We analyse entrepreneurial entry along the dimensions of informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurship, distinguishing between them yet considering them jointly. While the dominant view in the literature conflates necessity with informal entry, and opportunity with formal entry, we hypothesise that informal entrepreneurship may be attractive to higher-income individuals as a testing ground for entrepreneurial ideas. We also explain why higher-income individuals may undertake necessity entrepreneurship. We utilise individual Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data from Chile (2019–2021), which identifies informal-formal and necessity-opportunity entrepreneurial entry modes, to test hypotheses on the role of individuals´ income in the four types of entrepreneurial entry. We also consider changes in entrepreneurial entry during a crisis and a non-crisis periods. Our results confirm that the patterns in the data are consistent with hypotheses derived from our proposed theoretical framework. Emerging markets economies have very large informal sectors, and their entrepreneurial entry is often motivated by economic necessity rather than by business opportunity. But neither informal nor necessity entrepreneurship are usually expected to generate the positive benefits for growth and development predicted for formal and opportunity entrepreneurship. We argue that the dominant stream in the literature actually conflates informal and necessity entrepreneurship, both of which have been associated with low human and financial capital and productivity. We propose that the appropriate typology is more complex than this because there are examples of successful and dynamic informal firms. This leads us to identify four categories of entrepreneurial entry: informal-necessity (Type 1), formal-opportunity (Type 2), informal-opportunity (Type 3), and formal-necessity (Type 4). While necessity entrepreneurship has typically been associated with low-income individuals, we propose that formal-necessity entrepreneurship may be an entry path for both low- and high-income individuals, though for different reasons. Informal opportunity entry may likewise be an option for people with low-income as well as high-income.

中文翻译：

---

调查新公司进入的框架：非正式-正式创业精神和必要性-机会创业精神之间的（有限）重叠


我们从非正式-正式创业和必要性-机会创业的维度来分析创业进入，区分它们但同时考虑它们。虽然文献中的主流观点将必要性与非正式进入、机会与正式进入混为一谈，但我们假设，作为创业想法的试验场，非正规创业可能对高收入个人有吸引力。我们还解释了为什么高收入个人可能会进行必要的创业。我们利用智利（2019-2021）的个人全球创业监测（GEM）数据来检验关于个人收入在四种创业进入类型中的作用的假设，该数据确定了非正式-正式和必要-机会创业进入模式。我们还考虑了危机和非危机时期创业进入的变化。我们的结果证实数据中的模式与我们提出的理论框架得出的假设一致。新兴市场经济体拥有非常庞大的非正规部门，他们的创业进入往往是出于经济需要，而不是商业机会。但通常认为非正式创业和必要创业都不会产生正式创业和机会创业所预测的增长和发展的积极效益。我们认为，文献中的主流实际上将非正式的创业精神和必要的创业精神混为一谈，这两者都与人力和金融资本以及生产力低下有关。我们认为适当的类型比这更复杂，因为有成功且充满活力的非正式公司的例子。 这使我们将创业进入分为四类：非正式必要性（类型1）、正式机会（类型2）、非正式机会（类型3）和正式必要性（类型4）。虽然必需品创业通常与低收入个人相关，但我们认为，正式必需品创业可能是低收入和高收入个人的进入路径，尽管原因不同。非正式机会进入同样可能是低收入和高收入人群的一种选择。