SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVES OF WORLD, EUROPEAN, AND CIS SCHOLARS ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21371407Abstract
Entrepreneurship is one of the fundamental drivers of sustainable economic growth, innovation, employment
creation, and the enhancement of national competitiveness. Consequently, the scientific study of entrepreneurship has
evolved through various theoretical approaches developed by classical, neoclassical, institutional, and innovation-oriented
schools of economic thought. This article aims to comparatively analyze the scientific perspectives of scholars representing
global, European, and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) research traditions on entrepreneurship development
and to identify their conceptual similarities, differences, and practical implications.
The research employs comparative analysis, historical-logical analysis, systematization, synthesis, and scientific
generalization to examine the evolution of entrepreneurship theories and contemporary approaches. The views of
prominent scholars, including Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, Alfred Marshall, Frank H. Knight, Joseph
A. Schumpeter, Peter F. Drucker, Israel M. Kirzner, David B. Audretsch, Zoltan J. Acs, Erik Stam, Daniel Isenberg, Friederike
Welter, and leading CIS researchers, are systematically evaluated.
The findings indicate that classical economic theories primarily emphasize risk-taking, resource allocation, and profit
maximization, whereas contemporary scientific approaches increasingly focus on innovation, entrepreneurial ecosystems,
institutional quality, digital transformation, and knowledge-based economic development. European scholars place particular
emphasis on innovation ecosystems, venture financing, and university–industry collaboration, while CIS researchers mainly
highlight the role of institutional reforms, state support mechanisms, and financial infrastructure in fostering entrepreneurship.
Based on the comparative analysis, the study proposes an integrated conceptual framework that combines international
theoretical approaches with the specific characteristics of transition economies.
The scientific significance of the study lies in the comprehensive synthesis of international and regional theoretical
perspectives, which provides a conceptual foundation for improving entrepreneurship development policies and financial
support mechanisms. The findings may serve as a theoretical basis for future research and for the formulation of effective
entrepreneurship development strategies in transition economies, particularly in Uzbekistan.
Keywords
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship development, entrepreneurship theory, scientific perspectives, comparative analysis, innovation, entrepreneurial ecosystem, financial support, bank financing, institutional environment, economic growth, digital economy, European countries, CIS countries, Uzbekistan.References
1. Cantillon, R. (1755/1931). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (H. Higgs, Ed. & Trans.). London: Macmillan.
2. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
3. Say, J.-B. (1803). Traité d’économie politique, ou simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se
4. consomment les richesses. Paris: Deterville.
5. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
6. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
7. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and
8. the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.
10. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row.
11. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of
13. Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
14. Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1988). Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic
15. Review, 78(4), 678–690.
16. Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy
17. implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016.
18. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management
19. Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x.
20. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies,
21. (9), 1759–1769. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.
22. Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, 56(2), 809–832.
23. doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6.
24. Isenberg, D. J. (2011). The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles
25. for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project.
26. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship: Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship
27. Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
28. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
29. Press.
30. Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy,
31. (5), 893–921. doi: 10.1086/261712.
32. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
33. Review, 25(1), 217–226. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.
34. Polterovich, V. (2008). Institutional trap. In S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of
35. Economics (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-58802-2_806.
36. Chepurenko, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship theory: New challenges and future prospects. Foresight and STI Governance,
37. (2), 44–57. doi: 10.17323/1995-459X.2015.2.44.57.
38. Aganbegyan, A. G. (2018). Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in Russia. Moscow: Delo Publishers.
39. Asaul, A. N. (2013). Entrepreneurship Development under Modern Economic Conditions. Saint Petersburg: ANO IPEV.
40. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2024). GEM 2023/2024 Global Report: 25 Years and Growing. London: Global
41. Entrepreneurship Research Association.
42. OECD. (2023). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/342b8564-en.
43. World Bank. (2024). World Development Report 2024: The Middle-Income Trap. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:
44. 1596/978-1-4648-2078-6.
45. International Monetary Fund. (2024). Regional Economic Outlook: Europe—A Recovery Short of Europe’s Full
46. Potential. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
47. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2024). World Investment Report 2024: Investment Facilitation
48. and Digital Government. Geneva: United Nations.
49. World Economic Forum. (2024). The Future of Growth Report 2024. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
50. Katsinis, A. A., Lagüera González, J., Di Bella, L., Odenthal, L., Hell, M., & Lozar, B. (2024). Annual Report on
51. European SMEs 2023/2024: SME Performance Review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:
52. 2826/355464.
53. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2020-yil 12-maydagi PF-5992-son «2020–2025-yillarga mo‘ljallangan O‘zbekiston
54. Respublikasining bank tizimini isloh qilish strategiyasi to‘g‘risida»gi Farmoni. https://lex.uz/docs/-4811025
55. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Markaziy banki. (2025). Bank tizimi faoliyati bo‘yicha statistik byulleten. Toshkent: O‘zbekiston
56. Respublikasi Markaziy banki.
57. Vahobov, A. V., Xajibakiyev, Sh. X., & Muminov, N. G. (2021). Iqtisodiyot nazariyasi. Toshkent: IQTISOD-MOLIYA.
58. Xodiyev, B. Y. (2020). Kichik biznes va tadbirkorlik. Toshkent: IQTISOD-MOLIYA.
59. Mustafakulov, Sh. I. (2021). Kichik biznes va tadbirkorlik iqtisodiyoti. Toshkent: Innovatsion rivojlanish nashriyoti.
60. Yahyoev, Q. A. (2022). Entrepreneurship Development in Uzbekistan: Institutional Reforms and Economic Growth.
61. Tashkent.
62. Inobatov, A. B. (2025). Tijorat banklari tomonidan tadbirkorlik subyektlarini moliyaviy qo‘llab-quvvatlash metodologiyasini
63. takomillashtirish masalalari. Iqtisodiyot va ta’lim, 26(4), 45–58.
64. Inobatov, A. B. (2026). Improving methodological approaches to financial support of entrepreneurship by commercial
65. banks. International Journal of Finance and Economics Research, 11(2), 88–101.
66. Prasannath, V., Adhikari, R. P., Gronum, S., & Miles, M. P. (2024). Impact of government support policies on
67. entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(3),
68. –1595. doi: 10.1007/s11365-024-00993-3.
69. Queissner, M., Stolz, L., & Weiss, M. (2025). A meta-analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystem elements and entrepreneurial
70. activity. Small Business Economics, 64(4), 1817–1847. doi: 10.1007/s11187-024-00953-9.
71. Kumar, R. K., Pasumarti, S. S., Figueiredo, R. J., Singh, R., Rana, S., Kumar, K., & Kumar, P. (2024). Innovation
72. dynamics within the entrepreneurial ecosystem: A content analysis-based literature review. Humanities and Social
73. Sciences Communications, 11, Article 366. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02817-9.
74. Garcia-Martinez, L. J., Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2023). Untangling the relationship between small and
75. medium-sized enterprises and growth: A review of extant literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management
76. Journal, 19(2), 455–479. doi: 10.1007/s11365-023-00830-z.
77. Wadichar, R. K., Manusmare, P., & Burghate, M. A. (2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: A systematic literature review.
78. Vision, 28(2), 143–156. doi: 10.1177/09722629221093866.
79. Fajarika, D., Trapsilawati, F., & Sopha, B. M. (2024). Influential factors of small and medium-sized enterprises growth
80. across developed and developing countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Engineering
81. Business Management, 16, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/18479790241258097.
82. Sagala, G. H., & Őri, D. (2024). Toward SMEs’ digital transformation success: A systematic literature review. Information
83. Systems and e-Business Management, 22(4), 667–719. doi: 10.1007/s10257-024-00682-2.
84. Correia, M. P., Marques, C. S., Silva, R., & Ramadani, V. (2024). Academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: Systematic
85. literature review and future research directions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(4), 17498–17528. doi: 10.1007/
86. s13132-024-01819-x.
87. Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American Economic Review,
88. (3), 393–410.
89. Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (1998). The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt
90. markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(6–8), 613–673.
91. Levine, R. (1997). Financial development and economic growth: Views and agenda. Journal of Economic Literature,
92. (2), 688–726.
93. Levine, R. (2005). Finance and growth: Theory and evidence. In P. Aghion and S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of
94. Economic Growth (Vol. 1A, pp. 865–934). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
95. Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth constraint.
96. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 2931–2943. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.05.009.
97. Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2005). Financial and legal constraints to firm growth: Does firm size
98. matter? Journal of Finance, 60(1), 137–177. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00727.x.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
