Journal of Economy, Culture and Society

SUBMITINFORMATION
EnglishTürkçe

Research Article


DOI :10.18368/iusoskon.328527   IUP :10.18368/iusoskon.328527    Full Text (PDF)

THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE

Mehmet Cansız, Meliha Demet Ulusoy

With the transformation to the information society, technology-based entrepreneurship, which is a source of innovation, exports, and employment, is becoming increasingly important. Thus, entrepreneurship has become one of the most important policy subjects that countries focus on in their approaches to competition and development. As such, various studies on innovative entrepreneurship have been conducted both in the public and academic domains. In this context, the main focus of this study is the types of capital that influence the success of entrepreneurs. This study examined the influence of economic, social, cultural, and human capital conceptualized as “entrepreneur capital”. This was executed in conjunction with exploring the influence of structural capital covering the characteristics of the ecosystem in which entrepreneurs situate and operate. Data were collected via a questionnaire, modeled by probit regression, and evaluated by margin analysis. Results suggest that having a working mother, successful entrepreneurs in the family, work experience, an effective work environment, and a business partner all have a positive effect on the success of the entrepreneur. On the other hand, pre-school education, financial support of family, an effective political environment, and trust in other entrepreneurs all have a negative effect on the success of entrepreneurs. Lastly, it is seen that innovative entrepreneurship has been differentiated from industrial entrepreneurship. In this vein, policies designed to support entrepreneurship need to take social and cultural parameters into account as well as economic parameters. 

Keywords: Entrepreneurship, information Society, technology, types of capital
DOI :10.18368/iusoskon.328527   IUP :10.18368/iusoskon.328527    Full Text (PDF)

TEKNOLOJİ TABANLI GİRİŞİMCİLERİN BAŞARISINDA YAPISAL, EKONOMİK, SOSYAL, KÜLTÜREL VE BEŞERİ SERMAYENİN ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Mehmet Cansız, Meliha Demet Ulusoy

Bilgi toplumuna dönüşüm ile birlikte yenilik, ihracat ve istihdam kaynağı olan teknoloji tabanlı girişimciliğin önemi giderek artmıştır. Böylelikle girişimcilik ülkelerin rekabet ve kalkınma yaklaşımlarında kullandıkları en önemli politika nesnelerinden birisi haline gelmiştir. Bu yüzden yenilikçi girişimciliğin başarısı için gerek kamu gerekse akademik alanda çeşitli çalışmalar yapılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın temel sorunsalını girişimcilerin başarılarında etkili olan sermaye türleri oluşturmaktadır. Bu çerçevede çalışmada girişimcinin sermayesi olarak kavramsallaştırılan ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve beşeri sermaye ile girişimcilerin faaliyet gösterdikleri ekosistemin özelliklerini içeren yapısal sermayenin etkisi incelenmiştir. Anket ile toplanan veriler probit regresyon ile modellenmiş ve marjin analiz ile değerlendirişmiştir. Yapılan analizlerde girişimcilerin annelerinin çalışmasının, ailede başarılı girişimcilerin, çalışma tecrübesinin, işleri kolaylaştıran bir iş çevresinin ve ortağının olmasının girişimci başarısını pozitif yönde etkilediği; diğer taraftan okul öncesi eğitimin, ailenin girişimcilik sürecinde maddi desteğinin, işleri kolaylaştıran siyasi çevre ve diğer girişimcilere güvenin girişimciliği negatif yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Sonuçta yenilikçi girişimciliğin sanayi tipi girişimcilikten farklılaştığı ve bu bağlamda girşimciliği desteklemeye yönelik politikaların ekonomik parametreler kadar sosyal ve kültürel parametreleri de dikkate alması gerekliliği görülmüştür. 

Keywords: Girişimcilik, yapısal, ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve beşeri sermaye

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


With the transformation to the information society, technology-based entrepreneurship, which is the source of innovation, exports, and employment, has become increasingly important. Thus, entrepreneurship has turned out to be one of the most important policy subjects that countries focus on in their approaches to competition and development. As such, various studies on innovative entrepreneurship have been conducted both in the public and academic domains. While some of these studies focus on personality traits from a psychological point of view (Baron & Markman, 2003; Hansemark, 2003; Hisrich, Langan-Fox & Grant, 2007; Koh, 1995; Laguna, 2013; Rahim, 1996; Rodriguez, 2003; Schiller & Crewson, 1997), others, have analyzed the effects of social, economic, cultural, and human capital by approaching from a sociological perspective. Some studies focus specifically on cultural capital (Duchesneau & Gartner, 1988; Hisrich & Peters 2001; Hofstede, 1980; Morrison, 2000), others on human capital (Brush & Hisrich, 1991; Evans & Leighton, 1989; Honig, 1996, 1998; Orser, Hogarth-Scott & Wright, 1998; Reynolds, 1997), or social capital (Birley, 1985; Burt, 1992; DiMaggio, 1992; Greene & Brown, 1997; Larson, 1992; Nohria, 1992; Uzzi, 1999) and economic capital (Cansız 2014, 2016; Helmann & Puri, 2002; OECD, 2011, 2015). 

Innovative entrepreneurship took root in Turkey during the 1980s, developed further in the 1990s with the advent of internet technologies, and has started to converge toward developed countries’ experiences since 2002 (Cansız, 2014, p. VIII). In recent years, various studies on innovative entrepreneurship in Turkey have focused on techno-parks. In this context, the following themes have been investigated: The effects of techno-parks on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Kara, 2004), the managerial problems of firms (Eroğlu, 2002; Polat, 2007), techno-park models (Babacan, 1994; Kağızman, 2008; Yazıcıoğlu, 1996), research and development collaborations (Reyhanoğlu, 2006), factors affecting innovation (Ar, 2009), and risk capital (Aydemir, 2005). However, the number of studies investigating the characteristics of entrepreneurs, the capital they possess, and their effects on firm success have remained quite limited.

In this context, the main research question of this study is related to the types of capital that influence the success of entrepreneurs. This study examined the influence of economic, social, cultural, and human capital, which are together conceptualized as ‘entrepreneur capital’. This was executed in conjunction with exploring the influence of structural capital covering the characteristics of the ecosystem in which entrepreneurs situate and operate. Data were collected via a survey questionnaire, modeled by probit regression, and then evaluated by margin analysis. 

There was no statistically significant relationship between firm success and either the sector, the techno-park, or the city where the company operates; these are considered as the three structural capital elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

In terms of cultural capital, mothers’ employment status is influential in determining the success of entrepreneurs. Mothers’ employment status could have influenced success because it directly affects families’ economic and social capital capacity. In addition, successful entrepreneurship in the family is found to be a determinant of the success of entrepreneurs; this could be because of passive observation of parents’ entrepreneurial activities during childhood or more active participation in activities thereof.

From the perspective of human capital, pre-school education negatively influences the success of the entrepreneur. On average the sampled entrepreneurs are 30 years old, thus pre-school education occurred 25 years ago at which time the paradigm of such education was not pursuing constant transformation and innovation; this could explain the non-existence of a positive contribution to entrepreneurial success. Work experience, which is another component of human capital, has been found to positively affect entrepreneurial success in accordance with similar findings in the extant literature. Finally, entrepreneurial experience, which is highly emphasized in the literature, does not seem to be a determinant of success. This could be explained in terms of a disjoint between entrepreneurialism on the one hand and the realities of entrepreneurial techno-civil servants which operate in the context of ineffective, sub-optimal project-based work from government organizations (Cansız, 2016). More specifically, the lack of provision in terms of commercialization requirements and insufficient monitoring and evaluation of support policies and practices could be regarded as the main culprits.

Another interesting finding is that greater power in terms of economic capital, one of the most important elements of entrepreneurship, is not found to be effective in terms of the success of technology-based entrepreneurs. This suggests that economic capital is not sufficient for success in technologybased entrepreneurship; mental transformation, knowledge, and a broad vision are the important factors. Similarly, another interesting finding is that support for entrepreneurship from the family has a negative effect on successful entrepreneurial undertakings. The existence of certain deprivation and a lack of alternative options, however, appear to increase the likelihood of success. Thus, economic support from the family might have served to decrease entepreneurs’ willingness and motivation to succeed. 

In terms of social capital, having an effective business environment that facilitates entrepreneurs’ business pursuits has a positive impact on their success. Further, the political power of such environments negatively affects success, contrary to expectations. An effective political environment can offer certain advantages such as enabling entrepreneurs to access knowledge and support from others. But in this long, costly (economic, social and cultural) and highly competitive process that extends from R&D to commercialization, the influence of political circles can turn negative and serve to impede entrepreneurs’ success. There is also a negative relationship between entrepreneurs’ trust and the success of other entrepreneurs. Likely cause of this is the one-sided formation of trust structure present in Turkey. Trust shall be the result of mutual cooperation in order that it leads to fruitful outcomes; however one-sidedness of trust structure in Turkey might have caused substantial misappropriation between the parties.



PDF View

References

  • Aldrich, H., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987). The impact of social capital networks on business foundings and profit. In N. Churchill, J. Hornaday, O. J. Krasner, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 154-168). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. google scholar
  • Anderson A. R., & Miller, C. J. (2003). Class matters: Human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 17-36. google scholar
  • Baker, W. (1990). Market networks and corporate behaviour. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 589-625. google scholar
  • Baron R. A., & Markman G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-60. google scholar
  • Bates, T. (1995). Self employment entry across industry groups. Journal Business Venturing, 10, 143-156. google scholar
  • Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. google scholar
  • Belfield, C. R., Nores, M., Barnett, S., & Schweinhart, L. (2006). The high/scope Perry preschool program: Cost-benefit analysis using date from the age-40 follow up. The Journal of Human Resources, 41, 162-190. google scholar
  • Bellu, R., Davidsson, P., & Goldfarb, C. (1990). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial behavior: Empirical evidence from Israel, Italy, and Sweden. Entrepreneurship Regional Development, 2(2), 195-209. google scholar
  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press. google scholar
  • Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage. google scholar
  • Bourdieu, P. (2013). Seçilmiş metinler (L. Ünsaldı, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayınları. google scholar
  • Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2015). Yeniden üretim-eğitim sistemine ilişkin bir teorinin ilkeleri (A. Sümer, L. Ünsaldı, Ö. Akkaya, Çev.) Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Borooah, V. K. (2002). Logit and probit: Ordered and multinomial models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. google scholar
  • Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator—leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265-290. google scholar
  • Brüderl J., & Preisendorfer P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Business Economics, 10, 213-225. google scholar
  • BSTB, (2016). http://btgm.sanayi.gov.tr/sayfa.html?sayfaId=312fb1e1-4886-4088-9ed8-7fe6e190b6fd adresinden edinilmiştir. google scholar
  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-352. google scholar
  • Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal Business Venturing, 1, 107-117. google scholar
  • Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R. D. (1991). Antecedent influences on woman-owned business. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6, 9-16. google scholar
  • Cansız, M. (2016). Türkiye’de akademik girişimcilik. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı Yayınları. google scholar
  • Cansız, M. (2014). Innovative entrepreneurship of Turkey (The case of turkish technoparks). Ankara: Ministry of Development. google scholar
  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Cohen, S., & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 41(2), 108-130. google scholar
  • Collins C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of need for achievement to entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95-117. google scholar
  • Cooper, A.C., & Dunkleburg, W.C., (1987). Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new answers, and methodological issues. American Journal of Small Business, 11(3), 11-23. google scholar
  • Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organisations: Dialogue and directions. Journal of Management, 25, 317-353. google scholar
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(2), 170-183. google scholar
  • Das T., & Teng B. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academic Management, 23, 491-512. google scholar
  • Davidson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper presented at the meeting of Rent IX Conference, Piacenza, Italy. google scholar
  • Delmar, F., & Gunnarsson, J. (2000). How do self-employed parents of nascent entrepreneurs contribute? Paper presented at the meeting of Babson Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA. google scholar
  • Diaz, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2003). Locus of control nach and values of community entrepreneurs. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(8), 739-748. google scholar
  • DiMaggio, P. (1992). Nadel’s paradox revisited: Relational and cultural aspects of organizational structure. In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 118-142). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. google scholar
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160. google scholar
  • Doyle, O., Harmon, C. P., Heckman, J. J., & Tremblay, R. E. (2009). Investing in early human development timing and economic efficiency. Economics and Human Biology, 7, 1-6. google scholar
  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301- 331. google scholar
  • Drucker, F. P. (1991). The new productivity challenge. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 69-90. google scholar
  • Drucker F. P. (1994). Yeni gerçekler, (B. Karanakçı, Çev.) Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. google scholar
  • Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1988). A profile of new venture success and failure in an emerging industry. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 372-386). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. google scholar
  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academic Management, 23, 660-79. google scholar
  • Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984). The effects of communication on-technological innovation. Management Science, 30(5), 572-585. google scholar
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110. google scholar
  • Esmer, Y. (2012). Türkiye değerler atlası. google scholar
  • http://content.bahcesehir.edu.tr/public/files/files/ATLAS%20SUNUM%202_10_2012%20(2).pdf adresinden edinilmiştir. google scholar
  • Evans, D., & Leighton, L. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. Empirical Economics, 79, 519-535. google scholar
  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books. google scholar
  • Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge. google scholar
  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. google scholar
  • Bosma, N., Wennekers, S., & Amorós, J. E. (2011). Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees across the globe. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). http://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/GEM%202011%20Extended%20Report%20VF%20rev.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir. google scholar
  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Empirical Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. google scholar
  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510. google scholar
  • Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology, In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. google scholar
  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1993). Social network analysis: Concepts, methodology, and directions for the 1990’s. Sociological Methods Resource, 22, 3-22. google scholar
  • Greene, P., & Brown, T. (1997). Resource needs and the dynamic capitalism typology. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 161-173. google scholar
  • Gattiker, U. E., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2001). Entrepreneurial phenomena in a cross-national context. In R. T. Golembievski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker. google scholar
  • Hansen, E. L., & Allen, K. R. (1992). The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information processing ability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 57-65. google scholar
  • Hansemark, O. (2003). Need for achievement locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: A longitudinal study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(3), 301-319. google scholar
  • Helmann T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169-197. google scholar
  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15, 63-84. google scholar
  • Hisrich R., Langan-Fox J., & Grant S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 575-589. google scholar
  • Honig, B. (1996). Education and self employment in Jamaica. Computer Education, 40 (6-2),(2), 177-193. google scholar
  • Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital of jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371-394. google scholar
  • Holt, D. (1998). Does cultural capital structure american consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 25-79. google scholar
  • Johanson, J., & Mattson, L. G. (1987). Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A network approach compared with the transaction-cost approach. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17(2), 34-48. google scholar
  • Kalkınma Bakanlığı, (2011). İllerin ve bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik gelişmişlik sıralaması araştırması (SEGE 2011). http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Yaynlar/Attachments/548/SEGE-2011.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir. google scholar
  • Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspiration among norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 209-222. google scholar
  • Koh, H. C. (1995). Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: An empirical study of business undergraduates in Hong Kong. Journal of Small Business Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 29-41. google scholar
  • Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76-104. google scholar
  • Laguna, M. (2013). Self-efficacy self-esteem and entrepreneurship among the unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 253-262. google scholar
  • Leana, C. C., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-554. google scholar
  • Liao, J., & Welsch H. (2003). Social capital and entrepreneurial growth aspiration: Comparison of technology and non-technology based nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 149-170. google scholar
  • Morrison, A., Rimmington, M., & Williams, C. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the hospitality, tourism and leisure industries. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. google scholar
  • Nohria, N. (1992). Information search in the creation of new business ventures: The case of 128 venture group. In N. Nohria, R. G. Eccles, (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 240-261). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. google scholar
  • Marsden, P. V., & Hulbert, J. S. (1988). Social resources and mobility outcomes: A replication and extension. Social Forces, 67, 1038-1059. google scholar
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academic Management, 20, 709-734. google scholar
  • Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
  • McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviat, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 469-487. google scholar
  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academic. Management, 23(2), 242-266. google scholar
  • OECD (2011). Financing high growth firms: The role of angel investors. Paris: OECD. google scholar
  • OECD, (2012). Entrepreneurship at a glance. Paris: OECD. google scholar
  • OECD, (2015). New approaches to SME and entrepreneurship financing: Broadening the range of instruments. Paris: OECD. google scholar
  • Orser, B. J., Hogarth-Scott, S., & Wright, P. (1998). On the growth of small enterprises: The role of intentions, gender and experience. In P. Reynolds, W. Bygrave, N. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. Gartner, C. Mason, & P. McDougall (Eds.), Frontier Of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 366-380). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. google scholar
  • Parsons, T. (1991). The social system. London: Routledge. google scholar
  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan. google scholar
  • Putman, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42. google scholar
  • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 88-127. google scholar
  • Reynolds, P. (1997). Who starts firms? Preliminary explorations of firms in gestation. Small Business Economics, 9, 449-462. google scholar
  • Rahim, A. (1996). Stress strain and their moderators: An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 46-58. google scholar
  • Robinson, P., & Sexton, E. (1994). The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 141-156. google scholar
  • Robinson, K. (2009). The element, how finding your passion changes everything. London: Penguin Publishing. google scholar
  • Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone. google scholar
  • Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., White, B. A. B., Ou, S. R., & Robertson, D. L. (2011). Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program. Child Development, 82, 379-404. google scholar
  • Smith, D. A., & Lohrke F. T. (2008). Entrepreneurial network development: Trusting in the process. Journal of Business Research, 61, 315-322. google scholar
  • Stinchcombe A. (1965). Social structures of organizations. In March J,. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, (pp. 153-93). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. google scholar
  • Schiller, B. R., & Crewson P. E. (1997). Entrepreneurial origins: A longitudinal inquiry. Economic Inquiry, 35, 523-531. google scholar
  • Scherer, R., F., Brodzinski, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career performance. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(2), 195-206. google scholar
  • Schultz, T. (1959). Investment in man: An economist’s view, The Social Service Review, 33(2), 69-75. google scholar
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academic Management, 25(1), 217-226. google scholar
  • Stuart, T., & Abetti, P., (1990). Impact of entrepreneurial and managerial experience on early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 151-162. google scholar
  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. google scholar
  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embededness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-68. google scholar
  • Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64(4), 481-505. google scholar
  • Weick, K. (1996). Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 301-314. google scholar
  • Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8, 109-125. google scholar
  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  • Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. In J. Katz, R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, 3, (pp. 119-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Cansız, M., & Ulusoy, M. (2017). THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(56), 117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


AMA

Cansız M, Ulusoy M. THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society. 2017;0(56):117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


ABNT

Cansız, M.; Ulusoy, M. THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 56, p. 117-153, 2017.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Cansız, Mehmet, and Meliha Demet Ulusoy. 2017. “THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 56: 117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


Chicago: Humanities Style

Cansız, Mehmet, and Meliha Demet Ulusoy. “THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0, no. 56 (Jun. 2025): 117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


Harvard: Australian Style

Cansız, M & Ulusoy, M 2017, 'THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE', Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 56, pp. 117-153, viewed 7 Jun. 2025, https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Cansız, M. and Ulusoy, M. (2017) ‘THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE’, Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, 0(56), pp. 117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527 (7 Jun. 2025).


MLA

Cansız, Mehmet, and Meliha Demet Ulusoy. “THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE.” Journal of Economy, Culture and Society, vol. 0, no. 56, 2017, pp. 117-153. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527


Vancouver

Cansız M, Ulusoy M. THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society [Internet]. 7 Jun. 2025 [cited 7 Jun. 2025];0(56):117-153. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527 doi: 10.18368/iusoskon.328527


ISNAD

Cansız, Mehmet - Ulusoy, Meliha Demet. “THE EFFECTS OF STRUCTURAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL CAPITALS AND HUMAN CAPITAL ON THE SUCCESS OF TECHNOLOGYBASED ENTERPRENEURS: THE TURKISH CASE”. Journal of Economy, Culture and Society 0/56 (Jun. 2025): 117-153. https://doi.org/10.18368/iusoskon.328527



TIMELINE


Submitted10.05.2017
Accepted13.06.2017

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE



Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.