Mapping Entrepreneurial Ecosystem of
China:a Multi-Perspective Comparison
Zheng Xiumei, Wang Haiyan
School of Public Policy and Management
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences(UCAS)
Beijing,China
zhengxiumei15@mails.ucas.edu.cn
Abstract—Entrepreneurial Ecosystem is not only the
catalyst for steady economic development. It is an important
factor to reverse the economic slowdown. “Popular
innovation and entrepreneurship” can hardly boost China
developing fast without the support of well Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem. This paper makes a vertical comparison for the
past five year about entrepreneurial ecosystem in China and a
horizontal comparison between China and other countries
which are in the same development stage or higher stage
according to Global Competitive Reports to address Chinese
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem further. Results show that most of
the factors are showing an improving trend, especially
financing for Entrepreneurs, Governmental Support and
Policies for Entrepreneurship, Internal Market Dynamics,
Cultural and Social Norms etc. But, R&D Transfer and
Commercial, Professional Infrastructure should be improved
urgently. This paper will benefit “mass entrepreneurship and
innovation” further and provide experience to other followers
from developing countries.
Keywords—Entrepreneurial Ecosystem; Economic
Development Stage; China; Horizontal Comparison; Vertical
Comparison;
I. INTRODUCTION
At a critical juncture in its economic
transformation, transforming economic development
patter and finding new engines are the focus of
Chinese Government. Government proposed to
promote innovation and entrepreneurship vigorously in
2013 and launched “mass entrepreneurship and
innovation” Strategy as one of new engines two years
later in the Report on the Work of the Government,
which means encourage people all over the country to
be creative, to start his own new business or join in the
entrepreneurship team. A series of measures are
implemented to incubate good environment for
innovation and entrepreneurship since then. As a result,
the enthusiasm of innovation and entrepreneurship runs
high and more and more startup companied emerge.
This development model is recognized by UN, writing
into United Nations resolution.
However, various international rating and
initiatives (e.g. The World Bank) point out that there is
still some way to go in the aspect of entrepreneurial
conditions for China, compared with other more
developed countries. Some deficiencies are distinct for
China’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, and restrain
entrepreneurial activities development. Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem is not only the catalyst for steady economic
development. It is an important factor to reverse the
economic slowdown [1]. In order to find the attributes
what China still lack in entrepreneurial ecosystem, to
address this issue effectively, some comparative
strengths and weaknesses in the relevant context
should be aware, and also some comparison with itself
before is also necessary.
Therefore, the main research questions of our
paper are to make a vertical comparison for the past
five year about entrepreneurial ecosystem in China and
a horizontal comparison between China and other
countries which are in the same development stage or
higher stage according to Global Competitive Reports
2016.
The article is structured as follows. Next, we do
some review about Entrepreneurial Ecosystem. The
third section describes the sample, data and variables
used. The analysis follows, and the last part is
discussion and conclusion.
II. ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM
Entrepreneurship is identified as a resource [2] and
regional capability, influencing competitive strength [3]
and economy development [4], which the converse also
applies [5]. These relations depends on national's system
environments in a large part, which including many
aspects, like economic, institutional and sociocultural
factors, constituting a rules set, namely Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem [4].
Countries evolve through stages. In general, the
stages of economic growth are divided into three
hinges on GDP per capita level according to Global
Competitiveness Index Report. Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem which favors entrepreneurial activity is an
engine forcing a country to more advanced
development stage [6]. There is not much literature
specialized in the critical analysis of Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem by means of economic growth stages [6]. For
this reason, we will combine Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem framework with economic growth stages to
identify the difference between China and other
countries in different stages.
Authors have used Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor (GEM) data in the areas of entrepreneurship
research extensively [7-9]
. Global Entrepreneurial
Monitor Project is aiming to provide a more synthetic
understanding of entrepreneurship phenomenon, as an
important entrepreneurship data resource for WEF, WB,
and OECD. Based on the fundamental assumption that
people’s ability of identifying and catching
opportunities is the key cause of national economic
growth, and environmental factors can affect this
process, GEM conceptual framework is divided into
two parts. One is National Framework Conditions
(NFCs), and the other is Entrepreneurial Framework
Conditions (EFCs). The former mainly takes into
account of economic development phase, and the later
one is more related to entrepreneurial ecosystem [10],
which is based on the theory of entrepreneurship and
TABLE I. THE INDICATORS INTERPRETATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM
IV. ANALYSIS
In order to analyze China Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem well, this paper makes a vertical
comparison for the past five year about entrepreneurial
ecosystem itself and a horizontal comparison between
China and other countries which are in the same
development stage and higher stage according to
Global Competitive Reports 2016.
A. A Vertical Comparison
To analyze the change of entrepreneurship
ecosystem in China, we do a vertical comparison based
on data from 2012 to 2016, describing status quo by
economic development [11]. Though there is an inherent
relation between NFCs and EFCs, Levie and Hunt
found the latter has more significantly impact on
entrepreneurship activities [12]. As a result, we focus on
Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions, namely
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in this paper.
III. DATA AND VARIABLES
According to GEM framework, Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem contains nine factors (see Table Ⅰ). c. GEM
gets EFCs data through interviewing at least 36 famous
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem experts in each economy,
including entrepreneurs, government, academics, and
practitioners [10] .What we can get available on the
GEM website are data set of China from years of 2007,
2010, and 2012 to 2016. This article chooses five years
of continuous data from 2012 to 2016, as a foundation
for analysis.
descriptive statistics and analyzing trends by
computing Compound Annual Growth Rate(CAGR)
and drawing five-year development trend chart.
According to the mean value of descriptive
statistics of entrepreneurship ecosystem factors in
China (see Table Ⅱ), Physical & Services
Infrastructure earns the highest score, and Internal
Market Dynamics takes second place, and these two
scores are significantly higher than others. Cultural &
Social Norms and Governmental Support & Policies’
scores are above 3, too. Basic school Entrepreneurial
Education & Training posts the lowest scores, far
behind others. The results show that for most of the
experts, Physical & Services Infrastructure in China,
like communication, utilities, transportation, land or
space, are available enough for those new or growing
firms’ operation and development, and Internal Market
Dynamics can give them broad development space.
Governmental Support & Policies and Cultural &
Social Norms are also supportive. However, there is
largely insufficient in Entrepreneurial Education and
Training, especially Basic school Entrepreneurial
Education & Training. It means education and training
at primary and secondary levels did not do enough to
encourage creativity, self-sufficiency, and personal
initiative etc.

TABLE II. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM FACTORS IN CHINA

N Min Max Mean SD Var.
1 Financing for Entrepreneurs 5 2.37 3.32 2.74 0.387 0.150
2-1 Governmental Support & Policies 5 2.61 3.55 3.01 0.386 0.149
2-2 Taxes & Bureaucracy 5 2.56 2.89 2.70 0.134 0.018
3 Governmental Programs 5 2.51 2.66 2.59 0.064 0.004
Basic school Entrepreneurial Education &
4-1 5 1.62 2.04 1.76 0.168 0.028
Training
Post school Entrepreneurial Education &
4-2 5 2.72 3.17 2.90 0.199 0.040
Training
5 R&D Transfer 5 2.47 2.67 2.52 0.083 0.007
6 Commercial & Professional Infrastructure 5 2.58 2.79 2.66 0.080 0.006
7-1 Internal Market Dynamics 5 3.68 4.35 3.99 0.288 0.083
7-2 Internal Market Openness 5 2.54 2.66 2.60 0.047 0.002
8 Physical & Services Infrastructure 5 3.93 4.33 4.12 0.159 0.025
9 Cultural & Social Norms 5 2.89 3.47 3.06 0.232 0.054
Source: 2012-2016, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report

To analyze change of entrepreneurship research and development findings, intellectual

environment in China for the last five years, we
calculate the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
with 2012 as the base period (see Fig. 1). Compound
Annual Growth Rate shows most of factors in the
Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions are improving.
Financing for Entrepreneurs has the most obvious
trend with a 6.97% CAGR, followed by Government
Support & Policies with 3.77%. CAGR of Cultural &
Social Norms, Internal Market Dynamics, Post school
Entrepreneurial Education & Training, Basic school
Entrepreneurial Education & Training and
Governmental Programs are also about 3%.
Nonetheless, some factors don’t perform well. R&D
Transfer and Commercial & Professional Infrastructure
are respectively 1.39% and 1.55% annualized decline.
This demonstrates that positive impact of national
property protection, commercial and legal services on
startups and grow-up companies is weak.
To analyze specific trend of each further year by
year, we find that Financing for Entrepreneurs shows a
rising trend, score in 2016 increases by 40.08% than in
2012. It indicates finance support environment is
improving and entrepreneurs can get finance support
more and more easily. Governmental Support &
Policies for entrepreneurship greatly improves too.
Even score in 2016 is a bit less than it in 2015, it
increases 20.31% than it in 2012. Entrepreneurial
Education & Training, Internal Market Dynamics,
Cultural & Social Norms are all improved steadily.
Those scores in 2016 are all increase about 15% than
them in 2012.

Source: 2012-2016, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report

Fig. 1. Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem factors in China

B. A Horizontal Comparison
Comparison results of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
between China and other upper stage countries are
presented in Fig. 2 below. We use the data of five-year
average. Though China is in the stage 2 according to
Source: 2012-2016, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report
Fig. 2. Comparison results of Entrepreneurial Ecosystem between China and other upper stage countries
Scores of Financing for Entrepreneurs,
Governmental Support & Policies, Taxes &
Bureaucracy, Post school Entrepreneurial Education &
Training, Internal Market Dynamics, Physical &
Services Infrastructure, Cultural & Social Norms are
all significantly better than average of all other
countries. Looked from the macroscopic angle, China’s
market dynamics are relatively strong, changing year
by year; social and cultural norms in China encourage
or allow actions leading to new business methods or
activities. Chinese government gives startups and
growing companies relatively large support in tax and
finance policies, and streamlines administration and
institute decentralization to ease venturing stress.
Taking a look at the medium and micro level, startups
and growing companies are easier access to finance
support, like equity，debt，grants and subsidies, and
physical & service infrastructure support, like
communication, utilities, transportation, land or space
at a price that does not discriminate against SMEs.
Education & training of creating or managing SMEs
are also better than others in the stage of vocational,
college, business schools stage.
In the aspect of Governmental Support & Policies,
Basic school Entrepreneurial Education & Training,
R&D Transfer, Internal Market Openness, although,
scores are higher than countries in efficiency-driven
stage and transition stage, they are a bit less than
economics in innovation-driven stage. Score of
Global Competitive Reports 2016, Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem is more competitive compared with
countries in stage 2(efficiency-driven stage), transition
stage and even stage 3(innovation-driven stage).
Commercial & Professional Infrastructure is in the
bottom of the table.
To analyze strength and weakness of China’s
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem further, this paper get a
Condition and a Boolean to compare China with each
countries in different stage respectively. Microsoft
Excel is used. Taking “Financing for Entrepreneurs” as
an example, China’s value is 3.32 in 2016. We input
“=IF (H2>=3.32, 1, 0)” in the Microsoft EXCEL,
where H2 means the location of the cell in which the
country's Financing for factors score is compared. The
output is 1 if compared country’s score is greater than
or equal to China, otherwise the output is 0. Table Ⅲ
summarizes countries number and percent that get a
better score than China. For instance, there are no
countries in innovation stage get a better score than
China in the aspect of Financing for Entrepreneurs
(Num. =0), accounting for 0% of the total number of
countries in stage 3(Per=0%). This result reveals
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem comparison in more details.
The result (see Table Ⅲ) shows further that China
perform well in the aspect of Financing for
Entrepreneurs, Governmental Support & Policies,
Taxes & Bureaucracy, Post school Entrepreneurial
Education & Training, Internal Market Dynamics,
Physical & Services Infrastructure, cultural &social
norms. There are only less than 30% countries getting
more scores than China in all aspect above. Especially
for Financing for Entrepreneurs, China is far ahead of
other countries.
The result also uncovers some gaps between
China and other countries, supporting the conclusion
above further. Commercial & Professional
Infrastructure is the weakest segment of China
Entrepreneurship Ecosystem, with score less than vast
majority samples, even 70% countries in efficiency-
driven stage and all countries in innovation-driven
stage. China is exceeded by about 73% countries in
innovation-driven stage in the aspect of Governmental
Programs and R&D Transfer and respectively about
61.54%, 46.15% in terms of Internal Market Openness
and Basic school Entrepreneurial Education &
Training. It is still a great gap. However, compared
with those in efficiency-driven stage and transition
stage, China performs well. These results echo average
value comparison results above.

TABLE III. THE SUMMING RESULT OF CONDITIONAL JUDGMENT OF EACH COUNTRY

stage 2 stage 2 to stage 3 stage 3

Num. Per Num. Per Num. Per

1 Financing for Entrepreneurs 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
2-1 Governmental support and policies 1 5.88% 1 7.69% 8 30.77%
2-2 Taxes and bureaucracy 1 5.88% 1 7.69% 7 26.92%
3 Governmental Programs 2 11.76% 5 38.46% 19 73.08%
Basic school entrepreneurial education and
4-1 3 17.65% 4 30.77% 12 46.15%
training
Post school entrepreneurial education and
4-2 3 17.65% 1 7.69% 5 19.23%
training
5 R&D Transfer 0 0.00% 3 23.08% 19 73.08%
6 Commercial and professional infrastructure 12 70.59% 10 76.92% 26 100.00%
7-1 Internal Market Dynamics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.85%
7-2 Internal Market Openness 2 11.76% 2 15.38% 16 61.54%
8 Physical and services infrastructure 0 0.00% 1 7.69% 8 30.77%
9 Cultural and social norms 1 5.88% 1 7.69% 5 19.23%
Source: 2012-2016, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report
businesses runs high. Positive social environment will
V. DISCUSSION promote active network, which is an important factor
Institutional and policy contexts have attracted to facilitate entrepreneurship [19]. However, research
some attention in the entrepreneurship literature [13-15], shows there are still some shortage for
and it is proved to be vital to entrepreneurship [16]. To Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in China.
promote entrepreneurship and innovation, Chinese Finance and education are the biggest constraints
Government launched “mass entrepreneurship and of entrepreneurship environment in China according to
innovation” strategy, aiming to provide a better GEM global report 2015, although data reveals the
environment for popular entrepreneurship and mass condition is improving year by year in this paper.
innovation through streamlining administration and Capital resources are key definitive factors to found,
delegating authority, improving market environment develop and grow for SMEs [20], especially innovative
and encouraging all people to start new innovative financing which is important in both developed and
businesses [17]. According to Third-party Evaluation emerging economics. Alternative financial resources
results about the implementation of “mass are significant policy instrument to support SMEs
entrepreneurship and innovation” strategy from China development [20].
Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Owing to Chinese government’s effort to
“mass entrepreneurship and innovation” has a positive continuously adjust financial fiscal and taxation policy,
impact on economic growth, employment and expand the venture investment, Finance supporting for
structural adjustment [18]. Number of the enterprise has entrepreneurship continuously strengthen from 2012 to
increased sharply. There are established 13 million 2016. Those efforts include supporting to issue
new startups emerge from Mar. 2014 to Feb.2017 corporate bond for SMEs, encourage cooperation
according to the State Administration of Industry and between banks and other financial institution to give
Commerce (SAIC). The enthusiasm of college students, back to startups and growing companies, establishing
scientists and engineers to start new innovative national venture capital guidance funds for emerging
industry and development fund for small and medium-
sized enterprises, guiding and encouraging central
enterprises and other state-owned business to establish
venture capital funds of government capital aiming to
stimulate social capital inflows [21]. Taking into account
the lag of the policy, it can be foreseeable that the
financial constraint will be significantly improved.
Education can accelerate entrepreneurship by
curricula and cultivating disparate perspective and
ability. Under the strategy of “mass entrepreneurship
and innovation”, Innovation and entrepreneurship
education concentrate mainly on undergraduates who
are the major participant of “mass entrepreneurship
and innovation activity” in China. Universities and
colleges pay more and more attention to innovation
and entrepreneurship education and practice by
offering innovation and entrepreneurship courses,
establishing innovation and entrepreneurship labs or
maker spaces, organizing Innovation and
Entrepreneurship Competition and so on. As the result
shows, training in creating or managing SMEs in
higher education performs well, such as vocational,
college, business schools, etc. But it’s terrible in the
primary and secondary levels which get the lowest
score among 12 factors, and it is inferior to average
level of countries in the innovation-driven stage. There
are still no policies to focus on innovation and
entrepreneurship education in the stage of primary and
secondary levels, which needs to be strengthened for
China.
Research commercialization is a pivotal
provenience for innovation and entrepreneurship,
regional and national competitive strength and
economic development [22-23]. Innovation knowledge
and achievement could not transfer into services and
products automatically and directly needed by market
[24]
.This transfer process depends on many factors,
including interaction between sources and recipients,
participation of recipients in the R&D process [25],
regulation and administrative barriers and
governmental intervention [26-27] and so on. The extent
of research and development from public-funded
institution leading to new commercial activities is a
defect in China, with the lower score than most of
countries in innovation–driven stage and increasing
deterioration trend. Although Chinese Government
invested a large amount of capital to support research
and development, total 1.5 trillion entire society R & D
investment, spending 2.1% of GDP in 2016, Scientific
and technological innovation ability of China ranked
18 according to National Innovation Index Report
2015 [28]. The outcome of science and technology has
low rate of transformation to productivity, which is one
of the reviled topic in the field of science and
technology management field.
Chinese government is actively adopt measures to
overcome this dilemma, like, advising Scientific &
Technical Achievements Transformation Law in 2016,
which gives more decision-making power to
universities and research institutions, increases the
incentive power to researchers, gives more chances to
enterprise in the projects arranged process which are
subsidized by State and encourages to develop science
and technology service agents; constructing several
National Science and Technology Achievements
Transfer demonstration areas to reduce barriers and
create a good environment, establishing Leading Funds
for Technology Transfer as an important measure to
drive social capital by government funds investment.
More action is aimed to promote R&D Transfer.
Physical & service infrastructure state is vital to
the growth and development of enterprises [29]. Physical
& service infrastructure is relatively well in China,
supporting entrepreneurship better than most of sample
countries. Extensive "hard infrastructure", including
roads, power stations, communication network, etc., is
one of the main reasons for achieving rapid
development in recent years in China [29], which is also
benefit from economic development pattern of
government-dominated for the past year. But “software
infrastructure”, like Commercial & Professional
Infrastructure, which is missing part for current China,
is particularly more important for the further
development [30]. China performs poor in the aspect of
Commercial & Professional Infrastructure according to
the analysis above, getting the lowest scores than any
other sample countries. Commercial & Professional
Infrastructure includes commercial, accounting and
other legal and assessment services and institutions etc.,
especially intellectual property protection. Yongmin
Chen and Thitima think although poor intellectual
property protection may promote imitation of
technology aboard, and benefit home consumers, strict
intellectual property protection institution would
encourage domestic enterprises to innovate proactively
[31]
. Yuichi Furukawa explains further that there is an
inverted U-shaped relationship between intellectual
property protection and innovation. It proves moderate
intellectual property protection institution is the best [32].
Developed countries and developing countries differ.
China is in the transfer period. Chinese Government
has realized the importance of strengthening
intellectual property protection and takes some actions,
such as establishing National Public Service Platform
for Intellectual Property Operations, increasing the
penalties for infringement of intellectual property
rights, establishing Intellectual Property Courts, and
accelerating the development of third-party
professional services. Improving “soft infrastructure”
get more attention in the recent policies in China.
 VI. CONCLUSION
This paper estimates the development trend of
entrepreneurship environment in China, and makes
horizontal comparison with other countries in the same
and higher development stage. Results show that most
of the factors are showing an improving trend,
especially Financing for Entrepreneurs, Governmental
Support & Policies for entrepreneurship, Internal
Market Dynamics, Cultural & Social Norms. But,
R&D Transfer and Commercial & Professional
Infrastructure should be improved urgently.
The value added of this work is beneficial to those
countries in less-develop than or same development
stage with China, and more specifically for research
into Entrepreneurship Ecosystem of China. Also, this
paper provides a reference path for China to strengthen
the construction of entrepreneurial ecosystem further.
However, there are still some limitations in our
research. The one is concerning the subjectivity of the
data used. Given that GEM data has been widely
recognized by different teams around the world in the
past 18 years, the above concerns can be eliminated.
The other is about the time range only covering five
years which is limited by the time of participation of
GEM program. However, as a country in the
transformation period, this paper provides a new
exploratory direction, especially in the context that
Chinese Government pays more effort to reform.
China's entrepreneurial ecological environment
deserves further follow-up.

Appendix A

TABLE IV. LIST OF ECONOMIES INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS

Stage countries

Efficiency-Driven Economies Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala,
(Stage 2) Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Macedonia, Morocco, Peru, South Africa, Thailand
Transition From Stage 2 To Stage 3 Argentina, Chile, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, Uruguay
Innovation-Driven Economies Australia, Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong,
(Stage 3) Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Qatar, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States
Source: 2016–2017. GEM & Global Competitiveness Index Report, World Economic Forum

[9] Coduras A, Urbano D, Álvaro Rojas, et al. The Relationship

REFERENCES
[1] Hechavarria D, Ingram A. A Review of the Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem and the Entrepreneurial Society in the United States:
An Exploration with Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Dataset.
Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 2014, 26.
[2] Audretsch D B, Keilbach M. Resolving the knowledge paradox:
Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth.
Research Policy, 2008, 37(10):1697-1705.
[3] González-Pernía J L, Peña-Legazkue I, Vendrell-Herrero F.
Innovation, entrepreneurial activity and competitiveness at a
sub-national level. Small Business Economics, 2012, 39(3):561-
574.
[4] Amorós J E, Fernández C, Tapia J. Quantifying the relationship
between entrepreneurship and competitiveness development
stages in Latin America. International Entrepreneurship &
Management Journal, 2012, 8(3):249-270.
[5] Ács Z J, Varga A. Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and
Technological Change. Small Business Economics, 2005,
24(3):323-334.
[6] Martínez-Fierro S, Biedma-Ferrer J M, Ruiz-Navarro J.
Entrepreneurship and strategies for economic development.
Small Business Economics, 2016, 47(4):835-851.
[7] Liñán F, Fernándezserrano J, Romero I. Necessity and
Opportunity Entrepreneurship: The Mediating Effect of Culture.
Revista De Economã-a Mundial, 2013, 11(33):págs. 21-47.
[8] A ĺvarez, C., & Urbano, D. Una de´cada de investigacio´n
basada en el GEM: logros y retos. Academia, Revista
Latinoamericana de Administracio´n, 2011(46): 16–37.
Between University Support to Entrepreneurship with
Entrepreneurial Activity in Spain: A Gem Data Based Analysis.
International Advances in Economic Research, 2008,
14(4):395-406.
[10] Donna Kelley, Slavica Singer, Mike Herrington. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2016/17, 2017
[11] Reynolds P, Bosma N, Autio E, et al. Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor: Data Collection Design and Implementation 1998–
2003. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2005, 24(3):205-
231.
[12] Levie J, Hunt S, et al. Culture, Institutions and New Business
Activity: Evidence from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
2004.
[13] Hart D M. The emergence of entrepreneurship policy:
Governance, start-ups, and growth in the U.S. knowledge
economy. 2003.
[14] Hayton J C, George G, Zahra S A. National Culture and
Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral Research.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 2002(26)
[15] Uhlaner L, Thurik R. Postmaterialism influencing total
entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 2007, 17(2):161-185.
[16] Autio E, Kenney M, Mustar P, et al. Entrepreneurial innovation:
The importance of context. Research Policy, 2014, 43(7):1097-
1108.
[17] Mike Herrington. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Policy
Briefs 2017. 2017
[18] China Association for Science and Technology. “Mass
innovation and entrepreneurship” Policy Assessment Data
Report. 2015(07) (in Chinese)
[19] Leyden D P, Link A N, Siegel D S. A theoretical analysis of the
role of social networks in entrepreneurship. Research Policy,
2014, 43(7):1157-1163.
[20] Ramona Rupeika-Apoga, Alessandro Danovi. Availability of
financial resources is a key determinant for business start-up,
development and growth for SMEs. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 2015,33: 200 – 210
[21] State Council. Policy on promoting mass innovation and
entrepreneurship. 2015,
http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-
06/16/content_9855.htm
[22] Larsen M T. The implications of academic enterprise for public
science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research
Policy, 2011, 40(1):6-19.
[23] Acs Z J, Audretsch D B, Braunerhjelm P, et al. The Missing
Link: The Knowledge Filter and Entrepreneurship in
Endogenous Growth. Social Science Electronic Publishing,
2005, 2(June):222-228(7).
[24] Arundel A, Bordoy C. Developing internationally comparable
indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded
research. Merit Working Papers, 2008, 48(15):177-183.
[25] Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge:
the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of
Engineering & Technology Management, 2003(20):39-68.
[26] Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D.,& Carlsson, B. The
knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 2009(32): 15–30.
[27] Audretsch, D.,&Keilbach, M. Resolving the knowledge paradox:
Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth.
Research Policy, 2009(37):1697–1705.
[28] Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development.
National Innovation Index Report 2015. Science and
Technology Document Press, 2016 (in Chinese)
[29] Buckley G, Salazarxirinachs J M, Henriques M. Financial and
Physical Infrastructure and Services. Promotion of Sustainable
Entreprises, 2009(18):155-172.
[30] Lam, W., Rodlauer, M., & Schipke, A. Modernizing China :
Investing in Soft Infrastructure. USA: international monetary
fund. 2017
[31] Chen Y, Puttitanun T. Intellectual property rights and
innovation in developing countries. Journal of Development
Economics, 2005, 78(2):474-493.
[32] Furukawa Y. Intellectual property protection and innovation: an
inverted-U relationship. Economics Letters, 2011, 109(2):99-
101.