Boris Nikolaev

Entrepreneurship outcomes tend to be right-skewed and heavy-tailed, with a small fraction of “star” firms often accounting for a disproportionate share of value creation. Yet, how to define the “star” entrepreneurs driving these outcomes remains highly contested. In this paper, we argue that star identification is best understood as a modeling choice that depends on the research objective—no threshold rule can be evaluated as “optimal” or more “precise” independent of what the rule it is supposed to serve—and introduce a precision–recall framework that makes the trade-offs of threshold-based approaches more explicit. Using 13 years of Inc. 5000 data linked to subsequent public listings, we then compare nine threshold-based methods, including the recently proposed quantile absolute deviation procedure by Gala and Schwab (hereafter GS-QAD) which uses a bootstrap to set a cutoff tailored to the tail of the observed distribution. Three findings emerge. First, using simulations, we show that GS-QAD’s bootstrap procedure introduces systematic sample-size bias that can confound cross-industry comparisons. At the same time, as sample size grows, the method converges to a near-universal 17% to 20% rule. Second, firms classified as stars are 10 to 20 times more likely to become publicly traded and account for the majority of current market capitalization among publicly traded Inc. 5000 alumni. However, the choice of threshold determines a precision–recall trade-off in which no method dominates on all metrics. Finally, the probability of becoming a publicly traded company rises smoothly with revenue, with no detectable discontinuity at any threshold. We conclude that stars are where you draw the line—thresholds should be treated as modeling choices fit to the research or policy objective, validated externally where feasible, and reported with their explicit trade-offs.

Entrepreneurship has entered a new era shaped by artificial intelligence (AI), demanding accelerated scholarly advances to keep pace with this transformative technology—yet this demands that academics bridge the gap between the AI revolution’s ambiguities and meaningful scholarly contributions. To motivate and guide future research on AI’s transformative role in entrepreneurship, we introduce an ongoing special issue in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice ( ETP ) and outline multiple compelling opportunities for future research. Unlike typical editorials, we offer a prospective vision—rather than retrospective, after the articles have been accepted and published—at this project’s outset, to empower the field to prospect and establish new scholarly foundations in the relatively uncharted world of AI in the domain of entrepreneurship. Accordingly, we highlight the “AI PEN” ( P rospecting and E stablishing N exus) as a desirable research approach to advance this literature going forward. We hope, and anticipate, that our invitation to submit proposals to this special issue facilitates novel empirical as well as theory-focused contributions to the literature.

An emerging body of research has documented that self-employed people are more likely to report higher levels of eudaimonic well-being (EWB; e.g., autonomy, competence, meaning) than their employed counterparts. In this paper, we examine why the self-employed perceive their lives as psychologically more fulfilling even though they face more complex and competing occupational demands that can expose them to more stressors. Specifically, we hypothesize that the self-employed are more likely to engage in problem-focused coping—productive and proactive behaviors and thoughts aimed to help them overcome challenges (e.g., planning and active coping)—and less likely to engage in emotion-focused coping—behaviors and thoughts to merely make them feel better (e.g., venting and denial)—which, in turn, can promote higher levels of EWB. Using data from Waves 2 and 3 of the National Study of Midlife in Development in the United States, we find supportive evidence for our theory. More importantly, we show that the well-being benefits from self-employment accrue almost entirely because the self-employed are more likely to use problem-focused coping as opposed to emotion-focused coping. In a series of robustness tests, including random-effects models, matching estimators, and twin and sibling fixed-effects, we further demonstrate the relevance of coping as a key explanatory mechanism in the relationship between self-employment and EWB.

Using institutional economic theory as our guiding framework, we develop a model to describe how populist discourse by a nation’s political leader influences entrepreneurship. We hypothesize that populist discourse reduces entrepreneurship by creating regime uncertainty concerning the future stability of the institutional environment, resulting in entrepreneurs anticipating higher future transaction costs. Our model highlights two important factors that moderate the relationship. First is the strength of political checks and balances, which we hypothesize weakens the negative relationship between populist discourse and entrepreneurship by providing entrepreneurs with greater confidence that the actions of a populist will be constrained. Second, the political ideology of the leader moderates the relationship between populist discourse and entrepreneurship. The anti-capitalistic rhetoric of left-wing populism will create greater regime uncertainty than right-wing populism, which is often accompanied by rhetoric critical of free trade and foreigners, but also supportive of business interests. The effect of centrist populism, which is often accompanied by a mix of contradictory and often moderate ideas that make it difficult to discern future transaction costs, will have a weaker negative effect on entrepreneurship than either left-wing or right-wing populism. We empirically test our model using a multi-level design and a dataset comprised of more than 780,000 individuals in 33 countries over the period 2002–2016. Our analysis largely supports our theory regarding the moderating role of ideology. However, surprisingly, our findings suggest that the negative effect of populism on entrepreneurship is greater in nations with stronger checks and balances.

We examine the moderating role of being a supervisor for meaning and autonomy of self-employed and employed workers. We rely on regression analysis applied after entropy balancing based on a nationally representative dataset of over 80,000 individuals in 30 European countries for 2005, 2010, and 2015. We find that being a self-employed supervisor is correlated with more work meaningfulness and autonomy compared with being a salaried supervisor working for an employer. Wage supervisors and self-employed supervisors experience similar stress levels and have similar earnings, though self-employed supervisors work longer hours. Moreover, solo entrepreneurs experience slightly less work meaningfulness, but more autonomy compared with self-employed supervisors. This may be explained by the fact that solo entrepreneurs earn less but have less stress and shorter working hours than self-employed supervisors.

We explore how involuntary and voluntary exits from self-employment affect life and health satisfaction. To that end, we use rich longitudinal data from the German Socio-Economic Panel from 1985 to 2017 and a difference-in-differences estimator. We find that while transitioning from self-employment to salaried employment brings small improvements in health and life satisfaction, the negative psychological costs of business failure (i.e., switching from self-employment to unemployment) are substantial and exceed the costs of involuntarily losing a salaried job. Meanwhile, leaving self-employment has no consequences for self-reported physical health and behaviors such as smoking and drinking, implying that the costs of losing self-employment are mainly psychological. Moreover, former business owners fail to adapt to an involuntary self-employment exit even 2 or more years after this traumatic event. Our findings imply that policies encouraging entrepreneurship should also carefully consider the nonmonetary implications of business failure.

Summary: It is widely believed that economic institutions such as competitive markets, the banking system, and the structure of property rights are essential for economic development. But why economic institutions vary across countries and what are their deep origins is still a question that is widely debated in the developmental economics literature. In this study, we provide an empirical test for the provocative hypothesis that the prevalence of infectious diseases influenced the formation of personality traits, cultural values, and even morality at the regional level (the so called Parasite‐ Stress Theory of Values and Sociality), which then shaped economic institutions across countries. Using the prevalence of pathogens as an instrument for cultural traits such as individualism, we show in a two‐stage least squares analysis that various economic institutions, measured by different areas of the index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation, have their deep origins in the historical prevalence of infectious diseases across countries. Our causal identification strategy suggests that cultural values affect economic institutions even after controlling for a number of confounding variables, geographic controls, and for different sub‐samples of countries. We further show that the results are robust to four alternative measures of economic and political institutions.