Does entrepreneurship in a country benefit from trade integration? Moreover, do all types of entrepreneurs respond the same way to this integration? Specifically focusing on formal and informal entrepreneurship, we analyze the effects of trade integration in the context of different levels of economic development. First, we propose that trade integration increases a country’s formal entrepreneurship while decreasing a country’s informal entrepreneurship. A key mechanism explains this relationship: trade agreements provide supranational institutional structures that encourage formal, and discourage informal, venture creation. We dig deeper into this issue by arguing that these effects are stronger in less developed countries than highly developed countries. Analyses using a panel of 68 countries spanning 11 years provide robust support for these assertions. While our findings are aligned with previous scholarship that describes the asymmetric benefits of trade agreements for member nations, we add refinement by teasing out where the impacts are strongest (e.g., for entrepreneurial formalization in less developed countries) and where the impacts are less pronounced (e.g., for entrepreneurial formalization in highest developed countries). Thus, as policy makers continue to face challenging questions related to trade relationships, these results prompt future scholarship to examine other such potential benefits and asymmetries.

一个国家的企业家精神是否受益于贸易一体化？此外，所有类型的企业家对这种整合的反应是否相同？我们特别关注正规和非正规创业，分析了贸易一体化在不同经济发展水平背景下的影响。首先，我们提出贸易一体化增加了一个国家的正规创业，同时减少了一个国家的非正规创业。一个关键机制解释了这种关系：贸易协定提供了超国家的制度结构，鼓励正式的、不鼓励非正式的风险创造。我们认为这些影响在欠发达国家比高度发达国家更强，从而更深入地探讨了这个问题。使用跨越 11 年的 68 个国家的小组进行的分析为这些断言提供了强有力的支持。虽然我们的研究结果与之前描述贸易协定对成员国的不对称利益的研究一致，但我们通过梳理影响最强的地方（例如，对欠发达国家的创业正规化）和影响不太明显的地方进行了改进（例如，用于最发达国家的企业正规化）。因此，随着政策制定者继续面临与贸易关系相关的具有挑战性的问题，这些结果促使未来的学术研究检查其他此类潜在利益和不对称性。我们通过梳理影响最强的地方（例如，对欠发达国家的创业正规化）和影响不太明显的地方（例如，对最发达国家的创业正规化）进行细化。因此，随着政策制定者继续面临与贸易关系相关的具有挑战性的问题，这些结果促使未来的学术研究检查其他此类潜在利益和不对称性。我们通过梳理影响最强的地方（例如，对欠发达国家的创业正规化）和影响不太明显的地方（例如，对最发达国家的创业正规化）进行细化。因此，随着政策制定者继续面临与贸易关系相关的具有挑战性的问题，这些结果促使未来的学术研究检查其他此类潜在利益和不对称性。