The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-0705.htm
On the question of entrepreneurial Entrepreneurialbreakthrough
breakthrough or failure in Africa: or failure
a framework for analysis
Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah
Department of Political Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana, and
Farhad Hossain, Aminu Mamman and Christopher J. Rees Received 4 May 2022Revised 16 December 2022
Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Accepted 2 February 2023
Abstract
Purpose – Having the right intent, aspiration, ability and attitude to become an entrepreneur has become the
mantra in the extant literature to be driver of entrepreneurship and small and medium enterprise (SME) growth.
Why would zealous and ambitious individuals with all rightful attributes so required of entrepreneurs have to
fizzle out few years after venturing into business or SMEs? Perhaps these same individuals may relocate to other
jurisdictions and would establish successful firms even beyond their imaginations. Beyond the individual’s
entrepreneurial attributes, there are other external countervailing forces which either “enable” or “impede”
entrepreneurial drive and SME growth processes. Adopting the theory of planned behavior, this study
conceptualizes a systems framework to analyze how SMEs either flourish or fail in developing countries.
Design/methodology/approach – The study relies on secondary sources of data. It adopts a critical stage
review of secondary data.
Findings – The study argues that the interplay of “internal factors” and “external factors” of prospective
entrepreneurs provides a useful framework to explain the general SME outlook of an economy. The study
postulates that many internally driven prospective SME entrants (with entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities
and aspirations) mostly in the developing economies may have their dreams shattered because of
obstructive external ecological elements which tend to frustrate new business entrants as well as
existing ones.
Originality/value – With the aid of a framework, this study conceptualizes a comprehensive framework to
analyze how SMEs either flourish or fail in developing countries.
Keywords Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regulations, Institutions, Enabling environment
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Why do some people succeed as entrepreneurs and others become less successful? Why do
entrepreneurs in some environmental contexts succeed while others fail? To Baumol (1968),
an attempt at understanding entrepreneurship [as a concept and practice] without
understanding entrepreneurs is akin to trying to understand Shakespeare without
including Hamlet. The entrepreneurship literature tends to focus mainly on those that
succeed as entrepreneurs with little focus on what makes others fail. The notion of being an
entrepreneur in the literature has been described in the context of bringing out “innovation”,
“novelty”, “creativity” or “something new” unto the market (Global Entrepreneurship and
Development Index (GEDI), 2018). Steve Jobs contends that successful entrepreneurs are to
have the courage to follow their heart and intuition and they are people who have a conviction
of what they want to become. Beyond this personal conviction, every other thing is
secondary. Some individuals may fail in the entrepreneurial journey which could be caused
by external forces such as competition, choosing the “wrong” industry, sudden changes in
technology, and government policies among others.
African Journal of Economic and
Management Studies
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-0705
program under grant agreement No 823744. DOI 10.1108/AJEMS-05-2022-0184
AJEMS More important are the internal forces of the individual which have adequately been
examined in the extant literature (see van Rensburg and Ogujiuba, 2020; Florin et al., 2007).
A key approach to understand the success or failure of entrepreneurs is to adopt a
comprehensive approach that acknowledges the interplay of both internal and external
forces. Many entrepreneurs such as Debbi Fields (founder of Mrs. Fields Cookies) are
quoted to have said, “the important thing is not being afraid to take a chance . . . the greatest
failure is to not try. Once you find something you love to do, be the best at doing it”. This is
an excellent narrative which demonstrates how an individual’s drive, passion, attributes
and intentions could help conceptualize, detect and grow a business idea. We argue that
getting the passion and dedication may lead an individual to a point, but the external forces
are imperative in helping shape business intentions of people and whether they will be
successful at it or not.
The literature contends that certain forces or factors do catalyze entrepreneurial activities
(Giotopoulos et al., 2017; Simon-Moya et al., 2014; Hessels et al., 2008) while others also impede
entrepreneurial success (Adomako et al., 2020; Chandra et al., 2020; Harraf et al., 2020). An
overarching question is “Why are some entrepreneurs successful while most fail or cannot
sustain their shine?” If entrepreneurship is a job or role or career, then there must be some skills,
abilities, interests, characteristics, etc. related to success in it. It appears the literature has put
much emphasis on the internal forces as the prerequisites for entrepreneurial success or failure.
The tendency to treat internal drive and forces of individuals as exclusive for entrepreneurial
success may be misleading as the external environment has a greater influence on the internal
world of humans, their choices, actions and subsequent decisions. For example, the literature
reports of how cities across the United States tend to sprout new incubators and accelerators
essentially with meso-level support (external factors) aimed at introducing programs to attract
innovative talent (see Ester, 2017, p. 47; Stephens et al., 2019). Countries such as China and Chile
have also been experimenting novel ways of fostering new firm formation which suggest that
external forces are as equally important as internal world of humans in the drive to
entrepreneurial and small and medium enterprise (SME) growth (Farinha et al., 2020; Villegas-
Mateos, 2020).
While there is extant literature on internal forces such as personality types on
entrepreneurial tendencies and success (see van Rensburg and Ogujiuba, 2020; Florin
et al., 2007) as well as those focusing on external forces (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2022; Stam and
Van de den, 2021; Spigel, 2020), there appears to be a less emphasis on how an interplay of
internal and external forces could help drive or thwart the efforts of entrepreneurs. This
study seeks to unpack these three thought-provoking research questions: (1) How does
the external system sabotage or water down efforts of a well-motivated, intentioned and
conscientious entrepreneur? (2) How does the external environment propel or hinder
interested individuals’ passion and drive to become successful entrepreneurs? (3) What
happens when favorable internal world of humans meets a conducive external
environment? This paper adopts a holistic approach to conceptualize a model that
integrates internal and external forces that help to drive entrepreneurial development in
countries.
2. Conceptual overview
For the purpose of this study, we move beyond a narrow definition of entrepreneurship by
GEDI (2018) and broaden the scope to encompass the activities of small business owners
who replicate other business models as well as the activities of those individuals who
innovate, invent and commercialize their products or services. In other words, this
paper defines the concept to encompass both necessity and opportunity aspects of
entrepreneurship.
2.1 Theoretical underpinning: theory of planned behavior Entrepreneurial
The study is underpinned by the theory of planned behavior which has been framed to breakthrough
explain and forecast behaviors by which people tend to have imperfect voluntary control or failure
such as entrepreneurial success. In other words, making a breakthrough is a function of
individual aspiration, ability and attitude on the one hand, as well as the enabling external
conditions from the external environment on the other hand can make or break even a well-
intentioned and purpose-driven entrepreneur. It contends that the key forces that produce
intentions of people are the individual’s attitude toward the behavior and the pressures
(perceived) of subjective norms as well as perceived behavioral control. Attitude toward the
behavior measures the degree to which a person has a negative or positive evaluation toward
his/her performance of the behavior. Subjective Norms refer to what individuals believe other
key people in their lives think about whether or not the individual should perform the
behavior. The perceived opinions of these key people help determine whether a person will
actually perform the behavior. “Theoretically, personal evaluation of a behavior (attitude),
socially expectedmode of conduct (subjective norm) and self-efficacywith respect to behavior
(perceived behavioral control) are very different concepts each of which has an important
place in social and behavioral research” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 199).
Perceived Behavioral Control refers to a person’s perceptions of whether or not they can
perform that specific behavior and how easy it is to perform. In other words, it points out that a
person’s drive is determined byhow challenging the behaviors are perceived to be, aswell as the
perception of howsuccessfully the individualwill or not be able to carryout the activity. It entails
the extent to which an individual feels they have control over accomplishing a desired behavior
when faced with internal and external barriers (Bandura, 1997, 2012).
In essence, the theory of planned behavior contends that the key driving force
underpinning an individual’s action is their intention to perform that action, involving three
key attributes – attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control –which are the
drivers of intention to act. It is instructive to note that the intention of an individual will not be
put into effect if there are external barriers that obstruct the execution of such behavior or if it
is practically impossible to execute that behavior. Relating this theory to this paper, we argue
that no matter how high the entrepreneurial aspiration, supportive the entrepreneurial
attitude and sound abilities, if the external forces pose sufficient constraints or serve as
obstacles, it will be difficult for “intent” to be put into actual behavior (practice). Similarly,
even those who eventually put into practice and with “intent” to grow the firm unto a higher
level may be forced to coil back to their shelves or even fold up if the external constraints are
enormous to surpass. Consequently, we use the theory as a basis to develop a conceptual
framework which is adequately discussed in the next sections.
3. Method
The study adopts a content analysis and retrospective literature analysis of secondary
materials. It reviews secondary sources of data to explore and demonstrate how internal
factors comprising the self and its predisposition to entrepreneurialism interact with the
external factors to explain entrepreneurial and SME growth. It further does the same to
explore and demonstrate how external environmental forces enable or hinder entrepreneurial
activities. This was carried out by resorting to three main search engines which were
essentially deployed due to their germaneness to the study and availability to the author:
ScienceDirect, EmeraldInsight and Google Scholar. We derived greater pool of articles from
the sources and needed to do an initial skimming and scanning of their synopsis with a view
to sorting for relevance to the thesis of the paper. After the initial sorting process, all abstracts
were independently reviewed by each of the co-authors. Finally, authors convened a meeting
to jettison duplicated materials and mapped out a narrow down of abstracts which were
AJEMS scheduled for comprehensive and systematic assessment. The distinct arguments and cases
discussed in the materials have been synthesized into an eclectic explanatory framework
which demonstrates how internal and external factors enhance or deter entrepreneurial
growth. The paper adopts a more comparative approach using experiences from different
jurisdictions (best practices) to demonstrate how external factors have encouraged
entrepreneurial development and lessons thereof to developing countries.
In explaining how the external factors affect entrepreneurial activities, the study further
uses data from theWorld Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Report (2019) to undertake a cross-
country analysis of three economies (Ghana, Norway and Singapore). The key indicators
assessed include Business start-up, procedures, dealing with construction permits and general
ease of doing business. The figures assigned to each score in the respective economy is an
indication of measures put in place by the system (external factors) which conjoins with the
internal factor of the individual to produce appreciable outcome (entrepreneurial
development). The paper takes a cursory assessment of the Ghanaian case to pick lessons
from “what ought to be” on paper and “what is” (reality) actually happening in practice. Key
lessons and policy implications have been derived.
4. Developing the conceptual framework
From a review of recent empirical examples from the extant literature, we observe how
internal and external forces tend to shape the entrepreneurial drive or intention among
individuals. Adapting the conceptualization of GEDI (2018), which tends to concentrate
adequately on the internal factors, we use the three key internal forces and introduce a more
countervailing force (external factors) which serves as a catalyst in either helping nurture,
sustain or kill entrepreneurism or SME growth in countries. This will form our conceptual
framework in Figure 1. From the review of the literature, the main elements that form the
framework are illustrated in Table 1.
4.1 Toward an explanatory framework
From the review of the classical theoretical and recent empirical literature, the study finds out
that the drive toward successful entrepreneurship is a function of both the internal world of
individual entrepreneurs on the one hand (Soomro et al., 2017; Othman and Nasrudin, 2016;
Carsrud et al., 2017), andmore importantly, the external factors on the other hand (Ferreira et al.,
2017; De Bruin and Mataira, 2018; Holmes et al., 2016). By internal factors, it entails the
entrepreneurial attitudes (Bell, 2016), entrepreneurial abilities (Welsh, 2016) and entrepreneurial
aspirations (Kwong and Thompson, 2016). These three elements are essentially within the
domain or purview of the individual or prospective entrepreneur. However, for the internal
factors to be well nurtured and developed, it requires enabling or supportive external
factors. The interplay of right entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial abilities and
entrepreneurial aspirations helps in entrepreneurial start-up which manifests in the form
of creativity, novelty and something new. More importantly, the framework contends that for
this entrepreneurship to make a breakthrough, it is mediated by a supportive external
environment in the form of enabling state policies and interventions which lead to development
of successful entrepreneurs as well as thier continued stay in business. This is illustrated in
Figure 1 with the elements of the framework adequately discussed below.
5. Discussion
5.1 Internal factors
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (2018) regards the entrepreneur as
an individual with the vision to identify an innovation and the ability to bring it to
Hurdle to cross Entrepreneurial
breakthrough
Internal factors Effect or failure
Entrepreneurial External factors
attitudes Successful 
ENTREPRENEURIAL EXTERNAL entrepreneur
START UP ENVIRONMENT
Entrepreneurial Creativity State policies & Failed
abilities Novelty Interventions entrepreneur
Something new Society
Replication
Entrepreneurial
aspirations
Figure 1.
Toward a conceptual
framework of
entrepreneurship
Internal factors External factors
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Ferreira et al. (2017)
attitude abilities aspirations
Soomro et al. (2017) Welsh (2016) Carsrud et al. (2017) Blackburn (2016)
Çolakoglu and Othman andNasrudin Karabulut (2016) De Bruin and Mataira
G€ozu€kara (2016) (2016) (2018), Holmes et al. (2016)
Testa and Frascheri Illes et al. (2015) Do Paço et al. (2015), Leyden and Link (2015),
(2015) Morgan and Sisak (2016) Eniola and Entebang
(2015), Li et al. (2016) Table 1.
Cacciotti and Hayton Dogan (2015) Sihombing (2015) Colombo et al. (2016) Internal and external
(2015) factors for
Bell (2016) Din et al. (2016) Kwong and Thompson Terjesen et al. (2016), entrepreneurial
(2016) Auerswald (2015) breakthrough
market (GEDI, 2018). The institute discusses entrepreneurship to mean “the dynamic
institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial
abilities, and entrepreneurial aspirations by individuals, which drives the allocation of
resources through the creation and operation of new ventures”. (p. 24)
5.1.1 Entrepreneurial attitudes. An attitude is “a relatively enduring organization of
beliefs, feelings, and behavioral tendencies toward socially significant objects, groups, events
or symbols” (Hogg and Vaughan, 2005, p. 150). It is a psychological tendency that is
expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly and
Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). An ABC framework of attitude regards attitude to comprise three main
components: affective, behavioral and cognitive.
Affective component involves a person’s feelings and emotions regarding an issue,
concept or entity. For instance, someone can proclaim, “I am scared of business”.
Behavioral aspect connotes the manner the feelings or attitude people possess
influences the way they act or behave. For instance, “I will not take set up a business”.
AJEMS Cognitive component involves the individual’s intuition and knowledge about an entity.
For instance, “I think being in business is a very risky thing”.
Table 2 illustrates relevant behavioral attitudes that are crucial in propelling and
sustaining entrepreneurial ventures.
5.1.2 Entrepreneurial ability.By entrepreneurial ability, it connotes the know-how, talent or
skill to fashion out something new through a devoted time and effort; that something new
must have a value. The ability may entail aptitude to address relevant facets of business
decision-making including how to deal with financial, psychic and social risks (Hisrich and
Peters, 2002). In other words, entrepreneurial ability refers to the extent to which an
individual could exploit an idea to create an enterprise. Kilby (1971) postulates that the array
of possible entrepreneurial abilities encompasses the perception of economic opportunity,
technical and organizational innovations, gaining commands over scarce resources, and
taking responsibilities for internal management and for external advancement of a business
in all spheres. Greene et al. (2007) aver that real issues such as identification of a product and a
market; acquisition of requisite property rights or business licenses; and keeping proper
records are in some cases more vital to running an SME even than finance. In that regard, the
ability to effectively diagnose and identify a market or product and to secure the requisite
property rights to engage in the business remains fundamental to SME growth and success.
Essentially, entrepreneurship involves an array of intellectual acumen, mental dexterity,
the resolve to execute, the urgency and strongly minded determination to produce something
novel. Becoming an entrepreneur involves identifying an opportunity within a space, and
how to work round the clock to plan adequately of bringing the mental imagination into
action. In other words, it involves mental imagination of what to do, planning of how to
execute and consequent execution. It means becoming an entrepreneur requires creativity,
innovation and risk-taking, as well as the capacity to plan and manage projects in order to
achieve the objectives.
The tendency to reason out and act on the spot regarding crucial issues makes
entrepreneurial abilities essential for entrepreneurial success. Table 3 illustrates relevant
entrepreneurial abilities and their descriptions.
Entrepreneurs require the ability to understand that people aremore intelligent, as a resource
and not a threat (Deterding, 2019). Hence, efforts should be made to maintain only a minimum
level of control and build loyalty and a sense of belonging to the company’s values andmission.
Entrepreneurs are required to understand every element of their business which requires
technical skills or ability to seek the appropriate help such as getting a very trusted and loyal
Attitudes Description
Passion Entrepreneurs should be passionate about their ideas and goals of their business.
The desire or quest to demonstrate love for the venture and the drive to sustain same
Bravery Successful entrepreneurs are not defined or constrained by fear but rather zealous and
persevere in their drive. They learn from their mistakes and correct themselves
appropriately
Flexibility Must have flexible mindsets so they can easily restructure themselves when the business
appears to be heading towards failure. They possess the tendency tomodify the route toward
their established goal or even to substitute an established goal for a practically workable one
Strong work Passion to get up and work hard all time. Probably seven days a week. Entrepreneurs do
ethic not work a standard 9–5 day, nor do they log 40-h work weeks but are constantly in the
Table 2. mood of work. Entrepreneurs are constantly establishing new ideas, creating new products
Attitudes for and designing new processes, among others
entrepreneurial Integrity Entrepreneurs must be able to show others that they are truthful and honest in their
success dealings. Entrepreneurs must be trustworthy and must be recognized as such
Entrepreneurial
Entrepreneurial abilities Description
breakthrough

 Conceptual abilities 
 Ability to imagine and think creatively or failure

 Ability to identify and evaluate opportunities

 Social skills/human abilities 
 Ability to network for the purpose of market

 Ability to read other persons precisely

 Ability to persuade and influence

 Enthusiasm – both verbal and nonverbal

 Emotional intelligence

 Capacity to form effective relationships with other

 Self-regulatory abilities 
 Ability to detect and learn a new task or skill

 Ability to set novel and workable goals

 Ability to resist temptation

 Ability to stay focused and distracted Table 3.

 Management abilities 
 Capacity to deal with stress, adversity, failure Relevant abilities for

 Effective planning and improvisation entrepreneurial

 Decision-making skills breakthrough
manager-ownerwhoworks closelywith the entrepreneur. Personality traits of entrepreneurs are
crucial to their overall success and functionality along some indicators. For example, Rauch
(2014) observes how self-efficacy and achievement motivation could be enhanced by some level
of interventions. For example, Zhao and Seibert (2006) discuss how levels of conscientiousness
clearly distinguish two groups of business people: entrepreneurs and managers.
Conscientiousness has two key attributes (achievement motivation and dependability); while
both entrepreneurs and managers appear similar in dependability score, entrepreneurs excel
significantly greater than managers in the achievement facet (Zhao and Seibert, 2006).
Barrick and Mount (2005) contend that specific “traits rely on explicit description of
entrepreneurial activities that may be situated in time, place and role”, which is why specific
characteristics such as risk tolerance, need for achievement or locus of control aremore useful
in predicting entrepreneurial performance.
5.1.3 Entrepreneurial aspirations. The literature is replete with studies on motives and
aspirations mostly conducted in Western countries inundated with “pull entrepreneurs”
(Larsson and Thulin, 2019), these studies conclude that the quest for autonomy defined to
involve independence and freedom; income and wealth; recognition and status are the driving
aspirations of entrepreneurs (Wilson et al., 2007; Van Gelderen and Jansen, 2006; Cassar and
Meier, 2018).
Regarding those from the developing world mostly underpinned by “push factors”
including those necessity motives such as unemployment or threat of unemployment
compels people to think outside the box into starting up their own enterprises (Cao and Shi,
2021; Thurik et al., 2008). According to Grilo and Thurik (2006), the push motive remains
predominant in the less developed world but remains less significant in the advanced
capitalist states. If the quest for autonomy remains the main motive for business start-up
within a society, entrepreneurship then becomes an avenue to realize the freedom-related
aspirations of the individual (van Gelderen and Jansen, 2006). According to Davidsson (1989),
majority of autonomy-driven entrepreneurs regard small business start-up as a vehicle to
achieve freedom. The above notwithstanding, there are other studies which observe no
significant relationship between the quest for autonomy and the drive to start up business
(Kolvereid, 1992; Morris et al., 2006).
There are some entrepreneurs whose motive is to innovate and create something new but
not necessarily for financial motives (Corman et al., 1988). This point has been reiterated in the
literature that some entrepreneurs, especially, those in the digital industry would
AJEMS significantly be motivated by nonmonetary motives but moved by the zeal to be innovative
and have autonomy (Amit and Zott, 2001).
6. External factors
Beyond the individual or micro-level forces, there are external countervailing forces which have
the potency to either catalyze or derail entrepreneurial drive and SME growth (Goel and Karri,
2021; Saeed et al., 2019; Fuentelsaz et al., 2019). In other words, beyond the policies where
individuals and SMEs would formulate or have in mind, these internal business policies greatly
depend on the overarching state policies and directions which shape the activities of
entrepreneurs. The external factors which are also referred to as “hurdles to cross” can either
serve as a blessing or a curse to the fortune or business success of entrepreneurs. To be a
blessing depends on howbest government policies and regulations are designed and enforced to
foster a flourishing business space but a curse when the same tends to hinder smooth business
operations, profitability and growth. Peculiar government policies and regulations come in the
form of interest and exchange rates control, bankruptcy laws, procurement issues, inflation
controls, credit ceiling and lending policies and credit policies, business regulatory imperatives,
and licensing and permit issues (Brozik and Zapalska, 2006). For example, the extent to which
commercial banks can guarantee loans for entrepreneurship to thrive and grow is a function of
the credit policy the central bank of a country puts out (Abor and Biekpe, 2006). Given two
different entrepreneurs with same internal forces (entrepreneurial attitude, aspirations and
abilities), yet one is from a countrywhere the policy and interest rates are low and the other from
an environment like Ghana where the interest rates in Commercial Banks are above 30%
following a monetary policy rate increase by the Central Bank [1].
The external factors create the larger framework within which individuals and groups
operate such that no matter how well-intentioned the policies and activities of an
entrepreneur, no matter how sound the goals and how sound the expectations, they may
become unrealized if these do not meet enabling “government policies”. This suggests that it
usually does not depend exclusively on how well individuals are engrained with
entrepreneurial abilities, entrepreneurial attitudes and entrepreneurial aspirations, but on
the direction and supportive roles government policies play.
From a review of the theoretical and empirical literature, it has been observed that policies
and interventions at the macro level remain crucial in catalyzing business start-up and
growth. This has been labeled in Figure 1 as “hurdle to cross” which when is “an enabling
one”will foster many SMEs to spring up and grow. On the other hand, if these are inimical to
businesses, then people will not be enticed into setting up SMEswhile existing onesmay even
fold up. Put differently, where the external forces appear inimical to businesses, even people
with entrepreneurial attitudes and aspirations may not succeed.
6.1 External factors as “enablers” of entrepreneurship
The political theory (Hoselitz, 1952) of entrepreneurial drive contends that political and legal
systems could create adequate infrastructure, conducive financial laws, favorable taxation
system and procedures, proffer incentives and subsidies, simple loan conditions, flexible
customs and port regulations, security to entrepreneurs and stable monetary and credit
policies to inspire people toward entrepreneurship. The main thesis of the theory is that
government policies should provide enabling conditions or fertile grounds for SMEs to thrive
and operate without significant impediments.
Any courses of action adopted and instituted by government with a quest to stimulate the
growth of entrepreneurial decisions and actions could be referred to as entrepreneurial
policies (Audretsch et al., 2007; Klapper et al., 2010). What makes the external factors very
crucial is the fact that they are indispensable forces yet not within the direct control of the Entrepreneurial
entrepreneurs within the economy. The external factors entail those rules and regulations breakthrough
that propel the start-up and viability of entrepreneurial activities. Couple of these policies or failure
could be tailor-made to suit particular businesses and others are facilitated to influence
entrepreneurship directly. For example, in Nigeria, those entrepreneurs in agro-allied
businesses are usually given tax holidays for the first five years of operation (see Ngerebo and
Masa, 2012; Odusola, 2006).
Many prospective business people face financial challenges which mostly pose hindrance
to business entry and growth (Vos et al., 2007; Beck et al., 2008). Following fromabove, the role
of government, especially, in the teething phase of SMEs remains useful and this becomes
even more crucial in periods of crisis and economic depression. The conditions of SMEs
become very precarious in situations of global financial stress (Cowling et al., 2020). For
example, the global financial crisis which began in 2008 greatly affectedmany SMEswhether
in the developed or developing world. To cushion these businesses and to recover from the
economic stress, many governments world over introduced innovative packages and policy
responses to foster SME financing, including government-subsidized lines of credit, public
guarantee funds, venture capital funds and other public stimulus packages for SMEs support
(Sharma et al., 2022).
Assessing the impact of the global financial crisis, OECD (2009) observed that moratoriums
on loans and loan guarantees have been themost adopted public policy intervention to enhance
conditions for access to provide financial support to SMEs and entrepreneurs. A year after, the
OECD launched an “Assessment of Government Support Measures to Facilitate SMEAccess to
Finance in theGlobal Crisis”. In its effort tomonitor SME financing trends and requirements, the
OECD established a Pilot OECDScoreboard on SME andEntrepreneurship FinancingData and
Policies which began in the year 2012 (OECD, 2012).
Wilson and Silva (2013) discuss policy measures adopted by 34 OECD economies aimed at
providing seed capital and teething phase financial support for SMEs. From their study, the
authors observe that through public policy intervention many OECD economies provided
various financing arrangements during the financial crisis which came in the form of grants,
loans and credit guarantee instruments. This is illustrated in Table 4.
On his part, Wehinger (2013) discusses an extensive review of public policy
interventions to support SME lending in OECD countries during the financial crisis.
The study concludes that policy support interventions by various governments played a
far-reaching role in addressing many of the financial challenges that SMEs encountered.
Flipping the coin, many SMEs in those other countries where the state provides no
stimulus packages, enthusiastic individuals are mostly compelled to relinquish their
dreams when the storms become high.
Type of instrument Number of countries
Grants, loans and guarantees 30
Tax: YIC (Young Innovative Companies) 9
Tax incentives: Front-end 15
Tax incentives: Back-end 12
Equity funds: Public 14 Table 4.
Equity: Fund of funds 21 Type of instruments to
Equity funds: Co-investments 21 propel entrepreneurial
Source(s): Wilson and Silva (2013) activities
AJEMS 6.2 Models and case examples
Avots et al. (2013) discuss the Latvia situation where the government introduced five public
venture capital schemes between 2005 and 2014 (see also Cumming and Li, 2013). There are
copious empiricalworks that demonstrate the role of public venture capital in the early phases of
SMEs and entrepreneurs and these in many cases serve as pull factors. Mason andKwok (2010)
aver that availability of public venture capital for early-stage businesses ought to be
interspersedwith other enabling forces such as skills training for people in order to improve their
investment readiness. Government can also encourage finance through the development of
crowdfunding which could be established by creating online platforms where prospective
entrepreneurs with business ideas could possibly have useful interaction with numerous micro
investors which would be facilitated through effective regulatory instruments.
In their quest to enhance venture capital schemes available to SMEs, governments
through public policy could table different interventions through one or a combination of
these: financing directly or through intermediaries; the establishment and development of
venture capital funds (example is the Yozma Fund of Israel); provision of tax and regulatory
incentives for business investments; encouraging institutional investors such as pension and
mutual funds to capitalize venture capital funds (Anton and Onofrei, 2016, p. 15).
By way of stimulating entrepreneurship through public policies, different countries have
adopted the use of peculiar general measures which may include tax rates, labor laws and
market regulations to foster the entrepreneurship climate. There are also specific policies; for
example, the Department for Trade and Industry in Europe tends to institute policies to
promote entrepreneurial activities and to inspire SMEs to go international (Wright et al., 2007;
Curran, 2000).
The conscious and stimulated growth of entrepreneurs in Asia was largely possible
because of the integral role played by government policies which served as the “enabler” such
that the political system is coordinated very well with all relevant sectors including the
industrial and agricultural, large, small and handicraft industries. In Taiwan, public
interventions including the establishment of industrial parks, Industrial Technology
Research Institute and local industrial clusters have contributed immensely to the
entrepreneurial success story (Lin et al., 2010).
In Ghana, having been in existence for over three decades, the National Board for Small
Scale Industries (NBSSI) has been rebranded as the Ghana Enterprises Agency which was
launched in June 2021 to promote and offer immense support to prospective and existing
entrepreneurs and businesses.
The Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) has also been in existence to offer
financial support to budding entrepreneurs and SMEs. In 2006, Government of Ghana
established the MASLOC as the foremost microfinance entity to promote enforcement of
microfinance programs, reduction of poverty, and creation of jobs and wealth in Ghana
(Quansah et al., 2012).
Other initiatives and policies include the Local Enterprise and Skills Development
Program, Ghana Youth Enterprise and Entrepreneurial Development Agency, Students in
Free Enterprise Program, and Skills Training and Entrepreneurship Program, among others.
These are fantastic policies from hindsight as their names even depict, these interventions
notwithstanding have not attained the ideal expectation in stimulating entrepreneurship and
SME growth in the economy (Quansah et al., 2012).
In Nigeria, structures and programs such as the Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Agency, N-Power program, Government Enterprise and Empowerment
Program and the “You-win” program were put in place to foster entrepreneurial activities
through the facilitation of finance and relevant resources to SMEs (Oliyide, 2012).
While the above may sound great on paper or to the ear, a major feature of the public
administration of developing African economies is “formalism” which is the extent to which
actual practice deviates from what is actually written or stipulated as rules and policies (see Entrepreneurial
Hudson et al., 2019; Riggs, 1964). breakthrough
A cursory analysis by the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) or failure
observes that the United States remains the most global competitor in the provision of
enabling environment for entrepreneurs to help nurture and grow businesses (Global
Entrepreneurship Development Index, 2014). The government also provides finance to
budding businesses which comes in the form of venture capital. This financing arrangement
is mostly for those businesses with high potential yet apparent chancy start-up. Other OECD
Countries such as Canada and Australia ranked number two and three, respectively.
Correspondingly, these great countries also have robust economies because of the support
they give to entrepreneurship which also continues to grow the economy of the sustained
interventions.
6.3 External factors as “hindrance”
Despite the good intent of many governments which are mostly stipulated in policies and in
the “books”, what actually occurs in practice tends to be somewhat different from what is
stipulated. For example, the challenges associated with credit acquisition from commercial
banks in Ghanamake it difficult for many entrepreneurs to qualify for the same (Adusei et al.,
2021). Some of these persons may want to resort to government-sponsored grant schemes by
the NBSSI and MASLOC. However, these schemes over the years have been shrouded with
excessive government officials’ control and politicization of funding, victimization of
entrepreneurs and corruption as main reasons why many SMEs have gone bankrupt,
especially those that are not supporters of a ruling government (Fobih and Adom, 2017;
Agyapong, 2020). The processes and qualification for such schemes to give credit to
businesses have mostly been marred with partisan politicization which has led to great
nonpayment rate by those who eventually become successful in getting these funds. The
resultant impression to obtain this loan tends to be moneys their party’s government more or
less to compensate them for their support or role in the party’s electoral fortunes, and inmany
cases, those who fail to pay their loansmostly do not receive any form of punishment because
they may be affiliated to their party in government.
There are other external factors such as high tax rates, energy and other utility bills, and
transportation costs, which in many cases may lead to high production costs and
sustainability impact on SMEs in the manufacturing sector. The nature of the economy has
implication on the activities of entrepreneurs, for example, in a resilient economy where
greater number of people have appreciable purchasing power demonstrated by high
employment and greater income levels, entrepreneurial activities tend to thrive and be
lucrative. Flipping the coin in an economy where greater majority are unemployed with poor
macro-economic indicators, the purchasing power of people tends to reduce and this may
reduce investment in entrepreneurship development (Aryeetey et al., 1994, p. 98).
There aremany other government interventions and policies which directly and indirectly
dampen initiatives of prospective entrepreneurs and even existing businesses. Some
businesses get frustrated in the hands of government policies, excessive regulations and
inactions which tend to discourage entrepreneurial activities and initiatives. Research
contends that repulsive government policies on taxes and business regulations negatively
affect entrepreneurial activities (Acs and Szerb, 2007; Kreft and Sobel, 2005). In other words,
the fiscal, monetary and business regulatory policies if poorly carried out would have
devastating impact on the nurturing, expansion and growth of businesses and
entrepreneurial activities. For example, if government decides to sell treasury bills to the
public in order to enhance its financial position, this singular act will tend to reduce moneys
available for entrepreneurs and businesses to fall on. Such policies if proceeded more often
AJEMS and at more competitive rates, investors would prefer offering finance to government at the
expense of the private sector and this would invariably crowd out the private sector and all
entrepreneurial activities (Mwakalila, 2020).
Government policies that entirely open up teething SMEs to undue global competition
may have the tendency to cripple the same (Effiom, 2022; Van Biesebroeck and Zaurino,
2019). SMEs have not been insulated from excessive international competition which affects
market share. Although greater economic integration and globalization ideally should
provide a wider market opportunity, the reality is that many SMEs, especially, in the
developing world possess limited international marketing experience, poor quality control
and product standardization, and little access to international partners which hinders their
drive toward venturing into international competition (Aryeetey et al., 1994).
The concept of regulation according to King and Levine (1993) entails all the processes,
protocols, structures and means through which the government controls or regulates the
actions and economic activity of person(s) and organizations. On the part of SMEs, their
regulation could be observed in such forms as regulations over business start-up and
registrations, regulations on labor practices, taxation and foreign trade (Abbas and Park,
2018), customs and port regulations (Quartey, 2001) and issues related to corruption (Nyarku
and Oduro, 2017).
For example, in situations where the regulatory environment becomes less stable, certain
sudden policies could summarily drive many businesses into folding up. For example, Agwu
and Emeti (2014) contend that repeated alterations in public policies could affect the interest
rates and could lead to the liquidation of many SMEs. This line of thought has been affirmed
byQuartey (2001) that such fluid policy situation essentially can influence the rate of inflation
and for that matter prices of raw materials and commodities which will not be good news for
SMEs. This also has implications on a devaluation of the local currency and consequent
increase in engaging in international trade (Obokoh et al., 2017).
Taking a critical analysis of financial controls, research contends that despite the security
assurance financial controls tend to serve, the truth is that these controls also tend to greatly
hinder the propensity of SMEs to secure credit for starting up their enterprises or in their
quest to garner more resources for business expansion (Pietrovito and Pozzolo, 2019).
Similarly, if the exchange rate policy is set so high, it will also impede the capacity of budding
entrepreneurs to access the requisite quantum of local currency to secure foreign exchange
needed for importing required capital goods and relevant raw materials would greatly
impede business operations (Ipinnaiye et al., 2017).
To what extent is the tax regime supportive of SME activities? There are many tax regimes
which have become dreamkillers for SMEs especiallywhen a budding SMEhas to grapplewith
multiple taxes claimed by federal, national, regional and local governments (Aribaba et al., 2019;
Bateman, 2013). If these are not well rationalized, they tend to disincentivize since it will be an
added cost to production and would affect the subsequent chain of business including the
pricing mechanism, competitiveness and consumer demand for the product (Atiase et al., 2019;
Quartey, 2001). Complex and uncoordinated tax regime negatively affects entrepreneurial drive
(Matarirano et al., 2019) and SME growth and expansion (Romero-Jordan et al., 2019; Baporikar
et al., 2016). Many budding SMEs have been forced to shut down because of overburdening tax
obligations amidst early teething problems in the developing world and this does not paint a
very good picture (Ocheni, 2015; Tee et al., 2016). In a study byNyarku andOduro (2017) of SME
regulation in Accra Metropolitan Assembly, owner/managers of SMEs involved in the study
disclosed that they pay approximately 53% of their revenue as a tax to the state and other sub-
governmental entities.
A review of empirical literature reveals that excessive bureaucracies SMEs go through in
these regulatory protocols, mired with corruption and repugnant tax regimes worsened by
complex legal frameworks serve as setbacks and impediments to SME growth (Mallett et al.,
2019; Gaganis et al., 2019). Many prospective SME entrants have had to grapple with Entrepreneurial
excessive bureaucratic procedures required for business registration and acquisition of breakthrough
operating permits and licences which have tended to impede business start-ups and or failure
development (Lawal et al., 2018; Sfakianaki and Kakouris, 2018). In a recent empirical study
byNyarku andOduro (2017) in Greater Accra, the authors observe that “government officials
indirectly and directly extort bribes and kickbacks before issuing permits and licences for
SMEs and such practice significantly affects entrepreneurship growth. The study posits that
such extraneous regulatory impediments perpetrated by public officials in charge of business
registration and issuing of the permit, tax enforcement among others pose extra cost
entrepreneurs and SMEs. Even after enduring this hurdle, such as “going through the
cumbersome procedures of registration, getting their products tested and approved by
the Ghana Standards Authority and Food and Drugs Board, to be officially recognized in the
market, goes without playing the game” (p. 8).
For example, using the 2019 World Bank “ease of doing business” report, a prospective
entrepreneur in Norway would require four processes and a maximum of four days to secure
a construction permit (see Tables 5 and 6). The one in Singapore would require two
procedures and less than two days. Meanwhile, a counterpart in Ghana would require eight
procedures and 14 days. This and other indicators of ease of doing business have been
illustrated in Tables 7–9.
The data in Tables 7–9 illustrate business regulatory situation and ease of doing business
in Ghana, Singapore and Norway. In Ghana, the number of procedures to follow before
starting a business counts to eight processes while it takes averagely 14 days to get feedback.
A prospective business person in Singapore requires only two processes to get a business
registered while it takes less than two days to receive the feedback. In Norway, one requires
four processes and four days to get the feedback. If we hold internal factors constant for a
prospective business person in Ghana, Singapore and Norway, the “external factors” have
already provided a springboard for business people in Singapore and Norway while their
counterpart in Ghana will still be grappling with initial business registration protocols. The
extant literature has empirically tested and documented that cumbersome administrative
processes and procedures involved in business registration, in the processes of acquisition of
operating permits and licences, procurement in many cases have rather become business-
impeding regulatory forces (see Nyarky andOduro, 2017; Bouazza et al., 2015; Hayford, 2012).
Velde (2010) makes a point that the provision of well-functioning structures and effective
procedures which are not too bureaucratic help foster state-business relations.
Many internally driven prospective SME entrants (with entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities
and aspirations) mostly in the developing economies may have their dreams shattered if they
would refuse to offer kickbacks as the regulatory system would frustrate these individuals
The role of external factors in fostering entrepreneurial activities cannot be overemphasized. In the 19th
century, the chocolate market in the UK had been dominated by French producers who had monopolized the
market but through public intervention, it helped stimulate the growth and competitive prowess of a local UK
company (Cadbury) to break the chain of that monopoly. Public policy interventions through a reduction in
taxes on imported cocoa beans (Fitzgerald, 2005; Cadbury World, 2014). This special intervention would help
Cadbury build a solid foundation through reduced cost in production which would make it a global competitor
by making its chocolate products relatively less expensive. This same public intervention encouraged the Table 5.
company to deploy the use of unadulterated products in the production of chocolate which received the Case of external
admiration of Parliament and the media which would lead to positive publicity and sales. Fitzgerald (2005) factor enabling
avers that the same development would lead to the promulgation of the Adulteration of FoodsActs in 1872 and entrepreneurial
1875 development
AJEMS
Ghana’s NBSSI (currently Ghana Enterprises Agency) in focus
In 1981, under Act 434 of Parliament, the National Board for Small Scale Industries (NBSSI)
was established in Ghana to act as the apex coordinating agency, advising the Minister responsible for
industries on policy for initiating, formulating, developing and implementing a national program to accelerate
the growth of small-scale industries. Thus, the development of policies and promotional activities for small-
scale industries is currently the responsibility of NBSSI. This was achieved by merging the three major
institutions chargedwith the responsibility of responding to the needs of small-scale enterprises. TheGhanaian
Enterprises Development Commission and NBSSI were merged in 1991, while the hived-off cottage industries
section of the Department of Rural Housing and Cottage Industries followed the merger in 1994
The objectives of NBSSI are
to contribute to the creation of an enabling environment for small-scale enterprise development
to contribute to the development of an enterprise culture in Ghana
to facilitate access to credit for small-scale entrepreneurs
to provide nonfinancial support for sustainable small business developments through Entrepreneurial,
Table 6. Technical and Management Training and Advisory Services
Ghana’s case in focus Source(s): Adapted from Aryeetey et al. (1994)
Procedures
Cost (%
Ease of of Rank dealing Minimum
doing Starting a income with capital (%
business business per construction of income
Ghana Context ranking (Score) Number Days capita) permit per capita)
Table 7.
Indicators of ease of Africa 114 (score 84.29 8 14 15.5 115 (scored 41.6
doing business: Ghana of 59.22) 66.16)
Procedures
Cost (%
Ease of of Minimum Rank dealing
doing Starting a income capital (% with
business business per of income construction
Table 8. Norway Context ranking (Score) Number Days capita) per capita) permit
Indicators of ease of
doing business: Europe 7 (82.95) 94.31 4 4 0.9 4.6 22 (score
Norway 78.86)
Ease of Procedures
doing Starting a Cost (% of Rank dealing with
business business income per construction
Singapore Context ranking (Score) Number Days capita) permit
Table 9.
Indicators of ease of Asia 2 (score of 98.23 2 1.5 0.4 8 (score of 84.23)
doing business: 85.2)
Singapore Source(s): World Bank “Doing Business Report”, 2019
(Krylova, 2018). Their aspirations and abilities will forever remain as ideas in only in their Entrepreneurial
dreams but will never materialize because more often than not, the processes of acquiring breakthrough
permits and licences and their timely approval may be tied to the willingness to offer “speed or failure
up money” to bribe government officials in order to speed up. These obstructive external
elements tend to frustrate new business entrants aswell as existing ones as it affects business
and job creation, and slows down rate of SME formation and their expansion (Fiesta and
Sinha, 2011; Fisman and Svensson, 2007). Using credit facility as an example, no matter how
high-spirited a prospective entrepreneur is, how great his entrepreneurial attitude,
entrepreneurial ability and entrepreneurial aspirations are, this internal drive and passion
may not make him succeed and compete well when clearly the external environment is not
fertile for sound business. For example, in the 2022 period, Ghana began inflation with 13.9
but steadily rose to 40.4 by October as illustrated by Figure 2 below.
A bar chart illustrating inflationary trend in Ghana from January to October, 2022 
45 40.4
40 37.2
33.9
35 31.7
29.8
30 27.6
23.6
25
19.4
20 15.7
13.9
15
10
5
0
Figure 2.
Inflationary trend in
Ghana for 2022
Source(s): Compiled by authors from Ghana Statistical Service data
The poor inflation rate coupledwith poor local currency depreciation against international
currencies (clearly a function of external factors), and entrepreneurs irrespective of how hard
they strive to be resilient (internal factors) mostlymay becomeworse off at a point in time. See
the excerpts below (see Table 10):
In an overall assessment of the “ease of doing business”, Ghana scored a little above average
(59.22) and was ranked 114th position in the community of nations. Singapore, an Asian Tiger
experienced an excellent score (85.2) and ranked 2nd position. This suggests that Singapore has
better external factors that are devoid of bureaucratic bottlenecks supportive of business growth
and development of SMEs. Norway scored 82.95 and ranked 7th position. From a comparative
perspective, it is prudent to assess the macro-level external factors before one can adequately
appreciate themicro-entrepreneurial drive, attitudes, abilities andaspirations of individuals. Those
countries with less supportive institutional and regulatory environment are required to step up in
institutional renewal to reduce the bureaucratic bottlenecks in order to foster SMEdrive. Research
(see Djankov et al., 2007) contends that excessive bureaucracy negatively affects entry rates and
AJEMS
Due to high inflation, an entrepreneur engaged in selling sauce (stew) has been in a pensivemood as she tries to
cool down in the shade of a towering bigger tree near her home in Kpone Katamanso district, southern Ghana.
She is a single parent who has been in chilli sauce business as the family’s main source of livelihood. She does
this with all dedication, ability and greater aspirations to grow it. With her internal world being constant, she
has had to contend with the external factors (government policies and high inflation) which are causing a
challenge to her business sustainability
The cost of oil, ginger, onions and even chilli peppers [main ingredients of her red-hot sauce] have all witnessed
a tremendous surge in prices. She told reporters that the price of a 20-litre gallon of oil has shot up from
approximately $16 (£13) to $85 since June last year [2022]
This and many other external forces are having a debilitating impact on her sales and business growth. She
complained,
“When people [customers] make orders and I tell them I have increased the prices, then they cancel them. You
know times are hard.”
This entrepreneur expects the government to make life easier for entrepreneurs by, for example, lowering the
cost of registering a business
Table 10. But also “if the government can set up a committee to regulate price increases it will help us”
Implications of https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63628352
external forces on Naa Koshie, a 45-year-old mother of five who runs a cold storage business in the capital, Accra, told VOA she is
entrepreneurial losing money as prices of goods keep soaring
activities https://www.voanews.com/a/ghana-raises-benchmark-interest-rate-over-soaring-inflation-/6708430.html
productivity growth of SMEs. This study has been corroborated by Klapper et al. (2006) that
regulatory laxities and bureaucratic bottlenecks tend to impede the creation of new firms,
discourage prospective business-minded people and negatively the tendency and capacity of
existing firms to further growand expandappropriately. Sen (2013) argues that the demonstration
of adequate commitment and credibility to make policies which are predictable and well enforced
through the establishment of both formal and informal institutions will help in fostering SME
growth. To Harris and Gibson (2006), this entails a stable policy environment which will provide
some form of assurance to businesses and private investment.
7. Discussion and policy suggestions
From the framework (Figure 1) and discussion of data, we have argued that promoting and
sustaining SMEs require appropriate “internal factors” which meet enabling “external factors”.
The study has argued that promoting SME activities and the springing up of entrepreneurs
requires first and foremost an internal drive which requires the appropriate entrepreneurial
attitude, interspersed with requisite entrepreneurial ability and an ambitious entrepreneurial
aspiration. These are essential attributes that ideally would spur up the growth of SMEs yet
there are overarching external factors which will determine the extent to which wishes and
special entrepreneurial faculties of people are given the fertile ground to operate and flourish.
The external factors (which include government policies and regulatory environment) are
designated as the “hurdle to cross” as in most cases this has tended to pose constraints and as
stumbling blocks to many “internal ecologically driven” prospective and existing business
people who at times have to painfully give up their dreams. The arguments suggest that
irrespective of the internal drive or factors urging an individual to engage in entrepreneurial
activities, the hurdles in the external environment can wither away the dream or gains. These
forces include the ease with which businesses will get access to credit facilities at reasonable
rates, cheaper and reliable energy sources, responsive tax and regulatory regime as well as
market protection for local budding enterprises. For instance, due to high importation of poultry
into Ghana coupled with high cost of business in Ghana, the local poultry industry has not been
competitive and many entrepreneurs in that sector have given up already while many others
risk going out of business [2].
Many internally driven prospective SME entrants (with entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities and Entrepreneurial
aspirations) mostly in the developing economies may have their dreams shattered if they would breakthrough
refuse to offer kickbacks as the regulatory system would frustrate these individuals (Glaeser and or failure
Kerr, 2009). Their aspirations and abilities will forever remain ideas only in their dreams but will
nevermaterialize becausemore often than not, the processes of acquiring permits and licences and
their timely approvalmaybe tied to thewillingness to offer “speedupmoney” to bribe government
officials in order to speed up. These obstructive external elements tend to frustrate new business
entrants as well as existing ones as it affects business and job creation, and slows down rate of
SME formation and their expansion. The observation has been corroborated in a recent study by
Nyarku and Oduro (2017a) which observed that “legal and regulatory frameworks in terms of
bureaucracy, corruption, unstable policy environment, complex customs and trade regulations,
multiple and complex tax systems and excessive financial/monetary and credit policies negatively
affect SMEs growth in the Greater Accra Metropolis of Ghana” (p. 9).
The studymakes the following recommendationswhichwill help the economies augment their
institutional processeswith regard to how they treat the private sector. In an attempt to ensure the
external factors promote entrepreneurial drive of individuals, it is important for government and
the related agencies to remove all obstacles and bottlenecks which obstruct business growth and
development. Firstly, the processes in starting a business should be rationalized such that
coordination among the various regulatory agencies will help cut most of the processes. This
requires reducing the number of days required to register and formalize businesses. Additionally,
the processes and procedures should be reduced effectively to cut the delays and frustrations.
Secondly, data sharing among various regulatory agencies should be encouraged so that
prospective businesses will not have to go through tedious processes. This will encourage
many individuals and groups with capital to come and invest in the country.
There should be deliberate efforts for the state through its relevant agency to adopt a
collaborative approach in liaising with relevant stakeholders to map out workable and
measurable approach to genuinely support prospective and existing entrepreneurs. The idea of
fashioning out political patronage credit schemes under the cloak of “enterprise and
entrepreneurial support” does no good to anyone and the economy, capital does not grow,
economy does not expand andmay not contribute to employment creation because the mindset
of beneficiaries may not support investment but consumption. Ideally, such schemes if given to
serious entrepreneurs with workable business plan and intentions will turn the capital around,
repay the loans or make good use of the grants to expand the economy and employ people.
Notes
1. https://gna.org.gh/2022/10/monetary-policy-rate-increased-to-24-5/
2. https://www.wattagnet.com/articles/40240-ghanas-poultry-industry-urgently-requests-support?
v5preview
References
Abbas, A. and Park, G. (2018), “Tariffs and taxes versus labor regulation: analyzing which
government policies help and hurt domestic economies”.
Abor, J. and Biekpe, N. (2006), “Small business financing initiatives in Ghana”, Problems and
Perspectives in Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 69-77.
Acs, Z.J. and Szerb, L. (2007), “Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 28, pp. 109-122.
Adomako, S., Frimpong, K., Danso, A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Uddin, M. and Kesse, K. (2020), “Home
country institutional impediments and international expansion of developing country SMEs”,
International Business Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, 101716.
AJEMS Adu-Gyamfi, R., Kuada, J. and Asongu, S.A. (2022), “An integrative framework for formal and informal
entrepreneurship research in Africa”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Adusei, M., Adeleye, N. and Okafor, A. (2021), “Drivers of credit union penetration: an international
analysis”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 710-723.
Agwu, M.O. and Emeti, C.I. (2014), “Issues, challenges and prospects of small and medium scale
enterprises (SMEs) in Port-Harcourt city”, European Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3
No. 1, p. 101.
Agyapong, D. (2020), “Review of entrepreneurship, micro, small and medium enterprise financing
schemes in Ghana”, Enterprising Africa, Routledge, pp. 142-158.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001), “Value creation in e-business”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22
Nos 6-7, pp. 493-520.
Anton, S.G. and Onofrei, M. (2016), “Public policies to support entrepreneurship and SMEs.
Empirical evidences from Romania”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12
No. 47, pp. 5-19.
Aribaba, F.O., Oladele, R., Ahmodu, A.L.O. and Yusuff, S.A. (2019), “Tax policies and
entrepreneurship sustainability in Ondo State, Nigeria”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Aryeetey, E., Baah-Nuakoh, A., Duggleby, T., Hettige, H. and Steel, W.F. (1994), “Supply and demand for
finance of small enterprises in Ghana”, Discussion Paper no. 251, World Bank Publications,
Washington, DC.
Atiase, V., Asorwoe, E., Ablorde, F. and Kolade, O. (2019), “Tax compliance cost: the hidden effect on
international trade in Africa”, British Accounting and Finance Association, available at: https://
dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2086/18097/Atiase%20etal%202019%20conference%20paper
%20ms.pdf?sequence52 (accessed 2 February 2023).
Audretsch, D.B., Grilo, I. and Thurik, A.R. (2007), “Explaining entrepreneurship and the role of policy:
a framework”, in Audretsch D.B., Grilo, I. and Thurik, A.R. (Eds), The Handbook of Research on
Entrepreneurship Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 1-17.
Auerswald, P.E. (2015), Enabling Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Insights from Ecology to Inform
Effective Entrepreneurship Policy, Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and
Regional Entrepreneurship.
Avots, K., Strenga, R. and Paalzow, A. (2013), “Public venture capital in Latvia”, Baltic Journal of
Economics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-30.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2012), “On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 9-44.
Baporikar, N., Nambira, G. and Gomxos, G. (2016), “Exploring factors hindering SMEs’ growth:
evidence from Nambia”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important
matters”, Human Performance, Vol. 18, pp. 359-372.
Bateman, M. (2013), “The age of microfinance: destroying Latin American economies from the
bottom up”, Working Paper (May), Vienna: Austrian Research Foundation for International
Development (O€sterreichische Forschungsstiftung fu€r Internationale Entwicklung – O€FSE).
Baumol, W.J. (1968), “Entrepreneurship in economic theory”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 64-71.
Beck, T., Demirgu€ç-Kunt, A. and Maksimovic, V. (2008), “Financing patterns around the world: are
small firms different?”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 467-487.
Bell, R. (2016), “Unpacking the link between entrepreneurialism and employability: an assessment of Entrepreneurial
the relationship between entrepreneurial attitudes and likelihood of graduate employment in a
professional field”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 2-17. breakthrough
or failure
Blackburn, R.A. (2016), Government, SMEs and Entrepreneurship Development: Policy, Practice and
Challenges, Routledge.
Bouazza, A.B., Ardjouman, D. and Abada, O. (2015), “Establishing the factors affecting the growth of
small and medium-sized enterprises in Algeria”, American International Journal of Social
Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 101-115.
Brozik, D. and Zapalska, A. (2006), “Entrepreneurial decision making in a dynamic environment: the
entrepreneurship game”, Journal of East-West Business, Vol. 12 Nos 2-3, pp. 131-169.
Cacciotti, G. and Hayton, J.C. (2015), “Fear and entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 165-190.
Cadbury World (2014), “History of cadbury”, available at: https://www.cadbury.co.uk/our-story
(accessed 20 December 2022).
Cao, Z. and Shi, X. (2021), “A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced
and emerging economies”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 75-110.
Carsrud, A., Br€annback, M., Elfving, J. and Brandt, K. (2017), Motivations: The Entrepreneurial Mind and
Behavior, An Expanded Edition, Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Mind: Inside the Black Box,
pp. 185-209.
Cassar, L. and Meier, S. (2018), “Nonmonetary incentives and the implications of work as a source of
meaning”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 215-238.
Chandra, A., Paul, J. and Chavan, M. (2020), “Internationalization barriers of SMEs from developing
countries: a review and research agenda”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research.
Çolakoglu, N. and G€ozu€kara, I_. (2016), “A comparison study on personality traits based on the attitudes of
university students toward entrepreneurship”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 229,
pp. 133-140.
Colombo, M.G., Cumming, D.J. and Vismara, S. (2016), “Governmental venture capital for innovative
young firms”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41, pp. 10-24, company.
Corman, J., Perles, B. and Yancini, P. (1988), “Motivational factors influencing high-technology
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, p. 36.
Cowling, M., Marlow, S. and Liu, W. (2020), “Gender and bank lending after the global financial crisis: are
women entrepreneurs safer bets?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 853-880.
Cumming, D. and Li, D. (2013), “Public policy, entrepreneurship, and venture capital in the United
States”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 23, pp. 345-367.
Curran, J. (2000), “What is small business policy in the UK for? Evaluation and assessing small
business policies”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 36-50.
Davidsson, P. (1989), “Entrepreneurship—and after? A study of growth willingness in small firms”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 211-226.
De Bruin, A. and Mataira, P. (2018), “Indigenous entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship: New
Perspectives in a Global Age, Routledge, pp. 169-184.
Deterding, S. (2019), “Gamification in management: between choice architecture and humanistic
design”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 131-136.
Development Institute (2018), GEDI, 2018 Global Entrepreneurship Index 2018, The Global
Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, Washington.
Din, B.H., Anuar, A.R. and Usman, M. (2016), “The effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education
program in upgrading entrepreneurial skills among public university students”, Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 224, pp. 117-123.
AJEMS Djankov, S., McLiesh, C. and Shleifer, A. (2007), “Private credit in 129 countries”, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 299-329.
Dogan, N. (2015), “The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management: strategic
entrepreneurship”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195, pp. 1288-1294.
Do Paço, A., Ferreira, J.M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R.G. and Dinis, A. (2015), “Entrepreneurial
intentions: is education enough?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 11, pp. 57-75.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace College Publishers,
Orlando, FL.
Effiom, L. and Uche, E. (2022), “The political economy of industrialization in Sub-Saharan Africa:
evaluating the role of institutions”, Institutions and Economies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 77-108.
Eniola, A.A. and Entebang, H. (2015), “SME firm performance-financial innovation and challenges”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 195, pp. 334-342.
Ester, P. (2017), Accelerators in Silicon Valley: Building Successful Startups, Amsterdam University
Press, available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/45642/1004092.pdf?
sequence51&isAll wed5y
Farinha, L., Lopes, J., Bagchi-Sen, S., Sebasti~ao, J.R. and Oliveira, J. (2020), “Entrepreneurial dynamics
and government policies to boost entrepreneurship performance”, Socio-Economic Planning
Sciences, Vol. 72, 100950.
Ferreira, J.J., Ratten, V. and Dana, L.P. (2017), “Knowledge spillover-based strategic entrepreneurship”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 161-167.
Fiestas, I. and Sinha, S. (2011), Constraints to Private Investment in the Poorest Developing Countries-A
Review of the Literature, Nathan Associates London, London.
Fisman, R. and Svensson, J. (2007), “Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level
evidence”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 63-75.
Fitzgerald, R. (2005), “Products, firms and consumption: cadbury and the development of marketing,
1900-1939”, Business History, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 511-531.
Florin, J., Karri, R. and Rossiter, N. (2007), “Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: an
attitudinal approach”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 17-42.
Fobih, N. and Adom, A.Y. (2017), “Entrepreneurship and private sector development in Ghana: the
government’s MASLOC and NBSSI initiatives” in Munyoki, B. (Ed.), Universities,
Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development in Africa-Conference Proceedings 2017,
Nairobi, 19. July 2017, pp. 93-100.
Fuentelsaz, L., Gonzalez, C. and Maicas, J.P. (2019), “Formal institutions and opportunity
entrepreneurship. The contingent role of informal institutions”, BRQ Business Research
Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Gaganis, C., Pasiouras, F. and Voulgari, F. (2019), “Culture, business environment and SMEs’
profitability: evidence from European Countries”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 78, pp. 275-292.
Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A. and Tsakanikas, A. (2017), “Drivers of high-quality
entrepreneurship:what changes did the crisis bring about?”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 913-930.
Glaeser, E.L. and Kerr, W.R. (2009), “Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: how much of
the spatial distribution can we explain?”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 623-663.
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) (2018), Global Entrepreneurship Index (2018),
The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, Washington, DC.
Global Entrepreneurship Development Index (2014), should rather be Zoltan J. Acs, Laszlo Szerb,
Erkko Autio (2015) “Global entrepreneurship and development Index 2014”, available at:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-14932-5 (accessed 16th December 2022).
Goel, S. and Karri, R. (2021), “Entrepreneurial aspirations and poverty reduction: the role of Entrepreneurial
institutional context”, Business, Entrepreneurship and Innovation toward Poverty Reduction,
Routledge, pp. 91-111. breakthrough
or failure
Greene, F.J., Mole, K.F. and Storey, D.J. (2007), Three Decades of Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship,
Economic Regeneration and Public Policy, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Grilo, I. and Thurik, A.R. (2006), “Entrepreneurship in the old and new Europe”, in Santarelli, E. (Ed.),
Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Innovation: The Dynamics of Firms and Industries: International
Studies in Entrepreneurship, Springer Science, Berlin, pp. 75-103.
Harraf, A., Ghura, H., Hamdan, A. and Li, X. (2020), “Formal institutions and the development of
entrepreneurial activity–the contingent role of corruption in emerging economies”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Public Policy.
Harris, M.L. and Gibson, S.G. (2006), “Determining the common problems of early growth small
businesses in Eastern North Carolina”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 71 No. 2, p. 39.
Hayford, S. (2012), “The development of small medium enterprises and their impact on the Ghanaian
economy”, Doctoral Dissertation, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi-Ghana.
Hessels, J., van Gelderen, M. and Thurik, R. (2008), “Drivers of entrepreneurial aspirations at the
country level: the role of start-up motivations and social security”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 401-417.
Hisrich, R.B. and Peters, M. (2002), Entrepreneurship, Tata MC Raw Graw- Hill Publishing.
Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2005), Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, London.
Holmes, R.M. Jr., Zahra, S.A., Hoskisson, R.E., DeGhetto, K. and Sutton, T. (2016), “Two-way streets:
the role of institutions and technology policy in firms’ corporate entrepreneurship and political
strategies”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 247-272.
Hudson, B., Hunter, D. and Peckham, S. (2019), “Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: can
policy support programs help?”, Policy Design and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Illes, B.C., Dunay, A. and Jelonek, D. (2015), “The entrepreneurship in Poland and in Hungary: future
entrepreneurs education perspective”, Polish Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Ipinnaiye, O., Dineen, D. and Lenihan, H. (2017), “Drivers of SME performance: a holistic and
multivariate approach”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 883-911.
Karabulut, A.T. (2016), “Personality traits on entrepreneurial intention”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 229, pp. 12-21.
Kilby, P. (1971), Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, The Free Press, New York.
King, R.G. and Levine, R. (1993), “Finance, entrepreneurship and growth”, Journal of Monetary
Economics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 513-542.
Klapper, L., Amit, R. and Guillen, M.F. (2010), “Entrepreneurship and firm formation across countries”,
in Lerner, J. and Schoar, A. (Eds), International Differences in Entrepreneurship, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 129-158.
Klapper, L., Laeven, L. and Rajan, R. (2006), “Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship”,
Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 591-629.
Kolvereid, L. (1992), “Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 209-222.
Kreft, S.F. and Sobel, R.S. (2005), “Public policy, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom”, Cato
Journal, Vol. 25, p. 595.
Krylova, Y. (2018), “Administrative corruption and its effects on Russian entrepreneurs: a regional
aspect”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 121-137.
Kwong, C. and Thompson, P. (2016), “The when and why: student entrepreneurial aspirations”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 299-318.
AJEMS Larsson, J.P. and Thulin, P. (2019), “Independent by necessity? The life satisfaction of necessity
and opportunity entrepreneurs in 70 countries”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 921-934.
Lawal, F.A., Iyiola, O.O., Adegbuyi, O.A., Kehinde, O.J. and Ogunnaike, O.O. (2018), “Survey data on
bureaucratic processes and entrepreneurial venture performance in SMEs in Nigeria”, Data in
Brief, Vol. 20, pp. 775-778.
Leyden, D.P. and Link, A.N. (2015), “Toward a theory of the entrepreneurial process”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 475-484.
Li, Y., Zhan, C., de Jong, M. and Lukszo, Z. (2016), “Business innovation and government regulation for
the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen, China”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 134, pp. 371-383.
Lin, G.T., Chang, Y. and Shen, Y. (2010), “Innovation policy analysis and learning: comparing Ireland
and Taiwan”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 22, pp. 731-762.
Mallett, O., Wapshott, R. and Vorley, T. (2019), “How do regulations affect SMEs? A review of the
qualitative evidence and a research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 294-316.
Mason, C. and Kwok, J. (2010), “Investment readiness programmes and access to finance: a critical
review of design issues”, Local Economy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 269-292.
Matarirano, O., Chiloane-Tsoka, G.E. and Makina, D. (2019), “Tax compliance costs and small business
performance: evidence from the South African construction industry”, South African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Morgan, J. and Sisak, D. (2016), “Aspiring to succeed: a model of entrepreneurship and fear of failure”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., Richardson, J. and Allen, J. (2006), “Is the business model a useful
strategic concept? Conceptual, theoretical, and empirical insights”, Journal of Small Business
Strategy, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-50.
Mwakalila, E. (2020), “Crowding out of private sector in Tanzania: government expenditure, domestic
borrowing, and lending rates”, Emerging Economy Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 123-135.
Ngerebo-a, T.A. (2012), Concepts in Nigerian Financial Systems, Sabcos Publishers, Port Harcourt.
Nyarku, K.M. and Oduro, S. (2017), “Examining the effect of corruption and bureaucracy on SMEs
growth in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana”, in Munyoki, B. (Ed.), Universities,
Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development in Africa-Conference Proceedings 2017,
Nairobi, 19 July 2017, pp. 154-173.
Nyarku, K.M. and Oduro, S. (2017a), “Examining the effect of corruption and bureaucracy on SMEs
growth in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana”, available at: https://pub.h-brs.de/frontdoor/index/
index/docId/3425
Obokoh, L.O., Ojiako, U., Monday, J.U. and Ehiobuche, C. (2017), “The impact of exchange rate
depreciation on small and medium sized enterprises performance and development in Nigeria”,
African Journal of Business and Economic Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-48.
Ocheni, S.I. (2015), “Impact analysis of tax policy and the performance of small and medium scale
enterprises in Nigerian economy”, Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Odusola, A. (2006), “Tax policy reforms in Nigeria”, No. 2064-2020-1096.
OECD (2009), The Impact of the Global Crisis on SME and Entrepreneurship Financing and Policy
Responses, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
OECD (2012), Competitive Neutrality. Maintaining a Level Playing Field Between Public And Private
Business, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Oliyide, O. (2012), “Law, credit risk management and bank lending to SMEs in Nigeria”,
Commonwealth Law Bulletin, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 673-695.
Othman, N. and Nasrudin, N. (2016), “Entrepreneurship education programs in Malaysian Entrepreneurial
polytechnics”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 58 Nos 7-8, pp. 882-889. breakthrough
Pietrovito, F. and Pozzolo, A.F. (2019), “Credit constraints and exports of SMEs in emerging and or failure
developing countries”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 56, pp. 311-332.
Quansah, P., Amankwah, E. and Aikins, E. (2012), “Influence of micro finance and small loan Centre
(MASLOC) on the development of small scale enterprises in the wa municipality”, European
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Quartey, P. (2001), “Regulation, competition and small and medium enterprises in developing
countries”, (No. 1649-2016-135885), Centre on Regulation and Competition, Institute for
Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.
Rauch, A. (2014), “Predictions of entrepreneurial behavior: a personality approach”, Handbook of
Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 165-184.
Report (2019), available at: https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/
AnnualReports/English/DB2019-report_web-version.pdf
Riggs, F.W. (1964), Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Romero-Jordan, D., Sanz-Labrador, I. and Sanz-Sanz, J.F. (2019), “Is the corporation tax a barrier to
productivity growth?”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 55, pp. 23-38.
Saeed, A., Sameer, M., Raziq, M.M., Salman, A. and Hammoudeh, S. (2019), “Board gender diversity
and organizational determinants: empirical evidence from a major developing country”,
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 1803-1820.
Sen, K. (2013), “The political dynamics of economic growth”, World Development, Vol. 47, pp. 71-86.
Sfakianaki, E. and Kakouris, A.P. (2018), “Obstacles to ISO 9001 certification in SMEs”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 31 Nos 13-14, pp. 1544-1564.
Sharma, G.D., Kraus, S., Liguori, E., Bamel, U.K. and Chopra, R. (2022), “Entrepreneurial challenges of
COVID-19: Re-thinking entrepreneurship after the crisis”, Journal of Small Business
Management, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2022.2089676.
Sihombing, S.O. (2015), “Comparing entrepreneurship intention: a multigroup structural equation
modeling approach”, International Research Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Simon-Moya, V., Revuelto-Taboada, L. and Guerrero, R.F. (2014), “Institutional and economic drivers of
entrepreneurship: an international perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5,
pp. 715-721.
Soomro, B.A., Memon, M. and Shah, N. (2017), “Attitudes towards entrepreneurship among the
students of Thailand: an entrepreneurial attitude orientation approach”, Educationþ Training,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 239-255, (2021).
Spigel, B. (2020), Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Theory, Practice and Futures, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Stam, E. and Van de Ven, A. (2021), “Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 56, pp. 809-832.
Stephens, B., Butler, J.S., Garg, R. and Gibson, D.V. (2019), “Austin, Boston, Silicon valley, and New
York: case studies in the location choices of entrepreneurs in maintaining the technopolis”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 146, pp. 267-280.
Tee, E., Boadi, L. and Opoku, R. (2016), “The effect of tax payment on the performance of SMEs: the
case of selected SMEs in Ga West Municipal Assembly”, European Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 20, pp. 11-125.
Terjesen, S., Bosma, N. and Stam, E. (2016), “Advancing public policy for high-growth, female, and
social entrepreneurs”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 230-239.
Testa, S. andFrascheri, S. (2015), “Learningby failing:whatwecan learn fromun-successful entrepreneurship
education”, The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 11-22.
AJEMS Thurik, A.R., Carree, M.A., Van Stel, A. and Audretsch, D.B. (2008), “Does self-employment reduce
unemployment?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 673-686.
Van Biesebroeck, J. and Zaurino, E. (2019), “Effects of trade liberalization on textile and apparel
exports from sub-Sahara Africa”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (8936).
Van Gelderen, M. and Jansen, P. (2006), “Autonomy as a start-up motive”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
van Rensburg, N. and Ogujiuba, K. (2020), “Effect of mind-power ability among achieving
entrepreneurs in South Africa: identifying accustomed internal drivers”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 475-493.
Velde, D.W. (2010), State-Business Relations and Economic Growth in Sub-saharan Africa: A Review of
Case Studies in Ghana, Mauritius, South Africa and Zambia, DFID-funded Research Programme
Consortium on Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG), DFID (IPPG), UK.
Villegas-Mateos, A. (2020), “Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems in Chile: comparative lessons”,
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-63.
Vos, E., Yeh, A.J.Y., Carter, S. and Tagg, S. (2007), “The happy story of small business financing”,
Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 2648-2672.
Wehinger, G. (2013), “Banking in a challenging environment: business models, ethics and approaches
towards risks”, OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, Vol. 2012 No. 2, pp. 79-88.
Welsh, D.H. (2016), “Women-owned family businesses in Africa: entrepreneurs changing the face of
progress”, in Acquaah, M. (Ed.), Family Businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, pp. 155-173.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), “Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial
career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-406.
Wilson, K.E. and Silva, F. (2013), Policies for Seed and Early Stage finance: Findings from the 2012
OECD Financing Questionnaire, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 9,
OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/5k3xqsf00j33-en.
Wright, M., Westhead, P. and Ucbasaran, D. (2007), “Internationalization of small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) and international entrepreneurship: a critique and policy implications”,
Regional Studies, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 1013-1030.
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status:
a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2, p. 259.
Further reading
Adusei, C., Attafuah, F.A. and Tweneboah-Koduah, I., “Challenges faced by petty traders in accessing
loans from financial institutions: evidence from the upper west region of Ghana”, Asian Journal
of Economics, Business and Accounting, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1-10.
Ajzen, I. (2012), “The theory of planned behavior”, in Lange, P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W. and Higgins,
E.T. (Eds), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Sage, Vol. 1, pp. 438-459.
Corresponding author
Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah can be contacted at: eyeboah-assiamah@ug.edu.gh
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com