Technology Based Ventures

This article was downloaded by: [islem khefacha]
On: 03 September 2015, At: 04:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
The Journal of International

Trade & Economic Development:
An International and
Comparative Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjte20
Technology-based ventures
and sustainable development:
Cointegrating and causal
relationships with a panel data
approach
Click for updates
Islem Khefacha & Lotfi Belkacem

a
Laboratory Research for Economy, Management and

Quantitative Finance, IHEC - University of Sousse 4054,
Tunisia
Published online: 15 Jun 2015.
To cite this article: Islem Khefacha & Lotfi Belkacem (2015): Technology-based ventures
and sustainable development: Cointegrating and causal relationships with a panel data
approach, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development: An International
and Comparative Review, DOI: 10.1080/09638199.2015.1048707
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2015.1048707
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [islem khefacha] at 04:39 03 September 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2015.1048707
Technology-based ventures and sustainable development:

Cointegrating and causal relationships with a panel data
approach
Islem Khefacha
and Lotfi Belkacem
Laboratory Research for Economy, Management and Quantitative Finance,

IHEC - University of Sousse 4054, Tunisia
(Received 27 January 2014; accepted 3 May 2015)
The aim of this article is to provide new empirical evidence on the causality
between proxy variables of technology entrepreneurship and proxy variable of
sustainable economic performance in a vector error correction model. It covers
a sample of 13 countries participated to Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
studies under the period 20022013. Building on a theoretical background
that considers the adoption of new technologies through a dynamic process
of creative destruction based on innovation as the most important factor for
achieving long-term economic growth, the empirical investigation uses robust
econometric techniques that are capable of estimating long-run cointegrating
relationships in panel data.
Our results support the idea that total entrepreneurship activity related to
the technology sector leads to improve the sustainability of a nation in the
long run. More importantly, our paper helps understand the nature of liaison
between the creation of innovative and high-technology business and the
presence of favorable social and environmental conditions for the well-being
of a population.
Keywords: technology entrepreneurship; sustainable economic growth;
GEM; cointegration tests; vector error correction model
JEL Classification: C32, M13, Q01
1. Introduction
It is well known that economic growth is the key to higher living standards. For
this, economic theory suggests several key institutions and policy factors that
are important to make way for sustainable economic growth (see Onipede 2003).
Recent studies emphasize entrepreneurship as a driver of economic development
and some authors include entrepreneurship as a fourth production factor in the
macroeconomic production function (see Audretsch and Keilbach 2004 cited in
Corresponding author. Email: Islem.Khefacha@fsegma.rnu.tn

C 2015 Taylor & Francis
I. Khefacha and L. Belkacem
Szirmai, Naude, and Goedhuys [2011]). Therefore, several economists focused

their research on the dynamic role of entrepreneurial activity in promoting innovation, economic growth and employment.
In this body of literature, emphasis seemed to be placed on high-potential
technology opportunities and technical systems. Within this context, technology
entrepreneurship a relatively new field of study has received increasing attention from the scholars of various streams of business and technology disciplines.
For Abdullah and Ahcene (2011), in the current context of globalization and liberalization economy, technology entrepreneurship is indeed becoming vital as it
provides greater opportunities and enables effective optimization of resources to
attain high profit margins.
This research leverages on the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data
to explore the relationship between investing in technologies and sustainable economic growth. So far, however, the analysis of the link between entrepreneurial
activity rates as measured by GEM and economic growth has been limited to
bivariate correlations with short-term GDP rates, with no attempt to control for
other factors (see Reynolds et al. 2000, 2001, 2002 cited in Wong et al. [2005])
related notably with the well-being of a nation.
The aim of this article is to provide new empirical evidence on the impact
of investment in technologies and economic welfare in 13 developing countries
belonging to the Group of Twelve (G12). It covers the period 20022013, and carries out tests for non-stationary panels using the Granger causality and the vector
error correction model (VECM) to investigate both the short-run and the long-run
dynamic relationship between variables. To the best of our knowledge, there is no
study that tries to evaluate the evolution of technological entrepreneurship as a
factor for sustainable economic development.
The layout of the article is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the
literature of the two main concepts of this study: technology entrepreneurship
and sustainable economic growth. Section 3 provides the model specification,
definitions of the variables and econometric tools. Section 4 estimates the model
by panel cointegration techniques and, finally, Section 5 concludes with a summary
of the main findings and policy implications.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. The concept of technology entrepreneurship
Although over the last years, technology entrepreneurship has developed as a
distinct stream of research at the nexus of entrepreneurship and the management
of technology and innovation, this field is in its infancy compared to others such
as economics, entrepreneurship and management (see Bailetti 2012). Yet, despite
several special issues and an increased level of interest, no conventional definition
has been developed so far.
Several expressions are used in research papers to point out technology entrepreneurship such as technological entrepreneurship, technical entrepreneurship,
The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development
techno-entrepreneurship, high-tech firm, knowledge-based firm, new technologybased firm, technology-based ventures and several definitions are applicable. It
follows that technology entrepreneurship is basically the merge of two words from
two disciplines: technology from the innovation discipline and entrepreneurship
from the business discipline.
From the standpoint of economics, there are a number of authors who associate
entrepreneurship with innovation (see Abdullah and Ahcene 2011). Schumpeter
(1950) viewed entrepreneurship as a dynamic process of creative destruction, in
which he put forward the idea of innovation as the creation, development and
introduction of new products, processes, systems and organizational forms that
change the basic technological and demand parameters of the economy.
Freeman (1998) recognized that innovation is developed from technology and
an outcome of new scientific results. Schumpeter (1912) showed that technology
is driven by entrepreneurs, and it is the entrepreneur who plays a major role in
creating inventions through the appropriate implementation of technology. In this
setting, technology is regarded as one of the crucial components in an innovation
activity by creating new things and matching it with market needs.
Technological innovation has long been viewed as an integral part of entrepreneurship (see Drucker 1985). In fact, technology provides the solution of
some problems that are generated by innovation. A technological change comes
from the new and innovative ideas and the firms implement those ideas into reality
on international level. It is from this point of view that Dopfer (1992) defined
technology as an engine of growth, and its application is seen in the branch of
Neo-Schumpeterian research like Technological Paradigm (see Dosi 1988), focusing devices (Rosenberg 1976), Technological Trajectory (see Nelson and
Winter 1977), and others (cited in Abdullah and Ahcene 2011).
To develop innovation and to achieve competitiveness, the accent must be
put on acquiring technological capability that offers the required human skills
such as entrepreneurial, managerial and technical to set up and operate industries
efficiently (see Lall 1990) and to deploy and utilize various resources and knowhow (see Anderson and Tushman 1990; Song et al. 2005; Khefacha, Belkacem,
and Mansouri 2014).
The question here is what distinguishes technology entrepreneurship from
entrepreneurship as defined by the traditional managerial literature.
In fact, the concept of technology entrepreneurship was addressed from various
perspectives relative to economics, business and management sector.
Bailetti (2012) makes the widest research on definitions proposed by different
authors, and in the end, he offers his own definition which identifies and incorporates the various distinctive aspects of technology entrepreneurship discussed
above and its links to the existing domains of economics, entrepreneurship and
management: Technology entrepreneurship is an investment in a project that assembles and deploys specialized individuals and heterogeneous assets that are
intricately related to advances in scientific and technological knowledge for the
purpose of creating and capturing value for a firm. He adds that technological
entrepreneurship can be distinguished from other entrepreneurship types (e.g. social entrepreneurship, small business management and self-employment) by the
collaborative experimentation and production of new products, assets and their
attributes, which are intricately related to advances in scientific and technological
knowledge and the firms asset ownership rights.
Specifically, the technological entrepreneurship process is based on four main
sets of activities related to the creation of new technologies or the identification of
the existing one but not yet previously exploited; the recognition and matching opportunities, thanks to the application of these new technologies to emerging market
needs; technology/applications development; and business creation. It, therefore,
follows that technological entrepreneurship occurs at the intersection of technology development (science and engineering) and business creation (management
and business) involving individuals, businesses and governments that transform
new ideas into economic and societal values.
2.2. Technology entrepreneurship as a factor for sustainable
economic growth
Several economists focused their research on the dynamic role of entrepreneurial
activity in promoting innovation, economic growth and employment (see
Audretsch, Keilbach, and Lehmann 2006; Van Stel 2006; Fritsch and Mueller
2004, 2008). The contribution of technological innovation to national economic
growth has been well established in the economic literature, both theoretically
(see Solow 1956; Romer 1986) as well as empirically (see Mansfield 1972; Nadiri
1993). These studies have established that the level of technological innovation
contributes significantly to economic performance, particularly at the firm and
industry levels (see Wong et al. 2005).
Acs and Audretsch (2003), for example, showed that entrepreneurship stimulates and generates economic growth in several ways. Notably, entrepreneurs may
introduce important innovations by entering markets with new products or production processes. Namely, Evangelista (2000) and Miles (2005) considered the
adoption of new technologies through a dynamic process of creative destruction
based on innovation as the most important factor for achieving long-term economic growth. Autio, Ho, and Wong (2005) using an augmented CobbDouglas
production to explore firm formation and technological innovation as separate
determinants of growth showed that only high growth potential entrepreneurship
is found to have a significant impact on economic growth. More recently, Radosevic and Yoruk (2013) state that the introduction of databases such as the GEM
has enabled research on the impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth to
be tested at the levels of country, industry or firm (see Yli-Renko, Autio, and
Sapienza 2001; Acs and Varga 2005; Minniti, Bygrave, and Autio 2005; Wong
et al. 2005).
However, a closely related concept, technology entrepreneurship, has for a
long time not found a proper place in mainstream empirical economic research on
the sources of sustainable economic growth. Although copious amounts have been
written theoretically and descriptively on how entrepreneurship affects the economic sustainability (see Fritsch and Mueller 2004, 2008; Radosevic and Yoruk
2013; Wong et al. 2005), there is a dearth of evidence based on empirical data.
This is partially due to the difficulty in defining the concept of technology entrepreneurship and formalizing its measurement for empirical modeling.
3. The empirical study

3.1. Data and variables
GEM, initiated in 1999, is widely acknowledged to be the best source of comparative entrepreneurship data in the world (see Shorrock 2008) and has been utilized
in studies published in leading journals (see Bowen and De Clercq 2008).
A key outcome of the GEM project is the consistent and internationally comparable measures of entrepreneurship, the Total Entrepreneurship Activity (TEA)
rates.
TEA captures percentage of adults (aged 1864) who are either involved in
the process of starting up a business in two populations: nascent entrepreneurs and
young business owners. Nascent entrepreneurs are individuals who have, during
the last 12 months, taken tangible action to start a new business, would personally
own all or part of the new firm, would actively participate in the day-to-day
management of the new firm and has not yet paid salaries for anyone for more
than 3 months. Young business owners are defined as individuals who are currently
actively managing a new firm, personally own all or part of the new firm and the
firms in question are not more than 42 months old.
TEA indices have high validity and reliability (see Reynolds et al. 2005).
Within TEA, the present study is concerned with harmonized GEM measures
for technology entrepreneurship and utilizes the following three measures:
TEATEC: Percentage of all TEA business entities reporting business activity
in a technology sector (high or medium), according to OECD classification.1
TEANT1: Percentage of all TEA business entities reporting that they use
the VERY LATEST technology, not available one year ago.
TEANT2: Percentage of all TEA business entities reporting that they use
the NEW technology, not available since 15 years ago.
Variables measuring entrepreneurships activities are from GEM (20022013)
and data have been collected for 13 developed countries:2 Australia (20022006
and 2011), Belgium (20022013), Canada (20022006 and 2013), France (2002
2013), Germany (20022010 and 20122013), Italy (20022010 and 20122013),
Japan (20022013), the Netherland (20022013), Spain (20022013), Sweden
(20022010 and 20112013), Switzerland (20022003; 2005; 2007 and 2009
2013), United Kingdom (20022013) and USA (20022013).
Those relating to the sustainable economic growth come from World Bank
Indicators (2013) that is the adjusted net saving indicator (ANS) known informally
as genuine savings (GS). The origin of the approach goes back to Pearce and
Atkinson (1993) when they used the term net savings criterion for sustainable
development. These authors showed that the future well-being will be at risk
if the gross saving in a given economy shortfalls than the combined value of
depreciation on physical capital and depletion on natural capital (see Hamilton
2010). Technically,3 GS is based on traditional gross national income (GNI) and
includes the change rates of the three forms of capital: physical (KP ), human (KH )
and natural (KN ) (Boos and Holm-Muller, 2013):
Genuine savings = (GNI CP CG + NCT) KP + KH KN

GNS

NNS
where GNS is the gross national savings, theoretically seen as gross investment in
physical capital; CP and CG are the private and public (governmental) consumptions; NCT is the net current transfers that comprise all exchanges with foreign
countries of goods and services as well as income and financial items without a
quid pro quo; NNS is the net national savings, which at least theoretically is
equivalent to net investment in physical capital (KP ).
Investment in human capital is calculated as net educational expenditure (KH ).
This includes both capital expenditure as well as current expenditure such as investment in school buildings, the purchase of school books or payment of teachers
salaries, that are counted as consumption rather than investment in the traditional
national accounts. Therefore, GS adds current operating expenditures on education as a rather crude approximation for investment in human capital. Finally, net
depreciation of natural capital (KN ) can be divided at a basic level into resource
extraction, on the one hand, and environmental pollution. The World Bank estimates resource extraction for a range of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, hard coal
and brown coal), minerals (bauxite, copper, iron, lead, nickel, zinc, phosphate, tin,
gold and silver), and one renewable resource (forests). These rents demonstrate
the change in the natural resource asset value associated with their extraction over
the accounting period and, therefore, the change in the natural capital stock (see
Atkinson and Hamilton 2007).
3.2. Hypothesis
The paper is based on the following hypotheses for testing the causality and
cointegration between the World Bank sustainability indicator and technology
entrepreneurship:
(1) there is bidirectional causality between sustainable economic growth and

technology entrepreneurship,
(2) there is unidirectional causality between the two concepts,
(3) there is no causality between GS and technology TEA,
(4) there exists a long-run relationship between well-being of a nation and
TEA related to the technology sector.
3.3. Econometric specification
To investigate the relationship between sustainable economic growth and

technology-based ventures, we use the following model:
GSit = 0i + 1i TEATECit + 2i TEANT1it + 3i TEANT2it + it
(1)
where GSit is genuine savings in country i and year t and it is an error term.
The test for causal relationship between technology entrepreneurship and sustainable economic growth in a panel context is usually conducted in four steps.
3.3.1. Step 1: unit root tests for panel data
Prior to testing for cointegration and Granger causality, it is necessary to study the
univariate time-series properties of each variable by performing unit root tests.
A series is said to be stationary if the mean and the variance remain constant
over time for all t, and the covariance and hence the correlation between any two
values taken from different time periods depend on the difference apart in time
between the two values for all t = s. By contrast, a non-stationary time series will
have a time-varying mean or a time-varying variance or both. In the first case,
the variable is described as trend stationary (TS), while for time-varying variance,
the model is called difference stationary (DS). Hence, for the two models, the
moments of the stochastic process depend on time and, therefore, the standard
assumptions for asymptotic analysis in the Granger test will not be valid. We
should hence perform tests for unit root in potentially non-stationary time series.
In fact, a number of unit root tests for panel data have been developed in
the recent literature, including most notably those by Levin, Lin, and Chu (2002)
(herein referred to as LLC), Im, Pesaran, and Shin (2003) (herein referred to as
IPS), Maddala and Wu (1999) (herein referred to as MW), Choi (2001) and Hadri
(2000).
The basic autoregressive model can be expressed following the basic Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) specification for panel data:
yit = it + 1i yit1 + 2i t +
m

j =1
where yit = yit yit1 .
ij yitj + it
(2)
The lag order for the difference terms m is allowed by specification to vary
across the cross section.
Using different null and alternative hypothesis, we can distinguish the following three situations:
Hypothesis (A) : Ho : li = 0 for all i versus H1 : li < 0 for all i

Hypothesis (B) : Ho : li = 0 for all i versus H1 : li < 0 for some i
Hypothesis (C) : Ho : li < 0 for all i versus H1 : li = 0 for all i

Hypothesis (A), adopted by Levin, Lin, and Chu (2002), assumes that the
coefficient of yit1 is homogeneous across all cross-section units of the panel
and that individual processes are cross-sectionally independent (referred to in the
literature as pooling the residuals along the within-dimension). In contrast, IPS
allows for heterogeneity in these dynamics (namely, it allows for a heterogeneous
coefficient of yit1 in Hypothesis (B); therefore, it is described as a heterogeneous
panel unit root test (referred to in the literature as pooling the residuals along the
between-dimension). Im, Pesaran, and Shin (2003) suggested that in the presence
of cross-sectional dependence, the data can be adjusted by demeaning and that the
standardized demeaned statistic converges to the standard normal in the limit.
Maddala and Wu (1999) and Choi (2001) consider the shortcomings of both the
LLC and IPS frameworks and offer an alternative testing strategy. They proposed
a Fisher-type test which combines the p-values from unit root tests for each
cross-section unit (the ADF test or other non-stationarity tests). The test is nonparametric and has a chi-square distribution with 2n degrees of freedom, where n
is the number of countries in the panel.
Maddala and Wu (1999) compare Fisher-type IPS and LLC panel unit root
tests and present Monte Carlo simulations as evidence in favor of Fisher-type tests
in case of cross-sectional correlation among variables. They also point out that
when a mixture of stationary and non-stationary series in the group is included in
the alternative hypothesis, the Fisher-types are the best among others because they
are more powerful in distinguishing the null and alternative hypotheses (see Uysal
2010) by being more general and more appropriate, particularly for unbalanced
panels Choi (2001).
3.3.2. Step 2: panel cointegration analysis
The concept of cointegration was first introduced by Granger (1981) and developed
further by Engle and Granger (1987) and Johansen (1988, 1991). The basic idea is
that if two or more time-series variables are individually integrated of order d > 0,
then there is a possibility of at least one linear combination of them to be integrated
of a lower order. Such a relationship between variables infers cointegration and
may be interpreted as a long-run equilibrium relationship among the variables.
Similar to panel unit root tests, extension of time-series cointegration tests
to panel data is also constantly evolving. To decide whether a cointegrating
relationship exists, the most popular developed methodology proposed by Pedroni

(1999, 2004) is employed. Basically, the test involves regressing the variables
along with cross-section-specific intercepts, and examining whether the residuals
are integrated order one (i.e. not cointegrated). Pedroni proposes two sets of test
statistics as follows:
Four tests are based on pooling the residuals of the regression along
the within-dimension of the panel (panel tests): v-statistic, rho-statistic,
PP-statistic and ADF-statistic.
Three tests are based on pooling the residuals of the regression along the
between-dimension of the panel (group test): rho-statistic, PP-statistic and
ADF-statistic.
The seven test statistics are distributed as standard normal variates, and diverge
to negative infinity under the alternative hypothesis of panel cointegration. However, these tests are not always unanimous, but a consensus among the statistics
often is interpreted as evidence in favor of cointegration. As reported in Pedroni
(2004), the group and panel ADF-statistics have the best power properties of the
seven test statistics when T < 100, whereas the panel and group rho statistics
perform comparatively worse. The ADF test statistics also perform better if the
errors follow an autoregressive process (see Harris and Sollis 2003).
Unfortunately, testing unit root and cointegration hypotheses by using panel
data instead of individual time series involves several additional complications. As
a major shortcoming, Taylor and Sarno (1998) have criticized panel unit root tests
on the grounds that they have a high probability of rejecting the null hypothesis of
joint non-stationarity. They explain that given the null hypothesis underlying panel
unit root tests, the only possible alternative hypothesis is that at least one unit is a
stationary process. Consequently, we may end up rejecting the null, even if only
one series is stationary. More recently, Breitung and Pesaran (2008) showed that
the panel test outcomes are often difficult to interpret if the null of the unit root
or cointegration is rejected. The best that can be concluded is that a significant
fraction of the cross-section units is stationary or cointegrated. The panel tests do
not provide explicit guidance as to the size of this fraction or the identity of the
cross-section units that are stationary or cointegrated.
3.3.3. Step 3: robustness tests: panel causality test and the error correction
model (ECM)
The finding of cointegration between variables indicates the existence of causality
and an ECM must be estimated. However, cointegration analysis can evaluate
whether the panel variables follow each others suit but it does not provide any
information about the cause and effect, or the direction of causality between the
variables.
10
For this we will use the Granger causality test. This technique tests short-term
causality and validates a long-term relationship. Two stages are suggested by Engle
and Granger (1987) in order to investigate the short-run and long-run relationships
between these variables. The first stage is to recover the estimated residuals in
Equation (1) and the second stage estimates the parameters related to the shortrun adjustment while incorporating the estimated residuals from Equation (1) in
the following ECM equations:
m

GSit = 1i +
11ij GSitj +
j =1
m

m

12ij TEATECitj
j =1
13ij TEANT1itj +
j =1
m

14ij TEANT2itj
j =1
+ 1i ECTit1 + 1it
TEATECit = 2i +
m

21ij GSitj +
m

m

22ij TEATECitj
j =1
j=1
(3)
23ij TEANT1itj +
j =1
m

24ij TEANT2itj
j =1
+ 2i ECTit1 + 2it
TEANT1it = 3i +
m

31ij GSitj +
j =1
m

(4)
m

32ij TEATECitj
j =1
33ij TEANT1itj +
j =1
m

34ij TEANT2itj
j =1
+ 3i ECTit1 + 3it
TEANT2it = 4i +
m

41ij GSitj +
j =1
m

(5)
m

43ij TEANT1itj +
j =1
+ 4i ECTit1 + 4it
42ij TEATECitj
j =1
m

44ij TEANT2itj
j =1
(6)
With 1i and 2i are individual fixed effects, denotes the first difference of
the variable, GSit , TEATECit ; TEANT1it and TEANT2it are the two cointegrated
variables; ECT is the error correction term; m denotes the lag length determined
automatically by the Schwarz Information Criterion; and it are the error terms.
11
The parameters of the previous equation include the following important shortterm and long-term implications: i parameters can be thought of as speed of
adjustment parameters. If i = 0, then there would be no evidence for a long-run
relationship. This parameter is expected to be significantly negative under the prior
assumption that the variables show a return to a long-run equilibrium.
3.3.4. Step 4: panel long-run estimates

After having established the existence of a cointegration relationship and the direction of causality between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables,
we proceed to estimate the long-term structural coefficients using various methods
of panel estimation which are more efficient than the ordinary least square (OLS)
method. Among them, Pedroni (2001) proposed a fully modified OLS (FMOLS)
that provides consistent estimates of the coefficients, together with t-ratios
that are asymptotically distributed as standard normal variates. A mathematical
derivation of the estimator is beyond the scope of this paper, but a practical discussion will inform the interpretation of the results. Roughly explained, the FMOLS
estimator is constructed by making corrections for endogenity and serial correlation to the OLS estimator by using the long-run covariance matrices to remove the
nuisance parameters (see Eberhardt 2009).
Improved by Kao and Chiang (2000) and Mark and Sul (2003) of the case
of panel data, the dynamic OLS (DOLS) is another approach of panel estimation which consists of adding to the cointegration equation lags of the explanatory variables in order to clean the error term from any autocorrelation and
heteroscedasticity. Monte Carlo testing has suggested it may perform slightly better than the FMOLS estimator (see Eberhardt 2009). One practical issue with the
estimator is choosing the appropriate lag and lead length, but this may be a less
serious issue than the non-parametric correction used by FMOLS. It should be
noted that under both the FMOLS and DOLS regressions, time dummies have
been added, in order to correct for homogeneous cross-sectional dependence (see
Pedroni 2001).
4. Empirical results and discussion

As mentioned in the previous section, panel cointegration testing requires variables
integrated in the same order. Since none of the panel unit root test is free from
some statistical shortcomings in terms of size and power properties (see Hurlin
and Mignon 2008), it is better for us to perform several unit root tests to infer an
overwhelming evidence to determine the order of integration of the panel variables.
Table 1 shows the individual test statistics and p-values with a lag length
selection of one. We know macroeconomic variables tend to exhibit a trend over
time, thus it is more appropriate to consider the regression equation with constant
and trend terms at level form.
0.437
(0.669)
0.9039
(0.183)
4.336
(0.000)
3.249
(0.999)
Level
Level
0.3953
(0.653)
1.108
( 0.133)
2.431
(0.059)
1.433
(0.924)
First difference
7.674
(0.000)
11.087
(0.000)
7.403
(0.000)
7.890
(0.000)
3.271
(0.005)
8.310
(0.000)
4.236
(0.000)
2.588
(0.004)
First difference
IPS
25.884
(0.4695)
31.334
(0.216)
39.804
(0.030)
5.414
(0.999)
Level
58.759
(0.002)
88.436
(0.000)
53.768
(0.000)
56.147
(0.000)
Level
20.885
(0.7478)
44.111
(0.014)
45.933
(0.031)
22.765
(0.300)
MW
First difference
ADF-Fisher
Notes: Null hypothesis: unit root (non-stationay).

The probabilities for the Fisher-type tests are computed using an asymptotic chi-square ( 2 ) asymptotic distribution.
Automatic lag selection based on Schwarz Information Criteria (SIC).
, and indicate statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
TEANT2
TEANT1
TEATEC
GS
Variables
LLC
Panel unit root tests.
Unit root test
Table 1.
61.317
(0.001)
114.200
(0.000)
81.131
(0.000)
120.592
(0.000)
First difference
PP-Fisher
12

Table 2.
Pedroni residual cointegration test results (GS as dependent variable).

Statistic
13
Prob.
Alternative hypothesis: common AR coefficients (within-dimension)

Panel -stat
3.924128
Panel r-stat
2.414450
Panel PP-stat
9.484897
Panel ADF-stat
8.494431
1.0000
0.9921
0.0000
0.0000
Alternative hypothesis: individual AR coefficients (between-dimension)

Group r-stat
3.496559
Group PP-stat
5.288141
Group ADF-stat
5.649528
0.9998
0.0000
0.0000
Notes: Null hypothesis: no cointegration.

and indicate statistical significance at 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
The test statistics suggest that the sustainable economic growth as measured by
genuine savings and two of the three variables measuring technology entrepreneurship have a unit root which implies non-stationarity. However, when we apply the
first difference of all variables we can reject the null hypothesis of unit root, and
GS, TEATEC and TEANT2 are stationary. It means that these three variables are
integrated of order one I(1) and are appropriate for cointegration analysis (except
for TEANT1 which is I(0)).
Hence, the variables with the same order facilitate the examination of possible
long-run relations through cointegration panel tests of Pedroni. Table 2 indicates
two within-dimension tests and two between-dimension tests providing the presence of cointegration. In fact, the null hypothesis of no cointegration is rejected
for the two statistical tests panel-ADF and group-ADF at 5% and 1% levels, respectively. In addition, panel and group PP statistics are also significant. Due to
these promising results, it is possible to estimate the long-run relationship between
the variables.
The finding of cointegration between variables indicates the existence of
causality and an ECM must be estimated based on the following regressions:

m
1i
11ij 12ij 13ij
GSitj
GSit

21ij 22ij 23ij TEATECitj
TEATECit = 2i +
TEANT2it
3i
31ij 32ij 33ij
TEANT2itj
j =1
1i
1it
+ 2i ECTit1 + 2it
31i
3it
Table 3 reports the short-run and long-run causality results for sustainable economic growth model and indicates that there is evidence of bidirectional causality
between TEATEC, TEANT2 and GS at 1% level of significance in the short-run.
14
Table 3.

Panel Granger causality test results (short-run and long-run causalities).
Short-run
GS
TEATEC
TEANT2
Long-run
GS
TEATEC
TEANT2
ECT
0.109049
[0.18012]
0.230188
[0.53713]
0.236518
[3.20118]
0.018125
[2.18653]
0.094011
[3.15969]
0.107691
[5.11334]
0.061875
[2.12772]
0.067754
[1.67713]
0.176450
[1.21687]
Note: indicates statistical significance at the 1% level. The t-statistic is listed in brackets.
Table 4.
Panel DOLSFMOLS long-run estimates.
Variables
TEATEC
TEANT2
DOLS
FMOLS
0.692409 (0.0034)
0.036999 (0.0013)
0.053601 (0.8583)
0.110594 (0.1771)
Notes: Cointegrating equation deterministics: constant and trend.

indicates statistical significance at 1% levels.
P-value listed in parentheses.
The error correction term is statistically significant only for percentage of all
TEA business entities reporting business activity in a technology sector (high or
medium), according to OECD classification and sustainable economic growth at
1% level. This finding indicates that there is evidence of long-run equilibrium
between technology entrepreneurship and sustainable development.
Finally, after having established the existence of a cointegration relationship
and the direction of causality between sustainable growth and TEA, the last step
consists in the long-run estimation of Equation (1) where the dependent variable is genuine savings, and the independent variables the two TEA measures of
technology entrepreneurship.
The long-run structural coefficients are estimated using the DOLS and FMOLS
panel approaches (Pedroni, 2001, 2004).
The results are presented in Table 4 which shows positive relationship between
technology entrepreneurship measured by the percentage of all TEA business entities reporting business activity in a technology sector (high or medium), according
to OECD classification and sustainable growth.
These results indicate that technology entrepreneurship is an important determinant of economic development for the period under study and for the 13
developed countries. The pace of progress in information technologies, microelectronics, robotics, new materials, biomedical sciences, space and other advanced
fields continues to quicken, and in turn, to significantly change the way we live
and work.
15
Particularly, creating business based on new technologies stimulates the welfare of a nations economy by enhancing the social and environmental conditions
of the living beings.
Socially, the creation of technology-based ventures by investing in research
and development as well as innovation in the discovery of new technologies or
the perfection of existing ones improves the quality of life of people and the
satisfaction of newly originated needs. It will also underpin economic, social and
territorial cohesion. For instance, a greater capacity for technological research and
development in the industrial sector promote innovation and knowledge transfer,
make full use of information and communication technologies, and ensure that
innovative ideas can be turned into new products and services that create growth,
quality jobs and global societal challenges. Combined with the increased resource
efficiency, technological entrepreneurship will also improve competitiveness and
foster job creation by pushing the businesses to do what they know best, that is,
create productive enterprises with high-potential employability.
Environmentally, the implementation of new and better technologies in different productions could minimize the effects of economic activity on the environment. Investing in cleaner and exploiting fully the potential of new technologies
such as carbon capture and sequestration possibilities would significantly help
limit emissions and contribute to fighting climate change.
Many firms do recognize that caring for the environment is good business
energy efficiency, waste reduction and pollution prevention save money which
can increase profits and boost economic growth by creating new business and
employment opportunities.
Meeting these targets should mobilize our collective attention. All sectors of the
economy, not just emission-intensive, are concerned: governments, environmental
experts and industry itself, as the principal source and user of technological knowledge. Especially, entrepreneurs would do well to heed the lessons of ecology as new
technologies will be needed to clean up past mistakes and achieve new industrial
growth safely. Businesses must make the ethic for living sustainably an integral
part of their corporate goal, taking care that their practices, processes and products
conserve energy and resources and have a minimum impact on ecosystems.
The implication of these findings is that countries that promoted technological entrepreneurship make their economy and businesses more sustainable while
protecting environmental aspects and improving social conditions. Therefore, the
government and other stakeholders should put in place measures that develop new
processes and technologies, including green technologies, accelerating the roll out
of smart grids using information and communication technologies and creating
a good business environment that encourages the creation and growth of new
technology-based firms. This can mean the following:
Adopting practices that take into account not only the well-being of humans
but also the ecosystem as a whole; practices that avoid damage and require
consultation with local communities and the public at large;
16
Introducing or improving technological innovative processes that minimize

the use of raw materials and energy, reduce waste and prevent pollution;
Making products that are environmentally friendly with minimum impact
on people and the Earth.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we investigate the causal relationship between sustainable economic
growth and technology entrepreneurship for an unbalanced panel of 13 countries
participating in the GEM data-set for the period 20022013. This empirical analysis is interesting because there is no previous study that worked on the causal link
between genuine savings as proxy variable of sustainable development and TEA
rates as proxy variable of entrepreneurship.
Using robust econometric techniques that are capable of estimating longrun cointegrating relationships in panel data, our findings provide a clear and
compelling account by establishing that the level of technological innovation
contributes significantly to economic performance.
For robustness tests, we have used the error correction approach. Our results
support the idea that there is evidence of bidirectional causality running from the
percentage of all TEA business entities reporting business activity in a technology
sector (high or medium), according to OECD classification to sustainable economic growth in the short-run. In the long-run, we find that the error correction
term corresponding to the genuine savings equation is negative and statistically
significant. It means that there is evidence of long-run relationship running from
TEA related to the technology sector to sustainable development.
This is an important area of concern in entrepreneurship which improves our
knowledge about the nature of relationship between technological entrepreneurship and economic welfare.
The knowledge gained from this research can be helpful in many ways. In fact,
much of this research will provide concrete and scientific evidence for analyzing
the relationship between investing in new technologies and sustainability by using
a cointegration analysis. Thanks to this analysis, we are better able to understand
what is happening within the creation of innovative and high-technology business
and the sustainability of a nation economy.
We can use this study to push government to promote entrepreneurial activities,
especially for the ones that constantly innovate in technology sector and that
ensuring favorable social and environmental conditions for the well-being of a
population.
This research can be extended by introducing variables related to the established businesses the number of adults (1864 years old) per 100 involved in
established firm as owner and manager for which salaries or wages have been paid
for more than 42 months and reporting that they use the very latest technology,
not available one year ago or that they use the new technology, not available since
15 years. We can also use panel cointegration techniques to examine the causal
17
relationship between technology entrepreneurship and sustainability for developing countries and make a comparison with the results obtained for developed
countries.
Acknowledgements
This research has received funding from the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association
(GERA), London Business School, Regents Park, London NW1 4SA, UK.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).
Notes
1.
2.
3.
High technology: aerospace, computers, office machinery, electronics communications, pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments. Medium--high technology: motor vehicles, electrical machinery, chemicals, other transport equipment, non-electrical machinery. Medium--low technology: rubber and plastic products, shipbuilding, other
manufacturing, non-ferrous metals, non-metallic mineral products, fabricated metal
products, petroleum refining, ferrous metals.
Countries belong to the Group of Twelve or G12 which is a group of industrially
advanced countries whose central banks co-operate to regulate international finance.
Detailed calculation descriptions and definitions can be found in Bolt, Matete, and
Clemens (2002), Hamilton (2006) or World Bank (2011).
ORCID
Islem Khefacha
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1635-5274
References
Abdullah, S., and L. Ahcene. 2011. The Understanding of Technology Entrepreneurship
According to Shariah Principles. Proceeding of International Conference on Business
and Economics Research. Singapore. 144150.
Abdullah, S., and M. Amran. 2008. The Development of Entrepreneurship in Malaysia:
State-Led Initiatives. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 16 (1): 101116.
Acs, Z. 2006. How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations 1 (1):
97107.
Acs, Z.-J., and D.-B. Audretsch. 2003. Innovation and Technology Change. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Researcher, edited by Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audretsch, 5579.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
18
Acs, Z.-J., and A. Varga. 2005. Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and Technological

Change. Small Business Economics 24 (3): 323334.
Anderson, P., and M. Tushman. 1990. Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly
35: 604633.
Antoncic, B. 2006. Impacts of Diversification and Corporate Entrepreneurship Strategy
Making on Growth and Profitability: A Normative Model. Journal of Enterprising
Culture 14 (1): 4963.
Atkinson, G., and K. Hamilton. 2007. Progress Along the Path: Evolving Issues in the
Measurement of Genuine Saving. Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1):
4361.
Audretsch, D.-B., and M. Keilbach. 2004. Entrepreneurship Capital and Economic Performance. Regional Studies 38: 949959.
Audretsch, D.-B., M. Keilbach, and E. Lehmann. 2006. Entrepreneurship and Economic
Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Autio, E., Y.-P. Ho, and P.-K. Wong. 2005. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic
Growth: Evidence from GEM Data. Small Business Economics 24: 335350.
Bailetti, T. 2012. Technology Entrepreneurship: Overview, Definition, and Distinctive
Aspects. Technology Innovation Management Review 2 (2): 512.
Bolt, K., M. Matete, and M. Clemens. 2002. Manual for Calculating Adjusted Net Savings.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Environment Department.
Boos, A., and K. Holm-Muller, 2013. The Relationship Between the Resource Curse and
Genuine Savings: Empirical Evidence. Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (6):
5972.
Bowen, H.P., and D. DeClercq. 2008. Institutional Context and the Allocation of Entrepreneurial Effort. Journal of International Business Studies 39 (4): 747767.
Breitung, J., and M.H. Pesaran. 2008. Unit Roots and Cointegration in Panels. In The
Econometrics of Panel Data: Fundamentals and Recent Developments in Theory and
Practice. 3rd ed. edited by L. Matyas and P. Sevestre, 279322. Springer Publishers,
Ch.9.
Burgelman, R.A., and R.S. Rosenbloom. 1997. Technology Strategy: An Evolutionary
Process Perspective, In Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, edited by M.L.
Tushman and P. Anderson, 273286. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burgelman, R.A., M.A. Maidique, and S.C. Wheelwright. 1996. Strategic Management of
Technology and Innovation. http://www.duc.auburn.edu/boultwr/5intstgy.pdf.
Choi, I. 2001. Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. Journal of International Money and Finance
20 (1): 249272.
Costantini, V., and C. Martini, 2010. The Causality Between Energy Consumption and
Economic Growth: A Multi-sectoral Analysis Using Non-stationary Cointegrated Panel
Data. Energy Economics 32 (3): 591603.
Dejardin, M. 2000. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: An Obvious Conjunction?
Namur: University of Namur.
Dietz, S., E., Neumayer, and I. Soysa. 2007. Corruption, the Resource Curse and Genuine
Saving. Environment and Development Economics 12 (1): 3353.
Dopfer, K. 1992. The Phenomenon of Economic Change: Neoclassical vs. Schumpeterian Approaches. Evolutionary and Neo-Schumpeterian Approaches to Economics,
Netherlands: Springer, 125171.
Dosi, G. 1988. Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal
of Economic Literature 26: 11201171.
Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Eberhardt, M. 2009. Non-stationary Panel Econometrics and Common Factor Models: An
Introductory Reader. Oxford: University of Oxford.
19
Engle, R.-F., and C.-W.-J. Granger. 1987. Co-integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica 55 (2): 251276.
Evangelista, R. 2000. Sectoral Patterns of Technological Change in Services, Economics
of Innovation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 9: 183221.
Freeman, C. 1998. The Economics of Technical Change. In Trade, Growth and Technical
Change, edited by D. Archibugi and J. Michie, 1654. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Fritsch, M., and P. Mueller. 2004. The Effects of New Business Formation on Regional
Development over Time. Regional Studies 38: 961975.
Fritsch, M., and P. Mueller. 2008. The Effect of New Business Formation on Regional
Development over Time: The Case of Germany. Small Business Economics 30: 1529.
Gaglio, C.M., and J.A. Katz. 2001. The Psychological Basis of Opportunity Identification:
Entrepreneurial Alertness. Small Business Economics 16: 95111.
Granger, C.W.J. 1981. Some Properties of Time Series Data and Their Use in Econometric
Model Specification. Journal of Econometrics 16: 121130.
Hadri, K. 2000. Testing for Stationary in Heterogeneous Panel Data. Econometrics
Journal 3 (2): 148161.
Hamilton, E. 2010. Wealth, Saving and Sustainability. In Is Economic Growth Sustainable?, International Economic Association (IEA) Conference Volume 148, edited by
Geoffrey Heal. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamilton, K. 2006. Where is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st
century. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Harris, R.I.D., and R. Sollis. 2003. Applied Time Series Modelling and Forecasting.
Chichester: J. Wiley.
Hurlin, C., and V. Mignon. 2008. Une Synth`ese des Tests de Cointegration Sur Donnees
de Panel. Economie & Prevision 4: 241265.
Im, K.S., M.H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin. 2003. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous
Panels. Journal of Econometrics 115: 5374.
Jin, Z. 2002. Soft Technology the Essential of Innovation. Futures Research Quarterly
18 (2): 124.
Johansen, S. 1988. Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors. Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control 12: 231254.
Johansen, S. 1991. Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. Econometrica 55: 15511580.
Kao, C., and M.H. Chiang. 2000. On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated
Regression in Panel Data. In Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic
Panels, edited by B.H. Baltagi. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Khefacha, I., L. Belkacem, and F. Mansouri. 2014. An Estimated Model of New Venture
Creation: Theories and Determinants in Tunisia. Journal of Enterprising Culture 22
(1): 123.
Lall, S. (1990). Building Industrial Competitiveness in Developing Countries. Paris: OECD.
Levin, A., C. Lin, and C.J. Chu. 2002. Unit Root Test with Panel Data: Asymptotic and
Finite-Sample. Journal of Econometrics 108 (1): 124.
Licht, A.N. 2007. The Entrepreneurial Spirit and What the Law Can Do About it. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal 28 (4): 817862.
Maddala, G., and S. Wu. 1999. A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data
and a New Simple Test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61: 631652.
Mansfield, E. 1972. Contribution of Research and Development to Economic Growth of the
United States. Papers and Proceedings of a Colloquim on Research and Development
and Economic Growth Productivity. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Mark, N.C., and D. Sul. 2003. Cointegration Vector Estimation by Panel Dynamic OLS and
Long-Run Money Demand. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65: 655680.
20
Nadiri, I. 1993. Innovations and Technological Spillovers. Working Paper 423. Cambridge.
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Miles, I. 2005. Innovation in Services. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited
by J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson., 433458. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Minniti, M., W. Bygrave, and E. Autio. 2005. 2005 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Nelson, R., and S. Winter. 1977. In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation. Research
Policy 6 (1): 3675
Onipede, S. 2003. Towards Creating an Environment for Sustainable Economic Growth in Nigeria, International Experience. http://www.economist.com/
countries/Nigeria/profile.cfm?folder=profileEconomic%20structure.
Pearce, D.W., and G. Atkinson. 1993. Capital Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable
Development: An Indicator of Weak Sustainability. Ecological Economics 8: 103108.
Pedroni, P. 1999. Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels
with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61: 727
731.
Pedroni, P. 2001. Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels. Advances
in econometrics 15: 93130.
Pedroni, P. 2004. Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled
Time Series Tests with an Application to the PPP Hypothesis. Econometric Theory
20: 597625.
Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Radosevic, S., and E. Yoruk. 2013. Entrepreneurial Propensity of Innovation Systems:
Theory, Methodology and Evidence. Research Policy.
Reynolds, P.D., M. Hay, and M. Camp. 1999. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 1999
Executive Report. Babson Park, MA and London: Babson College and London Business
School.
Reynolds, P.D., M. Hay, W.D. Bygrave, S. Michael Camp, and E. Autio. 2000. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2000 Executive Report. Kansas City: Kaufman Centre.
Reynolds, P.D., S. Michael Camp, W.D. Bygrave, E. Autio, and M. Hay. 2001. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Global 2001 Executive Report. Kansas City: Kaufman
Center.
Reynolds, P.D., S. Michael Camp, W.D. Bygrave, E. Autio, and M. Hay. 2002. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Global 2002 Executive Report. Kansas City: Kaufman
Center.
Reynolds, P., N. Bosma, E. Autio, S. Hunt, N. De Bono, I. Servaias, P. Lopez Garca,
and N. Chin. 2005. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Data Collection Design and
Implementation 19982003. Small Business Economics 24: 205231.
Rosenberg, N. 1976. Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romer, P. 1986. Increasing Returns and Long Run Growth. Journal of Political Economy
94: 10021037
Ruttan, V.W. 1997. Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory and Path Dependence:
Sources of Technical Change. Economic Journal 107: 15201529
Schumpeter, J. 1912. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 3rd ed. New York: Harper
and Row.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2003. Guest Editors Introduction to the Special Issue on
Technology Entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32 (2): 181184.
Shorrock, A. 2008. Opening Address Presented at the, United Nations University-WIDER
Conference on Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Helsinki, Finland.
21
Solow, R. 1956. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal

of Economics 70: 6594
Song M., C. Droge, S. Hanvanich, and R. Calantone. 2005. Marketing and Technology Resource Complementarity: An Analysis of their Interaction Effect in Two Environmental
Contexts. Strategic Management Journal 26 (3): 259276.
Stam, E., and A. van Stel. 2009. Types of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.
Research Paper 2009/47. Helsinki: UNUWider.
Szirmai, A., W. Naude, and M. Goedhuys. 2011. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tan, S. 2004. Ecological Perspectives in Entrepreneurship: Science and Sustainability.
Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Taylor, M.P., and Sarno, L. 1998. The Behavior of Real Exchanges During the Post-Bretton
Woods Period. Journal of International Economics 46: 281312.
Twiss, B., and M. Goodridge. 1989. Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage
Integrating Technological and Organizational Development: From Strategy to Action.
Aulander, NC: Pitman Publishing.
Uysal, A.H. 2010. CT Development and Economic Growth: An Analysis of Cointegrating and Causal Relationships with a Panel Data Approach. Stockholm: School of
Architecture and the Built Environment Royal Institute of Technology.
Van Stel, A.J. 2006. Empirical Analysis of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Vol.
13 of International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer Science.
Wong, Po, Kam Ping, Ho Yuen, and A. Erkko. 2005. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM Data. Small Business Economics 24 (3):
335350.
World Bank. 2011. The Changing Wealth Of Nations: Measuring Sustainable Development
in the New Millennium. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Wright, M., K.M. Hmieleski, D.S. Siegel, and M.D. Ensley. 2007. The Role of Human
Capital in Technological Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31
(6): 791806.
Yli-Renko H, E. Autio, and H.J Sapienza. 2001. Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition,
and Knowledge Exploitation in Young, Technology-Based Firms. Strategic Management Journal 22 (67): 587613.

Technology Based Ventures

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Technology Based Ventures

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [islem khefacha]

On: 03 September 2015, At: 04:39

The Journal of International

Islem Khefacha & Lotfi Belkacem

Laboratory Research for Economy, Management and

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [islem khefacha] at 04:39 03 September 2015

The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2015