GEM Research : Development and Avenues

1. GEM Research: Development and Avenues GEM 2014 Annual meeting, Santiago, Chile January 20, 2014

2. Agenda from now to late afternoon... 11.00 – 12.00 Introduction to discussion on research issues 12.00 – 12.30 Presentations of GERA funded projects: Rolf Sternberg, Germany Ulrike Guelich, Thailand Esra Karadeniz, Turkey Nataša Šarlija, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina 12.30-13.30 Lunch

3. Agenda from now to late afternoon... 13.30 – 13.45 Peter Josty, Canada – Visiting Felows program 13.45 – 16.30 Using GEM for Research – Working groups: GEM Conceptual framework Surveying tools – APS + NES Composite vs. Dashboard indicators Well-being Seniors entrepreneurship Innovation and entrepreneurship 16.30 – 17.30 Working groups report back

4. SurveyMonkey, January 2014 No of Respondents: 29 from 26 countries Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Guatemala, India, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, UK, Vietnam

5. GEM WEAKNESSES

6. Comments • The report varies greatly in quality from year to year. • We need to create a better dashboard of indicators that covers the range of entrepreneurial activities and particularly more productive entrepreneurship. • The questionnaire seems to be too long and cumbersome for those administering it and for those responding to it. • Descriptive statistics, no serious testing of potential relationships among indicators. • Not very transparent how certain variables are calculated – difficult to interpret (some of them explained in available excel sheets - nevertheless on request I got always an explanation!) • The definition of 'entrepreneurship' does not distinguish between an innovative, high growth activity vs activity with very low value added. This kind of differentiation or segmentation would be extremely useful in linking entrepreneurship to economic development and benchmarking. • Single items with dichotomous scales. This limits GEM data get arrive in the best journals • The NES questions are good but I doubt one expert can respond to all of them with the required knowledge. • For the people opportunity is a way to solve a necessity

7. NATIONAL TEAMS’ STRENGTHS

8. Comments • Can help with indicators and report writing (but we have done this already and recognise need for rotation) • I am not sure that my team has an area of research excellence. For us we are still getting used to doing the GEM survey, analysis and report preparation. • Creating manuals for all research processes – joint intellectual property of an institution, not individuals • We can bring other types of analysis - e.g. entrepreneurship & health (2014), and structural equation modeling (2015/6). • We can co-operate with other teams that do face to face interviews and guide them on how it can be done optimally (APS)

9. Q3: Do you see GEM’s policy impact in your country?

10. Comments • Use of GEM measures in government plans; use of survey to track impact of government programmes; GEM faculty used by policy and programme makers for advice • GEM indicators are being used in most of the relevant strategic and other planning documents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for tracking the state of entrepreneurship in the country • The Lithuanian team had the opportunity to make the presentation in the Innovation Forum, which was the part of the Lithuanian presidency of the Council of European Union. • This is only the third year that the survey has been administered. It will take time to see GEM's impact on policy in my country. • Most interventions are defined by the money of aid coming from developed countries. Not influenced by the data collected for GEM. • Would be too simplistic to assume direct impact based on GEM results - GEM indicators are used among many others in policy formulations. • A bit previously but really not much any more.

11. Q4: What do you consider as a MAJOR PROBLEM in running GEM survey in your country? (choose up to three)

12. Strategic focus How to maintain conceptual and methodological soundness of the GEM survey, based on the following value chain: Conceptual framework + indicators + data collection + methodology of analyzing data + writing the report + impacting policy makers

13. Key GEM objectives, Bosma, WP From its inception To measure differences in the level of entrepreneurial activity betweencountries To uncover factors determining national levels of entrepreneurialactivity To identify policies that may enhance national levels of entrepreneurial activity Revised objectives / Suggested change (Bosma, Sternberg) To measure differences in the level of entrepreneurial attitudes,activity and aspirations between countries and regions To uncover factors determining levels of entrepreneurial attitudes,activity and aspirations To identify policies that may lead to appropriate profiles ofentrepreneurial attitudes, activity and aspirations

14. Some challenges Conceptual framework vs. Model from Leibenstein’s “routine entrepreneurship” to triple As: Activities, Aspirations, Atittudes How assumed relationships are tested? Structural equation modeling?

15. The GEM framework – based on RIAC’s discussion, Sept. 2013 Social, Cultural, Political Context National Framework Conditions Outcome/Impact (socio-economic development) Existing Economic Activity (Primary Economy) Basic Requirements Entrepreneurial Output (new jobs, new value added) Efficiency Enhancers + - Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions Entrepreneurship Activity + - + - Aspirations Attitudes Personal Values and Background

16. Measures Growing industry of indices – how to sharpen GEM's identity and not to blend it by using indicators from other sources? How to maintain GEM's competitive differentiation? 20 global indexes analysed, 4 of them are using GEM variables / indicators: Entrepreneurship Indicators Program (OECD and Eurostat), GEDI, Women’s Venture Scope and Entrepreneurship Education Indicators (EU) 8 are based on primary surveys, all others are using secondary data

17. What GEM provides? • On activities, aspirations?, attitudes?... PRIMARY SURVEY • GEM’s APS is a gem and we should nurture it, care about it and help to grow it into a major set of global indicators on entrepreneurship • GEM is complementing 20 global indicators • Are those measures „backed“ by sound conceptual framework, or is conceptual framework „covered“ with adequate measures? • Are there blank spaces in conceptual framework not covered by measures? • Are there collected data not used enough for formulating some measures? • Data quantity and quality? APS and experts' survey?

18. Composite index vs. Dashboard indexes What we are looking for? Explanation Early signals of changes (trends, patterns) Prediction, if possible Should we aim toward a composite index or be happy with a dashboard of different measures, like TEA (opportunity/necessity), EEA, growth potential, social entrepreneurship... what else? „Keep it simple...“ approach should be implemented

19. Which competences we have in abundance, where we are short... identifying research questions, formulating assumptions, designing surveying tools, analysing collected data, testing assumptions, finding new relationships which better answer starting questions, generalizing, contributing to the theory translating findings in policy language, communicate, communicate and communicate about it Open platform for collaboration (in research, doctoral programs, policy discussions)

20. Robert Reich said about competences in 21st century To identify problems To solve problems To exchange ideas Do we speak same language? Do we act in same time zone?

21. Timeline of 2014 activities • To set up the mechanism for practicing open platform for collaboration in research activities (kind of brokerage place), April 2014 • To provide analysis of APS and NES surveying tools in relation to the GEM conceptual framework and suggest changes for 2015 (backed with a cost/benefit analysis), November 2014 • To make a decision on Composite vs. Dashboard indexes, December 2014

22. On behalf of RIAC Nezam Faghih (Iran) Jian Gao (China) Jolanda Hessels (the Netherlands) Jonathan Levie (UK) Ehud Menipaz (Israel) Rebecca Namatovu (Uganda, Board member) Rolf Sternberg (Germany) Rodrigo Varela (Colombia) Slavica Singer (Croatia, Board member, chairing the RIAC)