Pen Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 2602-4802   |  e-ISSN: 2602-4500

Original article | International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences 2019, Vol. 3(1) 1-19

Girişimci Davranışa İlişkin Bireysel Algılar: GEM Verileriyle Kümeleme Analizi

Sibel Tokatlıoğlu & Esin Cumhur Yalçın

pp. 1 - 19   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiasos.2019.205.1   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1908-08-0003.R1

Published online: August 29, 2019  |   Number of Views: 28  |  Number of Download: 84


Abstract

Günümüzde girişimcilik faaliyeti ekonomik büyümeye önemli oranda katkı sağlamaktadır. Bu faaliyetlerin potansiyelini belirlemede girişimci davranışa ilişkin bireysel algılar belirleyici rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, bireysel algılarla girişimcilik faaliyeti arasındaki ilişki, Küresel Girişimcilik Monitörü (GEM) 2015 veri setinden faydalanılarak incelenmiştir. Veri setinde yer alan 60 ülkenin girişimci davranışa ilişkin bireysel algıları temsil eden, algılanan iş fırsatları, algılanan yeterlik, girişimcilik niyeti ve başarısızlık korkusu değişkenlerine göre kümelenmesi ve elde edilen ülke kümelerinin toplam girişimcilik faaliyeti (TEA) değişkenine göre değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Hiyerarşik kümeleme analizi (Ward yöntemi) ve hiyerarşik olmayan kümeleme analizi (k-ortalama yöntemi) kullanılarak, algılar ve faaliyet düzeyleri birbiriyle benzerlik gösteren ülkelerden oluşan 5 küme elde edilmiştir. Kümelerin bileşimleri, ülkelerin girişimcilik faaliyeti değişkenine göre değerlendirilip ekonomik gelişmişlik seviyesine göre yorumlanmıştır.

Keywords: Girişimcilik, Bireysel algılar, GEM, Kümeleme analizi


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Tokatlioglu, S. & Yalcin, E.C. (2019). Girişimci Davranışa İlişkin Bireysel Algılar: GEM Verileriyle Kümeleme Analizi . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences, 3(1), 1-19. doi: 10.29329/ijiasos.2019.205.1

Harvard
Tokatlioglu, S. and Yalcin, E. (2019). Girişimci Davranışa İlişkin Bireysel Algılar: GEM Verileriyle Kümeleme Analizi . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences, 3(1), pp. 1-19.

Chicago 16th edition
Tokatlioglu, Sibel and Esin Cumhur Yalcin (2019). "Girişimci Davranışa İlişkin Bireysel Algılar: GEM Verileriyle Kümeleme Analizi ". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Social Sciences 3 (1):1-19. doi:10.29329/ijiasos.2019.205.1.

References
  1. Acs, Z. (2006). How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth? Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97-107. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alpar, R. (2017). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. ve Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anokhin, S. ve Mendoza-Abarca, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the filtering role of human agency: Resolving the objective-subjective-realized conundrum (Summary). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 31(15), Article 4. [Google Scholar]
  6. Arenius, P. ve Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 233-247.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359-372. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104-119. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bayon, M., Vaillant, Y. ve Lafuente, E. (2015). Initiating nascent entrepreneurial activities: The relative role of perceived and actual entrepreneurial ability. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(1), 27-49. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beynon, M. J., Jones, P. ve Pickernell, D. (2018). Entrepreneurial climate and self-perceptions about entrepreneurship: A country comparison using fsQCA with dual outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 89, 418-428. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bosma, N. ve Schutjens, V. (2011). Understanding regional variation in entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitude in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 47(3), 711-742. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyd, N. G. ve Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63-77. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brockhaus, Sr. R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520. [Google Scholar]
  15. Busenitz, L. W. ve Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Busenitz, L. W. ve Lau, C.-M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25-40. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cacciotti, G. ve Hayton, J. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165-190. [Google Scholar]
  18. Carree, M. A. ve Thurik, A. R. (2003). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Z. J. Acs ve D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research (ss. 437-471). GB: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G. ve Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316. [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research: Some suggestions. In J. Katz, ve D. Shepherd (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, Vol. 6) (ss. 315-372). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  21. Doran, J., McCarthy, N. ve O’Connor, M. (2018). The role of entrepreneurship in stimulating economic growth in developed and developing countries. Cogent Economics & Finance, 6(1), 1442093. [Google Scholar]
  22. Freytag, A. ve Thurik, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a cross-country setting. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(2), 117-131. [Google Scholar]
  23. GEM (2015). APS Global National level data. https://www.gemconsortium.org/ [Google Scholar]
  24. Gregory R. L. (1997). Perception. In R. L. Gregory ve O. L. Zangwill (Eds.), The Oxford companion to the mind (10. baskı, ss. 598-601). New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grichnik, D., Smeja, A. ve Welpe, I. (2010). The importance of being emotional: How do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 15-29. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kelley, D., Singer, S. ve Herrington, M. (2016). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2015/16 Global report, https://www.gemconsortium.org/ [Google Scholar]
  27. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  [Google Scholar]
  28. Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. ve Schade, C. (2013). Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 213-234. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolvereid, L. (2016). Preference for self-employment: Prediction of new business start-up intentions and efforts. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(2), 100-109. [Google Scholar]
  30. Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5-21. [Google Scholar]
  31. Krueger, Jr. N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5-24. [Google Scholar]
  32. Krueger, Jr. N. F. ve Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104. [Google Scholar]
  33. Krueger, Jr. N. F. ve Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 5(4), 315-330. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krueger, Jr. N. F., Reilly, M. D. ve Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432. [Google Scholar]
  35. Linan, F., Santos, F. J. ve Fernandez, J. (2011). The influence of perceptions on potential entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 373-390. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mooi, E. ve Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research: The process, data and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  37. Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (Çok değişkenli analizler). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi. [Google Scholar]
  38. Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E. ve Hay, M. (2001). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2001 Executive report, https://www.gemconsortium.org/ [Google Scholar]
  39. Shane, S., Locke, E. A. ve Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review,13(2), 257-279. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shane, S. ve Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. [Google Scholar]
  41. Shapero, A. ve Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton ve K. Vesper (Eds.), Encylopedia of Entrepreneurship (ss. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  42. Stewart, Jr. W. H. ve Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145-153. [Google Scholar]
  43. Şahin, D. (2017). Kümeleme analizi ile Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinin ekonomik özgürlükler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 1299-1314. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wagner, J. (2007). What a difference a Y makes-female and male nascent entrepreneurs in Germany. Small Business Economics, 28(1), 1-21. [Google Scholar]
  45. Weber, E. U. ve Milliman, R. A. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science, 43(2), 123-144.  [Google Scholar]
  46. Welpe, I. M., Spörrle, M., Grichnik, D., Michl, T. ve Audretsch, D. B. (2012). Emotions and opportunities: The interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear, joy, and anger as antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1), 69-96. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., Thurik, R. ve Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293-309. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wennekers, S. ve Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27-56. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhao, H, Seibert, S. E. ve Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272. [Google Scholar]