A Discussion on the Relationship

Between Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT)

and Entrepreneurship1

Mehmet Eryılmaz
Uludağ University, Department of Business Administration, Turkey

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurship has recently become one of the hot topics in several disciplines such as business
administration, economy, sociology etc. Thus, several studies in several fields focus on antecedents
and consequences of entrepreneurial intentions and activities to get deeper insights about the
phenomenon. Furthermore, another rising field of study is “Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT)”. Thus, the main objective of the present study was to discuss possible
relationships between these two crucial concepts, namely entrepreneurship and ICT.

Keywords: Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship, Information and Communication Technologies,

Infopreneurs, Netpreneurs.

1. INTRODUCTION

Scholars in several fields discussed about a crucial question that whether the related field was
transformed into a “scholar discipline”. Finding some examples for this type of discussion is possible
in the fields of “business history” (e.g. Kurt, 2016), “organization theory” (e.g. Davis & Marquis,
2005), “strategic management” (e.g. Booth, 1998; Barney, 2002), etc. Furthermore, as in the example
of “strategic human resource management” (Wright & McMahan, 1992), disciplinary status of certain
integrated fields were questioned.

Fields largely accepted as a scholar discipline share certain common characteristics such as widely
shared beliefs by a group of scholars on limits and fundamental questions related to the field and

1
This study is partially based on a previous chapter entitled “entrepreneurship” that was published in Khosrow-
Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition, 2018, pp. 2998-3006.
recommended methodologies for addressing these questions (Eryılmaz, 2016), etc. In addition to those
mentioned-above, increased complexity in the theoretical and methodological infrastructure of a field
may be another indicator (Phelan et al., 2002). These discussions on the fields stated above were
similar in the field of entrepreneurship. As a result of some assessments, despite the doubts of certain
scholars (e.g. Rauch & Frese, 2006), some studies (e.g. Vesper, 1988; Filion, 1998; George &
Wadhwani, 2006; Urban, 2010) heralded that the field of entrepreneurship was institutionalized and
achieved the status of “scholarly discipline”.

“Information and communication technologies (ICT)” is another popular subject. ICT is a prerequisite
of the current era of knowledge. These technologies transform several societal dimensions such as
political, social, technological, etc. dimensions (Yusuf, 2005). The impact of ICT is also inevitable on
economic life. Thus, entrepreneurial intentions and activities, which are considered as one of the
engines of economies by many scholars, will both affect and be affected by developments in the ICT.
Therefore, the present study aimed to examine possible interactions between these two recent hot
topics.

Initially, the present study will review the historical roots of entrepreneurship . Then, some factors,
which are the antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurship, will be examined. In addition, brief
information on ICT will be presented. In the third section, certain possible interactions between these
two concepts will be discussed. Following this section, in the part of conclusion and directions for
future research, the study will provide information on possible future trends in the field.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Entrepreneurship

2.1.1. Historical roots of entrepreneurship and certain definitions by the

pioneers

According to certain scholars (e.g. Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), the concept of entrepreneurship was
coined by Richard Cantillon (1680-1734), an Irish-French economist. He derived the concept of
“entrepreneur” from the French word “entreprendre” that means “to undertake” (Matlay, 2005).
Furthermore, Cantillon identified the origin of three main intellectual traditions (e.g. Austrian,
Chicago and German) in the field of entrepreneurship (Hebert & Link, 1989) and named by Jevon as
“the cradle of political economy” (Hayek, 2005). He also emphasized that entrepreneurial activity
included buying at a certain price and taking the risk of selling for an uncertain price. For example,
when an entrepreneur leases a farm from a landlord, money paid to landlord is definite. However, the
price of products that would be harvested on that land cannot be known. The notion of uncertainty
made him to identify even robbers and beggars as special types of entrepreneur. Finally, according to
Cantillon, there are three classes of economic actors; the landlords, entrepreneurs and hirelings, and
the entrepreneurs play the most central role among these classes in the economy (Hebert & Link,
1989).

A French economist, Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) improved the definition of entrepreneurship by
Cantillon, adding a new element of “combining the factors of production” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).
In addition to these two pioneers, English political economist and philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873) professed that the main element that distinguishes an entrepreneur from a manager is risk taking
(Carland et al., 1984). Similarly, Gartner (1989: 62) defined entrepreneurship as “the creation of new
organizations”. Furthermore, Francis Amasa Walker (1840-1897), an American economist and
educator, was another pioneer in the field. According to him, an entrepreneur was a person who was
born with above average talent in the organization and coordination of factors of production. Walker
considered that there was a difference between the investor who supplies the required funds for an
investment and receives a certain amount of interest against these funds and the entrepreneur who
profits from his/her managerial capabilities (Balachandran & Sakthivelan, 2013).

An Austrian-born American economist, Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950) also brought a breath of
fresh air into the field. Schumpeter, who was inspired by certain intellectuals such as Böhm-Bawerk,
Marx, Menger, Walras, Weber and Wieser (Hebert & Link, 1989), defined entrepreneurs as agents of
change in an economy (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006) and considered the agents as a vehicle that
improves the economy as a whole. According to Schumpeter, innovation is at the center of
entrepreneurship. In parallel, Schumpeter defined “enterprise” as forming new combinations.
Entrepreneur is the individual who invents these new combinations. At this point, Schumpeter seemed
to feel that it was necessary to clarify the term “new combination”. According to Schumpeter, there
may be several types of new combinations such as 1) introducing a new commodity or service to the
market, 2) utilizing a new production method, 3) entering into a new market that does not have
information on the present commodity, 4) discovering a new input source (e.g., raw material / half
manufactured goods) and finally, 5) changing the structure of market by creating or breaking a
monopoly in the market (or industrial reorganization). For example, three years ago, a Japanese
company announced that it will start to generate electricity using bamboo (Milliyet, 2015). This may
be regarded as an example of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. He also distinguished the entrepreneur
and the businessman (Carland et al., 1984; Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990).

Another important contributor to field of entrepreneurship is Israel Meir Kirzner (1930 - ), who is a
British-born American economist inspired by Austrian school of economics. According to Kirzner, the
fundamental characteristic of an entrepreneur is alertness. He underlines the importance of quality of
perception, in other words, recognition of profit opportunities by the entrepreneurs. Furthermore,
according to him, the entrepreneur is the individual who does not possess capital (Hebert & Link,
1989). Entrepreneur is a pure decider without possession of capital (Cadar & Badulescu, 2015). This
view by Kirzner is often criticized by certain scholars. According to the critics, if an individual does
not own capital, it cannot be proposed that the same individual takes a risk (Hebert & Link, 1989).

In 1985, an American entrepreneur, Gifford Pinchot III (1942 - ) coined the concept of
“intrapreneurship”. “Intrapreneurship can be defined as the development, within a large corporation,
of internal markets and relatively small autonomous or semiautonomous business units that produce
products, services, or technologies by employing the firm’s resources in a unique way” (Dollinger,
2008: 384, cited by Hisrich et al., 1985). Intrapreneurs are different from entrepreneurs since they use
organizational resources and their main obstacle is the organizational culture (Cadar & Badulescu,
2015). The best condition for intrapreneurship have always been a topic of discussion. For example,
certain scholars claimed that large scale organizations and dynamic environments were the most fertile
conditions for intrapreneurship (Cadar & Badulescu, 2015).

As seen above, there were two main traditions that conceptualized the entrepreneur and
entrepreneurship. The first one associates entrepreneurship with the risk-taking behavior . On the other
hand, the second tradition that Schumpeter principally argued mainly emphasized the innovative
behavior of entrepreneurs. Some eclectic approaches in the literature also attempted to combine these
two approaches. For example, Johnson (2001: 137) defined the entrepreneur as “an individual who
takes agency and initiative; who assumes responsibility and ownership for making things happen; is
both open to and able to create novelty; who manages the risks attached to the process; and who has
the persistence to see things through to some identified end-point, even when faced with obstacles and
difficulties”. Consistent with this, according to Shane and Venkataraman (2000), entrepreneurship
may be associated with both new and extant organizations. According to the author of the present
study, since behaviors of risk taking and innovation are interrelated and complimentary, it could be
more adequate to conceptualize entrepreneurship with a combination of these two approaches. Almost
every innovation bears a certain amount of risk. For example, the Siemens pen phone seemed to attract
less attention than expected.
2.1.2. Antecedents and consequences of entrepreneurial behavior

There may be several triggers of entrepreneurial intentions, behavior and causes of entrepreneurial
successes and failures at macro, meso and micro levels. Even though it was often objected by certain
scholars, certain macro variables such as national culture, educational system, financial system, legal
institutions, political institutions and religion may have certain effects on the entrepreneurship process
(Jones & Wadhwani, 2006; Gohman, 2012; De Clercq et al., 2013; Valdez & Richardson, 2013). For
instance, De Clercq et al. (2013) hypothesized that the relationship between individual resources (e.g.,
human, social and financial capital) and new business activity was moderated by formal institutions
(educational and financial systems) and informal institutions (culture and trust). The study revealed
partial support for the hypotheses. In a similar vein, Hefner claimed that overseas success of Chinese
businesses may be explained by traditionally strong ties among the members of Chinese families and
the requirement for success in a minority group. Similarly, Walker demonstrated that how slavery and
institutionalized racism in the US before the civil war limited entrepreneurial opportunities of African
American entrepreneurs. The same study also indicated that African Americans conducted certain
entrepreneurial activities to delegitimize these institutions (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006, cited by Walker,
1986 and Hefner, 1998). In a similar vein, Turkey is 53 rd and 66th in the “2017-2018 Global
Competitiveness Index” and “innovation and sophistication factors” subbranch of the same index,
respectively (Schwab & Sala-i Martin, 2017). According to the author of the present study, this
relative failure of Turkey in innovation and entrepreneurship stemmed particularly from certain
problems in the higher education system of the country.

On the other hand, another approach, primarily supported by the field of psychology, investigated
correlations between micro factors such as personality traits 2, gender, etc. and entrepreneurial
intentions, behavior and success/failure (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). For instance, Rauch and Frese
(2007) found a positive and significant correlation between entrepreneurial behavior and certain
personality traits such as generalized self-efficacy, innovativeness, need for achievement, need for
autonomy, proactive personality and stress tolerance. Similarly, Engelen et al. (2015) examined the
correlation between overconfidence of CEOs and orientation for entrepreneurship. They found a
positive correlation moderated by the dynamism of the market. Certain studies criticized the
personality traits approach to entrepreneurship. According to Gartner (1989), there were no significant
differences between the personalities of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Therefore, the adequate
question is not “who the entrepreneur is”. Instead, the behavioral approach to entrepreneurship
recommends that the question that should be asked is “what does an entrepreneur do?” and
entrepreneurship skills should be improved with education and training. On the other hand, a meta-
analytic research on the correlations between personality traits and entrepreneurial behavior
demonstrated that personality of entrepreneurs was significant. Previous studies could not determine a
direct correlation between personality traits and entrepreneurial intent, behavior or success/failure,
since some of the scrutinized variables mediated the correlation (Rauch & Frese, 2006). Finally,
family environment and parenting style (even toys that are provided for a child) may affect future
success of a child in entrepreneurial career. For example, majority of parents in certain countries
exhibit an interventionist style in their interactions with their children. This style may adversely affect
the decision making skills and future entrepreneurial capacity of children.

On the other hand, emphasizing one group of factors without considering the other could be
inadequate. For example, if only macro factors were sufficient to understand entrepreneurship, how
could we explain the differences in the success levels individuals who experienced similar conditions
in the process of entrepreneurship? However, entrepreneurial behavior in certain countries, where it is

2
This stream seems to attribute a positive meaning to personality to a large extent. However, there are some
studies (e.g. Klotz & Neubaum, 2016) that attract our attention to the darker side of personality (such as
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, narcissism etc.) and their relationship with entrepreneurial consequences. In
addition, some scholars (e.g. Miller, 2015) discussed that certain personality traits (such as being energetic and
having a high self-confidence) that seems to be positive for entrepreneurship may be transformed into negative
ones (such as aggressiveness and narcissism) later.
supported by certain macro level factors, is stronger. Therefore, a combined set of factors (at macro,
meso and micro levels) may be the best alternative to examine and explain entrepreneurial intent and
behavior (Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006).

Furthermore, entrepreneurial intentions and behavior may have consequences at macro, meso and
micro levels as well. For example, Schumpeter claimed the essence of entrepreneurial activities in the
economic development of a country (Carland et al., 1984; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Similarly,
certain scholars discussed or empirically supported the impact of entrepreneurial activities on
competitive advantage of a nation (Matlay, 2005). In addition, it may be expected that entrepreneurs
may stimulate productivity at a national level by advancing the competition (van Stel et al., 2005).
Finally, various studies assumed and empirically supported that entrepreneurial activities were
associated with regional and local economic development as well (e.g., Malecki, 1993; Baptista et al.,
2005; Rasmussen & Sorheim, 2006). At a micro level, one of the possible consequences of a
successful entrepreneurial activity is personal accumulation of wealth. 3 Indeed, wealth accumulation is
used in academic research as an indicator of entrepreneurial success (Jones & Wadhwani, 2006).
Naturally, entrepreneurial behavior may generate a good or bad personal reputation for the
entrepreneurs.

2.2. Information and Communication Technologies

“Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)” can be defined as ‘electronic means of

capturing, processing, storing, and communicating information” (Heeks, 1999: 3). It is possible to
categorize ICTs in three main categories; “information technologies” (e.g., computers),
“telecommunication technologies” (e.g., facsimile machine, mobile phone, videoconference and
teleconference facilities) “network technologies” (e.g., Internet, intranet, extranet (Mirrezaei et al.,
2013; Okurumeh, 2016).

ICT became an indispensable part of the contemporary world. As a natural result of this development,
ICT transforms political, social, legal and other elements in a society. For instance, Yusuf (2005)
mentioned the impact of ICT on teaching and learning in conventional and distance education
institutions and emphasized the need for a national level educational policy on ICT. It is also certain
that countries have different levels in ICT. For example, television and telephone services are still
considered as luxury items in Cameroon. Similarly, Internet penetration rate in Cameroon was about
4% in 2009 (Linden, 2011).

There is no doubt that ICT would affect and be affected by the developments in economies and
entrepreneurship. For example, previous studies suggested that ICT enables economic development by
increasing the speed of information diffusion and introducing new practices in workplaces (Lee & Lio,
2017), developing the business environment and enhancing competitiveness and productivity
(Martinez & Nguyen, 2014), and creating new job opportunities (Mirrezaei et al., 2013) such as
computer programmers, cyber cafe assistants, data communication analysts, network and system
security specialists (Okon & Nyoku, 2016), and thus, augmenting employment rates, etc. However, the
focus of the present study is limited by the interaction between ICT and entrepreneurship.

3. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGIES

3
In effect, there also seems to be a reverse correlation between these variables. For instance, Kerr and Nanda
(2011) discussed that a desire for personal wealth may trigger the choice of being an entrepreneur.
ICT might be an input, an output or a part of the entrepreneurial process. As an input, ICT may be
used to improve the knowledge and skills of entrepreneurs. For example, Sinkovics et al. (2004)
claimed that entrepreneur candidates require three competencies such as intrapersonal, interpersonal
and organizational competencies to be successful. Certain ICT tools such as mobile phones, internet
discussion groups, video conferencing and computer simulations can enable the achievement of
certain interpersonal competencies by students. According to Sinkovics et al. (2004), uses of ICT tools
in international entrepreneurship education provide certain benefits such as familiarity with the values
of their counterparts in other countries and being acquainted with new ICTs for the students.
Furthermore, ICTs can create new areas of business for entrepreneurs. These new business fields add
new types of entrepreneurship such as “infopreneurship” (Khosrowjerdi, 2914), “netpreneurship (or
“ontrepreneurship” or “e-entrepreneurship”)” (Reddy & Singh, 2014). Infopreneurship is a type of
entrepreneurship that is mostly based on services such as information brokering and consulting (Du
Toit, 2000). Basically, the concept of infopreneur refers to in individual whose primary business is
collecting and selling information (El-Kalash et al., 2016). On the other hand, as can be seen above,
some alternative concepts were recommended for the concept of infopreneurs. For example, Guthrie
(2014) preferred using the concept of “digital entrepreneurship” for infopreneurship. According to
him, the former captures better the product and the processes related to the product such as production,
marketing and distribution. However, since the use of “infopreneur” is more common in the literature,
it was also preferred in the present study. Finally, due to the increasing significance of information
among the factors of production, future of infopreneurs is considered to be prosperous. In addition to
infopreneurs, netpreneur, which is as another type of entrepreneurship related to ICT, is a special type
of entrepreneur wieth the ability to run a business extensively on the Internet (Balachandran &
Sakthivelan, 2013). Furthermore, several studies emphasized the significance of social capital for
entrepreneurial success. Huo (2013) discussed the role of ICT in building social capital by female
entrepreneurs.

ICTs may be a part of the entrepreneurial process (or production technology) as well. Extant
entrepreneurs can access data and information via ICT to increase their performances. For example, a
foreign entrepreneur, who aims to enter to the Turkish market, can collect data and information about
the Turkish market and on the consumer behavior using the Internet. Consistent with this example,
literature review demonstrated that Ongori and Migiro (2010) asserted that small and medium sized
organizations utilize ICTs to easily penetrate international markets . Similarly, Pelse and Zeverte-
Rivza (2015) found that Latvian entrepreneurs limitedly utilized the ICTs and recommended the use of
ICT at higher levels to increase the effectiveness of entrepreneurial activities. ICT is not only common
among business organizations, but also among social organizations. For example, several aid
organizations in Africa benefited from ICTs in their operations (Molony, 2007). Therefore, ICT may
be a beneficial tool for social entrepreneurship as well. Finally, majority of the above-mentioned
studies often reported the positive effects of ICT on the entrepreneurial process. However, certain
studies also discussed adverse effects of ICT as an input on entrepreneurship. For example, Lee and
Lio (2017) claimed that use of ICT by extant firms discouraged new entrepreneurs to enter the market
and it could create a barrier of entry.

Finally, ICT may be the output of an entrepreneurial process as well. Certain organizations may
choose to produce either tangible or intangible (e.g., hardware, software, web sites) ICTs as an output
(Heeks, 1999). WhatsApp, which was bought by Facebook in 2014, is a good example of ICT as an
output of the entrepreneurial process. Similarly, robotic autonomous cameras developed by IBM will
collect data about water quality in lakes and oceans. It is anticipated that these tools would help solve
water shortage problems (Marr, 2018).

4. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In the present study, the relationships between two popular concepts, “entrepreneurship” and
“information and communication technologies”, were discussed. According to the study findings, ICT
can be an input, an output or a part of the entrepreneurial process. On the other hand, the present study
was mainly based on a positive interaction between entrepreneurship and ICT. However, this
interaction may have some negative aspects. For example, when an ICT is used in an adverse way, it
can be harmful for entrepreneurial success. Therefore, adequate ICT use should be assured.

This relationship relationship seems creating a fertile ground for future studies. For example, several
studies investigated the correlations between entrepreneurship and personality traits. Future studies
could be conducted to determine whether infopreneur and netpreneur candidates require different
psychological traits and educational backgrounds when compared to traditional entrepreneur
candidates. Furthermore, it was observed that the time period that the individuals were born was
another significant factor that might determine infopreneurship and netpreneurship tendencies in
individuals. Thus, further studies could investigate whether there were significant differences between
members of generation X and Y based on infopreneurship and netpreneurship tendencies.

Furthermore, forgetting is considered a disease in organizations. Therefore, some authors

recommended several tactics to remove forgetting in organizations. However, recent studies indicated
that forgetting may be useful in certain cases. On the other hand, when it is used in an adequate
manner, ICT appears to be an instrument that supports organizational memory. Thus, future studies
could focus on organizational behavior solving this problem of balance.

Finally, one of the popular approaches in entrepreneurship studies focused on the relationship between
entrepreneurship and economic development. On the other hand, as far as it is known, there are a
limited number of empirical studies conducted with large datasets that integrated infopreneurship (or
netpreneurship) and economic development.

REFERENCES

Balachandran, V. & Sakthivelan, M.S. (2013). Impact of information technology on entrepreneurship

(e-entrepreneurship). Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(2), 51-56.
Baptista, R., Escaria, V. & Madruga, P. (2005). Entrepreneurship, regional development and job
creation: the case of Portugal. Max Planck Institute Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship,
Growth and Public Policy. Retrieved 28 March, 2016 from https://papers.econ.mpg.de/egp/
discussionpapers/2005-06.pdf.
Barney, J. (2002). Strategic management: from informed conversation to academic discipline. The
Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 53-57.
Booth, C. (1998). The problems and possibilities of reflexivity in strategy. Electronic Journal of
Radical Organisation Theory, 4(1), Retrieved January 7, 2009 from
http://merlin.mgnt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol4_1 /booth.pdf.
Cadar, O. & Badulescu, D. (2015). Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: a literature
review. MPRA Paper, No 82793. Retrieved 16 May, 2018 from https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/82793/1/MPRA_paper_78871.pdf.
Cardon, M.S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D. & Wiklund, J. (2012). Exploring the hearth: entrepreneurial
emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, 1-10.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from
small business owners: a conceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-
359.
Davis, G.F. & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century:
institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332-343.
De Clercq, D., Lim, D.S.K. & Oh, C.H. (2013). Individual-level resources and new business activity:
the contingent role of institutional context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March, 303-
330.
Dollinger, M.J. (2008). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. Fourth Edition. USA, Illinois:
Marsh Publications.
Du Toit, A. (2000). Teaching infopreneurship students’perspectives. Aslib Proceedings, 52(2), 83-90.
El-Kalash, K.I., Mohammed, S.B. & Aniki, M.Y. (2016). Exploring infopreneurship for economic
growth and sustainability in a developing economy: the Nigeria perspective. Journal of
Educational Policy, 3(7), 240-249.
Engelen, A., Neumann, C. & Schwens, C. (2015). “Of course I can: the effect of ceo overconfidence
on entrepreneurially oriented firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September, 1137-
1160.
Eryılmaz, M.E. (2016). Bir araştırmacının naçizane gözlemleri: ilgili dergilerin editör ve hakemleri
stratejik yönetim alanı yazarlarından ne beklerler? [Humble reflections of a researcher: what do
editors and reviewers of relevant journals expect from authors of strategic management field?].
Turkish Journal of Management, 1(1), 9-22.
Filion, L.J. (1998). From entrepreneurship to entreprenology: the emergence of a new discipline.
Journal of Enteprising Culture, 6(1), 1-23.
Gartner, W.B. (1989). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Summer, 47-67.
Gohman, S.F. (2012). Institutions, latent entrepreneurship, and self-employment: an international
comparison. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March, 295-321.
Guthrie, C. (2014).The digital factory: a hands-on learning project in digital entrepreneurship. Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(1), 115-134.
Hayek, F.A. (2005). The Trend of Economic Thinking: The Essays of Political Economists and
Economic History. Routledge.
Hebert, R.F. & Link, A.N. (1989). In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 1(1), 39-49.
Heeks, R. (1999). Information and communication technologies, poverty and development. Institute
for Development Policy and Management. Working Paper Series, Paper No. 5. Retrieved 11
June, 2016 from, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPA
N015539.pdf.
Huo, H. (2013). The role of ICT in social capital construction of rural female entrepreneurship.
International Conference on Education Technology and Information Systems, (ICETIS 2013),
956-959.
Johnson, D. (2001). What is innovation and entrepreneurship? Lessons for larger organisations.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(4), 135-140.
Jones, G. & Wadhwani, R.D. (2006). Entrepreneurship and business history: renewing the research
agenda. Harvard Business School Working Papers, 07-007. Retrieved 26 March, 2016 from
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-007.pdf.
Kerr, W.R. & Nanda, R. (2011). Financing constraints and entrepreneurship. In Audretsch, D.B.,
Falck, O., Heblich, S. and Lederer, A. (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Innovation and
Entrepreneurship (pp. 88-103). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Klein, P.G., Mahoney, J.T., McGahan, A.M. & Pitelis, C.N. (2013). Capabilities and strategic
entrepreneurship in public organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 70-91.
Klotz, A.C. & Neubaum, D.O. (2016). Research on the dark side of personality traits in
entrepreneurship: observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, January, 7-17.
Kurt, M. (2016). Bir disiplin olarak işletmecilik tarihi: doğuşu, gelişimi, Türkiye’de potansiyeli ve
zorlukları üzerine [Business history as a discipline: on its origins, progress, prospects and
challenges in Turkey]. Turkish Journal of Management, 1(1), 41-57.
Lee, M. & Lio, M. (2017). Can information and communication technology promote venture creation?
A cross-country study using an instrument variable approach. Information Development, 1-13.
Linden, M. (2011). The role of institutions and ICT entrepreneurship in developing countries: the case
of Cameroon. Master of Science Thesis. Sweden, Stockholm: KTH Industrial Engineering and
Management.
Malecki, E.J. (1993). Entrepreneurship in regional and local development. International Regional
Science Review, 16(1/2), 119-153.
Marr, B. (2018). 5 big technology innovations of 2018: IBM reveals amazing developments that will
impact all of us. Forbes, March 19, Retrieved 18 may from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/03/19/5-big-technology-innovations-of-2018-
ibm-reveals-amazing-developments-that-will-impact-all-of-us/#68b6682596c6
Martinez, I. & Nguyen, T. (2014). Using information and communication technology to support
women’s entrepreneurship in central and west Asia. ADB Briefs, No 23.
Matlay, H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and
does it matter?. Education + Training, 47(8/9), 665-677.
Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality?. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, January, 1-8.
Milliyet, (2015). Japonlar Bambu Ağacından Elektrik Üretecek. Retrieved 5 August, 2015 from
http://www.milliyet.com.tr
/japonlar-bambu-agacindan-elektrik/ekonomi/detay/2092132/default.htm.
Mirrezaei, F., Mirrezaei, M. & Pourkaeid, K.G. (2013). Information and communication technology
and entrepreneurship development. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,
2(3), 2271-2277.
Molony, T. (2007). ‘I don’t trust the phone; it always lies’: trust and information and communication
technologies in Tanzanian micro-and small enterprises. Informational Technologies and
International Development, 3(4), 67-83.
Okon, F.I. & Nyoku, C. I. (2016). Information and communication technology (ICT) and
entrepreneurship skills acquisition among vocational education students for the establishment of
small scale business in south eastern states of Nigeria. International Journal of Educational
Benchmark, 3(1), 101-116.
Okurumeh, E.A. (2016). Development of entrepreneurial skills through vocational education and
information and communication technology (I.C.T.) in Nigeria. International Journal of Science
and Research, 5(3), 1745-1748.
Ongori, H. & Migiro, S.O. (2010). Information and communication technologies adoption in SMEs:
literature review. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 93-104.
Pelse, M. & Zeverte-Rivza, Z. (2015). Innovations and use of information and communication
technologies in entrepreneurship in Latvia. Retrieved 18 May 2018 from
http://www.tf.llu.lv/conference/proceedings2015/Papers/110_Pelse.pdf,
Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2006). Meta-analysis as a tool for developing entrepreneurship research and
theory. Entrepreneurship: Frameworks and Empirical Investigations from Forthcoming Leaders
of European Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 9,
29-51.
Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-
analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and
success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
Rasmussen, E.A. & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26,
185-194.
Reddy, R.R. & Singh, T.K. (2014). Impact of information technology on entrepreneurship (e-
entrepreneurship). International Journal of Innovative Technology & Adaptive Management
(IJITAM), 1(5), 46-51.
Schwab, K. & Sala-i Martin, X. (Ed.) The Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018. Retrieved 16
May, 2018 from
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessRepor
t2017%E2%80%932018.pdf
Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Sinkovics, R.R., Bell, J. & Deans, K.R. (2004). Using information communication technology to
develop international entrepreneurship competencies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,
2, 125-137.
Stevenson, H.H. & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management.
Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.
Urban, B. (2010). Entrepreneurship as a discipline and field of study. In Urban, B. (Ed.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship (pp.33-62). Springer.
Valdez, M.E. & Richardson, J. (2013). Institutional determinants of macro-level entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, September, 1149-1175.
van Stel, A., Carree, M. & Thurik, R. (2005). The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national
economic growth. Max Planck Institute Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and
Public Policy. Retrieved 28 March, 2016 from
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/19995 /1/2005-04.pdf.
Vesper, K.H. (1988). Entrepreneurial academics-how can we tell when the field is getting
somewhere?. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 1-10.
Wright, P.M. & McMahan, G.C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource
management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.
Yusuf, M.O. (2005). Information and communication technology and education: analysing the
Nigerian national policy for information technology. International Education Journal, 6(3),
316-321.