Skip to main content
Log in

The effects of trade integration on formal and informal entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic development

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Résumé

L’entrepreneuriat dans un pays bénéficie-t-il de l’intégration commerciale? De plus, tous les types d’entrepreneurs répondent-ils de la même manière à cette intégration? En nous concentrant spécifiquement sur l’entrepreneuriat formel et informel, nous analysons les effets de l’intégration commerciale dans le contexte de différents niveaux de développement économique. Premièrement, nous proposons que l’intégration commerciale accroît l’entrepreneuriat formel d’un pays tout en diminuant l’entrepreneuriat informel d’un pays. Un mécanisme clé explique cette relation: les accords commerciaux fournissent des structures institutionnelles supranationales qui encouragent la création d’entreprises formelles et découragent la création d’entreprises informelles. Nous approfondissons cette question en argumentant que ces effets sont plus forts dans les pays moins développés que dans les pays fortement développés. Les analyses effectuées sur un panel de 68 pays sur 11 ans apportent un soutien solide à ces affirmations. Alors que nos résultats sont alignés sur les études précédentes qui décrivent les avantages asymétriques des accords commerciaux pour les pays membres, nous ajoutons des précisions en indiquant où les impacts sont les plus forts (par exemple pour la formalisation de l’entrepreneuriat dans les pays moins développés) et où les impacts sont moins prononcés (par exemple pour la formalisation entrepreneuriale dans les pays les plus développés). Ainsi, alors que les décideurs politiques continuent d’être confrontés à des questions difficiles liées aux relations commerciales, ces résultats incitent les futures recherches à examiner d’autres avantages et asymétries potentiels.

Resumen

¿El emprendimiento en un país se beneficia de la integración comercial? Así mismo, ¿responden todos los tipos de emprendedores de la misma manera a esta integración? Específicamente enfocándonos en emprendimientos formales e informales, analizamos los efectos de la integración comercial en el contexto de diferentes niveles de desarrollo económico. Primero, proponemos que la integración regional aumenta el emprendimiento formal de un país y, al mismo tiempo, reduce el emprendimiento informal. Un mecanismo clave explica esta relación: los acuerdos comerciales proporcionan estructuras institucionales supranacionales que fomentan la creación de empresas formales y desestimulan las informales. Profundizamos sobre este asunto al exponer que estos efectos son más fuertes en países menos desarrollados que en países altamente desarrollados. Los análisis, basados en un panel de 68 países que abarca 11 años, son consistentes con estas aseveraciones. Si bien nuestros hallazgos están alineados con el conocimiento académico previo que describe los beneficios asimétricos de los acuerdos comerciales para los países miembros, contribuimos explicando donde son los impactos más fuertes (por ejemplo, para la formalización emprendedora en países menos desarrollados) y donde los impactos son menos pronunciados (por ejemplo, para la formalización emprendedora en países altamente desarrollados). Por lo tanto, a medida que los formuladores de políticas públicas continúen enfrentando retos con respecto a las relaciones comerciales, estos resultados darán lugar a futuras investigaciones académicas sobre otros beneficios potenciales y asimetrías.

Resumo

O empreendedorismo em um país se beneficia da integração comercial? Além disso, todos os tipos de empreendedores respondem essa integração da mesma forma? Com foco específico no empreendedorismo formal e informal, analisamos os efeitos da integração comercial no contexto de diferentes níveis de desenvolvimento econômico. Em primeiro lugar, propomos que integração comercial aumenta o empreendedorismo formal em um país enquanto diminui o empreendedorismo informal do país. Um mecanismo chave explica essa relação: acordos comerciais fornecem estruturas institucionais supranacionais que incentivam a criação de empreendimentos formais e desencorajam a criação de empreendimentos informais. Investigamos mais profundamente essa questão argumentando que esses efeitos são mais fortes em países menos desenvolvidos do que em países altamente desenvolvidos. Análises usando um painel de 68 países ao longo de 11 anos fornecem suporte robusto para essas afirmações. Embora nossas descobertas estejam alinhadas com estudos anteriores que descrevem os benefícios assimétricos de acordos comerciais para países membros, refinamos ao identificar onde os impactos são mais fortes (por exemplo, para formalização de empreendimentos em países menos desenvolvidos) e onde os impactos são menos pronunciados (por exemplo, para a formalização de empreendimentos em países mais desenvolvidos). Assim, enquanto formuladores de políticas continuam a enfrentar questões desafiadoras relacionadas a relações comerciais, esses resultados estimulam estudos futuros para examinar outros benefícios e assimetrias potenciais.

摘要

一个国家的创业会从贸易一体化受益吗?此外, 所有类型企业家对这种一体化是否有相同的反应?我们特别关注正式和非正式创业, 我们分析了不同经济发展水平情境里的贸易一体化的影响。首先, 我们提出, 贸易一体化提升国家的正式创业, 同时减少国家的非正式创业。一个关键机制解释了这里面的关系: 贸易协定提供了超国家的鼓励正式而不鼓励非正式创业的制度结构。我们对该问题进行了深挖, 认为这些影响在欠发达国家要强于发达国家。对68个国家跨越11年的面板数据的分析为这些主张提供了有力的支持。尽管我们的发现与先前的研究所描述的贸易协定对成员国的非对称收益相吻合, 我们通过梳理出哪里是影响最大的地方(例如欠发达国家里的创业正规化)和哪里是影响不那么明显的地方(例如在最发达国家里的创业正规化)对文献进行了提炼。因此, 随着政策制定者继续面临与贸易关系有关的挑战性问题, 这些结果促使今后去研究其它潜在益处和不对称性。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Acs, Z. 2006. How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1): 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., & Amorós, J. 2008. Entrepreneurship and competitiveness dynamics in Latin America. Small Business Economics, 31(3): 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. 2008. What does ‘entrepreneurship’ data really show? Small Business Economics, 31(3): 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Morck, R. K., & Yeung, B. 2001. Entrepreneurship, globalization, and public policy. Journal of International Management, 7(3): 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Spolaore, E., & Wacziarg, R. 2005. Trade, growth, and the size of countries. In P. Aghion, & S. Durlauf (Eds), Handbook of economic growth: vol. 1, 1499–1542. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Wacziarg, R. 1998. Openness, country size and the government. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3): 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amoros, J., Bosma, N., & Levie, J. 2013. Ten years of global entrepreneurship monitor: Accomplishments and prospects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(2): 120–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M. 2003. Panel data econometrics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. 2005. Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3): 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor, D. 2018. Trade and labor markets: Lesson’s from China’s rise. IZA world of labor: 431.

  • Autor, D., Dorn, D., Katz, L.F., Patterson, C., & Van Reenen, J. 2017. The fall of the labor share and the rise of superstar firms. NBER working paper series no. 23396.

  • Avelino, G., Brown, D., & Hunter, W. 2005. The effects of capital mobility, trade openness, and democracy on social spending in Latin America, 1980–1999. The American Journal of Political Science, 49(3): 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balassa, B. 2013. The theory of economic integration. New York: Routledge International Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. E. 2011. 21st-century regionalism: Filling the gap between 21st century trade and 20th century trade rules. National bureau of economic research working paper. Available at SSRN 1869845.

  • Baltagi, B. H. 2001. Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H. 2008. Forecasting with panel data. Journal of Forecasting, 27(2): 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P. K. 2000. Understanding underdevelopment: Challenges for institutional economics from the point of view of poor countries. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 1: 216–235.

  • Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. 2004. Rules for the world: International organizations in world politics (1st ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. 1993. Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and bounds. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3): 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearce, D., & Bondanella, S. 2007. Intergovernmental organizations, socialization and member-state interest convergence. International Organization, 61(4): 703–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, H., & Sternberg, R. 2007. The changing face of entrepreneurship in Germany. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3): 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoth, K., & Wolff, G. B. 2008. Fool the markets? Creative accounting, fiscal transparency and sovereign risk premia. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 55(4): 465–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer, C., Gartzke, E., & Nordstrom, T. 2004. Do intergovernmental organizations promote peace? World Politics, 57(1): 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. 1998. International regimes and democratic governance: Political equality and influence in global institutions. International Affairs, 75(3): 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.-W. 1998. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45(1): 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Acs, Z., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. 2010. Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2009 executive report: 73. Babson Park, MA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosma, N., Jones, K., Autio, E., & Levie, J., 2008. Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2007 executive report. Babson Park, MA and London: Babson College and London Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. 1992. Hierachical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. 2006. The legitimacy of global governance institutions. Ethics and International Affairs, 20(4): 596–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büthe, T., & Milner, H. V. 2008. The politics of foreign direct investment into developing countries: Increasing FDI through international trade agreements? American Journal of Political Science, 52(4): 741–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Anquan, W. 2005. A system model for corporate entrepreneurship. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6): 529–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, N., Imbs, J., & Scott, A. 2009. The dynamics of trade and competition. Journal of International Economics, 77(1): 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisik, R. 2012. Trade disputes, quality choice, and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 88(1): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, I. 2005. Legitimacy in international society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, C. M. 2000. Intellectual property rights, the WTO and developing countries: The TRIPS agreement and policy options. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correlates of War. 2017. Correlates of war project database. https://correlatesofwar.org/.

  • Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Mekongcho, T. M. 2018. Economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127: 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K. 2008. Globalization, uneven development and capital: Reflections on reading Thomas Friedman’s the world is flat. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(3): 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, C. J., & Williamson, C. R. 2012. Trade openness and cultural creative destruction. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1(1): 22–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A. 2012. Pro-market reforms and developing country multinational corporations. Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 262–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A. 2013. Learning across geographic space: Pro-market reforms, multinationalization strategy, and profitability. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(3): 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A. 2018. Contextualizing international learning: The moderating effects of mode of entry and subsidiary networks on the relationship between reforms and profitability. Journal of World Business, 53(3): 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2014. To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-market institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5): 668–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., & Abrahms, M. 2018. Female entrepreneurship and international organizations. In N. Apostolopoulos, H. Al-Dajani, D. Holt, P. Jones, & R. Newbery (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and the sustainable development goal (Contemporary issues in entrepreneurship research): Vol. 8, 165–183. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., & Bradley, C. 2015. Institutions and international entrepreneurship. International Business: Research, Teaching, and Practice, 9(1): 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., & Kostova, T. 2020. The impact of market based institutional reforms on firm strategy and performance: Review and extension. Journal of World Business, 55(4): 101073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., & Soto, M. 2016a. The great recession and emerging market firms: Unpacking the divide between global and national level sustainability expectations. In C. Gurdgiev, L. Leonard, & M. A. Gonzalez-Perez (Eds.), Lessons from the great recession: At the crossroads of sustainability and recovery: Vol. 8, 165–187. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., & Soto, M. 2016b. Informal transnational political actors and emerging markets: Understanding entrepreneurship in a changing normative atmosphere. In O. Osuji, F. N. Ngwu, & D. Jamali (Eds), Entrepreneurship and firm performance: 19–41. Hauppauge: NOVA Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dau, L. A., Moore, E. M., Soto, M. A., & LeBlanc, C. R. 2017. How globalization sparked entrepreneurship in the developing world: The impact of formal economic and political linkages. In B. Christiansen, & F. Kasarcı (Eds) Entrepreneurship: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications: 1881–1900. Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. 1993. Openness, trade liberalization and growth in developing countries. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(September): 1358–1393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S. 1998. Openness, productivity and growth: What do we really know? Economic Journal, 108(447): 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. 2003. Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high-technology firms. Small Business Economics, 21(4): 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elo, M., & Freiling, J. 2015. Transnational entrepreneurship: An introduction to the volume. American Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8(2): IX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezeani, E. 2013. WTO Post Doha: Trade deadlocks and protectionism. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 12(3): 272–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falvey, R., Foster, N., & Greenaway, D. 2012. Trade liberalization, economic crises, and growth. World Development, 40(11): 2177–2193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. 2005. Entrepreneurship and the economic theory of the firm: Any gains from trade? In S. A. Alvarez, R. Agarwal, & O. Sorenson (Eds) Handbook of entrepreneurship research: 55–80. Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1): 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. 1984. International trade, foreign investment and the formation of the entrepreneurial class. American Economic Review, 74(4): 605–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleiner, E. 1996. States and the reemergence of global finance: From Bretton Woods to the 1990s. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helpman, E. (Ed). 2009. Institutions and economic performance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S. M. & Sexton, D. L. 2001. Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. A. & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions on hierarchical linear models: Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 23: 623–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. 2000. The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 467–511. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, C. 2003. Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ILO, 2002. Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical picture. Geneva: International Labor Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, D. A. 2020. Free trade under fire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kali, R., & Reyes, J. 2007. The architecture of globalization: A network approach to international economic integration. Journal of International Business Studies 38(4): 595–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, P., & Knack, S. 1997. Why don’t poor countries catch up? A cross-national test of an institutional explanation. Economic Inquiry, 35(3): 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O., & Nye Jr, J. S. 2000. Globalization: What’s new? What’s not?(And so what?). Foreign Policy, 1: 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. 1973. Entrepreneurship and competition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klapper, L., Amit, R., Guillén, M. F., & Quesada, J. M. 2007. Entrepreneurship and firm formation across countries. New York: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, J. 2017. Brick and mortar in a borderless world: Globalization, the backlash, and the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 7(2): 159–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraay, A., & Ventura J. 2002. Trade integration and risk sharing. European Economic Review, 46(6): 1023–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. R. 1987. Is free trade passé? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(2): 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C., Isidor, R., Dau, L. A., & Kabst, R. 2018. The more the merrier? Immigrant concentration and entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(5): 698–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Freese, J. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. New York: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losby, J. L., Else, J. F., Kingslow, M. E., Edgcomb, E. L., Malm, E. T., & Kao, V. 2002. Informal economy literature review. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. 1999. Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43(2): 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinussen, J. 2004. Society, state and market: A guide to competing theories of development. Pretoria: HSRC Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E. 2000. Intellectual property rights in the global economy. New York: Peterson Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus, K. E., & Ridley, W. 2017. Intellectual property-related preferential trade agreements and the composition of trade. OECD working paper. Paris: OECD Press.

  • McCallum, J. 1995. National borders matter: Canada–US regional trade patterns. American Economic Review, 85(3): 615–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClough, D. 2008. Public sector entrepreneurship: Evidence from trade policy. Politics and Policy, 36(2): 250–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E., Brandl, K., & Dau, L. A. 2019. Institutional schisms in Argentina: The impact of intergovernmental organizations on country institutional environments. In R. van Tulder, A. Verbeke, & B. Jankowska (Eds.), International business in a VUCA world: The changing role of states and firms (Progress in international business research): Vol. 14, 89–102. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, E. M., Dau, L. A., & Doh, J. 2020. Does monetary aid catalyze new business creation? Analyzing the impact of global aid flows on formal and informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 57: 438–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabli, M., & World Bank. 2011. The great recession and developing countries: Economic impact and growth prospects. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, D. 2011. The financial crisis, the great recession and the developing world. Global Policy, 2(1): 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ocampo, J. 2011. Global economic prospects and the developing world. Global Policy, 2(1):10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2014. OECD employment outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. 2015. Institutional embeddedness of market integration: The formation of free trade agreements in 1957–2008. International Sociology, 30(1): 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peberdy, S. 2000. Mobile entrepreneurship: Informal sector cross-border trade and street trade in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 17(2): 201–-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puffer, S., McCarthy, D., & Boisot, M. 2010. Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The impact of formal institutional voids. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(3):441–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramdani, D., van Witteloostuijn, A., Vanderstraeten, J., Hermans, J., & Dejardin, M., 2019. The perceived benefits of the European Union standardization. An exploration according to firm size and firm capabilities. International Economics and Economic Policy, 16(2): 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, A. K. 2004. Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? American Economic Review, 94(1): 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. 1995. Economic reform and the process of trade integration. Brookings papers on economic activity. Vol. 1995. Papers on Economic Reforms. Washington, D.C.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1947. The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7(2): 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1949. Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In R. R. Wohl (Ed.), Change and the entrepreneur: Postulates and the patterns for entrepreneurial history. Research center in entrepreneurial history Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiermann, J. 2018. Only words? How power in trade agreement texts affects international trade. UNCTAD research paper. Geneva: United Nations Press. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ser-rp-2018d8_en.pdf

  • Simpeh, K. 2011. Entrepreneurship theories and empirical research: A summary review of the literature. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(6): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, K. 2012. Does globalization spell the end of the nation-state? In Masker, J. S. (Ed) Introduction to global politics: A reader: 327–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffek, J. 2004. Why IR needs legitimacy: A rejoinder. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3): 485–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, S., & Frascheri, S. 2015. Learning by failing: What we can learn from un-successful entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(1): 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thai, M., & Turkina, E. 2012. Entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Models, approaches and prospects for economic development. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thai, M., & Turkina, E. 2014. Macro-level determinants of formal entrepreneurship versus informal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4): 490–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. 2014. International trade: A troubling trajectory. Dec 11th, 2014 edition. Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/12/11/a-troubling-trajectory.

  • Tomz, M. 2012. Reputation and international cooperation: Sovereign debt across three countries. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. 2009. Entrepreneurship and economic growth: Evidence from emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(5): 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoa, T. 2010. Impact of the WTO membership, regional economic integration, and structural change on China’s trade and Growth. Review of Development Economics, 14(3): 577–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. 2007. The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3): 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Chen, J., & Zang, Z. 2005. Strategic human resources, innovation and entrepreneurship fit. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6): 544–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. 2009. You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 492–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S. 2006. Entrepreneurship at country level: Economic and non-economic determinants (No. 81). ERIM Ph.D. Series research in management. Erasmus Research Institute of Management. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7982.

  • Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1): 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. C., & Nadin, S. 2010. Entrepreneurship and the informal economy: An overview. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(04): 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A. 2019. De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50: 1053–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank Group. 2017a. World Bank Group’s development indicators database. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/.

  • World Bank Group. 2017b. World Bank Group’s enterprise survey. https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/.

  • World Bank Group. 2017c. World Bank Group’s governance indicators database. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/.

  • World Trade Organization (WTO). 2013. WTO report: World trends in trade. Retrieved from: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/wtr13-2b_e.pdf.

  • World Trade Organization (WTO). 2017. Regional trade alliance database. http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx.

  • World Trade Organization (WTO). 2019. Understanding the WTO: Membership, alliances and bureaucracy. Retrieved from: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org3_e.htm.

  • Wright, R. W., & Dana, L. P. 2003. Changing paradigms of international entrepreneurship strategy. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1(1): 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapalska, A. M., & Edwards, W. 2001. Chinese entrepreneurship in a cultural and economic perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(3): 286–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeger, S., Liang, K.-Y., & Albert, P. 1988. Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics, 44(1): 1049–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the editors Arjen van Witteloostuijn and Alain Verbeke, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their supportive feedback on this article. We are also very grateful for the support of Bettina Alvarez Canelon, Alyssa Cecchetelli, Ania Palka Dau, Larissa Marchiori Pacheco, Karen Moore, Gary Moore, and various conference participants. This article is based on the dissertation and doctoral work and data collection efforts of the first author, and thus builds on and is related to other projects, some of which we cite appropriately (for example Moore, Brandl, & Dau, 2019; Moore, Dau, & Doh, 2020), and others which are under review and we therefore do not cite to maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process. The following sources supplied indispensable financial assistance for this research project: Northeastern University’s Global Resilience Institute and Robert and Denise DiCenso Professorship, University of Reading Henley Business School’s Dunning Visiting Fellowship, University of Leeds Business School’s Buckley Visiting Fellowship, and ANID / CONICYT FONDECYT Regular 1181764. All errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth M Moore.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Arjen vanWitteloostuijn, Area Editor, 22 September 2020. This article has been with the authors for two revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, E.M., Dau, L.A. & Mingo, S. The effects of trade integration on formal and informal entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic development. J Int Bus Stud 52, 746–772 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00386-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00386-y

Keywords

Navigation