Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background, Conditions, and Propositions
2.1. Economic Development, Entrepreneurship, and Entrepreneurial Intention (EI)
2.2. Corruption Perception (COPER) and Corruption Normalization (CONOR)
2.3. Gender (GEN)
2.4. STEM Studies
2.5. Family Entrepreneurial Background (FEB)
3. Materials and Methods
- Calibration: in this step, the variables (dependent and independent) must be calibrated using a logarithmic function so that they can be analyzed based on set theory. The calibration process involves recalculating all continuous variables so that they are integrated into the continuum 0–1, establishing thresholds that allow determining the membership of a value to one of the following three sets: (1) fully inside; (0.5) maximum ambiguity; (0) fully outside. Following Misangyi and Acharya [114], this study used the continuous variable calibration method with percentiles, with the percentiles proposed by Climent-Serrano et al. [115]: 90%, 50%, and 10%, to delimit the thresholds (1), (0.5), and (0) of the variables EI, COPER, and CONOR, respectively.
- Construction of the “truth table”: in this step, a data matrix must be constructed (the “truth table”), which includes 2k rows, where k is the number of causal conditions proposed by the model.
- Initial reduction of the number of rows: in this step, two sequential criteria are applied. First, from a factual approach, pathways that do not collect cases are eliminated. Second, from a reliability approach, pathways that do not achieve a consistency threshold equal to or greater than 0.75 are eliminated [102].
- Final reduction of the number of rows: In this step, a final reduction of the number of rows of the “truth table” is carried out by applying the Quine–McCluskey algorithm (Ragin, 2008).
4. Results
4.1. Analysis of Necessary Conditions
4.2. Analysis of Sufficient Conditions
4.3. Reliability and Robustness Fit
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire
Options | Check |
More than 85,000 pesos per month | |
Between 35,000 and 84,999 pesos per month | |
Between 11,600 and 34,999 pesos per month | |
Between 6800 and 11,599 pesos per month | |
Between 2700 and 6799 pesos per month | |
Between 0 and 2699 pesos per month |
Options | Check |
Yes | |
No |
Questions | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Question 6: I have serious doubts about whether I will ever start a business | |||
Question 7: It is very likely that I will start a business in the future | |||
Question 8: I am willing to do whatever it takes to be an entrepreneur | |||
Question 9: I am determined to start a business in the future | |||
Question 10: My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur |
Questions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Question 11: There are clear accountability procedures and mechanisms that apply to the allocation and use of public funds. | |||||
Question 12: It is common for politicians/civil servants to appropriate public funds for personal or partisan purposes | |||||
Question 13: There are special funds for which there is no accountability | |||||
Question 14: There is widespread abuse of public resources | |||||
Question 15: There is a professional career in the public sector or there are a large number of civil servants who are directly appointed by the government | |||||
Question 16: There is an independent body that audits the administration of public finances | |||||
Question 17: There is an independent judiciary power with the competences to judge public ministers/civil servants who commit abuses. | |||||
Question 18: It is traditionally resorted to paying bribes for awarding contracts or obtain favors. |
Questions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Question 19: Claim state benefits to which you are not entitled such as scholarships, grants, benefits, or subsidies | |||||
Question 20: Avoid paying the ticket in some public transport | |||||
Question 21: Avoid paying the bill in a restaurant or cafeteria | |||||
Question 22: Cheat on paying taxes | |||||
Question 23: That someone accept a bribe in the performance of their duties. |
Appendix B. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for the Construction of the Variables Entrepreneurial Intention (EI), Corruption Perception (COPER), and Normalization of Corruption (CONOR)
Statistics Total-Item | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean of Scale If Item Is Removed | Scale Variance If Item Is Removed | Corrected Item—Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Is Removed | |
Inverse variable of Question 6 | 10.930818 | 3.204 | 0.031 | 0.892 |
Question 7 | 10.364780 | 2.853 | 0.647 | 0.509 |
Question 8 | 10.314465 | 2.976 | 0.628 | 0.527 |
Question 9 | 10.301887 | 2.997 | 0.651 | 0.524 |
Question 10 | 10.389937 | 2.910 | 0.574 | 0.536 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Items |
---|---|
0.867 | 4 |
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | 0.829 | |
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Chi-squared | 709.035 |
df | 6 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Initial Eigenvalues | Sums of the Squared Saturations of the Extraction | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | Total | Variance | Accumulated | Total | Variance | Accumulated |
1 | 2.863 | 71.580 | 71.580 | 2.488 | 62.198 | 62.198 |
2 | 0.419 | 10.478 | 82.058 | |||
3 | 0.401 | 10.033 | 92.091 | |||
4 | 0.316 | 7.909 | 100.000 |
Factor Matrix | |
---|---|
Questions | Factor |
1 | |
7 | 0.809 |
8 | 0.767 |
9 | 0.826 |
10 | 0.750 |
Questions | Factor |
---|---|
1 | |
7 | 0.300 |
8 | 0.243 |
9 | 0.333 |
10 | 0.223 |
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | 0.791 | |
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Chi-squared | 2778.113 |
df | 78 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Factor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Question 11 | 0.275 | 0.206 | 0.259 | 0.511 |
Question 12 | 0.787 | 0.006 | 0.061 | 0.047 |
Question 13 | 0.837 | 0.030 | 0.089 | 0.105 |
Question 14 | 0.889 | 0.013 | 0.090 | −0.003 |
Question 15 | 0.726 | 0.040 | 0.162 | 0.131 |
Question 16 | 0.233 | 0.130 | 0.839 | 0.100 |
Question 17 | 0.100 | 0.120 | 0.790 | 0.107 |
Question 18 | 0.575 | 0.050 | 0.501 | −0.417 |
Question 19 | 0.006 | 0.350 | 0.310 | −0.168 |
Question 20 | 0.054 | 0.830 | 0.065 | 0.151 |
Question 21 | −0.045 | 0.819 | 0.204 | −0.013 |
Question 22 | 0.000 | 0.815 | 0.181 | −0.061 |
Question 23 | 0.132 | 0.803 | −0.135 | 0.346 |
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | 0.805 | |
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Chi-squared | 1774.709 |
df | 28 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Factor | Initial Eigenvalues | Sums of the Squared Saturations of the Extraction | Sum of the Squared Saturations of the Rotation | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Variance | Accumulated | Total | Variance | Accumulated | Total | Variance | Accumulated | ||
1 | 3.263 | 40.789 | 40.789 | 2.941 | 36.759 | 36.759 | 2.708 | 33.849 | 33.849 | |
2 | 2.774 | 34.669 | 75.458 | 2.455 | 30.693 | 67.452 | 2.688 | 33.603 | 67.452 | |
3 | 0.443 | 5.542 | 81.000 | |||||||
4 | 0.404 | 5.046 | 86.047 | |||||||
5 | 0.364 | 4.546 | 90.593 | |||||||
6 | 0.294 | 3.677 | 94.270 | |||||||
7 | 0.267 | 3.335 | 97.605 | |||||||
8 | 0.192 | 2.395 | 100.000 |
Questions | Factor | |
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
12 | 0.797 | 0.015 |
13 | 0.861 | 0.051 |
14 | 0.876 | 0.020 |
15 | 0.736 | 0.062 |
20 | 0.068 | 0.843 |
21 | −0.040 | 0.836 |
22 | −0.002 | 0.811 |
23 | 0.129 | 0.783 |
Factor | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
12 | 0.208 | −0.014 |
13 | 0.336 | −0.001 |
14 | 0.377 | −0.022 |
15 | 0.153 | 0.002 |
20 | −0.001 | 0.316 |
21 | −0.028 | 0.290 |
22 | −0.026 | 0.261 |
23 | 0.019 | 0.222 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Items |
---|---|
0.889 | 4 |
Questions | Mean of Scale If Item Is Removed | Scale Variance If Item Is Removed | Corrected Item—Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Is Removed |
---|---|---|---|---|
12 | 10.836842 | 11.862 | 0.741 | 0.865 |
13 | 10.823684 | 11.945 | 0.796 | 0.842 |
14 | 10.734211 | 12.148 | 0.804 | 0.840 |
15 | 10.836842 | 12.997 | 0.691 | 0.881 |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Items |
---|---|
0.889 | 4 |
Statistics Total-Item | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | Mean of Scale If Item Is Removed | Scale Variance If Item Is Removed | Corrected Item-Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Is Removed |
20 | 7.492105 | 14.446 | 0.782 | 0.849 |
21 | 7.702632 | 14.020 | 0.763 | 0.855 |
22 | 7.742105 | 14.139 | 0.755 | 0.858 |
23 | 7.600000 | 13.713 | 0.731 | 0.869 |
Appendix C. Model Proposed, Truth Table Analysis, Quine–McCluskey Algorithm, and HHI Subsample
Appendix D. Model Proposed. Truth Table Analysis. Quine-McCluskey Algorithm. LHI Subsample
Appendix E. Stress Test of the Calibration Process. Truth Table Analysis. Quine-McCluskey Algorithm. HHI Subsample
Appendix F. Stress Test of the Calibration Process. Truth Table Analysis. Quine-McCluskey Algorithm. LHI Subsample
Appendix G. Components and Calculation According to the Castelló-Sirvent (2021) Robustness Coefficient
RC Components |
RC: Robustness coefficient |
CG: Consistency gap |
AC: Average consistency |
MCi: Model consistency |
STCi: Stress-Test consistency |
N: Total number of outcomes and subsamples |
RC Calculation |
Recalibration | RC-Value | Robustness | Symbol (*) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentile Variation | Fully Inside | Maximum Ambiguity | Fully Outside | |||
±0.15 | −0.15 | 0 | +0.15 | 0.9900 ≤ RC ≤ 1 | Very Strong | *** |
0.9500 ≤ RC ≤ 0.9899 | Strong | ** | ||||
±0.10 | −0.10 | 0 | +0.10 | 0.9900 ≤ RC ≤ 1 | Strong | ** |
0.9500 ≤ RC ≤ 0.9899 | Moderate | * | ||||
0.9000 ≤ RC ≤ 0.9499 | Weak |
References
- Warf, B.; Storper, M. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA.
- Alburquerque, F.; Pérez, S. El desarrollo territorial: Enfoque, contenido y políticas. Rev. Iberoam. Gob. Local RIGL. 2013, 4, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Minniti, M. The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: Productive, unproductive, or destructive? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2008, 32, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.J.; Szerb, L. Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Bus. Econ. 2007, 28, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boettke, P.J.; Coyne, C.J. Context matters: Institutions and entrepreneurship. Found. Trends Entrep. 2007, 5, 135–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanchflower, D.G.; Oswald, A.; Stutzer, A. Latent entrepreneurship across nations. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2001, 45, 680–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verheul, I.; Thurik, R.; Grilo, I. Determinants of Self-Employment Preference and Realization of Women and Men in Europe and the United States. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7074434.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Thompson, E.R. Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 669–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.E. Entrepreneurial strategies in new organizational populations. In Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View; Swedberg, R., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000; pp. 211–288. [Google Scholar]
- Brush, C.G.; Duhaime, I.M.; Gartner, W.B.; Stewart, A.; Katz, J.A.; Hitt, M.A.; Alvarez, S.A.; Meyer, G.D.; Venkataraman, S. Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fritsch, M.; Storey, D.J. Entrepreneurship in a regional context: Historical roots, recent developments and future challenges. Reg. Stud. 2014, 48, 939–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F.; Moriano, J.A.; Jaén, I. Individualism and entrepreneurship: Does the pattern depend on the social context? Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2016, 34, 760–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Transparency Internacional. Corruption Perceptions Index. 2020. Available online: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/mex (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Broadman, H.G.; Recanatini, F. Seeds of corruption—Do market institutions matter? MOCT MOST Econ. Policy Transit. Econ. 2001, 11, 359–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose-Ackerman, S. International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Doing Business. 2020. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/32436/9781464814402.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Autio, E.; Fu, K. Economic and political institutions and entry into formal and informal entrepreneurship. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015, 32, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dreher, A.; Gassebner, M. Greasing the wheels? The impact of regulations and corruption on firm entry. Public Choice 2013, 155, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- GEM. Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Attitudes. 2020. Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/economy-profiles/mexico-2 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Smeding, A. Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An investigation of their implicit gender stereotypes and stereotypes’ connectedness to math performance. Sex Roles 2012, 67, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Poggesi, S.; Mari, M.; De Vita, L.; Foss, L. Women entrepreneurship in STEM fields: Literature review and future research avenues. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 16, 17–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Settles, I.H.; Cortina, L.M.; Malley, J.; Stewart, A.J. The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychol. Women Q. 2006, 30, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-García, C.; González-Moreno, A.; Martínez, F.J.S. Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation 2013, 15, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.E.; Cliff, J.E. The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 573–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F.; Chen, Y.-W. Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 593–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reynolds, P.D.; Camp, S.M.; Bygrave, W.D.; Autio, E.; Hay, M. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Gem 2001 Summary Report. 2002. Available online: https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2001-global-report (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- De Clercq, D.; Honig, B.; Martin, B. The roles of learning orientation and passion for work in the formation of entrepreneurial intention. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2012, 31, 652–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luthje, C.; Franke, N. The making of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R D Manag. 2003, 33, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franke, N.; Lüthje, C. Entrepreneurial intentions of business students—A benchmarking study. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2004, 1, 269–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kraus, S.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Schüssler, M. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research—The rise of a method. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fayolle, A.; Liñán, F.; Moriano, J.A. Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: Values and motivations in entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2014, 10, 679–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartner, W.B. A new path to the waterfall: A narrative on a use of entrepreneurial narrative. Entrep. Organ. 2016, 28, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodside, A.G. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.J.; Armington, C. Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities. Reg. Stud. 2004, 38, 911–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levie, J.; Autio, E. A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Bus. Econ. 2008, 31, 235–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López-Claros, A.; Altinger, L.; Blanke, J.; Drzeniek, M.; Mía, I. Assessing latin american competitiveness: Challenges and opportunities. In The Latin America Competitiveness Review 2006; López-Claros, A., Ed.; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2006; pp. 3–36. [Google Scholar]
- Audretsch, D.B. What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2001, 10, 267–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Audretsch, D.B. The Entrepreneurial Society; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Moriano, J.A.; Trejo, E.; Palací, F.J. El perfil psicosocial del emprendedor: Un estudio desde la perspectiva de los valores. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 16, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, A.; Frank, H. Nascent entrepreneurship in a longitudinal perspective. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2009, 27, 720–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bird, B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F.; Nabi, G.; Krueger, N. British and Spanish entrepreneurial intentions: A comparative study. Rev. Econ. Mund. 2013, 33, 73–103. [Google Scholar]
- Kautonen, T.; Van Gelderen, M.; Fink, M. Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 655–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krueger, N.F. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: Long live entrepreneurial intentions. In Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Mind; Brännback, M., Carsrud, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 13–14. [Google Scholar]
- Chowdhury, F.; Desai, S.; Audretsch, D.B. Corruption, entrepreneurship, and social welfare. In Corruption, Entrepreneurship, and Social Welfare; Chowdhury, S., Desai, S., Audretsch, D.B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 67–94. [Google Scholar]
- Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Advantage in Silicon Valley and Route 128; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney, M. Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence: Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1999, 8, 67–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dutta, N.; Sobel, R. Does corruption ever help entrepreneurship? Small Bus. Econ. 2016, 47, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Estrin, S.; Korosteleva, J.; Mickiewicz, T. Which institutions encourage entrepreneurial growth aspirations? J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 564–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teece, D.J. The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 1981, 458, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luhmann, N. Familiarity, confidence, and trust: Problems and alternatives. In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations; Gametta, D., Ed.; Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1988; pp. 94–108. [Google Scholar]
- Rose-Ackerman, S. Trust, honesty and corruption: Reflection on the state-building process. Eur. J. Sociol. 2001, 42, 526–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Block, J.; Sandner, P.; Spiegel, F. How do risk attitudes differ within the group of entrepreneurs? The role of motivation and procedural utility. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 53, 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olken, B.A. Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality. J. Public Econ. 2009, 93, 950–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donchev, D.; Ujhelyi, G. What do corruption indices measure? Econ. Politics 2014, 26, 309–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutmann, J.; Padovano, F.; Voigt, S. Perception vs. experience: Explaining differences in corruption measures using microdata. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2020, 65, 101925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerber, A.; Rajagoplan, A.; Anand, V. The influence of national culture on the rationalization of corruption. In Crime and Corruption in Organizations: Why It Occurs and What to Do about It; Burke, R.J., Tomlinson, E.C., Cooper, C.I., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 143–162. [Google Scholar]
- Ashforth, B.E.; Anand, V. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 2003, 25, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setti, Z. Entrepreneurial intentions among youth in MENA countries: Effects of gender, education, occupation and income. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2017, 30, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Autio, E. GEM Report on High-Expectation Entrepreneurship. 2005. Available online: http://negocios.udd.cl/gemchile/files/2010/12/HEE-2005.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Schøtt, T.; Kew, P.; Cheraghi, M. Future Potential: A GEM Perspective on Youth Entrepreneurship, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Youth Economic Opportunities. 2015. Available online: https://youtheconomicopportunities.org/resource/2744/future-potential-gem-perspective-youth-entrepreneurship (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Weeks, J.R.; Seiler, D. Women’s Entrepreneurship in Latin America: An Exploration of Current Knowledge. Inter-American Development Bank. 2001. Available online: http://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/5065 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Acs, Z.J.; Desai, S.; Klapper, L.F. What does “entrepreneurship” data really show? Small Bus. Econ. 2008, 31, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Allen, E.; Elam, A.; Langowitz, N.; Dean, M. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2007 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship. Center for Women’s Leadership, Babson College. 2008. Available online: http://sites.telfer.uottawa.ca/womensenterprise/files/2014/06/GEM-2003_Eng.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Amorós, J.E.; Pizarro, O. Women entrepreneurship context in Latin America: An exploratory study in Chile. In The Perspective of Women’s Entrepreneurship in the Age of Globalization; Markovic, M.R., Ed.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2007; pp. 107–126. [Google Scholar]
- Boehm, F.; Sierra, E. The Gendered Impact of Corruption: Who Suffers More? Men or Women? 2015. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2475280 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Goel, R.K.; Nelson, M.A. Corrupt encounters of the fairer sex: Female entrepreneurs and their corruption perceptions/experience. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruhn, M. Female-owned firms in Latin America: Characteristics, performance, and obstacles to growth. Policy Res. Work. Paper Ser. 2009, 11, 5122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Mujeres Empresarias: Barreras Y Oportunidades en el Sector Privado Formal en América Latina Y el Caribe. 2010. Available online: https://dds.cepal.org/redesoc/publication?id=2177 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- CEPAL. Mujeres Emprendedoras en América Latina Y el Caribe: Realidades, Obstáculos Y Desafíos. 2010. Available online: http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/5818 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- DE Vita, L.; Mari, M.; Poggesi, S. Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: Evidences from the literature. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith-Hunter, A.; Leone, J. Evidence on the characteristics of women entrepreneurs in Brazil: An empirical analysis. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2010, 3, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
- Terjesen, S.; Amorós, J.E. Female entrepreneurship in Latin America and the Caribbean: Characteristics, drivers and relationship to economic development. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2010, 22, 313–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halabisky, D. Policy Brief on Women’s Entrepreneurship. 2018. Available online: https://dspace.ceid.org.tr/xmlui/handle/1/900 (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- OECD. Transformative Technologies and Jobs of the Future. 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/innovation/transformative-technologies-and-jobs-of-the-future.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Carree, M.A.; Thurik, A.R. The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, 2nd ed.; Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 557–594. [Google Scholar]
- Decker, R.; Haltiwanger, J.; Jarmin, R.; Miranda, J. The role of entrepreneurship in US job creation and economic dynamism. J. Econ. Perspect. 2014, 28, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- López-Delgado, P.; Iglesias-Sánchez, P.P.; Jambrino-Maldonado, C. Gender and university degree: A new analysis of entrepreneurial intention. Educ. Train. 2019, 61, 797–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sušanj, Z.; Jakopec, A.; Miljković Krečar, I. Verifying the model of predicting entrepreneurial intention among students of business and non-business orientation. Manag. J. Contemp. Manag. Issues 2015, 20, 49–69. [Google Scholar]
- Solesvik, M.Z. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Investigating the role of education major. Educ. Train. 2013, 55, 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maresch, D.; Harms, R.; Kailer, N.; Wimmer-Wurm, B. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 104, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelley, D.J.; Baumer, B.S.; Brush, C.; Greene, P.G.; Mahdavi, M.; Majbouri, M.; Cole, M.; Dean, M.; Heavlow, R. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Women’s Entrepreneurship 2016/2017 Report. 2017. Available online: http://www.fundacionmicrofinanzasbbva.org/revistaprogreso/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/gem-womens-2016-2017-report-v11df-1504758645.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Matthews, C.H.; Moser, S.B. A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. J. Small Bus. Manag. 1996, 34, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
- Morrison, A. Entrepreneurship: What triggers it? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2000, 6, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krueger, N. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1993, 18, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crant, J.M. The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Small Bus. Manag. 1996, 34, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
- Drennan, J.; Kennedy, J.; Renfrow, P. Impact of childhood experiences on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2005, 6, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B.; Lassas-Clerc, N. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2006, 30, 701–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escolar-Llamazares, M.C.; Luis-Rico, I.; Torre-Cruz, T.; Herrero, Á.; Jiménez, A.; Palmero-Cámara, C.; Jiménez-Eguizábal, A. The socio-educational, psychological and family-related antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among spanish youth. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hurley, A.E. Incorporating feminist theories into sociological theories of entrepreneurship. Women Manag. Rev. 1999, 14, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arregle, J.-L.; Batjargal, B.; Hitt, M.A.; Webb, J.W.; Miller, T.; Tsui, A.S. Family ties in entrepreneurs’ social networks and new venture growth. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 313–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyer, J.W.G.; Handler, W. Entrepreneurship and family business: Exploring the connections. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 19, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, C.; Santos, G.; Galvão, A.; Mascarenhas, C.; Justino, E. Entrepreneurship education, gender and family background as antecedents on the entrepreneurial orientation of university students. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2018, 10, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moriano, J.A.; Palací, F.J.; Morales, J.F. El perfil psicosocial del emprendedor universitario. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2006, 22, 75–99. [Google Scholar]
- Kirkwood, J. Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: Is the role parents play gendered? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2007, 13, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davila, A.; Hartman, A.M. Tradition and modern aspects of Mexican corporate culture. In Mexican Business Culture: Essays on Tradition, Ethics, Entrepreneurship and Commerce and the State; Coria-Sánchez, C.M., Hyatt, J.T., Eds.; McFarland & Company, Inc.: Ashe County, NC, USA, 2016; pp. 26–37. [Google Scholar]
- Pittino, D.; Chirico, F.; Baù, M.; Villasana, M.; Naranjo-Priego, E.E.; Barron, E. Starting a family business as a career option: The role of the family household in Mexico. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 2020, 11, 100338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuratko, D.F. Family business succession in Korean and US firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 1993, 31, 132–137. [Google Scholar]
- Transparency International. Índice de Percepción de la Corrupción 2017. 2017. Available online: https://transparencia.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/fuentes_datos_ipc-2017.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Transparency International. Corruption Perception Index 2018 Executive Summary. 2019. Available online: https://files.transparency.org/content/download/2383/14554/file/2018_CPI_Executive_Summary.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Ragin, C.C. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Methods; University of California press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Cezar, R.F. Compliance in “exceptional” trade disputes: A set-theoretical approach. Rev. Brasil. Política Int. 2020, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McLevey, J. Think tanks, funding, and the politics of policy knowledge in Canada. Can. Rev. Sociol. Can. de Sociol. 2014, 51, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woodside, A.G. Proposing a new logic for data analysis in marketing and consumer behavior: Case study research of large-N survey data for estimating algorithms that accurately profile X (extremely high-use) consumers. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci. 2012, 22, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redding, K.; Viterna, J.S. Political demands, political opportunities: Explaining the differential success of left-libertarian parties. Soc. Forces 1999, 78, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacey, R.; Fiss, P.C. Comparative organizational analysis across multiple levels: A set-theoretic approach. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Studying Differences between Organizations: Comparative Approaches to Organizational Research); King, B., Felin, T., Whetten, D., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 91–116. [Google Scholar]
- Rihoux, B. Diseños de investigación en QCA. In Rihoux, Análisis Cualitativo Comparado (QCA); Medina, I., Castillo-Ortiz, P.J., Alamos-Concha, P., Rihoux, B., Eds.; Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 53–66. [Google Scholar]
- Ragin, C.C.; Pennings, P. Fuzzy sets and social research. Sociol. Methods Res. 2005, 33, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiss, P.C. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1180–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arias-Oliva, M.; de Andrés-Sánchez, J.; Pelegrín-Borondo, J. Fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of factors influencing the use of cryptocurrencies in Spanish households. Mathematics 2021, 9, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, C.Q.; Wagemann, C. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Misangyi, V.F.; Acharya, A.G. Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 1681–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Climent-Serrano, S.; Bustos-Contell, E.; Labatut-Serer, G.; Rey-Martí, A. Low-cost trends in audit fees and their impact on service quality. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaaning, S.-E. Assessing the robustness of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA results. Sociol. Methods Res. 2011, 40, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevens, A. Configurations of corruption: A cross-national qualitative comparative analysis of levels of perceived corruption. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 2016, 57, 183–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castelló-Sirvent, F. Environmental and socio-technical transitions in IBEX 35 companies: fsQCA analysis of the media representation of innovation and sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2021, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Lowell, L.; Findlay, A.; Stewart, E. Brain Strain. Optimising Highly Skilled Migration from Developing Countries. 2004. Available online: https://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/brainstrain_1365.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2021).
- Pinazo-Dallenbach, P.; Castelló-Sirvent, F. The effect of insecurity and corruption on opportunity-driven entrepreneurship in Mexico: An fsQCA analysis. Acad. Rev. Latinoam. Adm. 2020, 34, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raijman, R. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Mexican immigrants in Chicago. J. Socio Econ. 2001, 30, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, H.; Lee, C.-H.; Xiang, Y. Entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial intention in higher education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, J.D.J.; Medina, F.E.V.; García, M.L.S. Factores de éxito en el financiamiento para pymes a través del crowdfunding en México. Rev. Mex. Econ. Y Finanz. 2020, 16, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guiñez-Cabrera, N.; Mansilla-Obando, K.; Jeldes-Delgado, F. La transparencia publicitaria en los influencers de las redes sociales. Retos 2020, 10, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matell, M.S.; Jacoby, J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. J. Appl. Psychol. 1972, 56, 506–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jacoby, J.; Matell, M.S. Three-point likert scales are good enough. J. Mark. Res. 1972, 8, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chyung, S.Y.; Roberts, K.; Swanson, I.; Hankinson, A. Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the likert scale. Perform. Improv. 2017, 56, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, H.F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958, 23, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Entrepreneurial Intention | Corruption | ||
---|---|---|---|
Factors | 1 | 2 | |
Variables | EI | COPER | CONOR |
Items | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Cronbach’s alpha | 0.867 | 0.889 | |
KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) | 0.829 | 0.805 | |
Barlett test (sig.) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
STEM | GEN | IE | COPER | CONOR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Non-STEM | Male | 0.224 | 0.203 | −0.0182 |
Female | −0.0633 | −0.0758 | −0.0530 | ||
STEM | Male | 0.0248 | 0.108 | 0.0590 | |
Female | −0.156 | -0.273 | 0.0248 | ||
Standard deviation | Non-STEM | Male | 0.878 | 0.882 | 1.02 |
Female | 0.952 | 0.915 | 0.930 | ||
STEM | Male | 0.926 | 0.970 | 0.894 | |
Female | 0.939 | 1.00 | 1.01 |
Calibration | Descriptive Statistics | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Fully Inside | Maximum Ambiguity | Fully Outside | Max | Min | Median |
EI | 0.8086 | 0.6025 | −1.2717 | 0.8086 | −3.3520 | 0.6025 |
COPER | 1.1718 | 0.3103 | −0.9450 | 1.2184 | −2.1499 | 0.3103 |
CONOR | 1.3265 | −0.1676 | −1.2256 | 1.8893 | −1.2407 | −0.1676 |
GEN | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
STEM | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
FEB | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
Calibration | Descriptive Statistics | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | Fully Inside | Maximum Ambiguity | Fully Outside | Max | Min | Median |
EI | 0.8086 | 0.2180 | −1.2717 | 0.8086 | −3.3520 | 0.2180 |
COPER | 1.0899 | −0.1961 | −1.4167 | 1.1667 | −2.2011 | −0.1961 |
CONOR | 1.4191 | 0.1200 | −1.2083 | 1.9712 | −1.2421 | 0.1200 |
GEN | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
STEM | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
FEB | 1 | - | 0 | - | - | - |
HHI | LHI | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Condition Tested | Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage |
fs_COPER | 0.6241 | 0.7140 | 0.6254 | 0.6194 |
~fs_COPER | 0.5088 | 0.5253 | 0.5289 | 0.5656 |
fs_CONOR | 0.4356 | 0.4744 | 0.5340 | 0.5929 |
~fs_CONOR | 0.6942 | 0.7509 | 0.6286 | 0.6020 |
fs_GEN | 0.3549 | 0.5630 | 0.6196 | 0.5057 |
~fs_GEN | 0.6451 | 0.5321 | 0.3805 | 0.5287 |
fs_STEM | 0.2958 | 0.4692 | 0.4398 | 0.4916 |
~fs_STEM | 0.7042 | 0.5809 | 0.5602 | 0.5335 |
fs_FEB | 0.6192 | 0.6081 | 0.4152 | 0.6280 |
~fs_FEB | 0.3808 | 0.4620 | 0.5848 | 0.4556 |
Intermediate Solutions for the Proposed Model (1) | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HHI | LHI | ||||||||||
Conditions/Pathways | H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | H6 | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 |
COPER | ● | ∘ | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | |||
CONOR | ○ | ○ | ○ | 🞄 | ● | ○ | ○ | ● | ○ | ||
GEN | ○ | ○ | 🞄 | ○ | ● | 🞄 | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ○ |
STEM | ○ | ○ | 🞄 | ∘ | 🞄 | ○ | ○ | ○ | ● | ● | |
FEB | ∘ | 🞄 | ○ | ● | 🞄 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
Raw coverage | 0.1971 | 0.2289 | 0.0492 | 0.0448 | 0.1029 | 0.0462 | 0.1295 | 0.0873 | 0.0609 | 0.0503 | 0.0243 |
Unique coverage | 0.1971 | 0.2289 | 0.0492 | 0.0448 | 0.1029 | 0.0462 | 0.0698 | 0.0276 | 0.0609 | 0.0503 | 0.0243 |
Consistency | 0.8409 | 0.8197 | 0.8509 | 0.8341 | 0.7640 | 1 | 0.7870 | 0.7512 | 0.9163 | 0.9103 | 0.7699 |
Intermediate solution | |||||||||||
Coverage | 0.6692 | 0.2926 | |||||||||
Consistency | 0.8301 | 0.7991 | |||||||||
Cutoff | |||||||||||
Frequency | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Consistency | 0.7564 | 0.7649 | |||||||||
Directional expectations (2) | ( - , - , - , - , - ) | ( - , - , - , - , - ) |
Solution Indicators | |||
---|---|---|---|
Solutions/Test | Pathways | Consistency | Coverage |
Complex | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 6 | 0.8301 | 0.6692 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 6 | 0.8252 | 0.3640 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; −5%) | −0.59% | ||
Parsimonious | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 6 | 0.8268 | 0.7358 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 6 | 0.8163 | 0.3661 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; −5%) | −1.27% | ||
Intermediate | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 6 | 0.8301 | 0.6692 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 6 | 0.8252 | 0.3640 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; −5%) | −0.59% |
Solutions Indicators | |||
---|---|---|---|
Solutions/Test | Pathways | Consistency | Coverage |
Complex | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 5 | 0.7991 | 0.2926 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 4 | 0.8310 | 0.2549 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; 5%) | +3.99% | ||
Parsimonious | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 5 | 0.7991 | 0.2926 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 4 | 0.8310 | 0.2549 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; −5%) | +3.99% | ||
Intermediate | |||
Model (90%; 50%; 10%) | 5 | 0.7991 | 0.2926 |
Stress Test (80%; 50%; 20%) | 4 | 0.8310 | 0.2549 |
Robustness Fit (+5%; −5%) | +3.99% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Castelló-Sirvent, F.; Pinazo-Dallenbach, P. Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141702
Castelló-Sirvent F, Pinazo-Dallenbach P. Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students. Mathematics. 2021; 9(14):1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141702
Chicago/Turabian StyleCastelló-Sirvent, Fernando, and Pablo Pinazo-Dallenbach. 2021. "Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students" Mathematics 9, no. 14: 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141702
APA StyleCastelló-Sirvent, F., & Pinazo-Dallenbach, P. (2021). Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students. Mathematics, 9(14), 1702. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141702