Department of Accounting and Finance, College of Business and Technology, Northeastern State University, Broken Arrow, OK, USA
This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue of how technology use in entrepreneurial process relates to firm performance and business owner’s optimism in U.S. states. We specifically focus on each U.S. state’s success in employing internet as a tool during the startup process, the tax payment process, and the licensing process. We try to answer the following question: “Do the small firms that operate in an internet-friendly state perform better than the small firms that operate in a less internet-friendly state?” We also examine how internet usage affects owners’ outlook for the future. Our results show that the prevalence of internet use for tax payments or for licensing in a state is not related to companies’ performance or their owners’ outlook. The prevalence of internet use during the startup process also does not affect firms’ performance. However, our findings indicate that the prevalence of internet use during the startup process affects owners’ outlook for the future. If a state is more business friendly in terms of the internet startup process, the small business owners in that state tend to be more optimistic in terms of future hiring plans and in terms of encouraging others to start a business in their state. The relevance of these findings is that, to improve the environment for small businesses, states should focus on starting an internet startup process or on improving their existing process. Investigation of the impact of technology use on growth and on owner’s optimism in the paper is carried out in the following logical sequence: First, each state is assigned into one of two groups based on their “Internet start score”. The states that have a score higher than the mean state were assigned into the “High-Internet Start Score” group and the others were assigned into the “Low-Internet Start Score” group. Then, the two groups were compared in terms of firm growth and owner’s optimism. Then, the same procedure is followed for “Internet Tax Score”. The states that have a score higher than the mean state were assigned into the “High-Internet Tax Score” group and the others were assigned into the “Low-Internet Tax Score” group. The two groups were compared in terms of firm growth and owner’s optimism. Finally, the same procedure is followed for “Internet Licensing Score”. The states that have a score higher than the mean state were assigned into the “High-Internet Licensing Score” group and the others were assigned into the “Low-Internet Licensing Score” group. Then, the two groups were compared in terms of firm growth and owner’s optimism. We used nonparametric tests to compare high and low score states in each category. Only 41 states had sufficient data to run the analyses. The paper presents the results of these nonparametric tests which showed that internet start score, internet tax score, or internet licensing score does not explain firm growth. However, the prevalence of internet use during the startup process affects owners’ outlook for the future. The results of the research can be useful for state or local governments that want to support their small businesses by improving the technology use in these areas.
Keywords: entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, technology, growth, optimism, small business.
JEL Classification: G38, L25, L26.
Cite as: Kaya, H.D. (2021). How Does The Use Of Technology In Entrepreneurial Process Affect Firms’ Growth?. SocioEconomic Challenges, 5(1), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.5(1).5-12.2021
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
- Acs, Z. J. and Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small business economics, 28(2-3), 109-122. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-006-9012-3.
- Ariff, M. and Abubakar, S. Y. (2003). Strengthening entrepreneurship in Malaysia. Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, Kuala Lumpur, 1-22. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.451.9951&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
- Bennett, R. (2008). SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: what have we learnt?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 375-397. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/c07118.
- Carland, J. and Carland, J. (2004). Economic development: Changing the policy to support entrepreneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(2), 104-114. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.510.9224&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
- Carlsson, Bo and Mudambi, R. (2003). Globalization, entrepreneurship, and public policy: a systems view. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 103-116. Available at: link.
- Dreher, A. and Gassebner, M. (2013). Greasing the wheels? The impact of regulations and corruption on firm entry. Public Choice, 155(3-4), 413-432. Available at: file:///C:/Users/kaya/AppData/Local/Temp/Dreher-Gassebner2013_Article_GreasingTheWheelsTheImpactOfRe-3.pdf.
- Fatoki, O. O. and Chindoga, L. (2011). “An investigation into the obstacles to youth entrepreneurship in South Africa.” International Business Research, 4(2), 161. Available at: link.
- Gartner, W. B. and Shane, S. A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 283-301. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088390269400037U.
- Gilbert, B. A., Audretsch, D. B. and McDougall, P. P. (2004). The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Small Business Economics, 22(3), 313-323. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022235.10739.a8.
- Henrekson, M. and Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lesson from the US and Sweden. The journal of technology transfer, 26(3), 207-231. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/56278/1/333190394.pdf.
- Keuschnigg, C. and Nielsen, S. B. (2001). Public policy for venture capital. International Tax and Public Finance, 8(4), 557-572. Available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/75796/1/cesifo_wp486.pdf.
- Korosec, R. L. and Berman, E. M. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 448-462. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00601.x.
- Kropp, F. and Zolin, R. (2005). Technological entrepreneurship and small business innovation research programs. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1. Available at: link.
- Lee, S. M., Lim, S. B., Pathak, R. D., Chang, D., and Li, W. (2006). Influences on students attitudes toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country study. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(3), 351-366. Available at: link.
- Li, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship and government subsidies: A general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26(11), 1815-1844. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188901000112.
- Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., and Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory tower: do incentive systems matter?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 353-364. Available at: link.
- Michael, S. C. and Pearce, J. A. (2009). The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(3), 285-302. Available at: https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08985620802279999#.YAZuQhZ7lPY.
- Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28(8), 506-517. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166497207001526.
- Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1982). Innovation and the small and medium sized firm. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1496714.
- Todd, P. R. and Javalgi, R. G. (2007). “Internationalization of SMEs in India: Fostering entrepreneurship by leveraging information technology.” International journal of emerging markets, 2(2), 166-180. Available at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/ijoem/2007/00000002/00000002/art00004.
- Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Government support for commercial R&D: lessons from the Israeli experience. In Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2, 79-134. MIT Press. Available at: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/653755.
- Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small business economics, 13(1), 27-56. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008063200484.
- Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Portfolio entrepreneurship: Habitual and novice founders, new entry, and mode of organizing. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 701-725. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00249.x.
- Zahra, S. A. and Garvis. D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm performance: The moderating effect of international environmental hostility. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 469-492. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883902699000361