【作者】 谭远发；

【导师】 边慧敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 劳动经济学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 2008年9月15日,发端于美国并蔓延全球的国际金融危机对世界经济产生了重要影响,鼓励创业因而成为许多国家刺激经济增长和就业创造的“救命稻草”。2008年9月26日,中国人力资源和社会保障部联合其他10部委出台了《关于促进以创业带动就业工作的指导意见》。一些地方政府将“全民创业”明确写入了政策文件。少数学者和官员呼吁“‘全民创业’应该上升为国家的战略”。2009年5月20日,美国国会通过了《以创业促进就业法案(2009)》。然而,全球知名创业学家Shane(2009)指出：“鼓励更多人参与创业并不是一项好的公共政策,它并不一定能促进经济增长或创造就业。一般来说,新创企业并不是经济活力和就业创造的源泉”。这也就是说创业政策不能“摊大饼”。正因如此,一直致力于研究创业与经济增长关系的全球创业观察项目(Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,GEM)自2001年以来就明确区分了机会型和生存型创业(Opportunity and Necessity Entrepreneurship)。所谓机会型创业是指那些为了追求商业机会而从事的创业活动,而生存型创业是那些别无选择或对当前就业状况不满意而从事的创业活动。GEM相关研究表明,机会型创业对经济增长和就业创造等方面的贡献大于生存型创业(Wennekers et al.,2005; Wong et al.,2005);因而机会型创业率越高越好,生存型创业率越低越好(Acs et al.,2005;Acs & Varga,2005).然而,近年来GEM的相关研究和论断也遭到质疑。在此背景下,为克服已有研究的局限和争议,增进本文结论的可靠性和说服力,研究方法上,本文运用最新发展的现代计量经济学方法,对以下四个问题进行全面的实证性考察。(1)GEM创业模型是否适合机会型和生存型创业?(2)从宏观和微观角度上看,机会型创业是否比生存型创业有更高的绩效?(3)若机会型创业确实有较高的绩效,是否意味着促进机会型创业的公共政策就是正确的?(4)若确需大力促进机会型创业,则如何识别和鼓励机会型创业?这就是说,与生存型创业相比,机会型创业的宏观和微观影响因素有何差异。为回答上述问题,全文共分六章,各章的主要内容及结论简述如下：第一章,绪论。本章介绍了研究背景及研究意义；通过文献综述发现,国内外学者有关机会型和生存型创业的实证研究较少；其研究内容,研究方法和研究样本选择都值得深入探索,然后提出了本文的研究框架、研究内容和方法。第二章,机会型和生存型创业理论框架。本章回顾了创业环境概念及要素,介绍了基于环境视角的五大经典创业模型。从环境、机会、资源、能力或动机四个维度予以评述,根据各模型的解释力、复杂程度、可验证性等,本文选择了GEM创业模型作为基本理论框架。结合所要研究问题,本文基于有计划的行为理论和创业动机模型,从宏观和微观两个层面对GEM创业模型进行了扩展,并提出了相应假设。第三章,机会型和生存型创业的宏观决定机制和效应研究。本章首先利用2005年GEM国家层面数据,比较机会型和生存型创业所依赖的创业环境差异,进而验证GEM创业模型是否适合生存型创业。最后分别采用线性回归(Ordinary Least Squares,OLS)和结构方程模型(Structural Equation Modeling,SEM)比较了机会型和生存型创业对经济增长的贡献差异。研究发现,机会型和生存型创业各自依赖的环境条件明显不同,生存型创业对创业环境好坏更敏感。GEM创业模型总体上适合机会型和生存型创业;创业环境的改善,能促进机会型创业,而减少生存型创业：机会型创业对经济增长有显著的正向影响,但生存型创业对经济增长的正向影响并不显著。这表明政府支出通过改善创业环境,促进机会型创业,进而促进经济增长的边际效应更高,从这种意义上说,机会型创业更应该得到支持和鼓励。第四章,机会型和生存型创业微观影响因素研究。本章首先回顾了创业的研究视角和影响因素,风险态度的概念和测量方法；然后利用异方差的概率模型(Heteroscedastic Probit,Hprobit)模型,基于30个GEM参与国家的5631个创业者层面数据,比较了机会型和生存型创业者的个体特征,所在国家和创业阶段不同时,机会型和生存型创业微观影响因素差异。对所有样本的Hprobit回归发现,风险态度既影响创业动机(风险态度对机会型创业的影响更显著),又影响创业者对创业动机的认知。对不同创业阶段分样本进行Hprobit回归发现；初创阶段样本,风险态度既影响创业动机,还影响创业者对创业动机的认知方差；但对初创后阶段样本,风险态度不影响创业者的创业动机及其对创业动机的认知方差。在分析机会型创业者深层次动机后发现,中国60%的机会型创业者是经济型动机,GEM所有国家52%的机会型创业者是成就型动机。从创业过程看,GEM所有国家57%的机会型创业者“先有创业意愿,再有创业理念”,中国机会型创业者的该比例较之约高7个百分点。这表明中国机会型创业者是经济驱动,创业意愿在先。第五章,机会型和生存型创业绩效比较研究。在界定创业绩效和评价维度的基础上,本章采用异方差的定序概率模型(Heteroscedastic Ordered Probit, HOprobit)模型,分别在创业动机外生和内生时,比较了成长抱负(Growth Aspirations)和创新能力(所提供产品和服务的新颖性)的群体性差异及影响因素。不论是创业动机内生,还是外生时,它对创业绩效均有显著的影响,这意味着机会型创业比生存型创业有更强的创新能力和成长抱负。HOprobit分析还发现,机会型和生存型创业者对创新能力的认知存在群体性差异,机会型创业者对创新能力的认知方差较小。当创业动机外生时,机会型和生存型创业者对成长抱负认知的系统性差异不显著；在创业动机内生后,HOprobit分析表明,机会型创业者对成长抱负的认知方差较大。此外,本文还发现风险态度对创业绩效无直接影响,风险态度对创业绩效的间接影响以创业动机为中介。第六章,总结与展望。从宏观和微观上,本章分别归纳了本文的研究结论、创新点,对中国创业实践的政策启示,研究不足和研究展望。从历史的角度来看,中国创业活动已经实现向机会型创业转型；从全球视野来看,中国创业活动的呈现“三高”和“两低”特点。“三高”表现为创业总指数高,未来创业进入率高和创业失败率高；“两低”表现为机会型创业和生存型创业比率低,创业成长潜力低。这些特点决定了中国的创业支持政策体系的特殊性。即在支持机会型的同时,又要重视生存型创业。这也表明中国的创业政策评价应该坚持“经济评价”和“政治评价”双重标准,不能顾此失彼。从理论上看,中国目前出台的全民创业政策兼有“经济效率”和“政治效率”,但这些政策的实践效果还有待进一步评估。本文的主要贡献在于,(1)首次从理论上扩展和验证了GEM创业模型,促进了该模型的完善和发展。在研究中,基于经济学、管理学、社会学、心理学和行为学等学科知识,采用宏观和微观分析相结合。在宏观分析中,分别采用OLS和SEM方法对GEM创业模型进行了验证,增强了结论的可靠性和说服力。此外,本文还指明了GEM创业模型的不足和应完善之处。(2)首次在创业研究领域采用Hprobit和HOprobit模型,分别纠正了采用Probit和Oprobit模型研究创业动机和创业绩效时偏差,该偏差可能因存在异方差导致的；识别了异方差的来源,即风险态度显著影响创业动机的认知方差；创业动机显著影响创业绩效的认知方差；这有力证明了创业者群体的异质性。(3)本文既扩展了风险态度的研究对象,又扩展了机会型和生存型创业的研究视角；系统而全面地考察了风险态度对创业动机,创业动机对创业绩效,以及风险态度对创业绩效的影响。同时,本文还利用GEM数据证实了有计划的行为理论和创业动机模型表达的部分内涵。更多还原

【Abstract】 The global financial crisis, took place in U.S. on September 15,2008, has triggered a serious slowdown in world economic growth and society. To stimulate economic growth and job creation, encouraging entrepreneurship therefore becomes the "last straws" in many countries. On September 26,2008, Chinese Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security with other 10 ministries jointly issued the "Turnbull Guidance on employment promotion through entrepreneurship". Some local governments take it as "national entrepreneurship" and write into policy files. A few scholars and officials claimed that "national entrepreneurship" should be upgraded to the national strategy. On May 20,2009, U.S. Congress passed the "Job Creation through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009". However, Shane (2009) who is the 2009 Winner of the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research pointed out that encouraging more and more people to start businesses is bad public policy, which won’t enhance economic growth or create a lot of jobs because start-ups, in general, aren’t the source of our economic vitality and job creation. His argument may indicate that the policy makers need to "stop spreading the peanut butter so thin".For the same reason, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor research program, which involves exploration of the role of entrepreneurship in national economic growth, has clearly distinguished between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship since 2001. The so-called opportunity entrepreneurship is that individuals involved in entrepreneurial activities are to take advantage of a business opportunity; while necessity entrepreneurship is that individuals involved in entrepreneurial activities are not satisfied with the current job or because of no better choices for work. GEM related research shows opportunity entrepreneurship contributes greater to economic growth and job creation than necessity entrepreneurship (Wennekers et al.,2005; Wong et al.,2005), wherefore, the higher the opportunity entrepreneurship rate, the better; while the lower the necessity entrepreneurship rates, the better (Acs et al.,2005; Acs & Varga,2005). However, GEM’s research and conclusions has been questioned in recent years.Under this context, to overcome above controversy, and to achieve reliable and robust conclusions, this thesis utilizes the latest developed methodology in modern econometrics to conduct a comprehensive empirical investigation into the following four questions:(1) Are GEM’s entrepreneurial model (GEM model for short) suitable for both opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship? (2)From macro and micro perspectives, does opportunity entrepreneurship performs better than the necessity entrepreneurship? (3) If the opportunity entrepreneurship does perform better, is it adequate to justify the public policy supporting it is correct? (4) If opportunity entrepreneurship does deserve more support, how to identify and encourage it? In other words, what are the macro and micro determinants of opportunity entrepreneurship? What’s the difference between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurial determinants?The whole thesis is structured as six chapters, main contents and corresponding conclusions in each chapter are summarized as follows:Chapter 1 is an introduction. Introducing background and significance of this research, according to literature review, this chapter finds that domestic and international scholars did little empirical study on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship, research contents, research methods and sample selection in this field are worthy of further study and exploration. Finally, this chapter presents the research framework, contents and methods.Chapter 2 offers the theoretical framework of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. Reviewing the concepts and elements of entrepreneurial environment, introducing five classic entrepreneurial models based on environmental perspective; this chapter compares the five models from four dimensions, such as environment, opportunities, resources, ability or motivation. According to the model’s explanatory power, complexity and verifiability etc., this thesis takes GEM model as the theoretical framework, based on the planned behavior theory and the entrepreneurial motivation model, this thesis augments it from macro and micro perspectives, and presents the corresponding hypothesis.Chapters 3 studies the macro-mechanisms and macro-effects of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. Firstly, based on the country level data of GEM 2005, this chapter compares the differences in entrepreneurial environment between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship, and then investigates if the GEM model fits to necessity entrepreneurship. Finally, utilizing Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), this chapter compares the contributions of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship to economic growth. All finding described as environmental conditions on which opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship depends are significantly different, necessity entrepreneurship is more sensitive to environmental conditions. GEM entrepreneurial model is on whole suitable for both opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. Good entrepreneurial environment increase opportunity entrepreneurship, but reduces necessity entrepreneurship. Opportunity entrepreneurship has significantly positive effects on economic growth, but necessity entrepreneurship doesn’t significantly affect economic growth. This result shows that the marginal effect of government spending to stimulate economic growth through opportunity entrepreneurship promotion is larger, and therefore deserves supporting and encouraging.Chapter 4 investigates the micro-determinants of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. After reviewing literature on perspective and determinants of entrepreneurship, definition and measurement methods of risk attitudes, this chapter then uses Heteroscedastic Probit (Hprobit) model, Based on 5631 entrepreneurs-level data from thirty GEM countries in 2005, and further compares the difference in individual characterisics, micro-determinants to samples from different countries and entrepreneurial stages. Hprobit regression to all samples demonstrates that risk attitudes not only affect entrepreneurial motivation, but also affect entrepreneurs’ recognition of entrepreneurial motivation. Hprobit regression to the sub-samples of different entrepreneurial stages, first to the sample of start-up stage, finds that risk attitudes affect both entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneur’s recognition of entrepreneurial motivation. When it comes to the sub-sample of post start-up stage, risk attitudes neither affect entrepreneurial motivation nor affect entrepreneur’s cognitive variance of entrepreneurial motivation. Further analysis on Opportunity entrepreneur’s deep-seated entrepreneurial motivation, this chapter finds that 60% of Chinese opportunity entrepreneurs are economic-driven,52% of opportunity entrepreneurs from other GEM countries are achievement-driven. In the entrepreneurial process, for samples of all GEM countries,57% of the opportunity entrepreneur claimed "Business desire came first, and business idea came later", for the Chinese opportunity entrepreneurs; it is nearly 7 percentages higher, which indicate that Chinese opportunity entrepreneurs are economic-driven and form business desire first.Chapter 5 is a comparative study on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurial performance. Based on the definition and evaluating dimensions of entrepreneurial performance, combining its determinants, this chapter uses Heteroscedastic Ordered Probit (HOprobit) model to compare the group differences in Growth aspirations, innovation and its determinants on condition that entrepreneurial motivation is exogenous and endogenous respectively. Whether entrepreneurial motivation is endogenous or exogenous; it has significant impact on entrepreneurial performance, which indicates opportunity entrepreneurship has a stronger innovation ability and growth aspirations than necessity entrepreneurship. Moreover, Heteroscedastic Ordered Probit (HOprobit) analysis shows that there is systematic difference between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs in cognitive innovation ability, while the former’s cognitive variance of novelty products & services is smaller. When entrepreneurial motivation is exogenous, the systematic difference between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs in terms of cognitive growth aspirations is not yet significant. When entrepreneurial motivation is endogenous, HOprobit analysis indicates that opportunity entrepreneurs’ cognitive variance of growth aspirations is larger. In addition, this chapter also finds that risk attitudes have no direct impact on entrepreneurial performance, but it indirectly affect entrepreneurial performance through the role of entrepreneurial motivation.Chapter 6 provides summation and prospects. This chapter presents conclusions, innovative points, policy implications to Chinese entrepreneurial practice, research limitations and prospects of this study. From a historical perspective, Chinese entrepreneurial activity has switched to the opportunity entrepreneurship. From a global perspective, Chinese entrepreneurial activity is marked by "three high" and "two low". The former denotes high total entrepreneurial activity index, high future start-up rate and high shut down rate; the later denotes low ratio of opportunity to necessity entrepreneurial activity index, low entrepreneurial growth potential. These features reflect and determine China’s unique entrepreneurial support system, that is, Chinese government should support opportunity entrepreneurship but shouldn’t ignore necessity entrepreneurship, which means that China’s entrepreneurial policy should be evaluated by double standards--- "economic evaluation" and "political evaluation" instead of catching one but losing another.Theoretically, China’s current entrepreneurial policies are of both "economic efficiency" and "political efficiency". However, their practical effeteness needs to be further evaluated.This thesis contributes to entrepreneurship theory in three aspects:(1)Using a combination of macro and micro analysis, based on the knowledge of economics, management, sociology, psychology and behavioral science and other fields, this thesis initially augments and tests GEM model, which would facilitate to improve and perfect the model. In macro analysis, OLS and SEM methods were used to achieve consist and persuasive conclusions. Moreover, this thesis pointed out limitations that GEM model should be improved. (2)More importantly, this thesis adopting Hprobit and HOprobit not only corrects the estimation bias due to heteroscedasticity when using Probit and Oprobit model in entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial performance, but also identifies the source of heteroscedasticity,that is, risk attitudes have a significant impact on the cognitive variance of entrepreneurial motivation, while the entrepreneurial motivation significantly affect cognitive variance of entrepreneurial performance, which demonstrates that different groups of entrepreneurs are heterogeneous. (3) This thesis not only augments the study object on risk attitudes, but also augments the study perspective of opportunities and necessity entrepreneurship. Furthermore, this thesis initially and systematically studies the impact of risk attitudes on entrepreneurial motivation, of entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial performance, as well as the impact of risk attitudes on entrepreneurial performance. In addition, it also confirms some conclusion of planned behavior theory and the entrepreneurial motivation by GEM data.更多还原