The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

[Link]/[Link]

JIC
17,4
The impact of intellectual capital
on start-up expectations
Diego Matricano
654 Department of Management, Second University of Naples, Capua, Italy

Abstract
Purpose – According to an emerging research trend, which seeks to apply the concept of intellectual
capital (IC) to the field of entrepreneurship, the purpose of this paper is to test whether IC can affect the
start-up expectations of aspiring entrepreneurs.
Design/methodology/approach – Binary logistic regression models, based on empirical
data derived from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor website and referring to Italy over the
years 2005-2010, are used to test the influence of IC (comprising human, structural and relational
capital) on start-up expectations.
Findings – Binary logistic regression models reveal robust results. Human, structural and relational
capitals affect start-up expectations in Italy. Only in 2010 did structural capital fail to do so.
Research limitations/implications – This study has three main limitations. The first concerns the
need for further research to confirm the influence of IC on start-up expectations. The second concerns
in-depth, more exhaustive analyses that cannot be carried out due to the use of second- hand data.
The third deals with the reference only to Italy, over a limited time-span (2005-2010).
Originality/value – To the best knowledge of the author, this is one of the first empirical studies that
investigate whether IC can affect start-up expectations. Results revealed by the regression models
might steer other scholars’ interest toward this research path (linking IC and entrepreneurship) that
has not yet been properly considered.
Keywords Structural capital, Intellectual capital, Human capital, Relational capital,
Binary logistic model, Start-up expectations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Intellectual capital (IC), defined as the set of intangible assets from which ventures can
derive their competitive advantage, enhance profit and create value, continues to
attract widespread attention (Bontis, 1996, 1998, 2001; Sveiby, 1997; Petty and Guthrie,
2000; Hormiga et al., 2011). Most scholars investigate IC from a managerial perspective,
i.e. in reference to established ventures that, by definition, compete in the markets in
order to grow and develop.
The growing interest that policy makers are showing toward start-ups, which are
expected to underpin social and economic development (Audretsch, 2004), is leading
some scholars to apply the concept of IC to entrepreneurial studies as well. Attention
has partly focussed on the role of IC in reference to science parks (Schiavone et al., 2014)
and business incubators (Calza et al., 2014). Other scholars have investigated IC with
reference to start-up success (Peña, 2002; Hayton, 2005; Hormiga et al., 2011; Link and
Ruhm, 2011; Musteen and Ahsan, 2013). From the above, it clearly emerges that a new
field of research, linking IC to entrepreneurship, is slowly unfolding.
Against this background, this paper seeks to broaden and enrich the analysis of the
effect that IC can have on entrepreneurship. In particular, the research question posed
Journal of Intellectual Capital here sets out to investigate the extent to which IC is relevant for aspiring entrepreneurs,
Vol. 17 No. 4, 2016
pp. 654-674
i.e. individuals who aim to launch a new venture but have not yet created it. In the
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1469-1930
author’s opinion, if IC is relevant for established companies and for start-ups, as shown
DOI 10.1108/JIC-04-2016-0040 by the contributions cited above, then IC might also be important for aspiring
entrepreneurs. Indeed, even before new ventures are created, aspiring entrepreneurs Intellectual
might need to leverage on their intangible assets, which are embodied in IC, in order to capital on
launch new start-ups.
With a view to testing whether IC might affect start-up expectations, the paper is
start-up
structured as follows. In Section 2, the specialist literature is reviewed in order to define the expectations
concept of IC. After defining the dependent variable of the theoretical model (start-up
expectations), IC is applied to entrepreneurial studies. The reference is not risk-free since 655
managerial concepts need to be turned into entrepreneurial ones. At the end of this section,
three research propositions (related to human, structural and relational capital, the three
main components of IC) are proposed and then tested. In Section 3, the research
methodology (binary logistic regression model) and the research design are defined.
In order to carry out the empirical part, use was made of second-hand data obtained from
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) website for Italy over the years 2005-2010.
In Section 4, the findings are presented and discussed. Finally, in Section 5, conclusions are
drawn by presenting the managerial implications related to the study, underlining its
limitations and suggesting some highlights for future research.

2. Literature review and research hypotheses

Since 1969, when Galbraith introduced the concept of IC by assuming that it stood for an
intellectual contribution offered by individuals in order to ensure the success of knowledge-
intensive ventures (Khalique et al., 2015), management scholars have always
been interested in it. Even if the concept of IC can be applied to several disciplines, from
corporate strategies to the production of measurement tools (Petty and Guthrie, 2000), there
is general agreement on the fact that IC is instrumental in the creation of value by
knowledge-intensive ventures. Khalique et al. (2015) clearly express this by assuming that
IC is made up of intangible resources. These resources need to be combined and effectively
managed in order to create value and attain a sustainable competitive advantage.
In order to test whether and to what extent IC can contribute to the above aims,
managerial scholars have proposed different models for measurement purposes.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999) considers only
structural and human capital. Structural capital refers to software systems used in
knowledge-intensive ventures and networks developed around them. Human capital,
instead, concerns resources both within ventures (generally meaning all the staff) and
outside them (such as customers and suppliers). Despite the importance of the OECD,
another classification is more widely agreed upon, according to which it is appropriate
to consider external (customer-related), internal (structural) and human capital (Sveiby,
1997; Roos et al., 1997; Stewart, 1997; Bontis et al., 2000). In subsequent proposals, some
managerial scholars (McElroy, 2002) replaced customer capital with social capital.
As time passes, others propose different new classifications. According to Brooking
(1996), IC comprises market, human, intellectual and infrastructural capital. Finally,
Khalique et al. (2011, 2015) propose a model incorporating six components of IC: human,
customer, structural, social, technological and spiritual capital.
Of course, it is a tall order to state which of the above classifications is right or
wrong. For this reason, in the present paper, the most commonly used classification of
IC, according to which it is appropriate to investigate three sub-components of IC
(human, structural and relational capital), is shared and embraced (Sullivan, 1999;
Brennan and Connell, 2000; Petty and Guthrie, 2000; Sanchez et al., 2000; Roos et al.,
2001; Peña, 2002; Kaufmann and Schneider, 2004; Boedker et al., 2005; Hormiga et al.,
2011; Musteen and Ahsan, 2013).
JIC 2.1 Start-up expectations
17,4 As stated above, the research question posed here aims to investigate the extent to
which IC is relevant to aspiring entrepreneurs. For this reason, it is of primary
importance to define the dependent variable included in the theoretical model, namely,
the expectation to start up, i.e. the propensity that aspiring entrepreneurs show toward
launching new ventures.
656 Over the years, entrepreneurship scholars have become increasingly interested in
inclination or propensity toward entrepreneurship (Bird, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Shaver and
Scott, 1991; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger et al., 2000; Baron, 2004; Lee and Wong, 2004). From
the above contributions, it clearly emerges that entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs
mainly differ in reference to their propensity toward entrepreneurship. Of course,
entrepreneurs show a stronger inclination while non-entrepreneurs display a weaker
inclination or even none at all. Start-up expectations can be assumed as a proxy of
inclination toward entrepreneurship. Accordingly, start-up expectations are assumed as
the dependent variable of the theoretical model.

2.2 Human capital

According to several scholars, human capital lies at the heart of IC (Bontis, 1998; Bontis
et al., 1999, 2000; Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005; Montequin et al., 2006; Tovstiga and
Tulugurova, 2007; Wu et al., 2008; Hsu and Fang, 2009). By definition, human capital
entails competences (knowledge and personal capabilities), attitudes (motivation and
leadership) and intellectual agility (originality or flexibility) of all the staff employed in
knowledge-intensive ventures (Khalique et al., 2015). In the current economic context,
where intangible assets are more important than tangibles – like capital and labor
(Penrose, 1955; Solow, 1956) – it is easy to perceive the importance of human capital for
management scholars.
At the same time, several entrepreneurship scholars have unconsciously sought to
underline the relevance of human capital to entrepreneurship as well (Vesper, 1990;
Stuart and Abetti, 1990; Gaglio, 1997). It is argued by the above scholars that knowledge
and personal capabilities, i.e. human capital, can differentiate entrepreneurs from
non-entrepreneurs. Individuals who can leverage on previously developed knowledge
and on personal capabilities seem to be more inclined toward entrepreneurship
(MacMillan, 1986; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Birley and Westhead, 1993; McGrath and
MacMillan, 2000; Ucbasaran et al., 2003, 2006; Westhead et al., 2005). In particular,
as argued by MacMillan (1986) in his seminal work, through experience individuals
can apprehend the “technology of entrepreneurship.” In other words, previous
experiences and mistakes are useful to entrepreneurs who can develop a better, in-depth
knowledge of entrepreneurial matters and improve their capabilities (Ripsas, 1998;
Shepherd et al., 2000). According to the above analysis, human capital might affect
start-up expectations.

2.3 Structural capital

Structural capital refers to the knowledge that ventures possess in their own right and
that does not depend on each employee (Sveiby, 1997; Bontis et al., 2000; Subramaniam
and Youndt, 2005; Cabrita and Bontis, 2008; Wu et al., 2008; Hsu and Fang, 2009;
Hormiga et al., 2011). In other words, by structural capital scholars mean the internal
components of ventures, such as patents, functioning, organization and shared culture.
As argued by Hormiga et al. (2011), this kind of capital is the most complex to evaluate
since it emerges when ventures transform human and relational capital into new Intellectual
knowledge, after creating a climate in which knowledge can be exchanged and capital on
enriched, for example, through routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) or by improving the
internal dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997). Internal staff does not possess this
start-up
new knowledge; only the venture as a whole holds it. In order to clarify the concept of expectations
structural capital, it is appropriate to think of the shared culture within ventures (which
favors knowledge exchange and enrichment) and the introduction of new products or 657
processes (which derives from sharing the same culture).
If structural capital is difficult to evaluate in reference to management studies,
because it stands for new knowledge that ventures create and that cannot be departed
from them, it is even more difficult in reference to entrepreneurship studies. Exchange
and enrichment of knowledge, which does not take place through routines or dynamic
capabilities since these are not yet set up in start-ups, can lead to the creation of new
knowledge in the form of new entrepreneurial opportunities. This happens through
acts of recognition, discovery or creation (Sarasvathy et al., 2005; Alvarez and Barney,
2008). Each act depends on a different relationship between aspiring entrepreneurs
(to be precise, their knowledge and capabilities) and the external (economic, social or
technological) context as shown in Table I.
In Table I there is a case in which new entrepreneurial opportunities are not
identified. This happens when aspiring entrepreneurs do not have specific capabilities
and they are not connected to the external context where new entrepreneurial
opportunities could lie. Since this case is not relevant to entrepreneurship studies,
attention is going to be focussed on the three remaining cases.
The act of recognition is rooted in the neoclassical view of entrepreneurship
(Schumpeter, 1911). Aspiring entrepreneurs, who are not supposed to have specific
capabilities, can look for new entrepreneurial opportunities in external contexts –
mainly technological and social contexts – where profound changes always take place.
Aspiring entrepreneurs aim to pool resources in order to recognize entrepreneurial
opportunities from the environment. This means that entrepreneurs and opportunities
are linked by a dualistic relationship. Opportunities exist by themselves and prevail
over entrepreneurs who just have to recognize them through systematic research.
The act of discovery, instead, is rooted in the Austrian view of entrepreneurship
(Kirzner, 1973). In line with the neoclassical view, entrepreneurial opportunities already
exist in the economic context – temporary gaps occurring in the market – but now
entrepreneurs need to have specific capabilities to discover them, an example is
Kirznerian alertness (Kirzner, 1973). Again, the relationship between entrepreneurs and
opportunities is dualistic but now entrepreneurs play a more important role since they
are required to have some capabilities to discover new entrepreneurial opportunities.
The act of creation, then, is the most recent one and is rooted in the structuration
view (Sarasvathy et al., 2005; Sarason et al., 2006). In this case, since the external

Possible connection to external No connection to external

context context Table I.
A classification of
Relevance of individual capabilities Discovery Creation the ways in which
No specific individual capability Recognition No entrepreneurial entrepreneurial
opportunities opportunities can
Source: Adaptation by Matricano (2015) be identified
JIC context changes quickly and unexpectedly, entrepreneurs create entrepreneurial
17,4 opportunities that otherwise would not even exist. The relationship between
entrepreneurs and opportunities is no longer dualistic but it is now based on
dependency since entrepreneurs create opportunities.
According to the above analysis, aspiring entrepreneurs try to fit their knowledge with
the external context (in this case attention must be paid over the acts of recognition or
658 discovery) or they try to predict the external context (in this case attention must be paid to
the act of creation) in order to generate new knowledge that proves to constitute
entrepreneurial opportunities. The traditional view of entrepreneurial opportunities
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) and the individual-opportunity nexus (Shane, 2003) have
been recently criticized and a new proposal has been advanced, distinguishing between
external enablers, or aggregate-level circumstances, new venture ideas, which represent
imagined future ventures, and opportunity confidences, or subjective evaluation
of stimuli, and assuming that opportunity confidence refers to individuals’ evaluation of
external enablers and new venture ideas (Davidsson, 2015). That said, wholesale adoption
of this new proposal on the part of the research community is not expected to take place
in the short run. The scholar behind this new theory – in fact – hopes that his proposal can
create a new avenue for entrepreneurial research once it is shared and embraced by
researchers, reviewers, editors and practitioners (Davidsson, 2015, pp. 689-690). In the
meantime, the traditional view of entrepreneurial opportunities and the individual-
opportunity nexus are still of central importance in entrepreneurial studies (McMullen and
Shepherd, 2006; Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Casson and Wadeson, 2007; Plummer et al.,
2007; Short et al., 2010; Dimov, 2011; Wiklund et al., 2011; Shane, 2012; Alvarez et al., 2013;
Eckhardt and Shane, 2013; McMullen and Dimov, 2013). Thus it is assumed here that
when new entrepreneurial opportunities are identified, they depend neither on the aspiring
entrepreneur nor on the context: they are a third-person opportunity (McMullen and
Shepherd, 2006), i.e. a possible opportunity for someone (registered patents represent a
clear example). This means that they represent the structural capital of aspiring
entrepreneurs and, as such, they might affect start-up expectations.

2.4 Relational capital

Relational capital represents the value of all the relationship established with stakeholders
(Bontis, 2001; Montequin et al., 2006; Cabrita and Bontis, 2008; Wu et al., 2008; Hsu and
Fang, 2009). In the field of managerial studies, the idea that ventures are social entities that
necessarily interact with other subjects is widely shared (Granovetter, 1985). Interactions
are important because through them ventures can obtain missing resources (in the
knowledge economy much attention is paid to the possibility to absorb missing or new
knowledge) able to attain and sustain competitive advantage positions. This research
topic has been extensively investigated by the network theory in respect of established
firms (Powell, 1990; Burt, 1992; Uzzi, 1997; Matricano, 2011).
Of course, not only established ventures but also entrepreneurs create valuable
relationships, for example, through the creation of entrepreneurial networks (Birley,
1985; Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Johannisson, 1986, 1988; Starr and MacMillan, 1990;
Matricano, 2015). These networks represent a set of relationships implemented and
managed by entrepreneurs who, by definition, assume the central position (Greve, 1995;
Johannisson, 1998). The reason why entrepreneurs create their own networks is to
acquire the necessary resources at different stages. Through their networks,
entrepreneurs can obtain specific resources in the short term by implementing a
planned or intended strategy, or they can build relationships through which they can
obtain additional (and as yet unknown) resources in the long term by implementing an Intellectual
unintended strategy (Galkina, 2013). In order to achieve both intended and unintended capital on
strategies, entrepreneurs act as architects, lead operators and caretakers (Snow et al.,
1992) within their networks. As architects, they try to design their networks in order to
start-up
satisfy their needs and then they select eligible partners. As lead operators, they try to expectations
facilitate co-operation among selected partners. As caretakers, they check whether
selected partners cooperate and thus whether the established network works as 659
expected. If this should not happen, entrepreneurs start again acting like architects,
lead operators and caretakers. Of course, in order to make the network work as
expected, much time may be required. For this reason, entrepreneurs very often try to
involve in their network a relative, a friend or a previous employer (Greve, 1995; Greve
and Salaff, 2003) because of the trust-based relationship existing between them
( Johannisson, 1988; Larson and Starr, 1993; Greve, 1995; Smith and Lohrke, 2008).
These actors share their experience in the entrepreneurial field and steer the new
entrepreneurial activity toward easier, more feasible choices.
According to the above analysis, the concept of relational capital, referring to the
creation of an entrepreneurial network able to support entrepreneurs, might affect the
start-up expectations of aspiring entrepreneurs.

2.5 Research hypotheses

As already stated, the aim of this paper is to test the influence that IC might have on
start-up expectations. According to the above analysis, three research hypotheses
linking human, structural and relational capital to start-up expectations are proposed.
In order to test the relevance of human capital to start-up expectations, the amount
of knowledge, skills and expertise held by aspiring entrepreneurs can be considered as
a proxy of human capital, and thus it seems possible to hypothesize that:
H1. The more aspiring entrepreneurs can leverage on their human capital (i.e. the
amount of knowledge, skills and expertise they hold), the higher their start-up
expectations are.
In order to test the relevance of structural capital to start-up expectations, identification
of new entrepreneurial opportunities can be considered as a proxy of structural capital
and therefore it seems possible to hypothesize that:
H2. The more aspiring entrepreneurs can leverage on their structural capital (i.e.
new entrepreneurial opportunities that are identified), the higher their start-up
expectations are.
Finally, in order to test the relevance of relational capital to start-up expectations, the
chance to know someone who has already launched and managed a venture can be
considered as a proxy of relational capital. Thus it seems possible to hypothesize that:
H3. The more aspiring entrepreneurs can leverage on their relational capital (by
knowing other people who have a previous entrepreneurial experience), the
higher their start-up expectations are.

3. Research methodology and design

This study is based on a longitudinal survey design (from 2005 to 2010) and refers to
Italy. The last data available on the GEM website in 2015 refer to the year 2011, but
Italy is not included in this last survey.
JIC The decision to focus only on Italy is due to some recent data, published in February
17,4 by UnionCamere (2016) (the official network of the Italian Chambers of Commerce),
which show that the total number of firms operative in Italy in 2015 is 6,057,000 (45,181
new firms). According to data published by UnionCamere, the growth rate of new
ventures in Italy is similar to that registered in 2007, before the worldwide economic
crisis. Thus in Italy entrepreneurs appear not to have been discouraged and
660 entrepreneurial culture seems well rooted and widespread. Starting from this, it seems
appropriate to test whether and to what extent IC influences start-up expectations of
aspiring entrepreneurs.
As for the methodology, a binomial logistic regression model is estimated for each
year. The choice of a binomial logistic regression model is not arbitrary but due to the
fact that start-up expectations is a binary dependent variable. Thus, it is sought to
estimate the probability of this event taking place.
According to the research design above, all the variables included in the framework
are measured as binary variables. The dependent variable, namely, start-up
expectations, is measured as a binary variable coded 0 if individuals do not have
this expectation at the time of the survey and coded 1 if they do. The same imputation
process is used in reference to the independent variables. Human, structural and
relational capital are measured as binary variables coded 0 if individuals do not
leverage on this kind of capital and coded 1 if they do. More specifically, respondents
are asked whether they leverage on their human capital, i.e. knowledge, skills and
experience (NO ¼ 0; YES ¼ 1); whether they leverage on their structural capital by
identifying new entrepreneurial opportunities (NO ¼ 0; YES ¼ 1) and whether they
leverage on relational capital by knowing someone personally who has previous
entrepreneurial experience (NO ¼ 0; YES ¼ 1) in order to start a new firm.
As already stated, the present paper relies on second-hand data obtained from the
GEM website. The decision to use these data entails both advantages and drawbacks.
In terms of advantages, it is appropriate to underline the composition and size of the
sample. As for composition, the respondents to the GEM survey are both male and
female, aged between 18 and 64. All of them are linked, more or less directly, to
entrepreneurial processes. Indeed, they are nascent entrepreneurs, owner-managers of
new or established firms. The size of the sample interviewed in Italy for each year
(as shown in Table II) represents the second advantage of using GEM data. This large
sample allows statistically robust results to be achieved.
As stated above, the decision to use GEM data also results in drawbacks. The first and
foremost weakness concerns missing data, especially item non-response (i.e. when
interviewees do not provide specific responses). According to Kalton and Kasprzyk (1982),
this problem can be solved by an imputation procedure: estimated values, if properly

Year Sample size

2005 2.001
2006 1.999
Table II. 2007 2.000
Samples of 2008 3.000
respondents to 2009 3.000
the GEM survey 2010 3.000
in Italy per year Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2015)
inferred from the original database, can replace missing responses. Starting from the Intellectual
criterion that individuals who do not leverage on IC answer NO ¼ 0, otherwise they capital on
answer YES ¼ 1, it is possible to deduce that missing responses are closer to the answer
NO since they reveal a scant interest in responding to the question. In line with this, each
start-up
item non-response is replaced with NO ¼ 0. The second weakness concerns adaptation of expectations
the data. Since data were obtained from the GEM website, they are far-reaching and
complete. However, they cannot be used to carry out additional investigations and thus 661
further reflections or conjectures cannot be easily derived.
After obtaining all the necessary data and before proceeding with estimations of
binary logistic regression models, it is necessary to test whether there is collinearity
among independent variables, i.e. predictors. In order to do this, the collinearity
diagnostics are considered and, in particular, attention is focussed on the variance
inflation factor (VIF). The mean VIF are shown at the bottom of each regression model.
As a rule, values associated to VIF should be o 2. All the tests show values below this
limit. This means that there is no collinearity among diagnostics and hence it is
possible to proceed with logistic regression.
The basic model (Model 1) used to estimate the binomial logistic regression models is:


log P i =1P i ¼ bþ b1 HC þ b2 SC þ b3 RC
where βi (i ¼ 0, …, 3) are the coefficients and the independent variable is log (Pi/1−Pi),
i.e. the logarithm of the ratio between the probability that aspiring entrepreneurs are going
to start up in the next three years and the probability of not starting up over the same time
period. In order to show robustness of achieved results, other five models are used. In these
models descriptive and control variables are added and, at the same time, endogeneity is
avoided. In the second regression model, the descriptive variable “gender” is added while,
in the third, the variable “gender” and two control variables, “market competition” and
“newness of product,” are included. As is well known, control variables are related to the
dependent variable but from a different perspective (in this case the competition in the
market and the newness of the products which undoubtedly affect the start-up
expectations of aspiring entrepreneurs are considered), which helps to test robustness of
results. In the fourth model the descriptive variable “age” is considered while, in the fifth,
“age” and both the control variables, “market competition” and “newness of product,” are
included. In the last model, the sixth, human, structural and relational capital plus “gender,”
“age,” “market competition” and “newness of product” are included. It is thus possible to
verify if there are substantial differences among the several models.
For statistical calculations a forward Wald approach is used (Tables III-VIII).
Statistically significant results are written in italics.

4. Results and discussion

The results of regression models for each year show that IC does indeed affect the start-up
expectations of aspiring entrepreneurs in Italy. However, in order to present the findings
more clearly it is appropriate to proceed by considering each of the six models.
In Model 1, only independent variables standing for human, structural and
relational capital are entered. Over the years 2005-2009 they always affect start-up
expectations. However, this result does not hold for 2010, for which structural capital is
not statistically significant. Before commenting on this result, it is appropriate to test
whether or not it is verified by the following specifications of the model.
In Model 2, the “gender” variable (0 ¼ female and 1 ¼ male) is added and very
interesting results emerge. Human, structural and relational capital are still significant
JIC Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
17,4
Intellectual capital
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 3,238 3,238 2,592 3,575 2,813 2,813
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Structural capital – SC: identification of 2,223 2,223 1,950 2,203 2,014 2,014
opportunities 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003
662 Relational capital – RC: know someone 4,776 4,776 5,144 3,900 4,235 4,253
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demographic characteristics
Gender 0.252 0.501 0.394
0.616 0.479 0.000
Age 0.948 0.951 0.951
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 3,699 4,030 4,030
0.000 0.000 0.000
Offering a new product to customers 5,223 3,109 3,109
0.000 0.033 0.033
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.024 0.024 0.022 0.209 0.180 0.180
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 2.001 2.001 2.001 2.001 2.001 2.001
Table III. Percentage of correct predictions 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4
Estimated Logit χ2of Omnibus test 218,022 218,022 250,176 274,517 300,488 300,488
models of intellectual 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
capital affecting Omnibus test – degree of freedom 3 3 5 4 6 6
start up expectations Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.248 0.248 0.283 0.308 0.335 0.335
in Italy in 2005 Mean VIF 1,284 1,229 1,207 1,232 1,207 1,190

(again structural capital is not significant in 2010) while the significance of the variable
“gender” varies over the years. From 2005 to 2007, gender is not significant.
By contrast, from 2008 to 2010 it is. In particular, the 2008-2010 coefficients reveal that
males are almost 1.4/1.5 times more likely to start up than females.
Model 3, in which the variable “gender” and two control variables are considered,
namely, “market competition” and “newness of product” (respectively coded 0 if there is
no market competition and 1 if there is, and coded 0 if the product is not new and 1
otherwise), confirms the results of Model 2. Only for 2009 do regression models show
that by entering “market competition” and “newness of product” gender is no longer
statistically significant.
In Model 4 the “age” variable is added to human, structural and relational capital.
The variable was transformed from continuous to binomial according to its median
value (lower values are coded as 0, while higher values are coded as 1). Statistical
elaborations show that young individuals are more likely to start up than their elders
(the coefficient is less than 1).
Model 5, in which “age” and both the control variables are considered, namely,
“market competition” and “newness of product,” confirms the results of Model 4. This
means that start-up expectations increase when young aspiring entrepreneurs leverage
on human, structural and relational capital.
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Intellectual
capital on
Intellectual capital start-up
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 3,284 3,284 2,721 3,732 3,108 3,108
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 expectations
Structural capital – SC: identification of 1,917 1,917 1,800 2,314 2,180 2,180
opportunities 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.001
Relational capital – RC: know someone 4,408 4,408 4,431 3,473 3,584 3,584 663
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demographic characteristics
Gender 0.011 0.039 0.009
0.917 0.843 0.925
Age 0.940 0.943 0.943
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 6,999 7,261 7,261
0.000 0.001 0.001
Offering a new product to customers 5,662 4,201 4,201
0.001 0.008 0.008
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.312 0.259 0.259
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999 1.999
Percentage of correct predictions 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4 92.4 Table IV.
χ2 of Omnibus test 193,747 193,747 246,383 263,147 303,776 303,776 Estimated Logit
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 models of intellectual
Omnibus test – degree of freedom 3 3 5 4 6 6 capital affecting start
Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.222 0.222 0.279 0.305 0.349 0.349 up expectations
Mean VIF 1,189 1,150 1,278 1,155 1,286 1,250 in Italy in 2006

Finally, Model 6 (in which human, structural and relational capital plus “gender,” “age,”
“market competition” and “newness of product” are included) confirms the above
results. Human, structural and relational capital (except in 2010 when structural capital
is not statistically significant) and age (young individuals are more prone to create
start-ups) affect start-up expectations. In particular, focussing attention on the
coefficients of Model 6, it results that aspiring entrepreneurs leveraging on human
capital are between 2.8 and 5.6 times more likely to launch a start-up than those who do
not. Aspiring entrepreneurs who leverage on structural capital are between 1.5 and 2.1
times more likely to launch a start-up than those who do not (again, it is appropriate to
underline that in 2010 structural capital does not affect start-up expectations). Finally,
aspiring entrepreneurs who leverage on relational capital are between 1.7 and 4.2 times
more likely to launch a start-up than those who do not.
Despite the differences among the above coefficients, statistical elaborations confirm
the relevance of IC to start-up expectations. At this juncture, in order to be as clear as
possible, it is appropriate to comment on each of the sub-categories in IC: human,
structural and relational capital.
Human capital is always relevant to entrepreneurship. Knowledge, skills,
competences and expertise positively affect the start-up expectations of aspiring
entrepreneurs. This result confirms the idea that by carrying out entrepreneurial
JIC Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
17,4
Intellectual capital
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 6,065 6,065 5,514 6,125 5,635 5,635
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Structural capital – SC: identification of 1,817 1,817 1,754 1,642 1,568 1,568
opportunities 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.007 0.018 0.018
664 Relational capital – RC: know someone 2,186 2,186 2,084 1,895 1,799 1,799
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002
Demographic characteristics
Gender 0.636 0.241 0.312
0.426 0.623 0.577
Age 0.951 0.952 0.952
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 0.107 0.363 0.363
0.743 0.547 0.547
Offering a new product to customers 18,526 16,407 16,407
0.000 0.000 0.000
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.198 0.178 0.178
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000
Table V. Percentage of correct predictions 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1 91.1
Estimated Logit χ2 of Omnibus test 204,769 204,769 263,925 254,640 307,533 307,533
models of intellectual 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
capital affecting start Omnibus test – degree of freedom 3 3 4 4 5 5
up expectations Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.216 0.216 0.274 0.265 0.316 0.316
in Italy in 2007 Mean VIF 1,172 1,152 1,164 1,144 1,160 1,150

processes individuals can learn the so-called “technology of entrepreneurship”

(MacMillan, 1986) and improve their skills and capabilities (Ripsas, 1998; Shepherd
et al., 2000). For this reason, in recent years, entrepreneurial scholars have underlined
that entrepreneurship is a process (McMullen and Dimov, 2013) that individuals need to
manage properly in order to achieve the expected results. Knowledge, skills and
capabilities, whether naturally possessed or nurtured, are a halfway result, ultimately
leading to the creation of new ventures.
Structural capital gives unexpected results. Over the years 2005-2009 it is
statistically significant and it positively affects start-up expectations. In 2010, instead,
according to all the logistic regression models (from 1 to 6), it never affects start-up
expectations. The contrasting result emerging for 2010 calls for a measured comment.
On the one hand, it could be due to several possible causes that cannot be hypothesized
since the results depend on second-hand data (this point will be considered later on in
Section 5 among the limitations). On the other, the finding could indicate a different
approach adopted by individuals toward entrepreneurship. The fact that opportunity
identification does not seem to affect start-up expectations recalls the structuration
view (Sarasvathy et al., 2005). Indeed, identification of entrepreneurial opportunities
may be irrelevant because opportunities can be created (see Table I). In knowledge-
intensive markets it is not possible to predict either the evolution of the market or the
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Intellectual
capital on
Intellectual capital start-up
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 4,871 4,728 4,522 5,714 5,410 5,410
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 expectations
Structural capital – SC: identification of 2,215 2,207 2,112 2,114 2,033 2,033
opportunities 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Relational capital – RC: know someone 4,056 3,998 3,743 3,260 3,046 3,046 665
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demographic characteristics
Gender 1,493 1,422 3,232
0.015 0.035 0.072
Age 0.933 0.933 0.933
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 0.978 0.524 0.524
0.323 0.469 0.469
Offering a new product to customers 3,669 3,557 3,557
0.000 0.000 0.000
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.230 0.234 0.234
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Percentage of correct predictions 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 Table VI.
χ2 of Omnibus test 296,579 302,608 317,226 396,928 409,398 409,398 Estimated Logit
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 models of intellectual
Omnibus test – degree of freedom 3 4 5 4 5 5 capital affecting start
Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.245 0.250 0.261 0.325 0.334 0.334 up expectations
Mean VIF 1,135 1,108 1,181 1,120 1,195 1,171 in Italy in 2008

emerging needs of customers. For this reason, entrepreneurial opportunities are created
ex nihilo. They depend on aspiring entrepreneurs who try to predict, according to their
knowledge, skills and capabilities, whether and how the market could evolve in the
future and anticipate possible emerging needs. Of course, the reference to the
structuration view is just a hypothesis that could explain the results achieved for
structural capital, and so further research is called for.
Lastly, relational capital confirms its importance. Start-up expectations increase if
aspiring entrepreneurs can leverage on a network (in the above case an informal network
formed by an individual with previous experience in entrepreneurship was tested). The
robustness of results, however, confirms that entrepreneurial networks matter and that
aspiring entrepreneurs leverage on them when they aim to launch new start-ups
( Johannisson, 1986, 1988; Starr and MacMillan, 1990). According to the above results,
aspiring entrepreneurs need to obtain resources they lack (knowledge and experience) in a
short space of time. For this reason, by establishing trust-based relationships
( Johannisson, 1988) they can implement the intended strategy (Galkina, 2013).

5. Conclusions
This paper presents one of the first attempts at achieving improved understanding of
the importance of IC in reference to start-up expectations. The results, obtained through
JIC Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
17,4
Intellectual capital
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 3,537 3,428 3,329 3,705 3,500 3,500
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Structural capital – SC: identification of 2,081 2,017 1,984 2,095 2,015 2,015
opportunities 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001
666 Relational capital – RC: know someone 3,952 3,904 3,889 3,491 3,399 3,399
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demographic characteristics
Gender 1,489 3,226 3,016
0.041 0.072 0.082
Age 0.939 0.939 0.939
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 1,420 0.568 0.568
0.233 0.451 0.451
Offering a new product to customers 3,027 2,921 2,921
0.006 0.010 0.010
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.014 0.011 0.014 0.168 0.171 0.171
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Table VII. Percentage of correct predictions 95.6 95.6 95.6 95.5 95.5 95.5
Estimated Logit χ2 of Omnibus test 172,190 176,445 178,916 230,708 236,765 236,765
models of intellectual 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
capital affecting Omnibus test – degree of freedom 3 4 4 4 5 5
start up expectations Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.184 0.189 0.191 0.246 0.253 0.253
in Italy in 2009 Mean VIF 1,148 1,116 1,116 1,118 1,117 1,105

the use of logistic regression models and referring to Italy over the years 2005-2010,
show that IC does affect the start-up expectations of aspiring entrepreneurs. In other
words, IC (comprising human, structural and relational capital) is relevant to the
creation of new ventures as well.
Since it is one of the first studies focussing on this topic, it is not possible to compare
achieved results with previous findings. However, the results might encourage other
scholars to investigate and test IC in reference to entrepreneurship in order to confirm
or reject them.

5.1 Limitations
Despite the results achieved, some limitations of the work need to be underlined. The
first concerns the fact that this study is an exploratory study about the relevance of IC
to entrepreneurship. Accordingly, carrying out further research linking IC and
entrepreneurship could develop this research field.
Another limitation concerns the use of second-hand data downloaded from the GEM
website. These data, despite their unquestionable relevance, do not allow a more
in-depth, exhaustive analysis to be carried out. Some insights, for example, in reference
to structural capital, necessarily remain unexplored.
A further limitation is linked to the fact that the empirical analysis refers only to
Italy and considers only the time-span 2005-2010. The decision to focus on only one
 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Intellectual
capital on
Intellectual capital start-up
Human capital – HC: knowledge, skills and 3,613 3,483 3,155 3,829 3,450 3,450
experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 expectations
Structural capital – SC: identification of 0.022 0.001 0.013 0.389 0.176 0.176
opportunities 0.882 0.980 0.910 0.533 0.675 0.675
Relational capital – RC: know someone 2,688 2,586 2,659 2,092 2,130 2,130
667
with entrepreneurial experience 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demographic characteristics
Gender 1,541 1,473 0.184
0.026 0.048 0.668
Age 0.941 0.939 0.939
0.000 0.000 0.000
Control variables
Market competition 4,740 4,750 4,750
0.000 0.000 0.000
Offering a new product to customers 3,201 4,366 4,366
0.023 0.004 0.004
Models diagnostics
Constant 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.151 0.156 0.156
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Number of cases 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
Percentage of correct predictions 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.7 95.7 95.7 Table VIII.
χ2 of Omnibus test 88,196 93,297 109,379 144,907 162,551 162,551 Estimated Logit
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 models of intellectual
Omnibus test – degree of freedom 2 3 5 3 5 5 capital affecting start
Nagelkerke R2 (pseudo R2) 0.098 0.104 0.121 0.160 0.179 0.179 up expectations
Mean VIF 1,073 1,067 1,054 1,074 1,058 1,078 in Italy in 2010

country made it easier to carry out the analysis: environmental differences (typical of
cross-national analyses) were not considered and hence achieved results did not depend
on the country effect. Furthermore, the decision to limit the study to a six-year period
was due to the availability of second-hand data. Despite the above limitations, the
choices about the country and the time-span to be considered seem appropriate for the
exploratory nature of this study.

5.2 Implications for aspiring entrepreneurs

Achieved results have major implications in terms of suggestions for forthcoming
aspiring entrepreneurs. Such aspiring entrepreneurs should be aware that IC is
relevant to the creation of new ventures. They should strive to develop entrepreneurial
knowledge, skills, competences and expertise. In order to do this, they might be
involved in entrepreneurial processes, acting and thinking entrepreneurially. Through
positive (successful cases) and negative experiences (mistakes or failures), they should
aim to develop their human capital. At the same time, forthcoming aspiring
entrepreneurs should try to identify new entrepreneurial opportunities that might be
pursued at a later stage through the creation of new ventures. Whatever the act of
identification (recognition, discovery or creation), they should always try to develop
JIC their structural capital. Finally, forthcoming aspiring entrepreneurs should leverage on
17,4 the competences of others. Since they might lack previous entrepreneurial experience in
creating new ventures, they should try to develop their relational capital.
In sum, forthcoming aspiring entrepreneurs should try to develop their IC by
leveraging on all its three components, namely, human, structural and relational
capital. Since they all are relevant to start-up expectations, none can be underestimated
668 or ignored.

5.3 Implications for policy makers

The results have major implications for policy makers as well. The latter should aim to
support aspiring entrepreneurs by helping them develop their human, structural and
relational capital. In other words, when policy makers define and implement tools and
actions able to foster entrepreneurial phenomena, they should focus on IC and they
should think about the way aspiring entrepreneurs could improve it. Thus, dedicated
tools and actions might improve aspiring entrepreneurs’ abilities to develop knowledge,
skills and competences (human capital), to identify new entrepreneurial opportunities
(structural capital) and to implement and manage their network (relational capital).
Policy makers should try to facilitate active involvement by aspiring entrepreneurs in
processes and actions through which they can develop entrepreneurial knowledge, skills,
competences and expertise (human capital). Entrepreneurial education and training
might then be useful levers through which aspiring entrepreneurs might develop
in-depth, more comprehensive knowledge about entrepreneurship (Matricano, 2014).
At the same time, policy makers should aim to create conditions and situations that
let aspiring entrepreneurs recognize, discover or create new entrepreneurial
opportunities to be pursued (structural capital). High schools, universities, private
and public incubators should offer dedicated courses on entrepreneurship, where
creativity can be nurtured, and specific courses through which entrepreneurial profiles
can be improved. Tools and actions like these might lead aspiring entrepreneurs closer
to identifying new entrepreneurial opportunities.
Finally, policy makers should support the creation of dedicated networks that might
help aspiring entrepreneurs to overcome difficulties related to the start-up phase by
providing both material and immaterial resources (relational capital). In particular, if
policy makers can foster co-operation with established ventures or collaboration with
experienced entrepreneurs, owners or managers of new and established firms, then
aspiring entrepreneurs might become part of a network in which suppliers and
customers and any other business partners might easily be identified.
Of course, this is just a short overview of the potential tools and actions that policy
makers might define and implement in order to develop IC of aspiring entrepreneurs in
Italy in order to increase their start-up expectations.

5.4 Implications for IC researchers

As in any other research endeavour, the present study would benefit from further
improvements. As already stated, it represents one of the first tests that exemplify the
effect that IC (comprising human, structural and relational capital) can have on start-up
expectations. Despite this, the results achieved might open up new research paths.
First, entrepreneurship researchers might extend the considered time-span or
they might refer to a larger sample of Italian aspiring entrepreneurs. New insights
might be revealed about the impact that IC can have on start-up expectations in Italy.
Second, entrepreneurial researchers might replicate the same research in different Intellectual
contexts. This could help to verify whether the environment, at national or regional level, capital on
can affect start-up expectations (in such cases, environmental differences typical
of cross-national analyses should be duly considered). In both the above cases,
start-up
researchers might offer new insights about the impact that IC can have on start-up expectations
expectations in Italy, albeit still constrained by the use of second-hand data.
Third, entrepreneurship scholars might start a national or cross-national survey to 669
collect specific new data about the same items considered herein (i.e. in reference to IC
comprising human, structural and relational capital). In this case, the limitations
deriving from the use of second-hand data could be eliminated and hence more robust
results about the influence of IC upon start-up expectations might be disclosed.
Fourthly, further investigations might be undertaken to include different, more specific
items related to human, structural and relational capital. Other individual
characteristics might be considered such as motivation and leadership or originality
or flexibility that are increasingly considered in reference to knowledge-intensive
ventures (Khalique et al., 2015). If the above-cited view of the disaggregation of
business ideas from entrepreneurial opportunities (Davidsson, 2015) were to be
embraced and shared by entrepreneurial scholars, then other proxies of structural
capital might be considered. Eventually, in reference to entrepreneurial networks,
which are always changing and evolving, new and different variables – linked to
material and immaterial, financial or knowledge-related resources – might be
considered (Matricano and Sorrentino, 2015). By carrying out further analyses, the
academic literature on IC could be enriched by new, statistically robust insights about
the potential impact of IC upon start-up expectations. Of course, this could have a
greater impact both on classes (where entrepreneurship is taught) and on the real world
(the stage for forthcoming aspiring entrepreneurs).
All the possible paths cited above represent interesting alternatives since they can add
something to the present work that was not in a position to offer a complete and exhaustive
analysis of the impact of IC on start-up expectation but – hopefully – has opened up an
interesting new and intriguing research path that merits further development.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Aldrich, H.E. and Zimmer, C. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through social networks”, in Aldrich, H.E.
(Ed.), Population Perspective on Organizations, Acta Universitatis Upaliensis, Uppsala,
pp. 13-28.
Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B. and Anderson, P. (2013), “Forming and exploiting opportunities: the
implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational
research”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 301-317.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2007), “Discovery and creation: alternative theories of
entrepreneurial creation”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-26.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2008), “Opportunities, organizations, and entrepreneurship”,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 171-173.
Audretsch, D.B. (2004), “Sustaining innovation and growth: public policy support for
entrepreneurship”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 167-191.
Baron, R.A. (2004), “The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s
basis why question”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 221-239.
JIC Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-453.
17,4
Birley, S. (1985), “The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-117.
Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1993), “A comparison of new business established by novice and
habitual founders in Great Britain”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4,
670 pp. 38-60.
Boedker, C., Guthrie, J. and Cuganesan, S. (2005), “An integrated framework for visualizing
intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 510-527.
Bontis, N. (1996), “There’s a price on your head: managing intellectual capital strategically”,
Business Quarterly, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 40-47.
Bontis, N. (1998), “Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-76.
Bontis, N. (2001), “Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure
intellectual capital”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. (1999), “The knowledge toolbox: a review of
the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 391-402.
Bontis, N., Keow, W.C.C. and Richardson, S. (2000), “Intellectual capital and business performance
in Malaysian industries”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Brennan, N. and Connell, B. (2000), “Intellectual capital: current issues and policy implication”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 206-240.
Brooking, A. (1996), Intellectual Capital, International Thomson Business Press, London.
Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Cabrita, M.D.R. and Bontis, N. (2008), “Intellectual capital and business performance in the
Portuguese banking industry”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 43
Nos 1-3, pp. 212-237.
Calza, F., Dezi, L., Schiavone, F. and Simoni, M. (2014), “The intellectual capital of business
incubators”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 597-610.
Casson, M. and Wadeson, N. (2007), “The discovery of opportunities: extending the economic
theory of the entrepreneur”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 285-300.
Davidsson, P. (2015), “Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a
re-conceptualization”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 674-695.
Dimov, D. (2011), “Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
Eckhardt, J.T. and Shane, S. (2013), “Response to response: the IO nexus integrates objective and
subjective aspects of entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 160-163.
Gaglio, C.M. (1997), “Opportunity identification: review, critique and suggested research
directions”, in Katz, J. and Brockhaus, J. (Eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence, and Growth, Jai Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 139-202.
Galbraith, J.K. (1969), “The consequences of technology”, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 127 No. 6,
pp. 44-56.
Galkina, T. (2013), Entrepreneurial Networking: Intended and Unintended Processes, Hanken
School of Economics, Vaasa.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2015), “Report”, available at: [Link] Intellectual
(accessed December 2015).
capital on
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”, start-up
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
expectations
Greve, A. (1995), “Networks and entrepreneurship. An analysis of social relations, occupational
background, and the use of contacts during the establishment process”, Scandinavian
Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-24. 671
Greve, A. and Salaff, J.W. (2003), “Social networks and entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Hayton, J.C. (2005), “Competing in the new economy: the effect of intellectual capital on corporate
entrepreneurship in high-technology new ventures”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 137-155.
Hormiga, E., Batista-Canino, R.M. and Sánchez-Medina, A. (2011), “The role of intellectual capital
in the success of new ventures”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Hsu, Y.H. and Fang, W. (2009), “Intellectual capital and new product development performance:
the mediating role of organizational learning capability”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 664-677.
Johannisson, B. (1986), “Network strategies: management technology for entrepreneurship and
change”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Johannisson, B. (1988), “Business formation: a network approach”, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 4 Nos 3-4, pp. 83-99.
Johannisson, B. (1998), “Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms: spatial and
functional patterns”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 297-312.
Kalton, G. and Kasprzyk, D. (1982), “Imputing for missing survey responses”, Proceedings of the
Section on Survey Research Methods by the American Statistical Association Vol. 22,
Cincinnati, OH, pp. 22-31.
Kaufmann, L. and Schneider, Y. (2004), “Intangibles: a synthesis of current research”, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 366-388.
Khalique, M., Bontis, N., Shaari, J.A.N. and Isa, A.H.B. (2015), “Intellectual capital in small and
medium enterprises in Pakistan”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 224-238.
Khalique, M., Shaari, J.A.N. and Isa, A.H.B. (2011), “Intellectual capital and its major components”,
International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 343-347.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organisational employment versus self-employment: reasons for career
choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-31.
Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 411-432.
Larson, A. and Starr, J.A. (1993), “A network model of organization formation”, Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 5-16.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: a career
anchor perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Link, A.N. and Ruhm, C.J. (2011), “Public knowledge, private knowledge: the intellectual capital of
entrepreneurs”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-162.
JIC McElroy, M.W. (2002), “Social innovation capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 30-39.
17,4
McGrath, R.G. and Macmillan, I.C. (2000), The Entrepreneurial Mindset, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
McMullen, J.S. and Dimov, D. (2013), “Time and the entrepreneurial journey: the problems and
promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process”, Journal of Management Studies,
672 Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1481-1512.
McMullen, J.S. and Shepherd, D. (2006), “Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the
theory of the entrepreneur”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 132-152.
MacMillan, I.C. (1986), “To really know about entrepreneurship, let’s study habitual
entrepreneur”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 241-243.
Matricano, D. (2011), “L’origine delle opportunità imprenditoriali nelle reti di imprese”, in Izzo, F.
(Ed.), Reti per l’Innovazione, McGraw Hill, Milano, pp. 233-255.
Matricano, D. (2014), “Entrepreneurial training: a comparative study across fifteen European
countries”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 311-330.
Matricano, D. (2015), Lo Studio dell’Imprenditorialità. Un Approccio di Indagine Multidimensionale,
Carocci Editore, Roma.
Matricano, D. and Sorrentino, M. (2015), “Implementation of regional innovation network: a case
study of the biotech industry in campania”, Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, Vol. 33
No. 97, pp. 105-126.
Montequín, V.R., Fernández, F.O., Cabal., V.A. and Gutierrez, N.R. (2006), “An integrated
framework for intellectual capital measurement and knowledge management
implementation in small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Information Science,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 525-538.
Musteen, M. and Ahsan, M. (2013), “Beyond cost: the role of intellectual capital in off-shoring and
innovation in young firms”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 421-434.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999), “Guidelines and instructions
for OECD Symposium”, International Symposium Measuring Reporting Intellectual Capital:
Experiences, Issues, and Prospects, June, Paris.
Peña, I. (2002), “Intellectual capital and business start up success”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 180-198.
Penrose, E.T. (1955), “Limits to the growth and size of firms”, The American Economic Review,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 531-543.
Petty, R. and Guthrie, J. (2000), “Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and
management”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 155-176.
Plummer, L.A., Hayne, J.M. and Godesiabois, J. (2007), “An essay on the origins of entrepreneurial
opportunity”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 363-379.
Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization”, Research in
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 295-336.
Ripsas, S. (1998), “Towards an interdisciplinary theory of entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 103-115.
Roos, G., Brainbridge, A. and Jacobsen, K. (2001), “Intellectual capital as a strategic tool”, Strategy
& Leadership, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 21-26.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N. and Edvinsson, L. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the
New Business Landscape, Macmillan Business, London.
Sanchez, P., Chamichade, C. and Olea, M. (2000), “Management of intangibles: the role of Intellectual
strategy, industry structure and entrepreneur”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 188-209.
capital on
Sarason, Y., Dean, T. and Dillard, J.F. (2006), “Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and
start-up
opportunity: a structuration view”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 286-305. expectations
Sarasvathy, S.D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S.R. and Venkataraman, S. (2005), “Three views of
entrepreneurial opportunity”, in Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of 673
Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction, Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 141-160.
Schiavone, F., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V. and Del Giudice, M. (2014), “Does location in a science park
really matter for firms’ intellectual capital performance?”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 497-515.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1911), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest and Business Cycle, 1934 ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Elgar,
Cheltenham and Northampton, MA.
Shane, S. (2012), “Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering on the promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 10-20.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L. (1991), “Person, process, and choice: the psychology of new venture
creation”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-46.
Shepherd, D.A., Ettenson, R. and Crouch, A. (2000), “New venture strategy and profitability: a
venture capitalist’s assessment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 449-467.
Short, J.C., Ketchen, D.J., Shook, C.L. and Ireland, R.D. (2010), “The concept of opportunity in
entrepreneurship research: past accomplishment and future challenges”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 40-65.
Smith, D.A. and Lohrke, F.T. (2008), “Entrepreneurial network development: trusting in the
process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 315-322.
Snow, C.C., Miles, R.E. and Coleman, H.J. (1992), “Managing 21st century organizations”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 5-20.
Solow, R.M. (1956), “A contribution to the theory of economic growth”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 65-94.
Starr, J.A. and Macmillan, I.C. (1990), “Resource cooptation via social contracting: resource
acquisition strategies for new ventures”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 79-92.
Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday –
Currency, London.
Stuart, R.W. and Abetti, P.A. (1990), “Impact of entrepreneurial and managerial experience on
early performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 151-162.
Subramaniam, M. and Youndt, M.A. (2005), “The influence of intellectual capital on the type of
innovative capabilities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 450-463.
Sullivan, P.H. (1999), “Profiting from intellectual capital”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 132-142.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based
Assets, Berrett Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
JIC Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
17,4
Tovstiga, G. and Tulugurova, E. (2007), “Intellectual capital practices and performance in
Russian enterprises”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 695-707.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2006), The Habitual Entrepreneur, Edward Elgar
Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.
674 Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M. and Westhead, P. (2003), “A longitudinal study of habitual
entrepreneurs: starters and acquirers”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 207-228.
UnionCamere (2016), “Report”, available at: [Link] (accessed February 1, 2016).
Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-67.
Vesper, K.H. (1990), New Venture Strategies (revised), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D. and Wright, M. (2005), “Decisions, actions and performances: do
novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs differ?”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 393-417.
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Karlsson, C. (2011), “The future of
entrepreneurship research”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Wu, W., Chang, M. and Chen, C. (2008), “Promoting innovation through the accumulation of
intellectual capital, social capital and entrepreneurial orientation”, R&D Management,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 265-277.

Corresponding author
Diego Matricano can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]