up
costs for practicing the trade after graduation. NDTOs
are supposed to provide supervision and technical
assistance throughout. In 2008, the programme
provided cash transfers to thousands of young men
and women for investment in skills training and capital
for self-employment. The focus of the programme was
vocational training and employment. Applicants were
required to form a group of roughly 15 to 25 young
adults interested in a vocation and submit a proposal
for purchasing skills training, tools and other materials
required to start an enterprise.

On average, successful groups received a lump
sum cash transfer of $7,108 to a jointly held bank
account—roughly $374 per group member, at
market exchange rates. Groups were otherwise free
of supervision or oversight in the actual spending.
Not surprisingly, demand for the programme far
outstripped supply of funds: hundreds of groups,
representing tens of thousands of young adults,
applied.
III. Description of entry requirements or restrictions

Like many participatory development programmes,
the objective was not only to enrich, but also to
empower young adults. Groups were responsible
for selecting a management committee of five
members, choosing the skills and schools and
budgeting, allocating and spending all funds. Groups
self-organised, or were spurred by a facilitator.
Such facilitators, often a community leader or local
government employee, helped groups identify
projects and trainers, budget and assisted with the
application process, but played no formal role after
the proposal was submitted. The group management
committee and members were wholly responsible
for disbursement and purchases, accountable only to
one another. If a group was selected, the government
transferred cash in a single tranche to a bank account
in the names of the group leadership, with no further
supervision.

In 2008, the government determined that it had
funding for 265 of 535 eligible groups. The average
group had 22 members and 80% of groups ranged
from 13 to 31 members in size, according to pre-
intervention group rosters. Group cash transfers
averaged nearly 12.8 million Ugandan Shillings (UGX,
equivalent to $7 108) and varied not only by group
size, but by group request (that is, transfers were
not uniform). The average transfer size was UGX
673 026 ($374) per member—more than 20 times the
average monthly income of the youth at the time of
the baseline survey. Given the variation in group size
and requests, however, transfer size per oficial group
member varied from UGX 200 000 to more than
UGX 2 million across groups. The majority received
between UGX 350 000 ($200) and UGX 800 000 ($450).
iv. Length of support by initiative, policy,
or programme

In addition to training unemployed youth in trade
skills, the programme, in some cases, also provided
life skills and psychosocial counselling to the
beneficiaries.
v. Scale of the initiative, policy, or programme

Training is expected to increase the technical and
professional skills of the trainee, skills that will be
valued on the labour market. Therefore, youth who
went through the training and acquired skills will find
67
CHAPTER 4
work more easily, be paid higher wages when finding
a job and have better quality of employment, as
expressed in stability of employment.

Funds reserved for the acquisition of tools and
enterprise start-up expenses will also increase the
likelihood of self-employment. Thus, youth who
participate in the programme should start a greater
number of enterprises and earn greater net profits.

Training programme graduates are also expected
to be more likely to pursue higher levels of
education and skills training, both because they
have the background and the financial means (via
any increased employment and incomes). Thus
increased levels of educational attainment (beyond
the duration of the training programme) may be an
additional consequence of participation.
VI. Overview of how the policy or programme works/
worked, including a description of how support is/
was tailored to different target groups and how it is
funded

The programme was aimed at reviewing the impact
of participation in a training programme on labour
market success, educational attainment, leadership
development and psychosocial wellbeing.

YOP had begun as a $1.6 million Northern Uganda
Youth Rehabilitation Fund (NUYRF), with grant
funding from the Japanese Social Development
Fund. Its purpose was to pilot vocational training
interventions. The project selected vocational
training institutions to train unemployed youth in
trade skills (accompanied by tool kits for the trade),
in order to improve their chances of employment. In
March 2005, NUSAF decided to scale up this effort
and committed roughly $6 million to YOP, with $9
million disbursed in the category of Vulnerable
Groups (VGS) and $6 million through the Community
Development Initiative. In 2006, to stimulate such
employment growth, the government announced
a new NUSAF component: the Youth Opportunities
Programme (YOP), which provided cash transfers to
groups of young adults for self-employment in trades.
CHALLENGES IN THE PROGRAMME
The criteria by which past YOP and VGS proposals have been
selected for appraisal and approval in the districts is not clear
and selection procedures appear to have varied over time and
by district. There have also been allegations of corruption,
mismanagement and fraud aimed at many NUSAF, district
and community officials. Many of these allegations have been
addressed headon by NUSAF management, with several
improvements made in the next phases.
It is not clear whether the districts have been successful in
targeting vulnerable youth. There are signs that urban and
peri-urban youth, educated youth and well-connected youth
were more likely to receive funds than rural, uneducated and
dislocated youth.
It seems that a large number of individual youth projects
have also suffered from poor planning, management and
accountability. While there are some cases of corruption or
fraud by the community facilitator, VTI, or youth themselves,
the more common problems seem to be poor decision-
making and management of funds. According to programme
officers, the most important determinants of training success
are good planning (such as reservation of funds for tools and
enterprise start-up), good investment choices (e.g., oriented
towards available markets), district or community monitoring
and oversight and provision of technical extension services,
where required.
ANOTHER INTERESTING EXAMPLE OF HOW GEM DATA
CAN OPEN THE DISCUSSION ON RELEVANCE OF POLICY
INSTRUMENTS
Two opinions on entrepreneurship policy (from OECD-IDRC
(2013), New Entrepreneurs and High Performance Enterprises
in the Middle East and North Africa. OECD, Paris, 98-99).
BOX 4.1 THE CASE FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP POLICY
Speci?c and individual jobs are not permanent and enduring
features in modern market economies. More accurately,
jobs are the concrete manifestation of a churning pool of
opportunities for employment; any contribution to this pool
will o?set job losses, whatever the causes.
68
CHAPTER 4
Higher levels of firm (and job) churning are associated with
subsequent increases in net job growth and productivity
increases. There are, of course, social costs associated with this
churning. As firms and jobs are created and disappear, assets
are redeployed from one business entity to another and
individuals must change jobs, which is disruptive for them
and their families. This, however, seems to be a fundamental
feature of adaptation and change in market economies.
There are two types of growth ?rms. Those that attract the
most attention are associated with the development of entire
new markets, or industries, that contribute to economic
expansion. These have recently been prominent in the world
of information and communication technology (ICT), with
the creation of new industries. Similar patterns emerged in
the development of other sectors, such as automobiles and
medical technology. In these cases, there is an argument that
a net gain has occurred, with a net increase in the job pool
and economic value added.
When high growth ?rms occur in traditional, well-established
sectors, the basis for growth may be more diverse. Alongside
superior productivity or products, such growth may also
occur through acquisition of competitors and, if the overall
market (or industry) is relatively stable, certain competitors
may disappear altogether. The national expansion of efcient
retail ?rms (such as Wal-Mart or Carrefour) displaces small-
scale retail ?rms. The bene?ts are lower prices and greater
choice for consumers, but with a redeployment of jobs from
independent retail ?rms to these international chains.
Finally, the sheer scale of the numbers of individuals engaged
in the churning pool of employment opportunities points to
its potential economic and employment signi?cance.
Nascent entrepreneurs
Baby business
owner-managers
Egypt 3 372 889 1 496 645
Jordan 253 576 191 916
Morocco 1 117 332 1 523 067
Tunisia 149 848 488 697
UAE 169 794 213 980
BOX 4.2 THE CASE AGAINST ENTREPRENEURSHIP POLICY
The ?rst argument against promoting general ?rm creation is
that it is a waste of resources on three grounds. The ?rst is that
the vast majority of the potential bene?ciaries of such policies
will never even consider starting a ?rm. Second, only a fraction
of those who take some steps towards business creation ever
“convert” in the sense of starting a business. For both these
groups, therefore, there is no economic return whatsoever.
The third ground is that, even if they do start, the economic
signi?cance of most new enterprises is minimal since perhaps
only a third survives after six years and less than 1% of new
?rms have more than 20 employees after ?ve years.
The second argument is that the link between general ?rm-
creation rates and economic development remains unproven.
It is unquestionably the case that business creation rates fall
as economic development increases in low-income countries.
More questionable is whether higher rates of enterprise
creation in middle- and higher-income countries are either
associated with, or lead to, increased wealth.
Thirdly, promoting general enterprise creation encourages
optimistic but poorly resourced individuals to take a risk
and, in many cases, to make their own position worse than it
would have been if they had remained in either employment
or unemployed. They may end up with substantial debts they
are either unable to pay o?, or where the payment imposes
crippling ?nancial pain on the individual.
EXAMPLE 2: HOW TO DEVELOP EVIDENCE-
BASED POLICIES - GEM IN ACTION: INCLUSIVE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN EUROPE (POLICY CASE STUDY)
Jonathan Levie, EC Grant Manager and Co-Director of GEM
UK, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Director of Knowledge
Exchange Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
In May 2011, GERA signed a letter of agreement on “Surveying
Entrepreneurial Activity and Self-employment in Europe”
with the Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Directorate
General of the European Commission. In the document
it agreed to supply custom data to the Commission on
entrepreneurship in European Union member states in which
it had coverage plus certain other countries on demand,
starting with a pilot of five member states in 2011 and
expanding to as many member states as possible in 2012 and
2013. The project covered three activities:
Activity 1: Towards covering all member states of the
European Union
Activity 2: Complementing the core GEM survey by specific
questions
Activity 3: Data comparison and analysis
Partly as a result of this initiative, GEM coverage of EU member
states increased from 18 in 2010 (including pre-accession
state Croatia) to 23 in 2012 and 2013, and GEM is committed
to working towards full coverage within the EU. The project
included supplying new and existing data and was funded by
an 80% grant.
The special tabulations of GEM data fed into a joint project by
the OECD and DG Employment on Inclusive Entrepreneurship
in Europe. Output from this project includes an annual
report series titled “The Missing Entrepreneurs: Policies
for Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Europe” and a series of
Policy Briefs on entrepreneurs from different minority or
disadvantaged groups. At the time of writing (January 2014)
GEM data is published in both the 2013 and 2014 “Missing
Entrepreneurs” annual report and the following Policy
69
CHAPTER 4
Briefs: Youth Entrepreneurship, Senior Entrepreneurship,
Social Entrepreneurship, and Access to Business Start-up
Finance for Inclusive Entrepreneurship.
1
In the annual reports and policy briefs, GEM data was used—in
addition to data obtained through the European Labour Force
Survey on the self-employed, Flash Eurobarometer data on
Entrepreneurship, and the European Union Statistics on Income
and Living Conditions—to provide a comprehensive panorama
of entrepreneurship in Europe, focusing in particular on
Europe’s “missing entrepreneurs” or under-represented groups,
including women, youth, seniors, the unemployed and people
with disabilities. Based on this data, the general literature
on entrepreneurship policy, and descriptions of inspiring
entrepreneurship policies and programmes aimed at under-
represented groups written by national experts, the annual
reports and policy briefs provided guidelines for best practice
in developing and implementing policy in this area.
GEM data was used primarily to demonstrate how the
proportion of nascent, new and established owner-managers
among disadvantaged groups in the working age population
varied across EU member states. It evidenced wide variations in
activity across Europe. For example, for the combined 2008-
2012 period, nascent entrepreneurship rates among seniors
(aged 50-64) varied from less than 1% in Italy to more than
4% in the Slovak Republic. The proportion of new business
owner-managers among young people (aged 18-30) varied
from less than 2% in Denmark to 7% in Estonia. The proportion
of established business owners in the female working age
population varied from 2% in France to 8% in Greece.
GEM data was also used to demonstrate differences across EU
member states in social entrepreneurial activity and in access to
and use of different sources of funding for starting businesses.
For example, in the Policy Brief on Social Entrepreneurship,
GEM data was used to demonstrate how different types of
social enterprises vary widely across EU member states. In the
Policy Brief on Access to Business Start-up Finance for Inclusive
Entrepreneurship, GEM data was used to show how the
prevalence of self-financing by start-up entrepreneurs varies
across the European Union, and how the prevalence of financing
problems as a main reason for business closure varies across EU
member states by gender, age group and education level.
These differences in propensity demonstrate the need for
a greater understanding of the nature of entrepreneurship
among different groups at the national level and how
this should influence the design of appropriate policies
by national governments. Therefore, the annual reports
provided a page of key inclusive entrepreneurship data
for each EU country, including GEM data on early-stage
entrepreneurial activity among men, women, youth and
seniors. This information is timely because, as Michel Servoz,
Director-General of DG Employment, Social Affairs and
Inclusion noted in his preface to the 2014 edition of “Europe’s
Missing Entrepreneurs” (p. 4):
1
All these documents are available free for download athttp://www.oecd.
org/cfe/leed/inclusive-entrepreneurship.htm
“In the new programming period 2014-2020, the Commission
has encouraged member states and regions to include
targeted inclusive entrepreneurship actions in their
operational programmes under the investment priority
‘Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation’.”
4.2 COUNTRY EXAMPLES
EXAMPLE 3: MEXICO PROFILE: ENTREPRENEURSHIP
PUBLIC POLICY AND GEM
Daniel Moska Arreola, Eugenio Garza Lagüera
Entrepreneurship Institute, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
GEM Team Leader
Mexico is an upper middle income-country with a GDP of
$1.261 trillion (current USD) 2013 and population of nearly
124 million people in 2014. Mexico is a young country
with median age of 27 years old, and the 15th largest
economy in the world. During the last decade it has enjoyed
macroeconomic stability with low inflation, and international
reserves nearly USD $200 billion in international reserves.
Despite enjoying macroeconomic stability for the last decade,
economic growth and employment rate in Mexico has not
been suffice to deliver prosperity and wellbeing to a large
number of its population. GDP growth in the last 10 years has
averaged slightly more than 2% (see Figure 4-1). The expected
Mexico GDP growth for 2015 is above 3% forecasted by
international organization such as IMF, OECD among others.
A vibrant export sector generates more than USD$ 1 billion daily,
importing slightly more. More than 80% of exports go to the
United States. Despite the sharp contrast in development levels
within Mexico, it has world-class sectors such as automotive,
aerospace, and electric-electronic among others. These sectors
offer the opportunity to integrate Mexican SMEs (Small and
medium enterprises) and entrepreneurs in their value chain in
order to capture more value (i.e. Mexican suppliers in different
tiers). Furthermore, technology innovation in areas such as IT,
medicine services and devices, and energy are also drivers for
entrepreneurial opportunities and economic development.
There are also great challenges and opportunities in
other industries in Mexico with low productivity and high
employment such as tourism services, restaurants and
commerce. These traditional industries can benefit greatly
increasing productivity from IT adoption, management
development and employee training and access to finance.
The Mexican economy faces the challenges and opportunities
of efficiency-driven economies to create value from higher
productivity, but also from moving to more innovative
economic activity to growth with faster rates. The Promotion
of growth, mitigation of poverty, law enforcement and
security, and the promotion of economic and social
opportunities by means of entrepreneurship and enterprise
development are top issues in the public policy agenda of
Mexican government. The National Productivity Committee
is an example of public policy where the public and the
70
CHAPTER 4
2005
GDP growth (annual %) Unemployment, total (% of total labor force)
%
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
–2.00
–4.00
–6.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FIGURE 4.1 MEXICO: GDP GROWTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
private sector, unions and universities work together to
increase the competitiveness of the country in sectors of high
productivity and other part of Mexico with low productivity
and high employment.
Lately, the Mexican government has launched an ambitious
program of macroeconomic reforms aimed at increasing
productivity, competition and economic growth and social
development. The approved reforms in the following
domains are underway: labor, energy, education, finance and
telecommunications. According to OECD, the impact of the
reforms will represent a GDP´s additional growth of 1%. The
foreign direct investment will continue to flow to Mexico.
As can be noted, these changes will improve the context in
which entrepreneurship takes place according to GEM (Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor): basic requirements, efficiency
enhancers, innovation and entrepreneurship.
Regarding public policy on entrepreneurship and SMEs, it has
been evolving rapidly in the last 10 years. Based on a myriad
of programs and projects scattered among several ministries,
the SME Fund was created in 2004 to integrate fragmented
programs in only one fund to support entrepreneurs and
small businesses in a more comprehensive and effective way.
Building on the legacy of strengths and weaknesses of
the SME Fund, the National Institute of the Entrepreneur
(INADEM) was created in 2013 to slim and redesign the
delivery mechanisms and increase the focus on areas such
has venture capital and financial services, entrepreneurship
education, network infrastructure of support and services,
to foster more innovative projects, the adoption of digital
technologies as well as to tailor specific regional and
sectorial initiatives. Furthermore, a gender factor has been
incorporated to increase the number of projects led by
women entrepreneurs and a specific program for young
entrepreneurs (aged-18-30) is set to start in 2015. In these
sense, INADEM programs cover the main aspects proposed by
GEM and aligned with recommendation of GEM México 2013
report: entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship education,
research and development (jointly with the National Science
and Technology Council, CONACYT), internal market, physical
infrastructure for entrepreneurship, cultural and social norms.
As figure 4-2 shows, it seems that the actions of
entrepreneurs, the government and entrepreneurship
ecosystem is paying off: Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA) is on the rise showing a positive trend in
the last 5 years, and an important growth from 14.8%
to 19% in 2014. Certainly, a number of challenges and
opportunities are important to further increase the
impact of entrepreneurs and SMEs. GEM´s research and
insights coupled with the programs and actions of the
Mexican government and entrepreneur’s ecosystem will
boost the context and process to grow GDP and foster
economic and social development.
2010 2011
%

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s

a
g
e
d

1
8
-
6
5
2012 2013 2014
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
FIGURE 4.2 TOTAL EARLY-STAGE
ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA)
Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank & OECD (2014).
71
CHAPTER 4
With the support of the Tecnológico de Monterrey business
incubator (high impact incubator accredited by INADEM),
mentor program for acceleration Enlace E+E, the INADEM
and CONACYT Technological Innovation Funds, and a team
of entrepreneurs, Automatische Technik designed three
generations of robots; the most recent one is in the process
of patenting at the Mexican, American and PTC level. The
company is candidate for being granted venture capital in
order to scale up and achieve globalization.
EXAMPLE 4: MONITORING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN
MALAYSIA: THE GEM DIFFERENCE ON POLICY IMPACT
Siri Roland Xavier, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, GEM Malaysia
Team Leader
Malaysia, through UNIRAZAK, has been collecting GEM data
since 2009 and has successfully influenced entrepreneurship
programmes, approaches and initiatives undertaken by the
government. Over the last five years Malaysia’s overall trend
has been a decline in the Necessity-Driven TEA and an
increase of the Improvement-Driven Opportunity TEA. Thus
government initiatives to provide funding for entrepreneurs
through their agencies have be en effective even by global
standards. GEM had clearly highlighted that a prevalent
reason (45% of responses) for business discontinuation is low
profitability. Financial problems were comparatively less (10%
of responses). As such, today the Malaysian government’s
initiatives are very much augmented and centred on up-scaling
and up-skilling its entrepreneurs, and not only on funding
them. Government agencies (e.g. TERAJU, INSKEN, TEKUN
and SME CORP) incorporate a learning and developmental
component to such initiatives and programmes. Private entities
have also been participating in such initiatives (e.g. CIMB Bank).
This allows the Malaysian government to emphasize on key
strategic issues. For example, with regard to the Malaysian
GEM data trends, the second finance minister Datuk Seri
Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah, stated, “Based on GEM’s data, the
Government was paying more attention to the improvement
of the entrepreneurs’ capabilities through advisory
services, coaching, training and funding via government
agencies.” This was done through key government agencies
including Cradle Fund Sdn Bhd, SME Corp, Malaysian
Biotechnology Corporation, Multimedia Development
Corporation, the recently launched (2014) Malaysian Women
in Innovation (MyWIN) and the Malaysian Association of
ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs (MAAYE) in 2015.
Malaysian GEM data had highlighted the fear of failure
amongst its potential entrepreneurs. GEM’s attitudinal
measures show that proactive Malaysian government
policies have played a role in reducing individuals’ fear of
failure, increasing perceived capabilities and increasing the
perception of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Malaysian
government has adopted a positive prose in its media
communications that highlights opportunities and gains
offered by entrepreneurship. The use of GEM global data
highlighting successful nations has been used as evidence.
Up to 2013, within the Asia Pacific and South Asia region,
Malaysia has the lowest fear of failure rate amongst those who
seek opportunities, with 33% against the regional average
of 41%. Malaysia is closely followed by China (34%) and
Indonesia (35%). Vietnam ranks highest at 57%. This has been
achieved via government training programmes, funding (soft
loans) linked to training and access to information for would-
be entrepreneurs. Today Malaysia’s World Bank ranking for
ease of doing business is 18
th
out of 189 economies.
GEM data on Malaysia has allowed for the distinction between
rural and urban entrepreneurship rates. This was highlighted
early and resulted in a greater emphasis on rural participation.
Today a positive trend is the closure of the gap between rural
Juan Pablo Martínez from Automatische Technik, the first Mexican
company to create industrial delta robots, its robotic applications are
mainly focused on packing, unpacking and repacking any type of
products into boxes.
FIGURE 4.3 CREATING INDUSTRIAL DELTA
ROBOTS
FIGURE 4.4 PROMOTING A SMALL BUSINESS
Young business entrepreneur Sara Safeeya promoting the Trifle
Treat business during the UNIRAZAK New Business Start Up
Day, August 22-24th, 2013. Trifle Treat was started by UNIRAZAK’s
undergraduate student Puteri Nur Atiqah in partnership with Sarah
Safeeya (girl in pink in picture).
72
CHAPTER 4
and urban new business owners in the period 2009-2014
(less than a 20% difference in start-up rates, down from 45%
three years ago). This six-year study reveals that for nascent
entrepreneurs the gaps has reduced considerably because
the government’s initiatives target rural sectors as much as
urban sectors. Many initiatives had been taken before the first
GEM research studies took place. Thus besides being used to
influence policy makers as described above, GEM is also used
to affirm steps and initiatives taken by government. It allows for
a focused and leveraged approach to resource utilisation that
has had the greatest impact in the shortest time.
The government has to put in place multi-policy interventions
with specific objectives that encourage forerunning
entrepreneurs whilst building on affirmative actions for the
less advantaged. As the President and Vice Chancellor of
UNIRAZAK, Prof. Datuk Seri Dr Md Zabid, has recommended,
“A nation needs to have an entrepreneurial ecosystem whilst
instilling in its citizens an entrepreneurial mindset”.
This GEM approach to greater sophistication in
entrepreneurial policy making has been expanded to include
ASEAN. This has been achieved through collaboration. A
successful example is due to the support of the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), which has used GEM as
a key instrument for developing regions in ASEAN. As Edgard
Rodriguez of IDRC outlines, “GEM helps decision makers
better understand the key bottlenecks constraining business
owners and opportunities for nurturing their potential”.
Influencing policy making by using GEM promotes better
understanding of Malaysian policymakers; not only regarding
what they should do, but also regarding evaluating whether
they are getting it right.
EXAMPLE 5: ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN SOUTH AFRICA:
GEM IMPACT ON POLICY
Mike Herrington, South Africa GEM Team leader, Faculty of
Commerce, University of Cape Town
South Africa has participated in GEM since 2001 and
at that time this was the only survey on early-stage
entrepreneurship in the country. With the advent of
democracy in 1994, entrepreneurship, SMME development
and job creation became a priority in South Africa as many
of its people, particularly African Blacks, were precluded
from the skilled job market and from starting their own
businesses other than in restricted areas. Unemployment in
the country was abnormally high at between 26% and 40%
depending upon the definitions used for employment. It
still remains at that level, especially amongst the youth, even
after 20 years and hence has become an urgent priority in
government policy making.
Numerous government agencies were started during this time
with the objective of promoting small business development.
Agencies such as the Small Enterprise Development Agency
(SEDA) and the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA)
were some of the many that were started. Initially their focus
was directed towards training, mentorship and to a small
extent financing but it was a “one size fits all” approach. In
2004 GEM, following suggestions of the South African Team,
recommended that early-stage entrepreneurial development
should be looked at in two different forms. One being
opportunity-driven and the other being necessity-driven
entrepreneurship and business development that has resulted
because the individual has no other choice and is unable to find
employment. These two types of entrepreneurship required
different interventions and GEM was instrumental in showing
this difference and helping these agencies, especially SEDA, to
change their approach so that they could focus their efforts on
a particular type of entrepreneur.
However, South Africa’s early-stage entrepreneurial activity
(TEA) is very low (6%-10%), especially when compared to
other developing countries such as those in South America.
Further studies showed that education plays a major role
in entrepreneurial activity in that the more educated the
person, the more likely that person is to start a business
and that the business continues to be sustainable. This
finding emphasised the need for training in South Africa,
particularly amongst the youth where unemployment
continues to increase year on year. Unfortunately, South
Africa’s educational system, according to the 2014/2015
Global Competitive Index report, is one of the worst in
the world with the level of math and sciences being rated
at 144
th
out of 144 countries. Over the years GEM has
highlighted a number of factors that contribute to hold back
SMME development these being:
? Education and training
? A restricted and inhibiting regulatory environment
? Onerous labour laws that prevent employers from firing
unproductive employees
? Limited IT coverage and the high cost of the internet
to name just a few. When one looks at the TEA rates of different
countries and compares these to the GDP per capita in the
country, a “line of best fit” shows that South Africa should have
a TEA rate in the region of 14%, which, if achieved, would go a
long way towards reducing unemployment and alleviating the
poverty experienced by much of its population.
South Africa’s poor rating of entrepreneurship was further
highlighted in 2012 when a number of other sub-Saharan
African countries (Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Angola, Ethiopia,
Malawi, Zambia, Namibia and Botswana) joined the GEM
Consortium. In all cases these countries had TEA rates three
and four times that of South Africa. It also allowed for other
comparisons, such as the level of potential and intentional
entrepreneurs, to be made which further highlighted the
poor state of entrepreneurial development in South Africa.
It is difficult to show categorically where GEM has directly
influenced policy making in South Africa except that over
the years GEM results are being quoted by businesses and
73
CHAPTER 4
government departments to a greater extent than when
GEM first started in 2001. The government recently initiated
a National Development Plan under the chairmanship of
the past Minister of Finance, Trevor Manuel. GEM has made
presentations to this committee on several occasions. In
2013 the government of one of the nine provinces in South
Africa approached GEM to complete a study for them
on entrepreneurship in their province. The results were
published in the 2013 South Africa GEM report.
GEM also highlighted the difference between formal and
informal businesses and the different interventions that
are needed for each category. Informal businesses like the
one illustrate below, play an important role in the South
African economy and are thought to contribute as much as
20% to the national GDP—so understanding them is of vital
importance.
FIGURE 4.5 RUNNING A SMALL SHOP IN
SOUTH AFRICA
A small informal Spaza shop in a South African township.
Copyright: GEM South Africa.
EXAMPLE 6: POLICY DAY AT GEM CANADA: THE
CANADIAN APPROACH TO ENGAGING POLICY MAKERS
AND ANALYSTS
Peter Josty, Leader, GEM Canada Team, Executive Director,
The Centre for Innovation Studies, Calgary, and Adam
Holbrook, Deputy Leader, GEM Canada Team, Associate
Director, Centre for Policy Research on Science and
Technology, Vancouver
Canada has a history of research partnerships that span
the country. A previous project, on which many of the
GEM Canada team members worked, was the Innovation
Systems Research Network (ISRN), a decade-long study
of innovation and innovation systems in Canada. This
project faced the problem of how to engage the project
funders, both federal and provincial, in a meaningful way
to provide value back to the funders and also to propose
the future commitment of funds to keep the project going.
The ISRN solution was to create a day, called “Policy Day”,
at each annual meeting where the funders were invited
and preliminary research findings from the project were
presented and discussed. The annual meeting usually
lasted two or three days. The first one or two days were
“Team Days”, where team issues were debated among team
members, and the final day was the ” Policy Day”, to which
the funders were invited.
GEM Canada is funded by a large consortium from across
the country. In 2013, for example, there were 14 funders,
covering the GEM Canada report plus GEM reports for
seven of the 10 provinces. Canada is a federation where
entrepreneurship is largely the responsibility of the ten
provincial governments rather than the federal government
of Canada. The provinces want regional and local data more
relevant to their policy makers. Canada is such a diverse and
geographically dispersed nation, that data for the country as
a whole is not necessarily actionable at the provincial level.
The economy varies widely across the country. For example,
some provinces are largely driven by natural resources,
particularly oil and gas (e.g. Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Newfoundland), while others are largely driven by
manufacturing (e.g. Ontario and Quebec). The GEM Canada
team is also very diverse, with currently 22 team members
from all 10 provinces.
When Canada re-entered GEM in 2013 we faced the question
of how to engage federal and provincial policy makers, who
were the major funders of the work, but spread out across
the country. We adopted the ISRN Policy Day model, and
held our first Policy Day in November 2013 (and the second
in November 2014). We chose Toronto as the location for
these two annual meetings, as it is the lowest cost location for
people travelling from across Canada.
The policy days were structured along these lines:
? The funders described who they were, what their areas of
responsibility were, and what expectations they had from
GEM Canada.
? Senior GEM Canada researchers made a series of short
presentations covering various aspects of GEM and the
latest GEM Canada and provincial data, and encouraged
interruptions and discussion.
? A keynote speaker was invited, usually a senior government
official from the government of Ontario, as well as the Vice
President of the main entrepreneurship focused university
in Toronto, Ryerson University.
74
CHAPTER 4
? Discussion and questions and answers about the data.
? Discussions of plans for the upcoming GEM cycle, and
preferences for optional modules.
? Presentation of the schedule of the report writing stage the
upcoming GEM cycle.
? All discussions were held under “Chatham House Rules”,
where no formal minutes were kept, and no attribution of
specific comments could be made to an individual.
? A formal feedback process was included asking all
the funders specific questions about how the day was
structured, and how it might be improved in future years.
People invited to the Policy Day meeting included all the
GEM Canada team members, representatives of all the
funders, students, and representatives of organizations who
were prospective future funders. Our experiences from the
Policy Day have been very positive. Most of the funders in
Canada are interested in GEM as it provides the evidence
for evidence-based policy making. As one of the major
funders commented, “GEM is the only game in town when
it comes to getting comparative metrics for entrepreneurial
performance”.
In terms of the challenges raised by this approach in Canada,
the main one is finding the funding necessary to carry it out.
The formal GEM Canada funding did not include funds for an
annual meeting, so we had to be creative (entrepreneurial?)
to make the meeting happen. We used a combination of
approaches:
? seeking extra funding from a major local university
? getting those team members able to find their own
resources to pay for at least part of the travel and
accommodation expenses
? using a central airport and a low cost airport hotel to
manage costs, and,
? (our favorite) instead of having a formal team dinner at a
restaurant using take-out pizza and beer (the favorite was
tandoori flavored pizza) at the hotel!
While this model may not apply to all GEM teams, or national
structures, the key element is the engagement of national/
provincial or state, and even local officials in discussions
with the GEM researchers of the policy implications of their
results. The other key element is the full participation of the
entire GEM Canada team: principals, associate researchers and
students—particularly the students. Participation in Policy
Day shows the students that their work has more than just
scholarly relevance and, not coincidentally, gives them “face
time” with senior policy managers from governments and
other institutions.
FIGURE 4.6 A POLICY DAY IN GEM TORONTO
A typical Policy Day underway in Toronto: participants are GEM team members, as many students as can be
accommodated, major funders, interested members of government and the private sector.
75
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Acs, Z.J. and J.E. Amorós (2008). “Entrepreneurship and
competitiveness dynamics in Latin America.” Small Business
Economics, 31(3), 305-322.
Álvarez, C., D. Urbano and J.E. Amorós (2014). “GEM research:
Achievements and challenges.” Small Business Economics,
42(3), 445-465.
Bosma, N. (2013). “The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) and Its Impact on Entrepreneurship Research.”
Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 143-248.
Bosma, N.S., Z. Acs, E. Autio, A. Coduras and J. Levie (2009).
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2008 Executive Report.
London Business School: London; Universidad del Desarrollo:
Santiago, and Babson College: Wellesley, MA.
Bosma, N., S. Wennekers, M. Guerrero, J.E. Amorós, A.
Martiarena and S. Singer (2013). GEM Special Report On
Entrepreneurial Employee Activity. Babson College: Wellesley,
MA; Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, and Universiti Tun
Abdul Razak: Kuala Lumpur.
Bravo-Biosca, A., C. Criscuolo and C. Menon (2013). “What
Drives the Dynamics of Business Growth?”, OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 1, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k486qtttq46-en
Drexler, M. and J.E. Amorós (2015). “Guest post: how Chile
and Colombia eluded the ‘entrepreneur trap’.” Financial
Times, January 8th. On line:http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-
brics/2015/01/08/guest-post-how-chile-and-colombia-
eluded-the-entrepreneur-trap/?
Gartner, W.B. and T. Baker (2010). “A plausible history and
exploration of Stevenson’s definition of entrepreneurship.”
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 30(4), Article 2.
Herrington, M. (2014). African Entrepreneurship. IDRC, GEM,
University of Cape Town: Cape Town. Available on line: http://
www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/3337
IDRC (2012). IDRC Article: Research to Policy: IDRC-supported
study informs policy debates on entrepreneurship in the
Caribbean. Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Programs/
Social_and_Economic_Policy/Supporting_Inclusive_Growth/
Pages/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=483
Isele, E. and E.G. Rogoff (2014). “Senior entrepreneurship: The
new normal.” Public Policy & Aging Report, 24(4), 141-147.
Kwon, S-W. and P. Arenius (2010). “Nations of entrepreneurs:
A social capital perspective.” Journal of Business Venturing,
25(3), 315-330.
Langford, C.H., P. Josty and J.A. Holbrook (2014). 2013 GEM
Canada National Report. The Centre for Innovation Studies
(THECIS): Calgary.
Lévesque, M. and M. Minniti (2006). “The effect of ageing on
entrepreneurial behavior.” Journal of Business Venturing, 21,
177-194.
Levie, J. and E. Autio (2008). “A theoretical grounding and
test of the GEM model.” Small Business Economics, 31(3),
235-263.
Melesse, M. and C. Foy (2014). IDRC: Africans want to do
business. Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/
Publications/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=1261
O’Neill, M. (2014). IDRC Insight Brief: Private sector development:
Aligning goals for economic growth and poverty reduction.
Available on line:http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Documents/PSD-
InSight-WEB-ENG.pdf
OECD-IDRC (2013). New Entrepreneurs and High Performance
Enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa. OECD: Paris.
Reynolds, P., M. Hayand and S.M. Camp (1999). Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, 1999 Executive Report, Paul
D. Reynolds, Michael Hay and Kauffman Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation.
Schøtt, T. (2013). Introduction to special issue: “Networks
Around Entrepreneurs in the Middle East and North Africa:
Composition, Causes and Consequences.” International Journal
of Business and Globalization, 11(4): 333-336.
Stam, E., N. Bosma, A. Van Witteloostuijn, J. De Jong, S.
Bogaert, N. Edwards and F. Jaspers, (2012). Ambitious
Entrepreneurship. A review of the academic literature and new
directions for public policy. AWT Report 41. AWT: The Hague.
UN (2014). The Road to Dignity by 2030: ending poverty,
transforming all lives and protecting the planet. Synthesis
report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable
development agenda. United Nations: New York. Available
on line:http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=A/69/700&Lang=E
Van Stel, A., M. Carree and R. Thurik (2005). “The effect of
entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth.” Small
Business Economics, 24(3), 311-321.
WEF-GEM (2015). Leveraging Entrepreneurial Ambition
and Innovation: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship,
Competitiveness and Development. World Economic Forum:
Geneva.http://www.weforum.org/reports/leveraging-
entrepreneurial-ambition-and-innovation-global-perspective-
entrepreneurship-compe
Wennekers, S., A. Van Stel, M. Carree and A.R. Thurik (2010).
“The relationship between entrepreneurship and economic
development: Is it U-shaped?” Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 167-237.
77
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 1

TABLE A.1 PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL VALUES REGARDING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE GEM
ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY STAGES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Stages of economic development and GEM economies
Entrepreneurship as
a good career choice
High status to successful
entrepreneurs
Media attention to
entrepreneurship
Stage 1: factor-driven
(includes countries in
transition to stage 2)
Angola 75.10 81.65 71.69
Bolivia 70.26 77.00 76.50
Botswana 69.94 78.11 74.55
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
India 57.93 66.16 56.62
Iran 52.26 75.61 55.09
Philippines 81.80 78.13 84.70
Uganda
Vietnam 67.15 75.92 86.83
Average (unweighted) 67.78 76.08 72.28
Stage 2: e?ciency-driven
(includes countries in
transition to stage 3)
Argentina 57.82 52.20 63.63
Barbados 57.61 58.50 46.30
Belize 57.80 55.46 43.25
Bosnia and Herzegovina 78.15 69.94 39.85
Brazil
Chile 69.43 64.43 65.21
China 65.68 72.91 69.28
Colombia 70.45 67.13 74.42
Costa Rica 61.33 59.00 79.70
Croatia 63.27 46.58 40.44
Ecuador 66.43 67.13 82.89
El Salvador 82.57 59.49 59.55
Georgia 65.99 75.92 58.45
Guatemala 95.33 76.92 60.61
Hungary 47.39 72.38 33.47
Indonesia 72.86 77.96 84.79
Jamaica 83.50 84.05 83.90
Kazakhstan 78.62 74.35 82.97
Kosovo 68.28 76.18 57.22
Lithuania 68.81 58.33 55.14
Malaysia 50.37 49.95 69.85
Mexico 53.22 50.76 45.48
Panama
Peru 82.43 81.38 83.62
Poland 63.28 56.45 54.52
Romania 73.64 75.22 71.34
Russia 67.12 65.93 50.43
South Africa 69.58 72.92 72.57
Suriname 66.75 67.18 80.66
Thailand 73.60 71.11 80.31
Uruguay 62.13 56.72 60.83
Average (unweighted) 68.05 66.09 63.82
78
APPENDIX 1
Stages of economic development and GEM economies
Entrepreneurship as
a good career choice
High status to successful
entrepreneurs
Media attention to
entrepreneurship
Stage 3: innovation–
driven
Australia 53.35 67.09 72.56
Austria
Belgium 52.41 51.73 50.82
Canada 57.25 69.72 67.73
Denmark
Estonia 55.56 64.93 43.34
Finland 41.24 84.40 66.93
France 59.05 70.43 38.98
Germany 51.66 79.10 51.41
Greece 58.42 66.42 45.80
Ireland 49.39 76.88 75.68
Italy 65.05 72.09 48.28
Japan 30.98 55.81 58.70
Luxembourg 40.66 68.18 43.54
Netherlands 79.11 67.77 55.66
Norway 58.16 83.47
Portugal 62.23 62.94 69.75
Puerto Rico 18.51 51.13 72.70
Qatar 75.83 87.06 76.75
Singapore 51.73 62.91 79.10
Slovakia 45.42 58.05 52.57
Slovenia 53.39 72.31 57.56
Spain 53.94 48.99 46.33
Sweden 51.58 70.90 60.30
Switzerland 42.30 65.81 50.43
Taiwan 75.22 62.57 83.50
Trinidad & Tobago 79.47 69.50 65.60
United Kingdom 60.30 74.99 58.36
United States 64.73 76.87 75.83
Average (unweighted) 55.07 68.22 60.32
79
APPENDIX 1
TABLE A.2 INDIVIDUAL ATTRIBUTES IN THE GEM ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY STAGES
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Stages of economic development and economies
Perceived
opportunities
Perceived
capabilities
Fear of
failure*
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
Stage 1: factor-driven (includes
countries in transition to stage 2)
Angola 69.75 61.68 44.81 39.34
Bolivia 57.67 73.11 38.39 46.94
Botswana 57.16 67.14 13.70 63.37
Burkina Faso 63.61 65.89 23.75 42.34
Cameroon 69.34 73.77 22.80 55.57
India 38.91 36.70 37.67 7.66
Iran 27.68 59.45 32.70 25.48
Philippines 45.89 66.15 37.68 42.84
Uganda 76.91 84.86 12.55 60.19
Vietnam 39.36 58.20 50.13 18.20
Average (unweighted) 54.63 64.70 31.42 40.19
Stage 2: e?ciency-driven
(includes countries in transition
to stage 3)
Argentina 31.91 57.78 23.54 27.83
Barbados 38.16 63.51 23.44 11.48
Belize 49.55 69.00 32.63 10.09
Bosnia and Herzegovina 19.59 47.30 26.80 20.43
Brazil 55.54 49.96 35.56 24.50
Chile 67.00 64.87 28.39 50.14
China 31.88 32.97 39.50 19.33
Colombia 65.74 57.41 30.70 47.01
Costa Rica 39.00 59.39 36.83 28.95
Croatia 18.43 45.91 30.30 19.50
Ecuador 62.02 72.81 30.67 43.10
El Salvador 44.69 70.81 34.90 23.06
Georgia 36.58 37.54 34.78 15.58
Guatemala 45.38 64.17 33.03 35.79
Hungary 23.40 40.94 41.96 13.89
Indonesia 45.46 60.20 38.12 27.36
Jamaica 57.05 81.23 22.04 35.33
Kazakhstan 26.50 52.54 23.83 15.41
Kosovo 65.62 65.20 26.73 6.31
Lithuania 31.66 33.44 44.77 19.65
Malaysia 43.40 38.40 26.75 11.63
Mexico 48.87 53.48 29.61 17.40
Panama 43.26 54.38 14.63 19.67
Peru 62.31 69.42 29.11 50.60
Poland 31.35 54.30 51.11 15.56
Romania 32.41 48.44 41.25 31.70
Russia 26.50 27.83 39.49 3.53
South Africa 37.00 37.65 25.37 10.05
Suriname 41.03 77.36 16.10 4.55
Thailand 47.35 50.12 42.44 21.75
Uruguay 45.56 63.12 26.71 24.82
Average (unweighted) 42.39 54.89 31.65 22.77
80
APPENDIX 1
Stages of economic development and economies
Perceived
opportunities
Perceived
capabilities
Fear of
failure*
Entrepreneurial
intentions **
Stage 3: innovation–driven
Australia 45.72 46.80 39.21 10.02
Austria 44.40 48.67 34.92 8.15
Belgium 35.93 30.40 49.35 10.55
Canada 55.52 48.98 36.52 11.96
Denmark 59.66 34.88 40.99 6.92
Estonia 49.44 42.47 41.77 9.85
Finland 42.38 34.88 36.76 7.94
France 28.26 35.44 41.18 14.20
Germany 37.59 36.40 39.95 5.93
Greece 19.91 45.54 61.58 9.53
Ireland 33.36 47.24 39.33 7.16
Italy 26.57 31.31 49.10 11.40
Japan 7.27 12.23 54.51 2.52
Luxembourg 42.54 37.56 42.01 11.86
Netherlands 45.55 44.26 34.79 9.29
Norway 63.45 30.54 37.56 4.99
Portugal 22.87 46.59 38.38 15.81
Puerto Rico 25.08 48.84 24.01 12.45
Qatar 63.38 60.94 25.54 50.36
Singapore 16.71 21.35 39.40 9.44
Slovakia 23.50 54.40 35.96 15.14
Slovenia 17.25 48.60 29.00 11.36
Spain 22.61 48.13 38.03 7.09
Sweden 70.07 36.65 36.53 8.47
Switzerland 43.67 41.59 28.98 7.07
Taiwan 33.47 29.00 37.39 25.56
Trinidad & Tobago 58.62 75.23 16.79 33.91
United Kingdom 40.99 46.44 36.84 6.88
United States 50.85 53.34 29.66 12.08
Average (unweighted) 38.85 42.02 37.79 12.34
* Denominator: age group 18-64 perceiving good opportunities to start a business
** Respondent expects to start a business within three years; denominator: age group 18-64 that is currently not involved in entrepreneurial
activity
81
APPENDIX 1
TABLE A.3 TOTAL EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY (TEA) IN THE GEM ECONOMIES
IN 2014, BY STAGES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Stages of economic development and
economies
Nascent
entrepreneur-
ship rate
New business
ownership
rate
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business
ownership
rate
Discontinuation
of businesses
Stage 1:
factor-driven
(includes
countries in
transition to
stage 2)
Angola 9.52 12.36 21.50 6.50 15.12
Bolivia 21.51 7.07 27.40 7.59 6.89
Botswana 23.13 11.13 32.79 4.95 15.09
Burkina Faso 12.72 9.75 21.71 17.68 10.80
Cameroon 26.35 13.70 37.37 11.50 17.70
India 4.12 2.54 6.60 3.73 1.17
Iran 7.52 8.68 16.02 10.92 5.73
Philippines 8.16 10.52 18.38 6.16 12.55
Uganda 8.92 28.13 35.53 35.94 21.17
Vietnam 2.00 13.30 15.30 22.15 3.55
Average (unweighted) 12.40 11.72 23.26 12.71 10.98
Stage 2:
e?ciency-
driven
(includes
countries in
transition to
stage 3)
Argentina 9.47 5.21 14.41 9.09 4.92
Barbados 8.48 4.23 12.71 7.09 3.68
Belize 4.25 3.02 7.14 3.74 4.69
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.48 2.94 7.42 6.67 4.47
Brazil 3.66 13.79 17.23 17.51 4.14
Chile 16.61 11.05 26.83 8.79 8.32
China 5.45 10.17 15.53 11.59 1.45
Colombia 12.39 6.66 18.55 4.86 5.65
Costa Rica 7.58 3.74 11.33 2.53 4.86
Croatia 5.95 2.02 7.97 3.61 3.84
Ecuador 24.54 9.92 32.61 17.67 8.13
El Salvador 11.37 8.74 19.48 12.73 10.77
Georgia 4.10 3.23 7.22 7.28 2.50
Guatemala 11.98 9.19 20.39 7.36 4.43
Hungary 5.56 3.87 9.33 7.95 3.10
Indonesia 4.38 10.12 14.20 11.90 4.18
Jamaica 7.94 11.90 19.27 14.44 6.27
Kazakhstan 8.10 6.19 13.72 7.43 2.95
Kosovo 2.46 1.79 4.03 2.06 6.63
Lithuania 6.07 5.34 11.32 7.84 2.91
Malaysia 1.36 4.55 5.91 8.46 2.01
Mexico 12.66 6.39 18.99 4.48 5.56
Panama 13.12 4.09 17.06 3.44 4.47
Peru 23.10 7.32 28.81 9.24 8.03
Poland 5.77 3.58 9.21 7.30 4.17
Romania 5.33 6.17 11.35 7.60 3.19
Russia 2.39 2.35 4.69 3.95 1.18
South Africa 3.87 3.20 6.97 2.68 3.89
Suriname 1.93 0.17 2.10 5.17 0.21
Thailand 7.63 16.73 23.30 33.06 4.16
Uruguay 10.51 5.75 16.08 6.74 4.39
Average (unweighted) 8.15 6.24 14.04 8.52 4.49
82
APPENDIX 1
Stages of economic development and
economies
Nascent
entrepreneur-
ship rate
New business
ownership
rate
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Established
business
ownership
rate
Discontinuation
of businesses
Stage 3:
innovation–
driven
Australia 7.65 5.69 13.14 9.80 3.88
Austria 5.80 3.06 8.71 9.86 2.72
Belgium 2.93 2.55 5.40 3.54 2.27
Canada 7.93 5.61 13.04 9.35 4.16
Denmark 3.07 2.49 5.47 5.09 2.24
Estonia 6.34 3.54 9.43 5.70 2.02
Finland 3.45 2.29 5.63 6.60 2.32
France 3.69 1.71 5.34 2.94 1.75
Germany 3.05 2.25 5.27 5.15 1.67
Greece 4.58 3.37 7.85 12.84 2.83
Ireland 4.36 2.46 6.53 9.91 1.89
Italy 3.18 1.28 4.42 4.27 2.13
Japan 2.71 1.26 3.83 7.18 1.08
Luxembourg 4.94 2.33 7.14 3.70 2.58
Netherlands 5.15 4.53 9.46 9.59 1.76
Norway 2.75 2.95 5.65 5.35 1.85
Portugal 5.83 4.40 9.97 7.58 2.98
Puerto Rico 8.80 1.29 10.04 1.27 3.61
Qatar 11.32 5.39 16.38 3.54 4.84
Singapore 6.36 4.82 10.96 2.88 2.39
Slovakia 6.70 4.35 10.90 7.80 5.16
Slovenia 3.78 2.66 6.33 4.76 1.48
Spain 3.33 2.21 5.47 7.03 1.91
Sweden 4.86 1.90 6.71 6.46 2.09
Switzerland 3.38 3.81 7.12 9.10 1.50
Taiwan 4.41 4.13 8.49 12.19 5.12
Trinidad & Tobago 7.47 7.44 14.62 8.48 2.79
United Kingdom 6.28 4.48 10.66 6.50 1.86
United States 9.67 4.25 13.81 6.95 4.02
Average (unweighted) 5.30 3.40 8.54 6.74 2.65
83
APPENDIX 1
TABLE A.4 MOTIVATION FOR EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY IN THE GEM
ECONOMIES IN 2014, BY STAGES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (% OF POPULATION AGED 18-64)
Stages of development and economies
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Necessity-
driven (%
of TEA)
Opportunity-
driven (% of
TEA)
Improvement-
driven
opportunity (%
of TEA)
Motivational
index
Stage 1:
factor-driven
(includes
countries in
transition to
stage 2)
Angola 21.50 24.45 72.14 43.41 1.78
Bolivia 27.40 22.84 76.66 51.70 2.26
Botswana 32.79 30.25 67.21 54.71 1.81
Burkina Faso 21.71 22.27 75.25 52.84 2.37
Cameroon 37.37 33.46 59.23 40.51 1.21
India 6.60 31.71 59.97 36.54 1.15
Iran 16.02 38.69 60.56 49.58 1.28
Philippines 18.38 29.36 70.53 33.49 1.14
Uganda 35.53 18.88 80.84 54.25 2.87
Vietnam 15.30 29.74 70.26 53.27 1.79
Average (unweighted) 23.26 28.16 69.27 47.03 1.67
Stage 2:
e?ciency-
driven
(includes
countries in
transition to
stage 3)
Argentina 14.41 28.03 67.77 43.51 1.55
Barbados 12.71 14.56 73.83 53.13 3.65
Belize 7.14 13.07 82.94 47.61 3.64
Bosnia and Herzegovina 7.42 50.83 48.45 25.16 0.49
Brazil 17.23 28.95 70.60 57.81 2.00
Chile 26.83 17.63 80.99 62.18 3.53
China 15.53 33.22 65.72 45.41 1.37
Colombia 18.55 33.33 66.04 51.55 1.55
Costa Rica 11.33 19.31 79.40 63.52 3.29
Croatia 7.97 46.57 51.29 28.67 0.62
Ecuador 32.61 29.43 70.07 34.95 1.19
El Salvador 19.48 31.95 67.82 54.48 1.71
Georgia 7.22 48.59 50.57 30.95 0.64
Guatemala 20.39 40.62 59.16 38.93 0.96
Hungary 9.33 33.19 64.72 36.27 1.09
Indonesia 14.20 20.52 78.57 37.95 1.85
Jamaica 19.27 32.09 65.57 33.51 1.04
Kazakhstan 13.72 26.39 69.10 33.68 1.28
Kosovo 4.03 22.01 59.90 29.13 1.32
Lithuania 11.32 19.61 79.56 43.78 2.23
Malaysia 5.91 17.54 82.46 63.99 3.65
Mexico 18.99 22.46 76.26 50.04 2.23
Panama 17.06 26.32 73.10 60.23 2.29
Peru 28.81 16.39 82.53 58.90 3.59
Poland 9.21 36.75 59.17 47.11 1.28
Romania 11.35 28.94 70.14 49.75 1.72
Russia 4.69 39.02 58.70 41.56 1.07
South Africa 6.97 28.19 71.27 35.49 1.26
Suriname 2.10 5.42 73.16 39.83 7.34
Thailand 23.30 17.81 80.94 71.23 4.00
Uruguay 16.08 15.96 82.36 27.28 1.71
Average (unweighted) 14.04 27.25 69.75 45.08 1.65
84
APPENDIX 1
Stages of development and economies
Early-stage
entrepreneurial
activity (TEA)
Necessity-
driven (%
of TEA)
Opportunity-
driven (% of
TEA)
Improvement-
driven
opportunity (%
of TEA)
Motivational
index
Stage 3:
innovation
driven
Australia 13.14 17.60 81.50 63.78 3.62
Austria 8.71 10.95 81.69 37.37 3.41
Belgium 5.40 30.67 63.19 43.12 1.41
Canada 13.04 15.67 76.34 63.34 4.04
Denmark 5.47 5.43 91.06 60.15 11.09
Estonia 9.43 15.10 74.48 41.15 2.72
Finland 5.63 15.62 81.06 63.12 4.04
France 5.34 16.06 82.00 69.15 4.31
Germany 5.27 23.18 75.75 53.74 2.32
Greece 7.85 34.77 61.47 30.53 0.88
Ireland 6.53 29.65 68.35 48.56 1.64
Italy 4.42 13.59 78.41 38.58 2.84
Japan 3.83 18.82 76.15 68.24 3.63
Luxembourg 7.14 11.81 85.37 59.81 5.06
Netherlands 9.46 15.67 80.41 62.77 4.01
Norway 5.65 3.54 86.73 69.03 19.50
Portugal 9.97 27.37 71.33 49.31 1.80
Puerto Rico 10.04 20.50 79.05 51.08 2.49
Qatar 16.38 21.53 77.13 54.37 2.53
Singapore 10.96 11.40 84.28 70.81 6.21
Slovakia 10.90 32.57 64.22 51.83 1.59
Slovenia 6.33 25.46 71.40 44.78 1.76
Spain 5.47 29.79 66.05 33.48 1.12
Sweden 6.71 7.91 84.16 56.16 7.10
Switzerland 7.12 14.35 74.88 58.14 4.05
Taiwan 8.49 13.26 86.74 66.04 4.98
Trinidad & Tobago 14.62 12.01 86.45 64.26 5.35
United Kingdom 10.66 12.90 83.57 52.71 4.09
United States 13.81 13.50 81.53 66.93 4.96
Average (unweighted) 8.54 17.96 77.75 54.91 3.06
85
APPENDIX 1
TABLE A.5 GENDER DISTRIBUTION OF EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURS (TEA)
& NECESSITY VS OPPORTUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION, 2014
Regions and GEM economies
MALE
TEA (% of
adult male
population)
FEMALE
TEA (% of
adult female
population)
MALE TEA
Opportunity
(% of TEA
males)
FEMALE TEA
Opportunity
(% of TEA
females)
MALE TEA
Necessity
(% of TEA
males)
FEMALE
TEA
Necessity
(% of TEA
females)
Africa
Angola 22.79 20.37 73.91 70.39 21.77 27.09
Botswana 34.79 30.93 72.22 61.96 24.52 36.25
Burkina Faso 25.39 18.71 84.73 64.72 12.65 32.94
Cameroon 40.94 34.10 65.53 52.29 27.63 39.89
South Africa 7.72 6.29 71.38 71.16 28.62 27.70
Uganda 33.73 37.15 84.55 77.82 15.20 21.89
Average (unweighted) 27.56 24.59 75.39 66.39 21.73 30.96
Asia &
Oceania
Australia 15.97 10.32 81.86 80.93 18.14 16.77
China 16.83 14.18 69.58 60.95 29.39 37.95
India 8.52 4.58 56.51 66.70 33.04 29.13
Indonesia 13.23 15.16 80.56 76.85 18.28 22.45
Iran 21.45 10.47 59.38 63.04 39.77 36.43
Japan 6.12 1.50 76.41 75.06 17.34 24.94
Kazakhstan 14.34 13.17 71.13 67.12 26.06 26.71
Malaysia 5.10 6.78 86.16 79.47 13.84 20.53
Philippines 15.85 20.78 83.93 60.78 15.79 39.22
Qatar 19.29 10.32 75.50 83.43 23.02 15.75
Singapore 14.83 7.17 85.53 81.76 11.38 11.44
Taiwan 10.15 6.83 87.84 85.10 12.16 14.90
Thailand 24.53 22.12 81.53 80.31 17.12 18.56
Vietnam 15.13 15.47 71.14 69.43 28.86 30.57
Average (unweighted) 14.38 11.35 76.22 73.64 21.73 24.67
Latin
America &
Caribbean
Argentina 17.84 11.22 73.88 58.76 22.00 36.93
Barbados 14.33 11.23 74.40 73.15 12.74 16.69
Belize 7.81 6.45 83.94 81.70 11.14 15.46
Bolivia 29.89 24.98 81.05 71.59 18.80 27.51
Brazil 17.01 17.45 78.88 62.71 21.06 36.47
Chile 30.10 23.68 88.64 71.65 9.89 27.08
Colombia 22.78 14.57 70.55 59.42 28.91 39.83
Costa Rica 11.66 11.02 84.35 74.58 13.04 25.42
Ecuador 33.04 32.18 73.33 66.78 26.33 32.55
El Salvador 19.26 19.69 69.39 66.44 30.61 33.13
Guatemala 24.43 16.85 61.85 55.74 37.75 44.26
Jamaica 21.26 17.34 70.31 59.94 26.10 39.21
Mexico 19.74 18.31 78.74 73.80 20.26 24.64
Panama 17.98 16.14 75.56 70.37 23.89 29.01
Peru 29.65 28.00 86.07 78.90 12.63 20.24
Puerto Rico 11.13 9.05 79.64 78.39 19.51 21.61
Suriname 2.67 1.54 79.77 61.68 3.90 8.06
Trinidad & Tobago 16.08 13.16 87.08 85.69 10.77 13.52
Uruguay 19.17 13.23 86.45 76.91 11.29 22.20
Average (unweighted) 19.25 16.11 78.10 69.90 18.98 27.04
86
APPENDIX 1
Regions and GEM economies
MALE
TEA (% of
adult male
population)
FEMALE
TEA (% of
adult female
population)
MALE TEA
Opportunity
(% of TEA
males)
FEMALE TEA
Opportunity
(% of TEA
females)
MALE TEA
Necessity
(% of TEA
males)
FEMALE
TEA
Necessity
(% of TEA
females)
European
Union
Austria 10.38 7.06 82.48 80.54 11.31 10.43
Belgium 7.65 3.14 66.41 55.29 29.38 33.83
Croatia 11.28 4.75 52.11 49.38 46.27 47.24
Denmark 7.12 3.79 91.72 89.81 5.64 5.02
Estonia 11.21 7.71 75.89 72.50 13.39 17.50
Finland 6.63 4.63 82.55 78.90 14.54 17.20
France 6.68 4.03 87.25 73.50 11.42 23.57
Germany 6.54 3.97 77.58 72.67 20.99 26.88
Greece 9.89 5.81 67.13 51.82 30.01 42.90
Hungary 13.48 5.29 67.73 57.25 29.34 42.75
Ireland 8.87 4.23 73.12 58.47 26.01 37.20
Italy 5.71 3.15 75.72 83.21 16.38 8.62
Lithuania 16.19 6.78 82.81 72.31 16.59 26.35
Luxembourg 8.89 5.32 85.87 84.49 11.97 11.55
Netherlands 11.62 7.27 79.69 81.58 16.61 14.15
Poland 12.50 5.95 59.33 58.82 36.09 38.14
Portugal 11.68 8.36 74.69 66.92 23.95 31.89
Romania 16.02 6.57 70.40 69.94 28.30 30.06
Slovakia 14.37 7.41 64.58 63.51 31.94 33.78
Slovenia 8.29 4.25 76.21 61.48 22.62 31.31
Spain 6.36 4.57 69.61 61.03 26.13 34.95
Sweden 9.54 3.79 85.62 80.35 6.61 11.30
United Kingdom 13.82 7.53 83.24 84.17 14.91 9.27
Average (unweighted) 10.21 5.45 75.29 69.91 21.32 25.47
Non-
European
Union
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
10.60 4.25 52.45 38.51 47.55 58.98
Georgia 8.05 6.47 54.39 46.33 45.61 51.90
Kosovo 4.78 3.30 65.45 51.94 23.00 20.60
Norway 7.29 4.00 89.04 82.50 0.00 10.00
Russia 5.77 3.70 60.37 56.34 37.66 40.93
Switzerland 7.03 7.20 79.85 69.93 10.97 17.72
Average (unweighted) 7.25 4.82 66.93 57.59 27.46 33.35
North
America
Canada 16.23 9.93 80.12 70.35 13.17 19.62
United States 16.53 11.20 83.85 78.24 11.70 16.04
Average (unweighted) 16.38 10.56 81.98 74.29 12.44 17.83
87
APPENDIX 1
TABLE A.6 JOB GROWTH EXPECTATIONS OF EARLY-STAGE ENTREPRENEURS, BY GEOGRAPHIC
REGIONS, 2014
Region
0 - 5 jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
6 - 19 jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
20 or more jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
Africa
Angola 19.9745 19.0553 4.6167
Botswana 51.5733 22.6880 13.2531
Burkina Faso 78.1843 14.8016 4.8959
Cameroon 51.6667 13.2051 6.4103
South Africa 59.5562 15.8585 11.8989
Uganda 89.4537 8.3985 2.1478
Total 60.9558 15.2563 6.7452
Asia & Oceania
Australia 62.3103 17.3700 11.6336
China 57.5163 17.7623 6.5211
India 50.7525 6.1843 3.6226
Indonesia 46.5040 4.6515 1.2209
Iran 61.7290 16.5539 12.5526
Japan 48.9703 15.4563 17.6446
Kazakhstan 27.4306 16.3194 14.9306
Malaysia 88.6119 11.3881 0.0000
Philippines 88.2003 5.5894 1.7460
Qatar 49.2733 21.5295 23.0624
Singapore 41.7300 23.1652 19.3656
Taiwan 32.5510 26.6817 27.2589
Thailand 80.1591 7.7485 1.1379
Vietnam 82.0261 12.4183 4.2484
Total 58.2713 13.7151 9.4793
Latin America & Caribbean
Argentina 57.5868 16.9587 8.8884
Barbados 42.0738 9.7559 3.8324
Belize 48.7125 16.4751 4.6934
Bolivia 71.0153 14.0964 6.2997
Brazil 76.4712 8.7371 2.3236
Chile 44.7210 27.2629 15.9513
Colombia 33.0785 33.8740 28.1126
Costa Rica 72.1030 10.7296 7.7253
Ecuador 75.2508 7.3579 2.6756
El Salvador 59.3225 5.9044 .7613
Guatemala 33.2627 5.4477 2.2893
Jamaica 63.3394 8.8170 2.3490
Mexico 49.2371 11.8219 1.4823
Panama 82.4561 4.3860 2.6316
Peru 70.1012 7.8437 3.4453
Puerto Rico 76.8487 7.6190 1.7231
Suriname 69.8612 5.0795 2.4765
Trinidad & Tobago 53.2118 21.5812 11.3313
Uruguay 46.7984 20.8839 15.7216
Total 59.7557 14.3669 7.4869
88
APPENDIX 1
Region
0 - 5 jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
6 - 19 jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
20 or more jobs
(% Job growth as
percent of TEA)
European Union
Austria 58.2940 9.4975 5.3409
Belgium 77.5859 8.0121 8.8663
Croatia 25.1117 25.7157 14.7890
Denmark 66.3637 16.2707 5.5667
Estonia 58.8542 15.6250 6.7708
Finland 78.3699 4.1054 11.5933
France 56.5491 16.8722 13.9415
Germany 62.7588 14.6094 12.8213
Greece 55.5904 8.7935 3.2269
Hungary 47.7861 22.0618 19.2562
Ireland 56.2786 22.1330 12.0431
Italy 64.7345 8.8834 5.2772
Lithuania 42.5624 22.0987 12.2205
Luxembourg 44.8832 24.1776 4.3688
Netherlands 66.6019 12.7951 6.7042
Poland 47.8570 14.2982 13.3528
Portugal 41.6339 14.2402 8.7855
Romania 31.0804 26.6710 20.4987
Slovakia 40.3670 16.5138 17.8899
Slovenia 51.2287 15.5578 13.0175
Spain 58.9647 14.8983 4.3886
Sweden 63.3664 9.5433 11.9819
United Kingdom 54.8526 12.2802 11.7354
Total 54.2885 15.5197 9.2522
Non-European Union
Bosnia and Herzegovina 53.3516 23.1429 9.7347
Georgia 43.3364 15.0020 6.6400
Kosovo 18.2147 17.4221 1.3904
Norway 75.2212 9.7345 5.3097
Russia 41.7038 14.1938 9.7918
Switzerland 67.0138 15.4065 4.8990
Total 52.6207 16.1384 6.6334
North America
Canada 52.5910 17.3058 14.0210
United States 48.5136 18.3282 20.9520
Total 50.1598 17.9154 18.1538
91
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 2

CHARACTERISTICS OF GEM APS SURVEYS, IN 2014
Team Interview procedure Sample size
Argentina Fixed Line Telephone 2500
Australia Mobile Telephone 2177
Austria Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 4586
Barbados Face-to-face and Fixed Line Telephone 2000
Belgium Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2004
Belize Face-to-face Interviews 2084
Bosnia-Herzegovina Fixed Line Telephone 2590
Bolivia Face-to-face Interviews 2015
Botswana Face-to-face Interviews 2156
Brazil Face-to-face Interviews 10000
Burkina Faso Face-to-face Interviews 2850
Cameroon Face-to-face Interviews 2087
Canada Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2479
Chile Face-to-face and Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 6212
China Face-to-face Interviews 3647
Colombia Face-to-face and Fixed Line Telephone 3691
Costa Rica Face-to-face Interviews 2057
Croatia Fixed Line Telephone 2000
Denmark Mobile Telephone 2008
Ecuador Face-to-face Interviews 2040
El Salvador Face-to-face Interviews 2014
Estonia Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2357
Finland Mobile Telephone 2005
France Fixed Line Telephone 2005
Georgia Face-to-face Interviews 2016
Germany Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 4311
Greece Fixed Line Telephone 2000
Guatemala Face-to-face Interviews 2158
Hungary Mobile Telephone 2003
India Face-to-face Interviews 3360
Indonesia Face-to-face Interviews 5520
Iran Face-to-face Interviews 3352
Ireland Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2000
Italy Fixed Line Telephone 2000
Jamaica Face-to-face Interviews 2637
Japan Fixed Line Telephone 2006
92
APPENDIX 2
Team Interview procedure Sample size
Kazakhstan Face-to-face Interviews 2099
Kuwait Mobile Telephone 2000
Lithuania Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2000
Luxembourg Fixed Line Telephone and Online 2074
Malaysia Face-to-face Interviews 2000
Mexico Face-to-face Interviews 2587
Netherlands Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2260
Norway Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2000
Panama Face-to-face Interviews 2005
Peru Face-to-face Interviews 2078
Philippines Face-to-face Interviews 2000
Poland Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2001
Portugal Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2005
Puerto Rico Face-to-face Interviews 2000
Qatar Mobile Telephone 4272
Romania Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2001
Russia Face-to-face Interviews 2001
Singapore Fixed Line Telephone 2006
Slovakia Mobile Telephone 2000
Slovenia Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2004
South Africa Face-to-face Interviews 3789
Spain Fixed Line Telephone 25000
Suriname Face-to-face Interviews 2200
Sweden Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone and Online 2508
Switzerland Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2426
Taiwan Fixed Line Telephone 2000
Thailand Face-to-face and Fixed Line Telephone 2059
Trinidad & Tobago Face-to-face Interviews 2004
Uganda Face-to-face Interviews 2112
United Kingdom Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 2007
United States Fixed Line and Mobile Telephone 3273
Uruguay Fixed Line Telephone 2006
Vietnam Face-to-face Interviews 2000
93
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
A
n
g
o
l
a
S
o
c
i
e
d
a
d
e

P
o
r
t
u
g
u
e
s
a

d
e

I
n
o
v
a
ç
ã
o

(
S
P
I
)
A
u
g
u
s
t
o

M
e
d
i
n
a
B
F
A
—
B
a
n
c
o

d
e

F
o
m
e
n
t
o

A
n
g
o
l
a
,

S
.
A
.
R
.
L
.
S
I
N
F
I
C
,

S
i
s
t
e
m
a
s

d
e

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
ç
ã
o

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
i
s
,

S
.
A
.
a
u
g
u
s
t
o
m
e
d
i
n
a
@
s
p
i
.
p
t

D
o
u
g
l
a
s

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)

N
u
n
o

G
o
n
ç
a
l
v
e
s

C
e
n
t
r
o

d
e

E
s
t
u
d
o
s

e

I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
ç
ã
o

C
i
e
n
t
í
?
c
a

(
C
E
I
C
)

o
f

t
h
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

C
a
t
ó
l
i
c
a

d
e

A
n
g
o
l
a

(
U
C
A
N
)
M
a
n
u
e
l

A
l
v
e
s

d
a

R
o
c
h
a

S
a
l
i
m

A
b
d
u
l

V
a
l
i
m
a
m
a
d
e

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
I
A
E

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
S
i
l
v
i
a

T
o
r
r
e
s

C
a
r
b
o
n
e
l
l
B
u
e
n
o
s

A
i
r
e
s

C
i
t
y

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
—
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y
M
O
R
I

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
S
C
a
r
b
o
n
e
l
l
@
i
a
e
.
e
d
u
.
a
r
A
r
a
n
z
a
z
u

E
c
h
e
z
a
r
r
e
t
a

J
u
a
n

M
a
r
t
i
n

R
o
d
r
i
g
u
e
z

A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
Q
u
e
e
n
s
l
a
n
d

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
P
a
u
l

S
t
e
?
e
n
s
Q
U
T

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
Q
&
A

M
a
r
k
e
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

P
t
y

L
t
d
p
.
s
t
e
?
e
n
s
@
q
u
t
.
e
d
u
.
a
u

P
e
r

D
a
v
i
d
s
s
o
n
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
F
H

J
o
a
n
n
e
u
m

G
m
b
H
—
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
T
h
o
m
a
s

S
c
h
m
a
l
z
e
r
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
y
O
G
M
T
h
o
m
a
s
.
S
c
h
m
a
l
z
e
r
@
f
h
-
j
o
a
n
n
e
u
m
.
a
t
R
e
n
e

W
e
n
z
e
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
,

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
V
i
t
o

B
o
b
e
k
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

F
i
n
a
n
c
e
L
i
s
a

M
a
h
a
j
a
n
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

U
p
p
e
r

A
u
s
t
r
i
a
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
n

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
S
t
y
r
i
a
n

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

f
o
r

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
n
d

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
u
s
t
r
i
a
n

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
J
o
a
n
n
e
u
m

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
F
H

J
O
A
N
N
E
U
M
—
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
T
h
e

C
a
v
e

H
i
l
l

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

T
h
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

I
n
d
i
e
s
M
a
r
j
o
r
i
e

W
h
a
r
t
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
S
y
s
t
e
m
s

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

L
t
d
m
a
r
j
o
r
i
e
.
w
h
a
r
t
o
n
@
c
a
v
e
h
i
l
l
.
u
w
i
.
e
d
u
G
E
M

N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

T
E
A
M
S

2
0
1
4
94
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
D
o
n
l
e
y

C
a
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
i
r
s
t

C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s

B
a
n
k

L
t
d
J
e
a
n
n
i
n
e

C
o
m
m
a
J
a
s
o
n

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

C
a
m
a
r
a

L
e
e

B
e
l
g
i
u
m
V
l
e
r
i
c
k

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
H
a
n
s

C
r
i
j
n
s
S
T
O
R
E

(
F
l
e
m
i
s
h

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

O
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

a
n
d

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

E
c
o
n
o
m
y
)
T
N
S

D
i
m
a
r
s
o
t
i
n
e
.
h
o
l
v
o
e
t
@
v
l
e
r
i
c
k
.
c
o
m
N
i
e
l
s

B
o
s
m
a
n
i
e
l
s
.
b
o
s
m
a
@
v
l
e
r
i
c
k
.
c
o
m

T
i
n
e

H
o
l
v
o
e
t
E
W
I

(
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
y
,

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
)

B
e
l
i
z
e
T
h
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
m
p
a
r
o

M
a
s
s
o
n
C
o
m
p
e
t
e

C
a
r
i
b
b
e
a
n

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

B
e
l
i
z
e
S
a
c
o
d
a

S
e
r
v

L
t
d
a
m
p
a
r
o
.
m
a
s
s
o
n
@
o
p
m
.
g
o
v
.
b
z
M
e
l
a
n
i
e

G
i
d
e
o
n
Y
a
s
h
i
n

D
u
j
o
n
D
u
a
n
e

B
e
l
i
s
l
e
K
i
m

A
i
k
m
a
n
D
a
l
e

Y
o
u
n
g
J
e
f
t
e

O
c
h
a
e
t
a
P
h
i
l
i
p

J
.

C
a
s
t
i
l
l
o
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
,

B
o
l
i
v
i
a
n

C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
V
e
r
o
n
i
c
a

Q
u
e
r
e
j
a
z
u
I
n
t
e
r
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

B
a
n
k

(
I
D
B
)
E
n
c
u
e
s
t
a
s

&

E
s
t
u
d
i
o
s
v
q
u
e
r
e
j
a
z
u
@
m
p
d
.
u
c
b
.
e
d
u
.
b
o
D
a
v
i
d

Z
a
v
a
l
e
t
a
G
o
n
z
a
l
o

C
h
a
v
e
z
D
i
e
g
o

V
e
l
a
r
d
e
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
o

F
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
J
o
s
e

P
e
r
e
s
C
l
a
u
d
i
a

A
r
c
e
M
a
r
i
a

E
u
g
e
n
i
a

Q
u
i
r
o
g
a
L
o
u
r
d
e
s

Q
u
i
s
p
e
95
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
B
o
s
n
i
a

a
n
d

H
e
r
z
e
g
o
v
i
n
a
C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

T
u
z
l
a

(
i
n

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p

w
i
t
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
u
z
l
a
)
B
a
h
r
i
j
a

U
m
i
h
a
n
i
?
C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

T
u
z
l
a
I
P
S
O
S

d
.
o
.
o
.

S
a
r
a
j
e
v
o
o
f
c
e
@
c
e
r
p
o
d
-
t
u
z
l
a
.
o
r
g
M
i
r
e
l
a

O
m
e
r
o
v
i
?
O
x
f
a
m
R
a
s
i
m

T
u
l
u
m
o
v
i
?
B
H

t
e
l
e
c
o
m
M
a
j
d
a

M
u
j
a
n
o
v
i
?
S
l
a
?
a
n
a

S
i
m
i
?
A
z
i
z

Š
u
n
j
e
R
a
n
k
o

M
a
r
k
u
š

Z
d
e
n
k
o

K
l
e
p
i
?

B
o
t
s
w
a
n
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
o
t
s
w
a
n
a
C
.
R
.

S
a
t
h
y
a
m
o
o
r
t
h
i
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
G
E
M

B
o
t
s
w
a
n
a

T
e
a
m
s
a
t
h
y
a
m
o
@
m
o
p
i
p
i
.
u
b
.
b
w
B
.

K
e
a
l
e
s
i
t
s
e
J
.

P
a
n
s
i
r
i
R
.

M
a
k
g
o
s
a
S
.

B
i
z
a
-
K
h
u
p
e
T
.

M
p
h
e
l
a
R
.

M
o
r
a
k
a
n
y
a
n
e
T
.

D
i
t
s
h
w
e
u
T
.

T
s
h
e
k
o
L
.

S
e
t
s
w
a
l
o

I
.

R
a
d
i
k
o
k
o

B
r
a
z
i
l
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
o

B
r
a
s
i
l
e
i
r
o

d
a

Q
u
a
l
i
d
a
d
e

e

P
r
o
d
u
t
i
v
i
d
a
d
e

(
I
B
Q
P
)
S
i
m
a
r
a

M
a
r
i
a

d
e

S
o
u
z
a

S
i
l
v
e
i
r
a

G
r
e
c
o
S
e
r
v
i
ç
o

B
r
a
s
i
l
e
i
r
o

d
e

A
p
o
i
o

à
s

M
i
c
r
o

e

P
e
q
u
e
n
a
s

E
m
p
r
e
s
a
s
—
S
E
B
R
A
E
Z
o
o
m

S
e
r
v
i
ç
o
s

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
o
s

L
t
d
a
s
i
m
a
r
a
@
i
b
q
p
.
o
r
g
.
b
r
A
d
r
i
a
n
o

L
u
i
z

A
n
t
u
n
e
s
F
u
n
d
a
ç
ã
o

G
e
t
ú
l
i
o

V
a
r
g
a
s
—
F
G
V
-
E
A
E
S
P
K
r
i
s
t
i
e

S
e
a
w
r
i
g
h
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

P
a
r
a
n
á
—
U
F
P
R
M
a
r
c
o

A
u
r
é
l
i
o

B
e
d
ê
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
o

d
e

T
e
c
n
o
l
o
g
i
a

d
o

P
a
r
a
n
á
—
T
E
C
P
A
R
M
a
r
i
a
n
o

M
a
t
o

M
a
c
e
d
o
96
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
M
a
r
i
o

T
a
m
a
d
a

N
e
t
o
M
o
r
l
a
n

L
u
i
g
i

G
u
i
m
a
r
ã
e
s

T
a
l
e
s

A
n
d
r
e
a
s
s
i

B
u
r
k
i
n
a

F
a
s
o
C
E
D
R
E
S
/
L
a
R
e
G
E
O
F
l
o
r
e
n
t

S
o
n
g
-
N
a
b
a
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
C
E
D
R
E
S
/

L
a
R
e
G
E
O
?
o
r
e
n
t
_
s
o
n
g
n
a
b
a
@
y
a
h
o
o
.
f
r
B
a
l
i
b
i
é

S
e
r
g
e

B
a
y
a
l
a
M
a
m
a
d
o
u

T
o
é
G
u
i
m
a
r
é

R
é
g
i
s

G
o
u
e
m
D
j
a
r
i
u
s

B
a
m
a
C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n
F
S
E
G
A
—
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

D
o
u
a
l
a
M
a
u
r
i
c
e

F
o
u
d
a

O
n
g
o
d
o
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
G
E
M

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

T
e
a
m
f
o
n
g
o
d
o
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
I
b
r
a
h
i
m
a
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
J
e
a
n

H
e
b
e
r
t

E
t
o
u
n
d
i
E
T
S

K

&

K

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
P
i
e
r
r
e

E
m
m
a
n
u
e
l

N
d
e
b
i
S
a
b
i
n
e

P
a
t
r
i
c
i
i
a

M
o
u
n
g
o
u
U
m

N
g
o
u
e
m

T
h
é
r
e
s
e
S
h
e

E
t
o
u
n
d
i
C
a
n
a
d
a
T
h
e

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

(
T
H
E
C
I
S
)
P
e
t
e
r

J
o
s
t
y
L
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

a
l
p
h
a
b
e
t
i
c
a
l

o
r
d
e
r
:
O
p
i
n
i
o
n

S
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
c
.
p
.
j
o
s
t
y
@
t
h
e
c
i
s
.
c
a

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
a
l
g
a
r
y
C
o
o
p
e
r

L
a
n
g
f
o
r
d
F
u
t
u
r
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
a
l
g
a
r
y
C
h
a
d

S
a
u
n
d
e
r
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
l
b
e
r
t
a
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
l
a
i
r

W
i
n
s
o
r
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

N
o
v
a

S
c
o
t
i
a
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
J
a
c
q
u
e
l
i
n
e

S

W
a
l
s
h
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

O
n
t
a
r
i
o
R
y
e
r
s
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
C
h
a
r
l
e
s

D
a
v
i
s
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

Q
u
e
b
e
c
R
y
e
r
s
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
a
v
e

V
a
l
l
i
e
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
R
y
e
r
s
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
H
o
w
a
r
d

L
i
n
R
y
e
r
s
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
R
y
e
r
s
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
N
e
i
l

W
o
l
?
S
i
m
o
n

F
r
a
s
e
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
/
C
P
R
O
S
T
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
é

d
u

Q
u
é
b
e
c

à

T
r
o
i
s
-
R
i
v
i
è
r
e
s
E
t
i
e
n
n
e

S
t
-
J
e
a
n
97
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
n
i
t
o
b
a
N
a
t
h
a
n

G
r
e
i
d
a
n
u
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
w

B
r
u
n
s
w
i
s
k
Y
v
e
s

B
o
u
r
g
e
o
i
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
r
i
n
c
e

E
d
w
a
r
d

I
s
l
a
n
d
A
l
l
i
s
o
n

R
a
m
s
a
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
l
b
e
r
t
a
K
a
r
e
n

H
u
g
h
e
s
C
P
R
O
S
T
,

S
i
m
o
n

F
r
a
s
e
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
d
a
m

H
o
l
b
r
o
o
k
C
P
R
O
S
T
,

S
i
m
o
n

F
r
a
s
e
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
r
i
a
n

W
i
x
t
e
d
C
a
p
e

B
r
e
t
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
H
a
r
v
e
y

J
o
h
n
s
t
o
n
e
C
a
p
e

B
r
e
t
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
K
e
v
i
n

M
c
k
a
g
u
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

R
e
g
i
n
a
C
h
r
i
s

S
t
r
e
e
t
T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n

R
i
v
e
r
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
M
u
r
a
t

E
r
o
g
u
l
C
h
i
l
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e
l

D
e
s
a
r
r
o
l
l
o
J
o
s
é

E
r
n
e
s
t
o

A
m
o
r
ó
s
T
e
l
e
f
ó
n
i
c
a

C
h
i
l
e
:

M
o
v
i
s
t
a
r

I
n
n
o
v
a

&

W
a
y
r
a
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
,

E
s
t
u
d
i
o
s

d
e

M
e
r
c
a
d
o

y

O
p
i
n
i
o
n

L
i
m
i
t
a
d
a
e
a
m
o
r
o
s
@
u
d
d
.
c
l
A
d
r
i
a
n
a

A
b
a
r
c
a
S
O
F
O
F
A

(
F
e
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
h
i
l
e
a
n

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
)
C
a
r
l
o
s

A
l
b
o
r
n
o
z
I
n
n
o
v
a
C
h
i
l
e

C
o
r
f
o

G
i
a
n
n
i

R
o
m
a
n
i
M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
i
o

d
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
í
a

C
h
i
n
a
T
s
i
n
g
h
u
a

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
G
a
o

J
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

T
s
i
n
g
h
u
a

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
S
I
N
O
T
R
U
S
T

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

&

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

(
B
e
i
j
i
n
g
)

C
o
.
,

L
t
d
.
g
a
o
j
@
s
e
m
.
t
s
i
n
g
h
u
a
.
e
d
u
.
c
n
Q
i
n

L
a
n
J
i
a
n
g

Y
a
n
f
u
C
h
e
n
g

Y
u
a
n

L
i

X
i
b
a
o

C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e
l

N
o
r
t
e
L
i
y
i
s

G
ó
m
e
z
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e
l

N
o
r
t
e
C
e
n
t
r
o

N
a
c
i
o
n
a
l

d
e

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
o
r
í
a
m
g
o
m
e
z
@
u
n
i
n
o
r
t
e
.
e
d
u
.
c
o
T
a
t
i
a
n
a

H
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z

E
d
u
a
r
d
o

G
ó
m
e
z
N
a
t
a
l
i
a

H
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

I
C
E
S
I
R
o
d
r
i
g
o

V
a
r
e
l
a

V
i
l
l
e
g
a
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

I
C
E
S
I
-

I
D
R
C
(
C
a
n
a
d
a
)
J
h
o
n

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r

M
o
r
e
n
o
98
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
M
ó
n
i
c
a

B
e
d
o
y
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

l
o
s

A
n
d
e
s
R
a
f
a
e
l

A
u
g
u
s
t
o

V
e
s
g
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

l
o
s

A
n
d
e
s
P
o
n
t
i
?
c
i
a

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

J
a
v
e
r
i
a
n
a

C
a
l
i
F
a
b
i
á
n

O
s
o
r
i
o
P
o
n
t
i
?
c
i
a

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

J
a
v
e
r
i
a
n
a

C
a
l
i
F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o

P
e
r
e
i
r
a

A
n
a

M
a
r
í
a

F
i
e
r
r
o

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a
A
s
o
c
i
a
c
i
ó
n

I
n
c
u
b
a
d
o
r
a

P
a
r
q
u
e

T
e
c
M
a
r
c
e
l
o

L
e
b
e
n
d
i
k
e
r
S
i
s
t
e
m
a

d
e

B
a
n
c
a

p
a
r
a

e
l

D
e
s
a
r
r
o
l
l
o

(
S
B
D
)
I
p
s
o
s

S
A
m
l
e
b
e
n
d
i
k
e
r
@
p
a
r
q
u
e
t
e
c
.
o
r
g

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a
R
a
f
a
e
l

H
e
r
r
e
r
a
B
a
n
c
o

C
e
n
t
r
o
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
o

d
e

I
n
t
e
g
r
a
c
i
ó
n

E
c
o
n
ó
m
i
c
a

(
B
C
I
E
)
r
a
f
a
e
l
.
h
e
r
r
e
r
a
@
u
c
r
.
a
c
.
c
r

o

r
l
.
h
e
r
r
e
r
a
2
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m

C
á
m
a
r
a

d
e

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
s

d
e

C
o
s
t
a

R
i
c
a
G
u
i
l
l
e
r
m
o

V
e
l
á
s
q
u
e
z
g
v
e
l
a
s
q
u
e
z
@
c
i
c
r
.
c
o
m
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
J
.
J
.

S
t
r
o
s
s
m
a
y
e
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

O
s
i
j
e
k
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
S
l
a
v
i
c
a

S
i
n
g
e
r
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
y
P
u
l
s

d
.
o
.
o
.
,

Z
a
g
r
e
b
s
i
n
g
e
r
@
e
f
o
s
.
h
r
N
a
t
a
š
a

Š
a
r
l
i
j
a
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

a
n
d

C
r
a
f
t
s
S
a
n
j
a

P
f
e
i
f
e
r
C
E
P
O
R

S
M
E

&

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

P
o
l
i
c
y

C
e
n
t
r
e
S
u
n
c
i
c
a

O
b
e
r
m
a
n

P
e
t
e
r
k
a
J
.
J
.

S
t
r
o
s
s
m
a
y
e
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

i
n

O
s
i
j
e
k
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
n

B
a
n
k

f
o
r

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
m
a
r
k
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

D
e
n
m
a
r
k
T
h
o
m
a
s

S
c
h
o
t
t
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
E
p
i
n
i
o
n
t
s
c
@
s
a
m
.
s
d
u
.
d
k
T
o
r
b
e
n

B
a
g
e
r
K
i
m

K
l
y
v
e
r
M
a
j
b
r
i
t
t

R
o
s
t
g
a
a
r
d

E
v
a
l
d
K
e
n
t

W
i
c
k
s
t
r
ø
m

J
e
n
s
e
n
M
i
c
k

H
a
n
c
o
c
k
S
h
a
h
a
m
a
k

R
e
z
a
e
i
M
a
r
y
a
m

C
h
e
r
a
g
h
i
S
u
s
a
n
n
e

F
e
l
d
t

J
ø
r
g
e
n
s
e
n

S
h
a
y
e
g
h
e
h

A
s
h
o
u
r
i
z
a
d
e
h

E
c
u
a
d
o
r
E
S
P
O
L
-

E
S
P
A
E

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

L
a
s
i
o
B
a
n
c
o

d
e
l

P
a
c
í
?
c
o
S
u
r
v
e
y

D
a
t
a
m
l
a
s
i
o
@
e
s
p
o
l
.
e
d
u
.
e
c
99
GEMNATIONALTEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
G
u
i
d
o

C
a
i
c
e
d
o
N
o
b
i
s
X
a
v
i
e
r

O
r
d
e
ñ
a
n
a
D
y
v
e
n
p
r
o
A
n
d
r
e
a

G
a
b
r
i
e
l
a

S
a
m
a
n
i
e
g
o

D
í
a
z
E
S
P
O
L
R
a
m
ó
n

V
i
l
l
a
M
e
x
i
c
h
e
m

G
r
o
u
p
E
d
g
a
r

I
z
q
u
i
e
r
d
o
S
e
n
f
e
l
d
e
r
E
l

S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
E
s
c
u
e
l
a

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

d
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
í
a

y

N
e
g
o
c
i
o
s
M
a
n
u
e
l

S
á
n
c
h
e
z

M
a
s
f
e
r
r
e
r
E
s
c
u
e
l
a

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r

d
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
í
a

y

N
e
g
o
c
i
o
s

(
E
S
E
N
)
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g

P
o
w
e
r

S
A
m
s
a
n
c
h
e
z
@
e
s
e
n
.
e
d
u
.
s
v
R
a
m
ó
n

C
a
n
d
e
l
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

F
u
n
d
T
õ
n
i
s

A
r
r
o
E
s
t
o
n
i
a
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

F
u
n
d
S
a
a
r

P
o
l
l
t
o
n
i
s
.
a
r
r
o
@
a
r
e
n
g
u
f
o
n
d
.
e
e
T
õ
n
i
s

M
e
t
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
a
r
t
u
T
i
i
t

E
l
e
n
u
r
m
F
i
n
l
a
n
d
T
u
r
k
u

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
u
r
k
u
A
n
n
e

K
o
v
a
l
a
i
n
e
n
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
y
I
R
O
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

O
y
a
n
n
e
.
k
o
v
a
l
a
i
n
e
n
@
u
t
u
.
?
J
a
r
n
a

H
e
i
n
o
n
e
n
T
u
r
k
u

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
u
r
k
u
T
o
m
m
i

P
u
k
k
i
n
e
n
P
e
k
k
a

S
t
e
n
h
o
l
m
S
a
n
n
a

S
u
o
m
a
l
a
i
n
e
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
E
M
L
Y
O
N

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
A
l
a
i
n

F
a
y
o
l
l
e
E
M
L
Y
O
N

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t

T
h
i
n
k
f
a
y
o
l
l
e
@
e
m
-
l
y
o
n
.
c
o
m
E
m
e
r
a
n

N
z
i
a
l
i
D
a
n
i
e
l
l
e

R
o
u
s
s
o
n
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
C
a
u
c
a
s
u
s

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
t

C
a
u
c
a
s
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
o
r
i
s

L
e
z
h
a
v
a
G
I
Z

(
D
e
u
t
s
c
h
e

G
e
s
e
l
l
s
c
h
a
f
t

f
ü
r

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

Z
u
s
a
m
m
e
n
a
r
b
e
i
t
)
A
C
T

(
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
n
d

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

T
e
a
m
)
b
l
e
z
h
a
v
a
@
c
u
.
e
d
u
.
g
e
P
a
a
t
a

B
r
e
k
a
s
h
v
i
l
i
I
r
e
n
a

M
e
l
u
a
G
e
r
m
a
n
y
L
e
i
b
n
i
z

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
ä
t

H
a
n
n
o
v
e
r
R
o
l
f

S
t
e
r
n
b
e
r
g
G
e
r
m
a
n

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

A
g
e
n
c
y

(
B
A
)
U
m
f
r
a
g
e
z
e
n
t
r
u
m

B
o
n
n
—
P
r
o
f
.

R
u
d
i
n
g
e
r

G
m
b
H

(
u
z
b
o
n
n

G
m
b
H
)

G
e
s
e
l
l
s
c
h
a
f
t

f
ü
r

e
m
p
i
r
i
s
c
h
e

S
o
z
i
a
l
f
o
r
s
c
h
u
n
g

u
n
d

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
e
r
n
b
e
r
g
@
w
i
g
e
o
.
u
n
i
-
h
a
n
n
o
v
e
r
.
d
e
100
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

(
I
A
B
)

o
f

t
h
e

G
e
r
m
a
n

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

A
g
e
n
c
y

(
B
A
)
U
d
o

B
r
i
x
y
u
d
o
.
b
r
i
x
y
@
i
a
b
.
d
e

A
r
n
e

V
o
r
d
e
r
w
ü
l
b
e
c
k
e

G
r
e
e
c
e
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

&

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

(
I
O
B
E
)
S
t
a
v
r
o
s

I
o
a
n
n
i
d
e
s
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

B
a
n
k

o
f

G
r
e
e
c
e

S
A
D
a
t
a
p
o
w
e
r

S
A
i
o
a
n
n
i
d
e
s
@
i
o
b
e
.
g
r
A
g
g
e
l
o
s

T
s
a
k
a
n
i
k
a
s

I
o
a
n
n
i
s

G
i
o
t
o
p
o
u
l
o
s

G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o

M
a
r
r
o
q
u
í
n
H
u
g
o

M
a
ú
l
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o

M
a
r
r
o
q
u
í
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

-
U
F
M
-
K
h
a
n
t
i

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
k
e
c
@
u
f
m
.
e
d
u
M
ó
n
i
c
a

d
e

Z
e
l
a
y
a
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s

-
U
F
M
-
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

U
r
i
b
e
K
i
r
z
n
e
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

C
e
n
t
e
r
D
a
v
i
d

C
a
s
a
s
o
l
a
F
r
i
t
z

T
h
o
m
a
s
J
a
i
m
e

D
í
a
z
L
i
s
a
r
d
o

B
o
l
a
ñ
o
s

G
u
s
t
a
v
o

S
a
e
n
z

H
u
n
g
a
r
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
é
c
s
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
L
á
s
z
l
ó

S
z
e
r
b
O
T
K
A

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

T
h
e
m
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

K

8
1
5
2
7
S
z
o
c
i
o
-
G
r
á
f

P
i
a
c
-
é
s

K
ö
z
v
é
l
e
m
é
n
y
-
k
u
t
a
t
ó
s
z
e
r
b
@
k
t
k
.
p
t
e
.
h
u
J
ó
z
s
e
f

U
l
b
e
r
t
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

P
h
D

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
é
c
s

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
A
t
t
i
l
a

V
a
r
g
a
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
h
D

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
é
c
s

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
I
n
t
é
z
e
t
G
á
b
o
r

M
á
r
k
u
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
h
D

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
r
v
i
n
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
u
d
a
p
e
s
t
A
t
t
i
l
a

P
e
t
h
e
?
D
o
c
t
o
r
a
l

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
,

S
z
é
c
h
a
n
y
i

I
s
t
v
á
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
i
e
t
r
i
c
h

P
é
t
e
r
G
l
o
b
a
l

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

a
n
d

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Z
o
l
t
á
n

J
.

Á
c
s
T
e
r
j
e
s
e
n

S
i
r
i
101
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
S
a
u
l

E
s
t
r
i
n

R
u
t
a

A
i
d
i
s

I
n
d
i
a
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
d
i
a

(
E
D
I
)
,

A
h
m
e
d
a
b
a
d
S
u
n
i
l

S
h
u
k
l
a
C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

i
n

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
,

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

(
C
R
E
E
D
)
,

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

I
n
d
i
a

(
E
D
I
)
I
M
R
B

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
u
n
i
l
s
h
u
k
l
a
@
e
d
i
i
n
d
i
a
.
o
r
g
P
a
n
k
a
j

B
h
a
r
t
i
p
b
h
a
r
t
i
@
e
d
i
i
n
d
i
a
.
o
r
g
A
m
i
t

K
u
m
a
r

D
w
i
v
e
d
i
a
k
d
w
i
v
e
d
i
@
e
d
i
i
n
d
i
a
.
o
r
g
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

(
I
M
T
)
,

G
h
a
z
i
a
b
a
d
B
i
b
e
k

B
a
n
e
r
j
e
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

(
I
M
T
)
b
b
a
n
e
r
j
e
e
@
i
m
t
.
e
d
u
N
o
e
l

S
a
r
a
f
n
s
a
r
a
f
@
i
m
t
.
e
d
u
S
a
f
a
l

B
a
t
r
a
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

(
I
M
T
)
s
a
f
a
l
b
a
t
r
a
@
i
m
t
.
e
d
u
I
n
d
i
a
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

(
I
S
B
)
,

H
y
d
e
r
a
b
a
d
K
r
i
s
h
n
a

T
a
n
u
k
u
W
a
d
h
w
a
n
i

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

(
W
C
E
D
)
,

I
S
B
k
r
i
s
h
n
a
_
t
a
n
u
k
u
@
i
s
b
.
e
d
u
S
a
n
t
o
s
h

S
r
i
n
i
v
a
s
W
a
d
h
w
a
n
i

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

(
W
C
E
D
)
,

I
S
B
s
a
n
t
o
s
h
_
s
r
i
n
i
v
a
s
@
i
s
b
.
e
d
u
V
i
j
a
y

V
y
a
s

K
u
m
a
r

A
s
h
i
s
h

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
P
a
r
a
h
y
a
n
g
a
n

C
a
t
h
o
l
i
c

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

(
U
N
P
A
R
)

B
a
n
d
u
n
g
C
a
t
h
a
r
i
n
a

B
a
d
r
a

N
a
w
a
n
g
p
a
l
u
p
i
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
P
T

S
p
i
r
e

I
n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
k
a
t
r
i
n
@
u
n
p
a
r
.
a
c
.
i
d
G
a
n
d
h
i

P
a
w
i
t
a
n
g
a
n
d
h
i
_
p
@
u
n
p
a
r
.
a
c
.
i
d
A
g
u
s

G
u
n
a
w
a
n
M
a
r
i
a

W
i
d
y
a
r
i
n
i

T
r
i
y
a
n
a

I
s
k
a
n
d
a
r
s
y
a
h

I
r
a
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
e
h
r
a
n
A
b
b
a
s

B
a
z
a
r
g
a
n
L
a
b
o
u
r

S
o
c
i
a
l

S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

(
L
S
S
I
)
E
l
h
a
m

K
a
b
o
l
i
a
b
a
z
a
r
g
a
@
u
t
.
a
c
.
i
r
N
e
z
a
m
e
d
d
i
n

F
a
g
h
i
h
m
r
z
a
l
i
@
u
t
.
a
c
.
i
r
A
l
i

A
k
b
a
r

M
o
o
s
a
v
i
-
M
o
v
a
h
e
d
i
L
e
y
l
a

S
a
r
f
a
r
a
z
A
s
a
d
o
l
a
h

K
o
r
d
r
n
a
e
i
j
102
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
J
a
h
a
n
g
i
r

Y
a
d
o
l
l
a
h
i

F
a
r
s
i
M
a
h
m
o
d

A
h
a
m
a
d
p
o
u
r

D
a
r
y
a
n
i
S
.

M
o
s
t
a
f
a

R
a
z
a
v
i
M
o
h
a
m
m
a
d

R
e
z
a

Z
a
l
i
M
o
h
a
m
m
a
d

R
e
z
a

S
e
p
e
h
r
i
A
l
i

R
e
z
a
e
a
n

T
h
o
m
a
s

S
c
h
ø
t
t

I
r
e
l
a
n
d
F
i
t
z
s
i
m
o
n
s

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
P
a
u
l
a

F
i
t
z
s
i
m
o
n
s
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
r
e
l
a
n
d
I
F
F

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
p
a
u
l
a
@
?
t
z
s
i
m
o
n
s
-
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
D
u
b
l
i
n

C
i
t
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
C
o
l
m

O
’
G
o
r
m
a
n
F
o
r
f
á
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

J
o
b
s
,

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

a
n
d

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

I
t
a
l
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
a
d
u
a
M
o
r
e
n
o

M
u
?
a
t
t
o
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
à

d
e
g
l
i

S
t
u
d
i

d
i

P
a
d
o
v
a
D
o
x
a
m
o
r
e
n
o
.
m
u
?
a
t
t
o
@
u
n
i
p
d
.
i
t
P
a
t
r
i
z
i
a

G
a
r
e
n
g
o
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
à

P
o
l
i
t
e
c
n
i
c
a

d
e
l
l
e

M
a
r
c
h
e
D
o
n
a
t
o

I
a
c
o
b
u
c
c
i
G
r
a
?
c
a

V
e
n
e
t
a

S
p
a
A
l
e
s
s
a
n
d
r
a

M
i
c
o
z
z
i
M
i
c
h
a
e
l

S
h
e
r
i
?
S
a
a
d
a
t

S
a
a
e
d
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

J
a
m
a
i
c
a
M
i
c
h
e
l
l
e

B
l
a
c
k
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
M
a
r
k
e
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

L
t
d
m
i
c
h
e
l
l
e
.
b
l
a
c
k
@
u
t
e
c
h
.
e
d
u
.
j
m
P
a
u
l

G
o
l
d
i
n
g
O
r
v
i
l
l
e

R
e
i
d
K
r
y
s
t
a
l

M
i
n
g

C
l
a
u
d
e
t
t
e

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s
-
M
y
e
r
s

J
a
p
a
n
M
u
s
a
s
h
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
N
o
r
i
y
u
k
i

T
a
k
a
h
a
s
h
i
V
e
n
t
u
r
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

C
e
n
t
e
r
S
o
c
i
a
l

S
u
r
v
e
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
o

L
t
d

(
S
S
R
I
)
n
o
r
i
y
u
k
i
@
c
c
.
m
u
s
a
s
h
i
.
a
c
.
j
p
T
a
k
e
o

I
s
o
b
e
Y
u
j
i

H
o
n
j
o
T
a
k
e
h
i
k
o

Y
a
s
u
d
a
103
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t

M
a
s
a
a
k
i

S
u
z
u
k
i

K
a
z
a
k
h
s
t
a
n
N
a
z
a
r
b
a
y
e
v

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
R
a
m
o
n

O
’
C
a
l
l
a
g
h
a
n
J
S
C

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
J
S
C

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
l
e
i
l
a
.
y
e
r
g
o
z
h
a
@
n
u
.
e
d
u
.
k
z
V
e
n
k
a
t

S
u
b
r
a
m
a
n
i
a
n
N
a
z
a
r
b
a
y
e
v

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
D
m
i
t
r
y

K
h
a
n
i
n
R
o
b
e
r
t

R
o
s
e
n
f
e
l
d
C
h
e
t

B
o
r
u
c
k
i
L
e
i
l
a

Y
e
r
g
o
z
h
a
M
a
k
s
a
t

M
u
k
h
a
n
o
v
N
u
r
l
a
n

K
u
l
b
a
t
y
r
o
v

T
a
i
r

K
u
a
n
y
s
h
e
v

K
o
s
o
v
o
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
u
m

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
A
l
e
j
t
i
n

B
e
r
i
s
h
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
u
m

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
u
m

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
,

K
o
s
o
v
o
a
l
e
j
t
i
n
@
u
n
i
v
e
r
s
u
m
-
k
s
.
o
r
g
D
u
r
i
m

H
o
x
h
a
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

T
r
a
d
e

a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

o
f

t
h
e

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c

o
f

K
o
s
o
v
o
M
e
r
g
i
m

C
a
h
a
n
i
S
P
A
R
K
U
r
a
n

R
r
a
c
i
U
r
a
n
i
k

B
e
g
u
K
u
w
a
i
t
M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

S
t
a
t
e

f
o
r

Y
o
u
t
h

A
?
a
i
r
s
F
a
w
a
z

S
a
l
e
m

A
l
H
u
s
a
i
n
a
n
K
u
w
a
i
t

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
I
P
S
O
S

M
i
d
d
l
e

E
a
s
t

a
n
d

N
o
r
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
F
a
l
h
u
s
a
i
n
a
n
@
y
o
u
t
h
.
g
o
v
.
k
w
H
e
s
s
a

A
l
O
j
a
y
a
n
F
a
h
a
d

A
L
M
u
d
h
a
f
F
a
t
i
m
a

A
L
S
a
l
e
m
L
a
t
v
i
a
T
h
e

T
e
l
i
a
S
o
n
e
r
a

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

a
t

t
h
e

S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

i
n

R
i
g
a
M
a
r
i
j
a

K
r
u
m
i
n
a
T
e
l
i
a
S
o
n
e
r
a

A
B
S
K
D
S
m
a
r
i
j
a
@
b
i
c
e
p
s
.
o
r
g
B
a
l
t
i
c

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

(
B
I
C
E
P
S
)
A
n
d
e
r
s

P
a
a
l
z
o
w

A
l
f

V
a
n
a
g
s

L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l

a
t

V
i
l
n
i
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
M
i
n
d
a
u
g
a
s

L
a
u
z
i
k
a
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l

a
t

V
i
l
n
i
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
R
A
I
T

L
t
d
m
i
n
d
a
u
g
a
s
.
l
a
u
z
i
k
a
s
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
E
r
i
k
a

V
a
i
g
i
n
i
e
n
e
104
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
A
i
s
t
e

M
i
l
i
u
t
e
L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

S
k
a
i
s
t
e

V
a
r
n
i
e
n
e
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a

L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
S
T
A
T
E
C
,

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

O
f
c
e
P
e
t
e
r

H
ö
c
k
C
h
a
m
b
r
e

d
e

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e

L
u
x
e
m
b
o
u
r
g
T
N
S

I
L
R
E
S
p
e
t
e
r
.
h
o
c
k
@
s
t
a
t
e
c
.
e
t
a
t
.
l
u
C
e
s
a
r
e

R
i
i
l
l
o
M
i
n
i
s
t
è
r
e

d
e

l
’
É
c
o
n
o
m
i
e

e
t

d
u

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e

e
x
t
é
r
i
e
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
.
r
i
i
l
l
o
@
s
t
a
t
e
c
.
e
t
a
t
.
l
u
L
e
i
l
a

B
e
n

A
o
u
n
S
T
A
T
E
C
,

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

O
f
c
e
l
e
i
l
a
.
b
e
n
-
a
o
u
n
@
s
t
a
t
e
c
.
e
t
a
t
.
l
u
F
r
a
n
c
e
s
c
o

S
a
r
r
a
c
i
n
o
f
r
a
n
c
e
s
c
o
.
s
a
r
r
a
c
i
n
o
@
s
t
a
t
e
c
.
e
t
a
t
.
l
u

C
h
i
a
r
a

P
e
r
o
n
i

c
h
i
a
r
a
.
p
e
r
o
n
i
@
s
t
a
t
e
c
.
e
t
a
t
.
l
u
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
z
a
k
S
i
r
i

R
o
l
a
n
d

X
a
v
i
e
r
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i

T
u
n

A
b
d
u
l

R
a
z
a
k
R
e
h
a
n
s
t
a
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
@
u
n
i
r
a
z
a
k
.
e
d
u
.
m
y
M
o
h
a
r

b
i
n

Y
u
s
u
f
L
e
i
l
a
n
i
e

M
o
h
d

N
o
r
D
e
w
i

A
m
a
t

S
a
p
u
a
n
G
a
r
r
y

C
l
a
y
t
o
n
M
e
x
i
c
o
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
o

T
e
c
n
o
l
ó
g
i
c
o

y

d
e

E
s
t
u
d
i
o
s

S
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
e
s

d
e

M
o
n
t
e
r
r
e
y
M
a
r
i
o

A
d
r
i
á
n

F
l
o
r
e
s
T
e
c
n
o
l
ó
g
i
c
o

d
e

M
o
n
t
e
r
r
e
y

C
a
m
p
u
s

L
e
ó
n
A
l
d
u
n
c
i
n

y

A
s
o
c
i
a
d
o
s
a
d
r
i
a
n
.
?
o
r
e
s
@
i
t
e
s
m
.
m
x

D
a
n
i
e
l

M
o
s
k
a
T
e
c
n
o
l
ó
g
i
c
o

d
e

M
o
n
t
e
r
r
e
y

C
a
m
p
u
s

G
u
a
d
a
l
a
j
a
r
a
n
a
t
z
i
n
.
l
o
p
e
z
@
i
t
e
s
m
.
m
x

I
s
a
a
c

L
u
c
a
t
e
r
o

M
a
r
c
i
a

C
a
m
p
o
s

E
l
v
i
r
a

E
.

N
a
r
a
n
j
o

N
a
t
z
i
n

L
ó
p
e
z

J
o
s
é

M
a
n
u
e
l

A
g
u
i
r
r
e

L
u
c
í
a

A
l
e
j
a
n
d
r
a

R
o
d
r
í
g
u
e
z

C
l
a
u
d
i
a

F
é
l
i
x

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
P
a
n
t
e
i
a
/
E
I
M
J
o
l
a
n
d
a

H
e
s
s
e
l
s
T
h
e

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
?
a
i
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
P
a
n
t
e
i
a
h
e
s
s
e
l
s
@
e
s
e
.
e
u
r
.
n
l
T
o
m
m
y

S
p
a
n
t
.
s
p
a
n
@
p
a
n
t
e
i
a
.
n
l
P
e
t
e
r

v
a
n

d
e
r

Z
w
a
n
105
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
S
a
n
d
e
r

W
e
n
n
e
k
e
r
s
A
n
d
r
é

v
a
n

S
t
e
l
R
o
y

T
h
u
r
i
k
P
h
i
l
i
p
p

K
o
e
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
I
n
g
r
i
d

V
e
r
h
e
u
l

N
i
e
l
s

B
o
s
m
a

N
o
r
w
a
y
B
o
d
ø

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
G
r
y

A
g
n
e
t
e

A
l
s
o
s
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

N
o
r
w
a
y
P
o
l
a
r
f
a
k
t
a
G
r
y
.
a
g
n
e
t
e
.
a
l
s
o
s
@
u
i
n
.
n
o
E
r
l
e
n
d

B
u
l
l
v
å
g
K
u
n
n
s
k
a
p
s
f
o
n
d
e
t

N
o
r
d
l
a
n
d

A
S
T
o
m
m
y

H
ø
y
v
a
r
d
e

C
l
a
u
s
e
n
B
o
d
ø

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
E
s
p
e
n

I
s
a
k
s
e
n
B
j
ø
r
n

W
i
l
l
y

Å
m
o

A
u
r
o
r
a

D
y
r
n
e
s

P
a
n
a
m
a
C
i
t
y

o
f

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
’
s

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

C
e
n
t
e
r
M
a
n
u
e
l

L
o
r
e
n
z
o
C
i
t
y

o
f

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
I
P
S
O
S
m
l
o
r
e
n
z
o
@
c
d
s
p
a
n
a
m
a
.
o
r
g
I
E
S
A

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

S
c
h
o
o
l

(
P
a
n
a
m
a

C
a
m
p
u
s
)
M
a
n
u
e
l

A
r
r
o
c
h
a
A
n
a
l
i
s
a

A
l
g
a
n
d
o
n
a
A
n
d
r
é
s

L
e
ó
n

F
e
d
e
r
i
c
o

F
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z

D
u
p
o
u
y

P
e
r
u
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

E
S
A
N
J
a
i
m
e

S
e
r
i
d
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

E
S
A
N
’
s

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
I
m
a
s
e
n
j
s
e
r
i
d
a
@
e
s
a
n
.
e
d
u
.
p
e
O
s
w
a
l
d
o

M
o
r
a
l
e
s
K
e
i
k
o

N
a
k
a
m
a
t
s
u
I
m
a
s
e
n

A
r
m
a
n
d
o

B
o
r
d
a

P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
D
e

L
a

S
a
l
l
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
i
d
a

L
i
c
a
r
o
s

V
e
l
a
s
c
o
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
T
N
S

P
h
i
l
i
p
p
i
n
e
s
a
i
d
a
.
v
e
l
a
s
c
o
@
d
l
s
u
.
e
d
u
.
p
h
E
m
i
l
i
n
a

S
a
r
r
e
a
l
B
r
i
a
n

G
o
z
u
n
J
u
n
e
t
t
e

P
e
r
e
z
G
e
r
a
r
d
o

L
a
r
g
o
z
a
106
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t

M
i
t
z
i
e

C
o
n
c
h
a
d
a

P
o
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

i
n

K
a
t
o
w
i
c
e
P
r
z
e
m
y
s
?
a
w

Z
b
i
e
r
o
w
s
k
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

i
n

K
a
t
o
w
i
c
e
R
e
a
l
i
z
a
c
j
a

s
p
.

z

o
.
o
.
p
r
z
e
m
y
s
l
a
w
.
z
b
i
e
r
o
w
s
k
i
@
u
e
.
k
a
t
o
w
i
c
e
.
p
l
P
o
l
i
s
h

A
g
e
n
c
y

f
o
r

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
n
n
a

T
a
r
n
a
w
a
P
o
l
i
s
h

A
g
e
n
c
y

f
o
r

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
n
a
_
t
a
r
n
a
w
a
@
p
a
r
p
.
g
o
v
.
p
l
P
a
u
l
i
n
a

Z
a
d
u
r
a
-
L
i
c
h
o
t
a
P
o
l
i
s
h

A
g
e
n
c
y

f
o
r

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
o
r
o
t
a

W
?
c
?
a
w
s
k
a
P
o
l
i
s
h

A
g
e
n
c
y

f
o
r

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
i
u
s
z

B
r
a
t
n
i
c
k
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

i
n

K
a
t
o
w
i
c
e
K
a
t
a
r
z
y
n
a

B
r
a
t
n
i
c
k
a
P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l
S
o
c
i
e
d
a
d
e

P
o
r
t
u
g
u
e
s
a

d
e

I
n
o
v
a
ç
ã
o

(
S
P
I
)
A
u
g
u
s
t
o

M
e
d
i
n
a
I
S
C
T
E
—
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
o

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
á
r
i
o

d
e

L
i
s
b
o
a

(
I
S
C
T
E
-
I
U
L
)
G
f
K
M
e
t
r
i
s

(
M
e
t
r
i
s
—
M
é
t
o
d
o
s

d
e

R
e
c
o
l
h
a

e

I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
ç
ã
o

S
o
c
i
a
l
,

S
.
A
.
)
a
u
g
u
s
t
o
m
e
d
i
n
a
@
s
p
i
.
p
t
D
o
u
g
l
a
s

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n
R
u
i

M
o
n
t
e
i
r
o
N
u
n
o

G
o
n
ç
a
l
v
e
s
L
u
í
s

A
n
t
e
r
o

R
e
t
o
A
n
t
ó
n
i
o

C
a
e
t
a
n
o

N
e
l
s
o
n

R
a
m
a
l
h
o

P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

R
í
o

P
i
e
d
r
a
s

C
a
m
p
u
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
s

A
p
o
n
t
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

R
i
o

P
i
e
d
r
a
s

C
a
m
p
u
s
G
a
i
t
h
e
r

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
a
r
i
n
e
s
.
a
p
o
n
t
e
@
u
p
r
.
e
d
u
A
í
d
a

L
o
z
a
d
a

M
a
r
t
a

Á
l
v
a
r
e
z
B
a
n
c
o

P
o
p
u
l
a
r

d
e

P
u
e
r
t
o

R
i
c
o

Q
a
t
a
r
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
n
d

P
o
l
i
c
y

U
n
i
t
,

S
i
l
a
t
e
c
h
T
a
r
e
k

C
o
u
r
y
S
i
l
a
t
e
c
h
S
o
c
i
a
l

&

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

S
u
r
v
e
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

(
S
E
S
R
I
)

a
t

Q
a
t
a
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
t
c
o
u
r
y
@
s
i
l
a
t
e
c
h
.
c
o
m
Q
a
t
a
r

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
N
a
d
e
r

K
a
b
b
a
n
i
P
a
u
l

D
y
e
r
M
a
h
m
o
u
d

M
.

A
b
d
e
l
l
a
t
i
f

K
h
a
l
i
l
M
a
r
i
o
s

K
a
t
s
i
o
l
o
u
d
e
s
107
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
R
a
n
a

H
i
n
d
y
T
h
o
m
a
s

C
h
i
d
i
a
c
R
o
m
a
n
i
a
F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

a
n
d

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

B
a
b
e
?
-
B
o
l
y
a
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
L
e
h
e
l
—
Z
o
l
t
á
n

G
y
ö
r
f
y
O
T
P

B
a
n
k

R
o
m
a
n
i
a
M
e
t
r
o

M
e
d
i
a

T
r
a
n
s
i
l
v
a
n
i
a
l
e
h
e
l
g
y
@
y
a
h
o
o
.
c
o
.
u
k
T
ü
n
d
e

P
e
t
r
a

S
z
a
b
ó
A
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
a

P
r
o

O
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
A
n
n
a
m
á
r
i
a

D
é
z
s
i
-
B
e
n
y
o
v
s
z
k
i
B
a
b
e
s
-
B
o
l
y
a
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
l
u
j
-
N
a
p
o
c
a
?
t
e
f
a
n

P
e
t
e
M
e
t
r
o

M
e
d
i
a

T
r
a
n
s
i
l
v
a
n
i
a
,

S
t
u
d
i
i

S
o
c
i
a
l
e
,

M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g

?
i

P
u
b
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
e

S
.
R
.
L
.
Á
g
n
e
s

N
a
g
y
D
u
m
i
t
r
u

M
a
t
i
?

E
u
g
e
n
i
a

M
a
t
i
?

R
u
s
s
i
a
G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

S
P
b
S
U
V
e
r
k
h
o
v
s
k
a
y
a

O
l
g
a
C
h
a
r
i
t
a
b
l
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
L
e
v
a
d
a
-
C
e
n
t
e
r
v
e
r
k
h
o
v
s
k
a
y
a
@
g
s
o
m
.
p
u
.
r
u
D
o
r
o
k
h
i
n
a

M
a
r
i
a

S
h
i
r
o
k
o
v
a

G
a
l
i
n
a

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e
N
a
n
y
a
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
O
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r

C
h
e
r
n
y
s
h
e
n
k
o
N
a
n
y
a
n
g

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
J
o
s
h
u
a

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

P
t
e

L
t
d
C
h
e
r
n
y
s
h
e
n
k
o
@
n
t
u
.
e
d
u
.
s
g

H
o

M
o
o
n
-
H
o

R
i
n
g
o
N
T
U

V
e
n
t
u
r
e
s

P
t
e

L
t
d
C
h
a
n

K
i
m

Y
i
n
R
o
s
a

K
a
n
g
L
a
i

Y
o
k
e

Y
o
n
g
M
a
r
i
l
y
n

A
n
g

U
y

D
a
v
i
d

G
o
m
u
l
y
a
C
a
l
v
i
n

O
n
g

H
e

L
u
J
i
a
n
g

W
e
i
t
i
n
g

L
e
e

S
e
o
n
g

P
e
r

S
l
o
v
a
k
i
a
C
o
m
e
n
i
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

i
n

B
r
a
t
i
s
l
a
v
a
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
n
a

P
i
l
k
o
v
a
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
g
e
n
c
y

f
o
r

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

S
m
a
l
l

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
u
m

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
A
K
O
a
n
n
a
.
p
i
l
k
o
v
a
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m
108
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
Z
u
z
a
n
a

K
o
v
a
c
i
c
o
v
a
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

(
C
E
F
)
M
a
r
i
a
n

H
o
l
i
e
n
k
a
S
L
O
V
I
N
T
E
G
R
A

E
n
e
r
g
y
,

s
.
r
.
o
J
a
n

R
e
h
a
k
C
o
m
e
n
i
u
s

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

i
n

B
r
a
t
i
s
l
a
v
a
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

J
o
z
e
f

K
o
m
o
r
n
i
k

S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

a
n
d

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
r
i
b
o
r
M
i
r
o
s
l
a
v

R
e
b
e
r
n
i
k
S
P
I
R
I
T

S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
R
M

P
L
U
S
r
e
b
e
r
n
i
k
@
u
n
i
-
m
b
.
s
i
P
o
l
o
n
a

T
o
m
i
n
c
S
l
o
v
e
n
i
a
n

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

A
g
e
n
c
y
K
a
t
j
a

C
r
n
o
g
a
j
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

a
n
d

S
m
a
l
l

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
K
a
r
i
n

Š
i
r
e
c
B
a
r
b
a
r
a

B
r
a
d
a
?

H
o
j
n
i
k

M
a
t
e
j

R
u
s

S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

U
n
i
t

f
o
r

N
e
w

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

(
D
U
N
E
)
,

F
a
c
u
l
t
y

o
f

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
a
p
e

T
o
w
n
M
i
k
e

H
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

T
o
u
r
i
s
m

o
f

t
h
e

W
e
s
t
e
r
n

C
a
p
e

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
N
i
e
l
s
e
n

S
o
u
t
h

A
f
r
i
c
a
m
h
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
@
m
w
e
b
.
c
o
.
z
a
T
o
n
i
a

O
v
e
r
m
e
y
e
r

J
a
c
q
u
i

K
e
w

S
p
a
i
n
U
C
E
I
F

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
-
C
I
S
E
R
i
c
a
r
d
o

H
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z

y

A
n
a

F
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z
-
L
a
v
i
a
d
a
S
a
n
t
a
n
d
e
r

B
a
n
k
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
o

O
p
i
n
ò
m
e
t
r
e

S
.
L
.
a
n
a
.
f
e
r
n
a
n
d
e
z
@
u
n
i
c
a
n
.
e
s
G
E
M

S
p
a
i
n

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
F
e
d
e
r
i
c
o

G
u
t
i
é
r
r
e
z
-

S
o
l
a
n
a

S
a
l
c
e
d
o
G
E
M

S
p
a
i
n

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
I
ñ
a
k
i

P
e
ñ
a
F
u
n
d
a
c
i
ó
n

R
a
f
a
e
l

D
e
l

P
i
n
o
M
a
r
i
b
e
l

G
u
e
r
r
e
r
o
J
o
s
é

L
u
i
s

G
o
n
z
á
l
e
z
M
a
n
u
e
l

R
e
d
o
n
d
o

G
a
r
c
í
a
I
n
é
s

R
u
e
d
a

S
a
m
p
e
d
r
o
i
n
e
s
@
c
i
s
e
.
e
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
s
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
A
n
d
a
l
u
c
í
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

C
á
d
i
z
J
o
s
é

R
u
i
z

N
a
v
a
r
r
o
109
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
A
r
a
g
ó
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

Z
a
r
a
g
o
z
a
L
u
c
i
o

F
u
e
n
t
e
l
s
a
z

L
a
m
a
t
a
C
a
n
a
r
i
a
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

L
a
s

P
a
l
m
a
s

d
e

G
r
a
n

C
a
n
a
r
i
a
R
o
s
a

M
.

B
a
t
i
s
t
a

C
a
n
i
n
o
C
a
n
t
a
b
r
i
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

C
a
n
t
a
b
r
i
a
A
n
a

F
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z
-
L
a
v
i
a
d
a
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
a

y

L
e
ó
n
G
r
u
p
o

d
e

I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
c
i
ó
n

e
n

D
i
r
e
c
c
i
ó
n

d
e

E
m
p
r
e
s
a
s

(
G
I
D
E
)
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

L
e
ó
n
M
a
r
i
a
n
o

N
i
e
t
o

A
n
t
o
l
í
n
C
a
s
t
i
l
l
a

L
a

M
a
n
c
h
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

C
a
s
t
i
l
l
a

L
a

M
a
n
c
h
a
J
u
a
n

J
o
s
é

J
i
m
é
n
e
z

M
o
r
e
n
o
C
a
t
a
l
u
ñ
a
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t

d
’
E
s
t
u
d
i
s

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
s

i

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
s
C
a
r
l
o
s

G
u
a
l
l
a
r
t
e
C
.

V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a
n
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

M
i
g
u
e
l

H
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z

d
e

E
l
c
h
e
J
o
s
é

M
a
r
í
a

G
ó
m
e
z

G
r
a
s
E
x
t
r
e
m
a
d
u
r
a
F
u
n
d
a
c
i
ó
n

X
a
v
i
e
r

d
e

S
a
l
a
s
–
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

E
x
t
r
e
m
a
d
u
r
a
R
i
c
a
r
d
o

H
e
r
n
á
n
d
e
z

M
o
g
o
l
l
ó
n
G
a
l
i
c
i
a
C
o
n
f
e
d
e
r
a
c
i
ó
n

d
e

E
m
p
r
e
s
a
r
i
o
s

d
e

G
a
l
i
c
i
a

(
C
E
G
)
A
n
a

V
á
z
q
u
e
z

E
i
b
e
s
C
o
m
u
n
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
ó
n
o
m
a

d
e

M
a
d
r
i
d
C
e
n
t
r
o

d
e

I
n
i
c
i
a
t
i
v
a
s

E
m
p
r
e
n
d
e
d
o
r
a
s

(
C
I
A
D
E
)
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

A
u
t
ó
n
o
m
a

d
e

M
a
d
r
i
d
I
s
i
d
r
o

d
e

P
a
b
l
o

L
ó
p
e
z
M
a
d
r
i
d

C
i
u
d
a
d
A
g
e
n
c
i
a

d
e

D
e
s
a
r
r
o
l
l
o

E
c
o
n
ó
m
i
c
o

“
M
a
d
r
i
d

E
m
p
r
e
n
d
e
”
,

A
y
u
n
t
a
m
i
e
n
t
o

d
e

M
a
d
r
i
d
I
ñ
a
k
i

O
r
t
e
g
a

C
a
c
h
ó
n
M
u
r
c
i
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

d
e

M
u
r
c
i
a
A
n
t
o
n
i
o

A
r
a
g
ó
n

y

A
l
i
c
i
a

R
u
b
i
o
N
a
v
a
r
r
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d

P
ú
b
l
i
c
a

d
e

N
a
v
a
r
r
a
I
g
n
a
c
i
o

C
o
n
t
í
n

P
i
l
a
r
t
P
a
í
s

V
a
s
c
o
D
e
u
s
t
o

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
I
ñ
a
k
i

P
e
ñ
a

y

M
a
r
i
b
e
l

G
u
e
r
r
e
r
o

S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e
A
r
t
h
u
r

L
o
k

J
a
c
k

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

I
n
d
i
e
s
M
i
g
u
e
l

C
a
r
i
l
l
o
I
n
t
e
r

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

B
a
n
k
S
a
c
o
d
a

S
e
r
v

L
t
d
M
.
C
a
r
r
i
l
l
o
@
l
o
k
j
a
c
k
g
s
b
.
e
d
u
.
t
t
H
e
n
r
y

B
a
i
l
e
y

M
a
r
v
i
n

P
a
c
h
e
c
o

S
w
e
d
e
n
S
w
e
d
i
s
h

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

F
o
r
u
m
P
o
n
t
u
s

B
r
a
u
n
e
r
h
j
e
l
m
S
v
e
n
s
k
t

N
ä
r
i
n
g
s
l
i
v

/

C
o
n
f
e
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
w
e
d
i
s
h

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
,

V
i
n
n
o
v
a
I
p
s
o
s
p
o
n
t
u
s
.
b
r
a
u
n
e
r
h
j
e
l
m
@
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
o
r
s
k
a
p
s
f
o
r
u
m
.
s
e
P
e
r

T
h
u
l
i
n
110
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
C
a
r
i
n

H
o
l
m
q
u
i
s
t
M
a
r
i
a

A
d
e
n
f
e
l
t

M
i
k
a
e
l

J
o
r
s
t
i
g

S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

(
H
E
G
-
F
R
)

F
r
i
b
o
u
r
g
R
i
c
o

B
a
l
d
e
g
g
e
r
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

F
r
i
b
o
u
r
g

(
H
E
G
-
F
R
)
g
f
s

B
e
r
n
r
i
c
o
.
b
a
l
d
e
g
g
e
r
@
h
e
f
r
.
c
h
P
a
s
c
a
l

W
i
l
d
R
a
p
h
a
e
l

G
a
u
d
a
r
t
F
r
e
d
r
i
k

H
a
c
k
l
i
n
S
w
i
s
s

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

i
n

Z
u
r
i
c
h

(
E
T
H
Z
)
P
i
u
s

B
a
s
c
h
e
r
a
O
n
u
r

S
a
g
l
a
m
S
i
e
g
f
r
i
e
d

A
l
b
e
r
t
o
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
e
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

A
r
t
s

o
f

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

S
w
i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

(
S
U
P
S
I
)
A
n
d
r
e
a

H
u
b
e
r
T
a
i
w
a
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
e
n
g
c
h
i

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
C
h
a
o
-
T
u
n
g

W
e
n
S
m
a
l
l

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
u
m

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
i
n
i
s
t
r
y

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
?
a
i
r
s

o
f

T
a
i
w
a
n
N
C
C
U

S
u
r
v
e
y

C
e
n
t
e
r
j
t
w
e
n
@
n
c
c
u
.
e
d
u
.
t
w
R
u
-
M
e
i

H
s
i
e
h
r
m
h
s
i
e
h
@
m
a
i
l
.
n
p
u
s
t
.
e
d
u
.
t
w
Y
i
-
W
e
n

C
h
e
n
1
3
7
1
8
6
@
m
a
i
l
.
t
k
u
.
e
d
u
.
t
w
C
h
a
n
g
-
Y
u
n
g

L
i
u
S
u
-
L
e
e

T
s
a
i
Y
u
-
T
i
n
g

C
h
e
n
g
L
i
-
H
u
a

C
h
e
n
S
h
i
h
-
F
e
n
g

C
h
o
u

J
y
h
?
F
u

J
e
n
g

T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
B
a
n
g
k
o
k

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
—
S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p

a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

(
B
U
S
E
M
)
P
i
c
h
i
t

A
k
r
a
t
h
i
t
B
a
n
g
k
o
k

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
T
N
S

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
g
e
m
_
t
h
a
i
l
a
n
d
@
b
u
.
a
c
.
t
h
K
o
s
o
n

S
a
p
p
r
a
s
e
r
t

U
l
r
i
k
e

G
u
e
l
i
c
h

111
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
T
r
i
n
i
d
a
d

a
n
d

T
o
b
a
g
o
A
r
t
h
u
r

L
o
k

J
a
c
k

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

S
c
h
o
o
l

o
f

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

I
n
d
i
e
s
M
i
g
u
e
l

C
a
r
i
l
l
o
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
S
a
c
o
d
a

S
e
r
v

L
t
d
M
.
C
a
r
r
i
l
l
o
@
l
o
k
j
a
c
k
g
s
b
.
e
d
u
.
t
t
H
e
n
r
y

B
a
i
l
e
y

M
a
r
v
i
n

P
a
c
h
e
c
o

T
u
r
k
e
y
S
m
a
l
l

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
u
m

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

(
K
O
S
G
E
B
)
E
s
r
a

K
a
r
a
d
e
n
i
z
S
m
a
l
l

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
u
m

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

(
K
O
S
G
E
B
)
A
k
a
d
e
m
e
t
r
e
e
k
a
r
a
d
e
n
i
z
@
y
e
d
i
t
e
p
e
.
e
d
u
.
t
r
Y
e
d
i
t
e
p
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
M
e
l
t
e
m

Ö
k
s
ü
z
T
u
r
k
i
s
h

E
c
o
n
o
m
y

B
a
n
k

(
T
E
B
)

D
i
l
a

K
a
l
y
o
n
c
u

U
g
a
n
d
a
M
a
k
e
r
e
r
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
R
e
b
e
c
c
a

N
a
m
a
t
o
v
u
M
a
k
e
r
e
r
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
M
a
k
e
r
e
r
e

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

S
c
h
o
o
l
r
y
b
e
k
a
z
@
y
a
h
o
o
.
c
o
m
W
a
s
w
a

B
a
l
u
n
y
w
a
S
a
r
a
h

K
y
e
j
j
u
s
a
P
e
t
e
r

R
o
s
a
L
a
u
r
a

O
r
o
b
i
a
D
i
a
n
a

N
t
a
m
u
S
a
m
u
e
l

D
a
w
a
U
K
A
s
t
o
n

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
M
a
r
k

H
a
r
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
k
i
l
l
s

(
B
I
S
)
B
M
G

L
t
d
m
a
r
k
.
h
a
r
t
@
a
s
t
o
n
.
a
c
.
u
k
J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n

L
e
v
i
e
W
e
l
s
h

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
E
r
k
k
o

A
u
t
i
o
H
u
n
t
e
r

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
,

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

S
t
r
a
t
h
c
l
y
d
e
T
o
m
a
s
z

M
i
c
k
i
e
w
i
c
z
I
n
v
e
s
t

N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

I
r
e
l
a
n
d
M
i
c
h
a
e
l

A
n
y
a
d
i
k
e
-
D
a
n
e
s
C
o
c
a

C
o
l
a

L
t
d
P
a
u
l

R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
T
h
e

P
r
i
n
c
e
’
s

I
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e

f
o
r

M
a
t
u
r
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

(
P
R
I
M
E
)

K
a
r
e
n

B
o
n
n
e
r

U
r
u
g
u
a
y
I
E
E
M
L
e
o
n
a
r
d
o

V
e
i
g
a
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
o
n
t
e
v
i
d
e
o
E
q
u
i
p
o
s

M
o
r
i
l
v
e
i
g
a
@
u
m
.
e
d
u
.
u
y

I
s
a
b
e
l
l
e

C
h
a
q
u
i
r
i
a
n
d
D
e
l
o
i
t
t
e

U
r
u
g
u
a
y

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
B
a
b
s
o
n

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
D
o
n
n
a

K
e
l
l
e
y
B
a
b
s
o
n

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
O
p
i
n
i
o
n
S
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
c
.
d
k
e
l
l
e
y
@
b
a
b
s
o
n
.
e
d
u
A
b
d
u
l

A
l
i
112
GEM NATIONAL TEAMS 2014
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

T
e
a
m

M
e
m
b
e
r
s
F
u
n
d
e
r
s
A
P
S

V
e
n
d
o
r
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
C
a
n
d
i
d
a

B
r
u
s
h
M
a
r
c
i
a

C
o
l
e
A
n
d
r
e
w

C
o
r
b
e
t
t
M
e
d
h
i

M
a
j
M
o
n
i
c
a

D
e
a
n
B
a
r
u
c
h

C
o
l
l
e
g
e
E
d
w
a
r
d

R
o
g
o
?

T
h
o
m
a
s

L
y
o
n
s

V
i
e
t
n
a
m
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e

a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
L
u
o
n
g

M
i
n
h

H
u
a
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
r
e

(
I
D
R
C
)
V
i
e
t
n
a
m

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e

a
n
d

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
h
u
a
n
l
m
@
v
c
c
i
.
c
o
m
.
v
n
P
h
a
m

T
h
i

T
h
u

H
a
n
g
D
o
a
n

T
h
u
y

N
g
a
D
o
a
n

T
h
i

Q
u
y
e
n

L
e

T
h
a
n
h

H
a
i

113
ABOUT GEM
ABOUT GEM

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, GEM, is a worldwide
study on entrepreneurship that was first conceived in
1997 by two academics, one from the London Business
School (Michael Hay) and the other from Babson College
(Bill Bygrave) in the United States. In the late 1990s there
was no recognized international research that focused
on entrepreneurship and this term was not a recognized
household name as it is today. It was only starting to become
important as academics and policy makers acknowledged
the relevance of small, medium and micro-sized enterprises
development for the overall well-being of an economy, the
decrease of unemployment levels and the fight against
the abject poverty which at that time prevailed in many
developing, Third World countries.
The first published reports came out in 1999 and involved
just 10 countries, eight from the OECD. Today, 16 years later,
the Consortium of GEM countries has grown substantially,
with the participation of over 100 economies at all levels of
economic development and in almost all geographic regions.
The GEM survey now represents 70%-75% of the world’s
population and approximately 90% of the world’s GDP. It
can claim to be truly global and the most authoritative and
informative study on entrepreneurship in the world today.
Only a few areas of the globe are not represented, such as
certain countries in mid/central Asia, a few countries in South
East Asia and some countries in West and Central Africa.
GEM differs from most current studies on entrepreneurship in
that it does not just look at businesses, but also at individuals
aged 18-64 from a demographically representative portion
of the population. GEM looks at individuals, their attributes,
aspirations, attitudes, perceptions and intentions. It analyses
what makes —or does not make— them think and act as they
do, as this indicator plays a key role in the entrepreneurial
path that leads them from the stage of potential
entrepreneurs to the phase of entrepreneurship, i.e, the phase
in which they start a business and grow.
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (GERA) GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
Name Team Institution
GERA Board in 2014
José Ernesto Amorós GEM Chile Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
Silvia Torres Carbonell GEM Argentina IAE Business School, Argentina
Michael Hay (Chair) London Business School, UK
Donna Kelley GEM USA Babson College, USA
Ehud Menipaz GEM Israel Ben Gurion University, Israel
Daniel Moska Arreola GEM Mexico Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
Rebecca Namatovu GEM Uganda Makerere University Business School, Uganda
Slavica Singer GEM Croatia J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia
Siri Roland Xavier GEM Malaysia Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia
Research and Innovation Advisory Committee (RIAC)
Nezameddin Faghih GEM Iran University of Tehran, Iran
Jian Gao GEM China Tsinghua University, China
Jolanda Hessels GEM Netherlands Erasmus School of Economics, Netherlands
Jonathan Levie GEM UK Strathclyde University, UK
Ehud Menipaz GEM Israel Ben Gurion University, Israel
Rebecca Namatovu GEM Uganda Makerere University Business School, Uganda
Slavica Singer (Chair) GEM Croatia J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia
Rolf Sternberg GEM Germany University of Hannover, Germany
Rodrigo Varela GEM Colombia Universidad Icesi, Colombia
Data Quality Committee
José Ernesto Amorós (Head) GEM Chile Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
Alicia Coduras GEM Global Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Spain
Claudio Mancilla GEM Chile Universidad de los Lagos, Chile
Nataša Šarlija GEM Croatia J.J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia
114
ABOUT GEM
GERA STAFF
Name Team Institution
GERA Sta? in 2014
Mike Herrington (Executive Director) GEM South Africa University of Cape Town, South Africa
Chris Aylett, Administrative Manager GEM Global
Jonathan Francis Carmona, Data Manager GEM Global
Alicia Coduras, NES Coordinator GEM Global Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Spain
Marcia Cole, Special Projects Manager GEM USA Babson College, USA
Ingrid Copperman, Administrative Assistant GEM Global
Yana Litovsky, Data Team Supervisor GEM Global
Maria Minniti, Workshop Coordinator GEM Global Syracuse University, USA
115
AUTHORS
SLAVICA SINGER
Dr. Slavica Singer is Professor Emeritus of Entrepreneurship
at the J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Croatia, and the
Chair holder of the UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship. In
2000 she and her team were pioneers in entrepreneurship
education in Croatia, by initiating the first graduate program in
entrepreneurship. The doctoral program ENTREPRENEURSHIP
AND INNOVATION was started in 2010, as a result of EU-funded
collaborative efforts of five universities (Osijek, Croatia; Turku,
Finland; Maribor, Slovenia; Klagenfurt, Austria and Durham,
UK). She has led the Croatian Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
research team since 2002 and she is a Board member of
the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. She is a
member of the Croatian Competitiveness Council and the
Club of Rome, Croatian Chapter, as well as a Board member
of the European Council of Small Business. Her pioneering
initiatives were the basis for the establishment of the Croatian
entrepreneurship ecosystem’s first components: the Center for
Entrepreneurship in Osijek (1997), the microfinance institution
NOA in Osijek (1996), and CEPOR—SMEs and Entrepreneurship
Policy Center in Zagreb (2000). For her contributions to the
development of university-based entrepreneurship education,
she was awarded the UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship in
2008, and the honorary doctorate by the University of Turku,
Turku School of Economics, Finland, in 2010.
JOSÉ ERNESTO AMORÓS
Dr. José Ernesto Amorós is the Executive Director of the
Entrepreneurship Institute at the School of Business and
Economics, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile. He
is the coordinator and main researcher of Chile’s Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor and member of the GERA Board.
He is also the academic leader of the Entrepreneurship
Research Group at EGADE Business School, Tecnológico
de Monterrey, México. He holds a Ph.D. in Management
Sciences from ESADE Business School, Spain, and was a
World Bank-CONICYT Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the
Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Chile. He has a Bachelor’s Degree
in Business Administration and MSc in Marketing from the
Tecnológico de Monterrey. He is one of the Vice-Presidents
of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management. He is a
member of the International Council of Small Business,
Strategic Management Society, Academy of Management
and Academy of International Business. He is a lecturer in
several Latin American and Spanish universities. His research
interests are entrepreneurship, competitiveness and regional
development, high growth new business, entrepreneurship
and gender, and corporate entrepreneurship.
DANIEL MOSKA ARREOLA
Dr. Daniel Moska Arreola is the Associate Vice President
of Entrepreneurship at the Eugenio Garza Lagüera
Entrepreneurship Institute, Tecnológico de Monterrey,
México. He is a member of the GERA Board. He holds a Ph.D
in Finance from Tulane University and a Master in Business
Administration from the Tecnológico de Monterrey. He is
a member of the Advisory Board of the National Institute
for Entrepreneurship (INADEM) at the Ministry of Economy
and the National Committee of Productivity for the Federal
Government. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the
Mexican Institute of Financial Executives. He has been a judge
of the Latin America IBM SmartCamp and of the Best Mexican
Enterprises. Speaker and panelist on entrepreneurship and
innovation in the Entrepreneurship Week Mexico City, Campus
Party Guadalajara, INCmty, EY Entrepreneurship Forum, and
the Entrepreneurship Forum San Luis Potosí, among others.
He has taught courses in America and Europe. He served as
General Director of Tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus Santa
Fe, and contributed to create the Business Innovation and
Entrepreneurship Park, as well as to obtain the National Export
Award 2012, and the National Entrepreneurship Award 2014
for the Tecnológico de Monterrey.
GEM 2014 FORROS.indd 1 1/29/15 12:41 AM

doc_163572841.pdf