Conventionally, be hampered by inadequate empirical information.

Conventionally,
neoclassical theories regarded capital, labor and technology as leading factors
that stimulate economic growth. A renewed thinking from new growth models also
emphasize the important role of entrepreneurship to the mantra of economic
growth. From business literature standpoint Schumpeter (1934), Acs and
Audretsch (1988) and Wennekers and Thurik (1999) as well, highlight
entrepreneurship as a driver of innovation and ultimately economic growth. As a
result of its pertinence to the economic through employment creation and
supplying new technology, entrepreneurship is increasingly gaining coverage in academic
and policy making circles (Carree and Thurik (2003), Van Stel, Carree and
Thurik (2004 and 2005), Acs and Varga (2005), Wong, Ho and Autio (2005), Acs
(2006), Méndez-Picazo, Galindo-Martín and Ribeiro-Soriano (2012), Palagashvili
(2015) and Herrington and Kew (2017)). According to Kressel and Lento (2012),
entrepreneurship is regarded as both an engine and catalyst to economic growth.
However, Ahmad and Hoffmann (2008) argue that the pursuit to adopt economic
policies that rest on entrepreneurship as a tool to spur economic growth
continue to be hampered by inadequate empirical information.

Literature relating
institutional quality, entrepreneurship and economic growth mainly address the
indirect link of institution and economic growth through entrepreneurship (Acs,
Desai and Hessels (2008), Méndez-Picazo, Galindo-Martín and Ribeiro-Soriano
(2012) and Palagashvili (2015)). Studies devoted to the joint impact of
entrepreneurship and institutional quality on economic growth are not only less
documented empirically but theoretically as well (Wennekers and Thurik (1999)).
Likewise, Kiliç, Arica and Topkaya (2013) analyze the connection of
these three variables in a single equation. Also some  studies fail to account for reverse causality
of entrepreneurship and economic growth or institutional quality and economic
growth (Acs, Desai and Klapper (2008)).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

As such, the aim of this paper
is to close the literature gap by analyzing the individual impact of
entrepreneurship as well as its separate combined effect with institutional
quality and technology exports on economic performance. Hypotheses of this
paper are as follows; high entrepreneurial activities denoted by total
entrepreneurial activities (TEA) lead to high economic growth. Secondly, engaging
in entrepreneurial activities in an environment with better institutions and in
high technology exports stimulates economic growth.

Acs, Desai and Hessels
(2008) and Palagashvili (2015) further highlight that entrepreneurship’s
contribution to economic growth can be successful if it is supported by good
infrastructure, political stability and good governance. Through setting of
rules of the game, institutions do not only legitimize entrepreneurial
activities but also protecting entrepreneurs against expropriation of their
hard earned investments (Troilo (2011: 160)). A stable political environment,
predictable rule of law and respect of private property rights are fundamental
in incentivizing entrepreneurs to be risk takers in starting and expanding
their investments (Desai, Gompers and Lerner (2003), Estrin, Korosteleva and
Mickiewicz (2009), Friedman (2011) and Aidis, Estrin and Mickiewicz (2012)). The
above factors do not only provide a minimum assurance to entrepreneurs but also
provide confidence and trust to them. Troilo (2011) also bemoan that too much
regulations and well-established laws can end up hindering entrepreneurial engagements.
As a result Kiliç, Arica and Topkaya (2013) suggest that policy makers should crave
to create a barrier free business environment for entrepreneurs so that high
levels of economic growth can be attained.

An increase in
economic growth (income level) may open avenues for individuals to engage in
entrepreneurial activities since they have enough resources to exploit
entrepreneurial opportunities resulting in more jobs created (Acs (2006) and
Acs, Desai and Klapper (2008)). In contrast, a decrease in economic growth,
such as in times of crisis especially for developing countries, may mean
limited employment opportunities created forcing individuals to undertake
entrepreneurial activities (small and medium enterprising). Due to economic
crisis, individuals are bound to be innovative and venture into entrepreneurial
activities. This is a common feature in developing countries where small scale
entrepreneurs are rampant. As people find employment, entrepreneurship
participation rate start to decrease. In this case Carree and Thurik ((2003)
and (2010)) highlighted that unemployment necessitates the need for individuals
to engage in entrepreneurial activities, a “refugee
effect” concept. Alternatively, according to Acs (2006), Carree and Thurik
((2003) and (2010)) and Bosma (2013), high entrepreneurial activities create
new businesses which in turn create employment leading to high economic growth
rates, and this is termed the “Schumpeter
effect”.