Empreendedorismo no Brasil Comparado a China, Índia e Coréia do Sul

Artigo de Gupta et al. (2012) publicado na International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal: In terms of the overall environment, China was perceived as being most favorable, followed by India, South Korea and Brazil. In other words, respondents in China and India perceived the institutional environment to be quite favorable for entrepreneurial activity, while those in Brazil and South Korea perceived the environment as relatively less favorable for entrepreneurship. Brazil ranked the lowest on two of the three dimensions, with respondents ranking its regulatory and cognitive environment quite unfavorable to entrepreneurship. Similarly, South Korea was ranked low on normative aspect of the institutional profile. These results indicate that substantial institutional changes need to be made in Brazil and South Korea to make the environment more conducive for entrepreneurship. Notably, we also found that no REME country was stronger than the others on all dimensions. China had the most favorable regulatory and normative environment, which indicates substantial progress in facilitating ‘quality of government’ by formulating and implementing laws and rules that protect private enterprise as well as in encouraging norms and beliefs that are more conducive to pursuing new potentially profitable opportunities. India ranked highest in cognitive environment, suggesting that investment in education provides the country with the human capital needed to start new ventures. India’s strong reputation for the quality of its educated workforce is well-known. The low score for regulatory environment in India (as compared to the other two dimensions) may be due to the country’s (in)famously rigid and complex bureaucracy which discourages the growth and development of new ventures. These results indicate that although there are some strong aspects of the institutional environment for entrepreneurship in China and India, both countries need to attend to their weaknesses to make the environment more conducive to entrepreneurial activity. Overall, our results suggest that institutional reforms to promote private enterprises in China have set the country on an appropriate path and helped create a suitable milieu for entrepreneurship. Indeed, researchers have noted that the private sector is now playing an important role in driving China’s economic growth (Guo and Miller 2010; Pistrui et al. 2001; Tsui et al. 2006). In South Korea and Brazil, our findings indicate that respondents perceive a lack of a strong supportive environment for entrepreneurship. Policy-makers in these two countries need to carefully evaluate the shortcomings of their institutional environment for entrepreneurship so that remedial steps can be taken to improve the various aspects of the environment. Special courses that impart entrepreneurial skills to young adults, soft loans for converting creative ideas into new ventures, and support services such as business incubators on university campuses will help make the institutional environment more conducive for entrepreneurship. For India, our results highlight the need for policy-makers to learn from ‘best practices’ that have helped in developing a good institutional environment for entrepreneurship in China. Indian respondents believed that adequate programs and schemes exist to help acquire and upgrade knowledge and skills related to new venture creation, but the value system and regulatory regime were not seen to be as supportive of entrepreneurship. Clearly, more emphasis is needed to reduce bureaucratic red-tape and make it easier for enterprising individuals to start new businesses.