Abstract
Studies on the interconnection between the legacy of socialism, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship have increased considerably and have formed a new, dynamic, and rapidly growing field of research. However, the field remains largely unorganized and conflicting, making it challenging to take stock of the literature systematically. Our review explores the key trends, patterns, and internal knowledge structure of this emerging research stream. An innovative methodological approach that combines three bibliometric techniques (citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis) and qualitative content analysis is applied. We identify the evolution, the most impactful journals, research, authors, and research contexts in the field. We also indicate the emergence of several academic conversations within the research stream and the critical arguments expressed in them. Research gaps and an agenda for further research are then discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the formerly centrally planned countries across Eastern Europe and Asia transitioned into liberal market economies. However, their socialist legacy has persisted in terms of shaping people’s values and attitudes toward an entrepreneurial mindset and behavior (Ockenfels and Weimann 1999). This legacy involves existing formal institutions (e.g., rules and regulations or legal frameworks) as well as informal institutions (e.g., norms and values, conventions, and codes of conduct).
Research on the connections between this socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship has increased to the point of forming a new, dynamic, and rapidly growing field of research. The existing studies have generated a wealth of interesting insights on the relationship of individual attitudes toward entrepreneurship activities in post-socialist economies (Fritsch 2004; Fritsch et al. 2014; Hayton et al. 2002). For example, the socialist legacy might influence the mindset of people with long experience under the regime, including a lower preference for self-control, autonomy, and mastery (Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). Those with this kind of psychological mindset are found to be less likely to invest in social networks (Bönisch and Schneider 2013), less willing to attain new knowledge and experience from entrepreneurial role models (Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Wyrwich et al. 2016), and less likely to become involved in entrepreneurial activities.
Despite its recent development, the research field remains largely unorganized and full of conflict, making it challenging to take stock of the literature systematically. The diversity of research questions, theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and emerging findings adds richness but, at the same time, leads to fragmentation in the literature. Furthermore, the field spans several disciplines (management sciences, sociology, economics, etc.) and therefore is largely shaped by diverse underlying assumptions, academic discourses, and potential biases. This combination of shortcomings indicates the need for an as-yet absent systematic literature review that reveals major patterns and maps out potential academic conversations in the literature without subjective bias.
How can the research concerning the legacy of socialism, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship be characterized? Which subfields have been identified in the literature and require further investigation? By addressing these questions, we explore the evolution and internal structure of the field while also suggesting an agenda for future studies.
By combining three relational bibliometric techniques (citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis) and qualitative content analysis in this review, we employ a novel methodological approach. These specific methods are frequently used in management research (e.g., van Oorschot et al. 2018), but they have rarely been used together, especially in the entrepreneurship context. This methodological fusion enables a better understanding of the internal structure and arguments of the field.
We make two contributions to the literature. First, we explore the key trends, patterns, and relational knowledge structures in the literature. We find several encouraging developments in the literature since 2007, a wide range of research questions that have been addressed, and dispersion of the field across different academic disciplines. We also reveal the most impactful authors (e.g., Welter, Smallbone), foundational publications, and influential outlets (e.g., Journal of Business Venturing) in the research field since its beginning. Our review shows that distinct yet related conversations are taking place in the literature—including those on corruption and institutions, entrepreneurialism and economics, social capital and culture, education, personal characteristics, and business environment—and each focuses on a set of research questions and topics of interest.
Second, our review highlights under-researched areas that deserve more scholarly attention in the future. Our study reveals a lack of empirical research on the legacy of socialism and individual perceptions of entrepreneurship. Thus, scholars should consider these research gaps when conducting empirical investigations, and many promising further research avenues exist, particularly in the context of developing countries. The literature should move beyond the bias of a European context in theorizing and empirical analysis on a longer-term, deeper investigation of the mechanisms in which the socialist legacy influenced individual attitudes toward different kinds of entrepreneurial activity.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces and justifies the methodology applied in the review. Next, we present the main findings highlighting the critical trend, patterns, internally structured subfields, and meanings. Subsequently, before concluding, we discuss a future research agenda.
2 Methodology
This study applies bibliometric analysis to address the research questions. Bibliometric study, sometimes also called “scientometric” (Cobo et al. 2011) or “science mapping” study (Leydesdorff 1987), is a specific variant of the systematic review methodology (SLR) that has been widely used in management, innovation, and entrepreneurship scholarship in recent years (Zupic and Čater 2015).
Unlike traditional forms of SLR, which may be biased toward researchers’ interpretations (Tranfield et al. 2003), bibliometric analysis is methodologically rigorous and objective because it employs a quantitative/science approach and statistical techniques (e.g., citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling) to examine the bibliographic data of published literature. It also allows researchers to map the structure of a research field and its development even before reading the related publications by identifying links/thematic clusters in the literature and visualizing these newly emerging networks/themes in a structural order using software without subjective bias (Zupic and Čater 2015).
Following guidance by Block and Fisch (2020) and Tranfield et al. (2003), this study adopts a three-stage review process, that consists of (1) developing a searching strategy, (2) data collection, and (3) analysis, visualization, and reporting. Figure 1 illustrates the overall process.
2.1 Stage 1: Developing a search strategy
Stage 1 identifies the search terms and the database. The objective is to cover the broadest range of research on the interrelationship of entrepreneurship, a socialist legacy, and individual attitudes in the most systematic and reproducible manner.
2.1.1 Step 1: Identification of search terms
To mitigate the risk of subjective selection bias, keywords for our search are borrowed from most-cited research in the field. For instance, the keywords “post-communist,” “entrepreneurship,” and “transition economy” are included because they were mentioned several times in past studies (Fritsch et al. 2014; Sztompka 1996; Wyrwich 2013a) while also allowing for variations in spelling. One external expert then revises the keywords.
In the end, we have 15 keywords representing the socialist legacy theme, 6 for the attitude theme, and 7 for entrepreneurship. As a result, we generate 630 combinations of keywords (15 × 6 × 7) for identifying relevant articles. These keyword combinations enable us to cover the literature scope broadly and minimize the risk of missing critical papers, which could result in misleading interpretations of the state of knowledge (Kovacs et al. 2015). The details are summarized in Table 1.
2.1.2 Step 2: Identification of the database
The Scopus database is chosen as the only database for the SLR for several reasons. The first is that, in comparison to other major high-end databases, such as ProQuest, Science Direct, and the Web of Science, Scopus covers a broader range of scholarly journals of high quality across different disciplines and offers richer bibliometric and citation data, essential ingredients for a bibliometric analysis (Block and Fisch 2020). Most importantly, data retrieved from the Scopus database are closely aligned with VOSviewer, the software we use later in our bibliometric analysis.
2.2 Stage 2: Data collection
This stage involves defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviewing and retrieving the final sample in our analysis. The details are specified in Table 2. First, to cover the most up-to-date work, we include publications from 1990 to 2020. We use 1990 as a starting point because the post-socialist era began after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (Adam-Müller et al. 2015; Fritsch et al. 2014; Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Wyrwich 2013a). Second, journal articles are considered only because of the academic and confirmed knowledge in them (Podsakoff et al. 2005). In comparison, books, book chapters, reports, and conference papers are all excluded because of the variability in the peer-review process and their more restricted availability (Jones et al. 2011). We consider only empirical scholarship in English with search terms in the title, abstract, or keywords. The search yields 282 records, as indicated in Table 2.
Next, we omit four papers that were mistakenly included in the retrieved dataset because of system errors in the search. The abstracts in the remaining articles are reviewed individually to ensure that the scholarship focuses on the intersection of entrepreneurship, a socialist legacy, and attitudes. If a conflict arises over whether a paper should be included, all the authors read the entire paper and then make a final determination. This process identified 142 articles that do not focus on our main research objectives and are therefore eliminated. Thus, the final sample comprises 136 papers.
2.3 Stage 3: Data analysis, visualization, and reporting
These 136 records in the final sample are first used to map the research field. In particular, the trends, patterns, and internal structure of the research stream are examined based on the number of publications per year in 1990–2020 and a content analysis of abstracts. Citation analysis also reveals the top relatively influential authors, journals, and scholarship in the area examined. Citation metrics are widely accepted as reliable and legitimate for the research impact if adequately used (Block and Fisch 2020; Garfield 1979). High citation rates often correlate with scientific excellence and importance. Citation scores are retrieved from Google Scholars.
Co-occurrence and co-citation analyses are conducted with the dataset to reveal the internal knowledge structure of the research field because they allow researchers to objectively group relevant documents, authors, or journals based on the original author’s ideas (e.g., authors cite publications that they consider the most relevant to their work) (Zupic and Čater 2015). First, we use VOSviewer software to construct and illustrate a bibliometric mapping because it is better at creating graphical representations of the maps than the other programs available. This makes it more useful for illustrating complex research fields and creating practical interpretation (Cobo et al. 2011). Second, VOSviewer is strongly aligned with the dataset obtained from Scopus. New subgroups that emerged because of the analysis are labeled based on content within the subgroup, following Skute et al. (2019) and Block and Fisch (2020).
3 Main results
3.1 Mapping the research field
3.1.1 Evolution of the research field
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the research field concerning the interrelationship among socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship, based on the number of articles published over the period 1990 to 2020. In summary, after 30 years of development, the research stream has grown in the number of publications but is still considered nascent.
The first article appeared in 1992. In the following years (1992–2006), the research field was limited (26 papers, an average of 1.8 articles a year). Other than a decline in 2011, since 2007, the number increased considerably, resulting in a total of 110 papers over the period 2007–2020, an average of 7.8 articles per year. In 2010 and 2017, 11 articles were published, the highest number. Notably, approximately 45% were published from the second half of 2014 to 2020.
3.1.2 Influential journals in the area
The citation analysis indicates that the field consists of 18 top journals in which at least two articles were published. The Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development is one of the leading journals, with seven studies and 579 citations in Google Scholar. Meanwhile, the The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business published four papers but received a minimal number of citations (55 citations in Google Scholar). Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Journal of Enterprising Communities, and Small Business Economics each had three citations. Notably, Small Business Economics had the highest number of citations, with 1,148 times per Google Scholar. Table 3 summarizes the results.
Another indicator of the journal’s quality is the impact factor (IF), which measures the average number of times a year that an article was cited in a journal. Consequently, high-impact factor journals are usually considered more prestigious than lower-impact journals. Table 3 also reports impact factor journals among the top 18 journals in our dataset. According to the 2020 impact factor, the Journal of Business Venturing (IF: 12.065) is the highest-ranked journal among the top 18 journals, followed by Small Business Economics (IF: 8.164) and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (IF: 5.940).
The Scopus citation score measures a specific journal’s citation impact. The 2020 Scopus citation score has the same conclusion as the 2020 impact factor. The Journal of Business Venturing is the leading citation score (13.3), the Small Business Economics had the second-highest citation score with 7.3, and International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal with 6.2.
3.1.3 Influential authors in the field
A citation analysis of authors based on publications and citations per author shows that Matlay, Westhead, Solesvik et al. Smallbone, Welter, and Li and Zhang are the most influential authors in the research area. Table 4 shows that 16 exceptional authors in the field contribute at least two publications to the field. Matlay is the most prominent author, having contributed three articles. Welter and Smallbone are the second-most-prolific authors considering the 997 citations for their co-authored works. Solesvik and Westhead are next, and together they published two articles that received 323 citations in Google Scholar. Noticeably, Li and Zhang published only one article, and it exceeded 1,000 citations in Google Scholar.
3.1.4 Influential articles in the field
Table 5 shows the most influential articles in the field by 2020. We break down the time frame into three 10-year periods, which indicate the top five articles in each period while minimizing the bias of citation scores over time (e.g., papers published earlier might be cited more than those published later). In general, the most influential scholarship in the field was published in highly ranked journals in the entrepreneurship field, especially between 2001 and 2010.
In the early stage (1990–2000), the most critical article, titled “A Comparative Study of Values among Chinese and U.S. Entrepreneurs: Pragmatic Convergence between Contrasting Cultures,” by Holt, received 220 citations. It was published in 1997 in the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV)—one of the top-tier journals in entrepreneurship. The second most cited, “The Russian Entrepreneur,” by Hisrich and Grachev, was published in JBV in 1993.
The most cited work over the entire time frame appeared in the next period (2001–2010). The article, written by Li and Zhang (2007), was published in the top-tier Strategic Management Journal and received the most citations—the only one that exceeded 1,130 citations. Similarly, Smallbone and Welter (2001) published “The Distinctiveness of Entrepreneurship in Transition Economies” in Small Business Economics (also a top journal in entrepreneurship), receiving over 928 citations.
In the most recent 10-year period (2010–2020), the two most cited articles were written by Solesvik et al. (2012, 2013). Both articles, both published in entrepreneurship journals, received about 207 citations. Solesvik et al. (2013) was the first influential work published in a journal outside entrepreneurship, Education and Training.
3.1.5 Geographic origin of contributions
The review shows that European countries accounted for more than three-quarters of the contributions, approximately 79.85%, with 107 out of a total of 136 articles. Among the 107 studies from European countries, Russia made the highest contribution with 13 papers, followed by Romania with eight, and Germany and Poland contributing seven (detailed results available from the authors). The second group of the publications comes from East Asia and the Pacific, with 20 articles (approximately 14.93%), of which China contributed 14, followed by Vietnam with 3 (detailed results available from the authors). Latin America receives the least attention, contributing only 3 papers, and 4 articles came from more than one region. Table 6 details the results.
3.1.6 Topics of analysis
Five thematic areas are identified based on the papers’ abstract content, including business environment, corruption and institutions, informal economy and development, social capital and culture, and personality traits. Table 7 summarizes the results.
The business environment theme consists of 23 papers focused on the business environment in a new stage of transition economy, such as banking, accounting, and service sectors (20), and innovation activities (3). The second theme (34) discusses corruption (5) and institutions (29). Numerous studies in our sample analyze the influence of institutional variables (e.g., rules and laws, property rights, taxes, financial sources, government policies) on individual attitudes and entrepreneurial activities in a transition environment. The reason for the most significant academic interest in this research field might be that the remnants of the former socialist regime, for example, formal institutional frameworks (e.g., rules, laws, and constitution), remain and affect entrepreneurship activity (Aidis et al. 2008; Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Fritsch et al. 2014; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). The third theme, informal economy and development, comprises 16 articles on the informal economy and development, only one on political development, one analyzing sustainable development, and 14 on the informal economy. Most studies on this theme looked at European countries.
The social capital and culture theme consists of 26 articles and examines networks, support from families and friends, culture related to values, and entrepreneurship in transition economies. Out of a total of 26 articles on this theme, 16 discuss social capital, 6 analyze culture, and 8 focus on the impacts of social capital (entrepreneurial role models) and education in a former socialist regime on entrepreneurship activities. Research related to social capital and culture is mostly conducted in European countries, for example, Germany, Romania, Ukraine, and Hungary. The final theme is personality traits and includes 11 papers on education, 16 discussing individuals’ locus of control and risk aversion, 5 focused on gender, and 5 analyzing other personality traits—for example, managerial skills and altruistic values. Most articles in this area are empirical studies.
3.2 Bibliometric analysis results
3.2.1 Co-occurrence analysis of author keywords
We set the minimum threshold at three appearances of author keywords, a threshold met by 32 of the total of 428 keywords. Then, we exclude country names, yielding 23 keywords to consider in co-occurrence analysis. Figure 3 displays the most frequently used keywords in the 136 articles in our database identified by the VOSviewer technique. The most widely used keyword is entrepreneurship, with 34 occurrences. Other frequently used keywords are economic development, corruption, institutions, social capital, culture, and education.
We also identify topic clusters with the VOSviewer, finding seven, which are shown in Table 8 along with the appearance of keywords in each cluster. In naming the clusters, we do not use these keywords because they represent the main topics of our search on the inter-relationship among the socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship. So, instead to name the clusters, we use all the widely used keywords identified by VOSviewer other than the keywords used for identifying the articles. In other words, a theme is labeled using the name of an essential keyword in the associated network of themes (Aparicio et al. 2019).
Cluster 1 is called Corruption and Institutions, encompassing macro-level studies on, for example, corruption, institutions, and business development. Studies in this cluster examine the impact of institutional arrangements such as corruption, laws, property rights, and government policies on individual values and attitudes, which, in turn affect entrepreneurship (Aidis et al. 2008; Bauernschuster et al. 2012). The findings show that a high level of corruption, limited property rights, and cumbersome rules and regulations discourage the creation of new ventures by individuals in transition economies (Chen and Dickson 2008; Xheneti and Bartlett 2012). Furthermore, limited financial resources are among the most dominant barriers to entrepreneurship after the socioeconomic and political reforms (Batsakis 2014).
Cluster 2 is called Entrepreneurialism and Economics. This cluster mainly discusses entrepreneurialism and economic development in developing countries.
Cluster 3 considers Social Capital and Culture while cluster 4 discusses Risk Attitudes and Social Networks. Social capital, as an indication of the characteristics of a social network, is a determining factor of entrepreneurship and can be affected by the socioeconomic environment (Boenisch and Schneider 2010; Wyrwich et al. 2016). Therefore, we merge clusters 3 and 4 and call it Social Capital and Culture. The findings in this cluster reveal that people, particularly those who are older, are less willing to obtain knowledge and experience from entrepreneurial role models (Fritsch and Rusakova 2012; Smallbone and Welter 2001). This finding is explained by a low perception of entrepreneurship in formerly socialist environments (e.g., East Germany) (Bauernschuster et al. 2012).
Cluster 5 is called Informal Economy and Development. Research in this cluster analyzes the informal economy in terms of informal entrepreneurship activity as well as informal business in transition economies. Papers in this group reveal that in transition economies with complicated rules and regulations, high taxes, and corruption, people prefer to run informal businesses, which have political connections as well as relationships with state authorities (Markina et al. 2017; Williams 2014a, b).
Cluster 6 represents studies focused on education and entrepreneurship, so we call it Education. The results report that entrepreneurship education programs have a significant influence on the entrepreneurship intentions of the younger generation in their student days. Moreover, other findings document that older people and women who had prolonged exposure to the communist framework have a lower locus of control and greater fear of failure (Bitzenis and Nito 2005; Holt 1997; Runst 2013; Schwarz et al. 2009).
Cluster 7 covers the Business Environment and mainly discusses macro-level studies on a transition economy's business environment. Previous studies point out that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, people invested more in skills related to services, rather than industry-specific skills, such as those for mining and manufacturing because of a remarkable increase in demand for services (e.g., finance, insurance, and consulting) (Orazem and Vodopivec 1997).
3.2.2 Co-citation analysis of authors in the field
We perform a co-citation analysis at the author level to shed light on the most influential researchers in the field and how they are connected to the others based on co-citation counts. Only those with at least 15 citations are considered, and 31 authors satisfy this criterion.
The finding shows that Welter, Smallbone, and Audretsch are the central researchers in the field of the socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship, consistent with the results of the previous citation analysis at the author level. Based on the co-citation analysis and the illustration shown in Fig. 4, the academic community involved in the research is divided into five thematic clusters, each of which has the same number of researchers.
Cluster 1 (red) comprises six renowned authors in the entrepreneurship field: Audretsch, Bosma, Johnson, North, Thurik, and Verheul. A central tenet of this cluster is entrepreneurship and education in transition economies. Cluster 2 (green) consists of scholars who examine the effect of the institutional environment, including formal (e.g., government policies, corruption) and informal frameworks (role models, social networks) of entrepreneurship activity. Cluster 3 (blue) addresses the relationship between individual values (e.g., risk preferences, locus of control) and the gender gap in self-employment in a transition economy.
Cluster 4 (yellow) focuses on the influence of social capital (e.g., institutional trust in general, trust in business-oriented actors, and networks) and engagement in entrepreneurship by individuals and entrepreneurial culture across regions and countries. Cluster 5 (purple) is considered one of the most significant clusters, as it includes the two most cited researchers in the field. Scholarship in this field examines how social capital (e.g., family business, friends) affects the entrepreneurial intentions of people at different stages of an economy’s transition to the market.
3.2.3 Co-citation analysis of journals
The results of a co-citation analysis of journals in the research field are illustrated in Fig. 5. Journals with at least 13 citations are considered for further examination, and only 36 journals meet this criterion. Based on co-citation counts, the analysis shows that research concerning the nexus of a socialist legacy, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship is scattered across various academic disciplines. In particular, the top three journals are the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV), Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (ETP), and Small Business Economics (SBE). According to Scopus, these are also top-tier journals in management and entrepreneurship science. The analysis yields 5 clusters (Fig. 5).
Cluster 1 (red) and cluster 4 (yellow) are dominated by a total of 17 items. Journals in these two groups cover broad theoretical and practical insights in management and organization as an interdisciplinary science. For instance, some focus on economic perspectives (e.g., Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Economic Perspectives, and Journal of Political Economy) while others concern sociology.
Cluster 2 (green) is the second-largest group. It consists of top-tier journals in the entrepreneurship field, such as the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, JBV, and ETP.
Cluster 3 (blue) focuses on family business and administration science, including Administrative Science Quarterly and Family Business Review. Cluster 5 (purple) mainly addresses academic and technology entrepreneurship. It covers the top two journals in this subfield, Research Policy and the Journal of Technology Transfer.
4 Future research agenda
Our review highlights five areas that are critical and require future research. First, future research should be more geographically inclusive. Although the number of empirical studies is growing, they still tend to have a strong bias toward countries in Europe. More research is needed to explore context-dependent knowledge such as in Asia.
Second, studies are needed to examine the role of education on an individual’s perception of entrepreneurship. Although the education system is a crucial institution, the existing literature has insufficiently explained its role in this respect. For example, Fuchs-Schündeln and Masella (2016) test the long-lasting effect of a socialist education on returns to school and reveal that individuals (both men and women) with an additional year of socialist education are less likely to obtain a college degree. Moreover, Wyrwich (2013a, b) finds that, under socialism, formal education had less economic value and did not matter in starting a new firm. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to quantitatively compare the role of a formal and informal institutional socialist legacy on individual attitudes and entrepreneurship.
Third, more work is needed on changes in attitude by those who are exposed to socialist transformation at different stages, as well as how a change in mindset influences entrepreneurial activities. The political-socioeconomic changes from one stage to another in transition economies lead to differences in (potential) entrepreneurs’ strategies and characteristics (Estrin et al. 2006).
Fourth, the entrepreneur’s mode of entry in a transition economy needs to be investigate more deeply. Entrepreneurship can take different forms, including starting a firm, inheriting a (family) firm, purchasing an outside firm (management buy-in), and purchasing the firm of a former employer (a management buy-out) (Cooper and Dunkelberg 1986). However, the literature overemphasizes starting a firm (Bauernschuster et al. 2012; Runst 2013; Wyrwich 2013a, b). Hence, further research could investigate the role of the socialist legacy and individual attitudes in an entrepreneur’s choice regarding the mode of entry.
Fifth, it would be interesting to examine how the socialist legacy affects the determinants of entrepreneurship groups: opportunity-based and necessity-based entrepreneurship. An opportunity entrepreneur goes into self-employment voluntarily, whereas necessity entrepreneurs become self-employed out of necessity (Block and Sandner 2009; Reynolds et al. 2005). Socioeconomic changes during the transition period opened many profitable opportunities for (potential) entrepreneurs in the service sector (Smallbone and Welter 2006). However, at the same time, significant economic reforms in transition economies have led to excessive and persistent unemployment (Manev and Manolova 2010). As a result, those who are unemployed and formerly worked at SOEs are more likely to be forced into entrepreneurship because of the lack of career alternatives. Thus, we need to learn more about the differences between necessity entrepreneurs and opportunity entrepreneurs in terms of the duration of self-employment in a transition economy.
5 Conclusion
Since 2007, the interconnections between socialist legacy, individuals’ attitudes, and entrepreneurship have attracted scholarly attention. Using a novel approach that combines three relational bibliometric techniques (citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis) and qualitative content analysis, our review highlights the most impactful authors, foundational publications, and journals in the research field since its beginning. We also identify five ongoing academic conversations that address distinct research questions and topics of interest in the business environment, corruption and institutions, the informal economy and development, social capital and culture, and personality traits.
Like any other academic works, this review has several limitations. The sample is limited to peer‐reviewed articles published in English. This means that the scholarship in other languages, including essential conference papers or book chapters, is not considered in our analysis. The research is also restricted to the Scopus database. Even though Scopus covers a wide range of high-quality outlets in multiple disciplines, there is still a possibility that crucial work is missing. Second, the bibliometric techniques applied in this study are full of flaws. Citation and co‐citation analyses are biased toward older articles because they receive a higher number of citations than newly published papers. Additionally, the co‐occurrence of (key)word analysis depends on the frequency of the term. However, the same word has different meanings in different contexts, so the analysis could be misleading.
Among the directions for future research proposed is the influence of other types of institutions, such as education on individual perceptions of entrepreneurship and subsequent entrepreneurial behavior. Furthermore, the literature needs to move beyond the bias toward the European context in theorizing and empirical analysis and examine the longer-term, deeper mechanisms through which the socialist legacy affects individual attitudes toward a diversity of entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, future research questions need to focus on the political-socioeconomic changes from one stage to the next in transition economies that lead to differences in entrepreneurial strategies between opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship, which is still absent from the existing scholarship.
Data availability statements
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during our study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Aaltio I (2008) Management education as an identity construction: the case of Estonia and its transition economy background. Int J Entrep Small Bus 5(1):83–99
Abetti PA (1995) Planning for entrepreneurial innovation: field studies in Poland and Ukraine and lessons learned. Creat Innov Manag 4(1):45–51
Acs Z, Virgill N (2010) Entrepreneurship in developing countries. Found Trends Entrep 6(1):1–68
Adam-Müller AF, Andres R, Block JH, Fisch C (2015) Socialist heritage and the opinion on entrepreneurs: micro-level evidence from Europe. Bus Adm Rev 75(4):211–232
Afandi E, Kermani M, Mammadov F (2017) Social capital and entrepreneurial process. Int Entrep Manag J 13(3):685–716
Ahunov M, Yusupov N (2017) Risk attitudes and entrepreneurial motivations: evidence from transition economies. Econ Lett 160:7–11
Aidis R, Estrin S, Mickiewicz T (2008) Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: a comparative perspective. J Bus Ventur 23(6):656–672
Alexandrova M (2004) Entrepreneurship in a transition economy: the impact of environment on entrepreneurial orientation. Probl Perspect Manag 2(2):140–148
Anderson J (1997) Elections and political development in Central Asia. J Commun Stud Transit Polit 13(4):28–53
Andras I (2020) Small entrepreneurship development in Belarus: Sociological retrospective and perspectives. J Entrep Emerging Econ 12(2):169–186
Anisimov AP, Ryzhenkov AJ (2014) Solar and wind power as natural resource: legal theory and practice of use of renewable energy sources (View from Russia). Law Dev Rev 7(1):165–185
Aparicio G, Iturralde T, Maseda A (2019) Conceptual structure and perspectives on entrepreneurship education research: a bibliometric review. Eur Res Manag Bus Econ 25(3):105–113
Ardichvili A, Gasparishvili A (2003) Russian and Georgian entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs: a study of value differences. Organ Stud 24(1):29–46
Batsakis GK (2014) Impediments on the way to entrepreneurship. Some new evidence from the EU’s post-socialist world. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 21(3):385–402
Bauernschuster S, Falck O, Gold R, Heblich S (2012) The shadows of the socialist past: lack of self-reliance hinders entrepreneurship. Eur J Polit Econ 28(4):485–497
Becherer RC, Helms MM (2011) Is Cuba’s emerging entrepreneurial economy at the crossroads? Int J Emerg Mark 6(4):369–381
Beqiri T (2019) Empirical study on intrinsic motivation factors of employees in transition economies. Int J Econ Bus Adm 7(4):307–319
Bitzenis A, Nito E (2005) Financing problems and the lack of entrepreneurship in Albania: findings from small and medium enterprises. Glob Bus Econ Rev 7(4):409–438
Block J, Fisch C (2020) Eight tips and questions for your bibliographic study in business and management research. Springer
Block J, Sandner P (2009) Necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs and their duration in self-employment: evidence from German micro data. J Ind Compet Trade 9(2):117–137
Boenisch P, Schneider L (2010) Informal social networks and spatial mobility: the enduring impact of communist history in Eastern Germany. Post-Commun Econ 22(4):483–497
Bönisch P, Schneider L (2013) The social capital legacy of communism-results from the Berlin Wall experiment. Eur J Polit Econ 32:391–411
Branchet B, Křížková A (2015) Gender and entrepreneurial intentions in a transition economy context: case of the Czech Republic. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25(3):260–281
Čábelková I, Abrhám J, Strielkowski W (2015) Factors influencing job satisfaction in post-transition economies: the case of the Czech Republic. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 21(4):448–456
Casero JCD, González MA, de la Cruz Sánchez Escobedo M, Martínez AC, Mogollón RH (2013) Institutional variables, entrepreneurial activity and economic development. Manag Decis 51(2):281–305
Çera G, Çera E (2020) Intention to start a business and entrepreneurship education programme: a pre- and post-programme research design. J Enterp Commun 14(4):603–619
Charnysh V (2019) Diversity, institutions, and economic outcomes: post-WWII displacement in Poland. Am Polit Sci Rev 113(2):423–441
Chelariu C, Brashear TG, Osmonbekov T, Zait A (2008) Entrepreneurial propensity in a transition economy: exploring micro-level and meso-level cultural antecedents. J Bus Ind Mark 23(6):405–415
Chen J, Dickson BJ (2008) Allies of the State: democratic support and regime support among China’s private entrepreneurs. China Q 196:780–804
Chen J, Zhong Y (1999) Mass political interest (or apathy) in urban China. Commun Post-Commun 32(3):281–303
Chen Z, Sun Y, Newman A, Xu W (2012) Entrepreneurs, organizational members, political participation and preferential treatment: evidence from China. Int Small Bus J 30(8):873–889
Chepurenko A (2018) Small family business in Russia: formal or informal? Int J Sociol Soc Policy 38(9–10):809–822
Cieslik J, Kaciak E (2009) The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial start-ups in a transition environment. J Dev Entrep 14(4):375–392
Clark Muntean S, Ozkazanc-Pan B (2016) Feminist perspectives on social entrepreneurship: critique and new directions. Int J Gend Entrep 8(3):221–241
Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F (2011) An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. J Informet 5(1):146–166
Cooper AC, Dunkelberg WC (1986) Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strateg Manag J 7(1):53–68
Cuberes D, Priyanka S, Teignier M (2019) The determinants of entrepreneurship gender gaps: a cross-country analysis. Rev Dev Econ 23(1):72–101
Dai W, Liu Y, Liao M, Lin Q (2018) How does entrepreneurs’ socialist imprinting shape their opportunity selection in transition economies? Evidence from China’s privately owned enterprises. Int Entrep Manag J 14(4):823–856
Debus M, Tosun J, Maxeiner M (2017) Support for policies on entrepreneurship and self-employment among parties and coalition governments. Polit Policy 45(3):338–371
Dixon SEA, Day M (2007) Leadership, administrative heritage and absorptive capacity. Leadersh Org Dev J 28(8):727–748
Djankov S, Miguel E, Qian Y, Roland G, Zhuravskaya E (2005) Who are Russia’s entrepreneurs? J Eur Econ Assoc 3(2–3):587–597
Djip V (2014) Entrepreneurship and SME development in post-conflict societies: the case of Bosnia & Herzegovina. J Entrep Public Policy 3(2):254–274
Duke V (1999) No longer working for the state: residual state sector versus private sector. GeoJournal 49(1):17–24
Dumitru I, Dumitru I (2017) Entrepreneurship determinants in central and Eastern Europe. The case of Romania. Econ Comput Econ Cybernet Stud Res 51(1):187–203
Dvouletý O, Orel M (2020) Individual determinants of entrepreneurship in visegrád countries: reflection on gem data from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Entrep Bus Econ Rev 8(4):123–137
Elenurm T, Heil P (2015) Education and other competency sources for financially successful entrepreneurship. Int J Entrep Small Bus 25(3):314–330
Estrin S, Meyer KE, Bytchkova M (2006) Entrepreneurship in transition economies. The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp 693–725
Feng T, Wang G (2010) How private enterprises establish organizational legitimacy in China’s transitional economy. J Manag Dev 29(4):377–393
Fogel G (2004) Policies and socio-economic conditions of private enterprise development in transitionary economies. Int J Entrep Small Bus 1(1–2):136–152
Fritsch M (2004) Entrepreneurship, entry and performance of new business compared in two growth regimes: East and West Germany. J Evol Econ 14(5):525–542
Fritsch M, Bublitz E, Sorgner A, Wyrwich M (2014) How much of a socialist legacy? The re-emergence of entrepreneurship in the East German transformation to a market economy. Small Bus Econ 43(2):427–446
Fritsch M, Rusakova A (2012a) Self-employment after socialism: intergenerational links, entrepreneurial values, and human capital. Int J Dev Sci 6(3–4):167–175
Fuchs-Schündeln N, Masella P (2016) Long-lasting effects of socialist education. Rev Econ Stat 98(3):428–441
Garfield E (1979) Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics 1(4):359–375
Georgiev S, Ohtaki S (2016) Evolution and implementation of quality management practices in the manufacturing sector in Eastern Europe after the end of communism: the case of Bulgaria. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 33(6):804–829
Ghura H, Harraf A, Li X, Hamdan A (2020) The moderating effect of corruption on the relationship between formal institutions and entrepreneurial activity: evidence from post-communist countries. J Entrep Emerging Econ 12(1):58–78
Gijselinckx C, Bussels M (2014) Farmers’ cooperatives in Europe: social and historical determinants of cooperative membership in agriculture. Ann Public Cooper Economics 85(4):509–530
Glinka B, Thatchenkery T (2013) A comparative study of perceptions towards entrepreneurship in India, Poland, and the USA. Int J Hum Resour Dev Manag 13(2–3):119–135
Gonzalez-Corzo MA, Justo O (2017) Private self-employment under reform socialism in Cuba. J Priv Enterp 32(2):45–82
Goodwin R, Emelyanova T (1995) The privatization of the personal? II: attitudes to the family and child-rearing values in modern-day russia. J Soc Pers Relat 12(1):132–138
Goodwin R, Nizharadze G, Nguyen LA, L., Kosa, E., & Emelyanova, T. (2001) Social support in a changing Europe: an analysis of three post-Communist nations. Eur J Soc Psychol 31(4):379–393
Grigore AM, Dragan IM (2020) Towards sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in a transitional economy: an analysis of two Romanian city-regions through the lens of entrepreneurs. Sustainability (switzerland) 12(15):6061
Hayduk I, Williams DR (2019) Gender gap in self-employment: the role of risk attitudes. Econ Transit Inst Change 27(3):673–698
Hayton JC, George G, Zahra SA (2002) National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioral research. Entrep Theory Pract 26(4):33–52
Hisrich RD, Grachev MV (1993) The Russian entrepreneur. J Bus Ventur 8(6):487–497
Holbig H (2002) The party and private entrepreneurs in the PRC. Copenh J Asian Stud 16:30–56
Holt DH (1997) A comparative study of values among Chinese and US entrepreneurs: pragmatic convergence between contrasting cultures. J Bus Ventur 12(6):483–505
Ji Y, Fan X (2019) Do deep pockets have more political influence?—The size of private enterprises and their strategy selection in resolving administrative disputes. J Chin Sociol 6(1):1–20
Jones MV, Coviello N, Tang YK (2011) International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis. J Bus Ventur 26(6):632–659
Jones P, Jones A, Packham G, Miller C (2008) Student attitudes towards enterprise education in Poland: a positive impact. Educ Train 50(7):597–614
Jung K, Dalton B, Willis J (2018) From patriarchal socialism to grassroots capitalism: the role of female entrepreneurs in the transition of North Korea. Women’s Stud Int Forum 68:19–27
Jurik N, Křížková A, Pospíšilová M (2016) Czech copreneur orientations to business and family responsibilities: a mixed embeddedness perspective. Int J Gend Entrep 8(3):307–326
Kapeliushnikov R, Kuznetsov A, Demina N, Kuznetsova O (2013) Threats to security of property rights in a transition economy: an empirical perspective. J Comput Econ 41(1):245–264
Kiss AN, Danis WM (2010) Social networks and speed of new venture internationalization during institutional transition: a conceptual model. J Int Entrep 8(3):273–287
Kološta S, Flaška F, Král P, Arethun T, Nesse JG (2020) The influence of contextual and individual factors on entrepreneurial intentions among youth in transitional rural Slovakia. Commun Post-Commun 53(2):113–132
Kornai J (2010) Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: reflections on the changes following the collapse of communism. Eur Rev 18(3):379–397
Korosteleva J, Belitski M (2017) Entrepreneurial dynamics and higher education institutions in the post-Communist world. Reg Stud 51(3):439–453
Kovacs A, Van Looy B, Cassiman B (2015) Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research. Scientometrics 104(3):951–983
Krasniqi BA (2009) Personal, household and business environmental determinants of entrepreneurship. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 16(1):146–166
Lafuente E, Rabetino R (2011) Human capital and growth in Romanian small firms. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 18(1):74–96
Lafuente EM, Vaillant Y (2013) Age driven influence of role-models on entrepreneurship in a transition economy. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 20(1):181–203
Laki M (2003) Opportunities for property acquisition and some characteristics of big entrepreneurs in post-socialist Hungary. Europe—Asia Stud 55(5):693–709
Leydesdorff L (1987) Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics 11(5–6):295–324
Li H, Zhang V (2007) The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: evidence from China’s transition economy. Strateg Manag J 28(8):791–804
Li X, MacNeil I (2016) Experimentation in securities market structure and regulation in China: from state to market. J Corp Law Stud 16(2):241–291
Linda Y (2009) Self-employment in urban China: networking in a transition economy. China Econ Rev 20(3):471–484
Ljubotina P, Vadnjal J (2017) Succeeding a family business in a transition economy: Is this the best that can happen to me? Kybernetes 46(8):1366–1385
Lunsford DA, Fussell BC (1993) Marketing business services in central Europe the challenge: a report of expert opinion. J Serv Mark 7(1):13–21
Manev IM, Manolova TS (2010) Entrepreneurship in transitional economies: review and integration of two decades of research. J Dev Entrep 15(01):69–99
Manichev S, Gurieva S, Dmitrieva V, Mikhalyuk O, Vereitinova T, Namdi D (2016) Values and hardiness: Entrepreneurs of former soviet countries. Indian J Sci Technol 9(46):107–510
Marcus SJ (1992) After the USSR: environmental management, market-style. Technol Rev 95(1):63–68
Markina, I., Hniedkov, A., & Somych, M. (2017). The development of the shadow entrepreneurship in Ukraine. Espacios, 38(54).
Markus S (2007) Capitalists of all Russia, unite! Business mobilization under debilitated dirigisme. Polity 39(3):277–304
Martens B (2008) East German economic elites and their companies two decades after the transformation (“Wende”): still following the patterns of the 1990s. J East Eur Manag Stud 13(4):305–326
Miazhevich G (2009) Hybridisation of business norms as intercultural dialogue: the case of two post-Soviet countries. Commun. Post-Commun 42(2):181–198
Mickiewicz T, Sauka A, Stephan U (2016) On the compatibility of benevolence and self-interest: philanthropy and entrepreneurial orientation. Int Small Bus j: Res Entrep 34(3):303–328
Mitra J, Matlay H (2004) Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: lessons from eastern and central Europe. Ind High Educ 18(1):53–61
Musaraj S (2011) Tales from Albarado: the materiality of pyramid schemes in postsocialist Albania. Cult Anthropol 26(1):84–110
Neumayer L (2015) Integrating the central European past into a common narrative: the mobilizations around the ‘crimes of communism’ in the European parliament. J Contemp Eur Stud 23(3):344–363
Nguyen TV (2003) Managing change in Vietnamese state-owned enterprises: What is the best strategy? Hum Resour Manag Rev 13(3):423–438
Nicoara O (2018) Cultural leadership and entrepreneurship as antecedents of Estonia’s singing revolution and post-communist success. Baltic J Eur Stud 8(2):65–91
Nicolae M, Muresan M (2010) Niculae malaxa-a success story of the Romanian metallurgy entrepreneurs. Metal Int 15(Spec. Issue 3):126–130
Nuissl H (2005) Trust in a “post-socialist region”: a study of east German ICT entrepreneurs’ willingness to trust each other. Eur Urban Reg Stud 12(1):65–81
Ockenfels A, Weimann J (1999) Types and patterns: an experimental East-West-German comparison of cooperation and solidarity. J Public Econ 71(2):275–287
Ojala A, Isomäki H (2011) Entrepreneurship and small businesses in Russia: a review of empirical research. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 18(1):97–119
Olesia L, Simona M (2006) Work and education in transition. J Organ Chang Manag 19(6):775–779
Orazem PF, Vodopivec M (1997) Value of human capital in transition to market: evidence from Slovenia. Eur Econ Rev 41(3):893–903
Pagés C, Stampini M (2009) No education, no good jobs? Evidence on the relationship between education and labor market segmentation. J Comput Econ 37(3):387–401
Papava V (2002) Necroeconomics—the theory of post-communist transformation of an economy. Int J Soc Econ 29(10):796–805
Pawłowska A, Kacprzak A, Strzelecki A (2006) Postmodern consumption patterns in Polish entrepreneurs’ behaviour. Transform Bus Econ 5(1):81–100
Petrova T (2015) Diffusion and the production of eastern Europe. East Eur Polit Soc 29(2):487–503
Phillips EF (2007) “Maybe tomorrow I’ll turn capitalist”: cuentapropismo in a workers’ state. Law Soc Rev 41(2):305–342
Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Bachrach DG, Podsakoff NP (2005) The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strateg Manag J 26(5):473–488
Poon PS, Zhou L, Chan TS (2009) Social entrepreneurship in a transitional economy: a critical assessment of rural Chinese entrepreneurial firms. J Manag Dev 28(2):94–108
Reynolds P, Bosma N, Autio E, Hunt S, De Bono N, Servais I et al (2005) Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Bus Econ 24(3):205–231
Robinson DA (2008) Keeping pace with change in SMEs: creating and maintaining congruence and consistency in SMEs in transition economies. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 8(3):272–285
Runst P (2013) Post-socialist culture and entrepreneurship. Am J Econ Sociol 72(3):593–626
Sanfey P, Teksoz U (2007) Does transition make you happy? 1. Econ Transit 15(4):707–731
Scarpaci JL (2014) Material and cultural consumption in Cuba: new reference groups in the new millennium. J Cult Geogr 31(3):257–279
Schwarz EJ, Wdowiak MA, Breitenecker RJ, Kuntarič A (2009) The impact of entrepreneurs’ cultural capital on early performance of new ventures: a comparison between Austria and Slovenia. Int J Bus Glob 3(1):22–46
Sekliuckiene J (2017) Factors leading to early internationalization in emerging Central and Eastern European economies: empirical evidence from new ventures in Lithuania. Eur Bus Rev 29(2):219–242
Sharma S, Tarp F (2018) Does managerial personality matter? Evidence from firms in Vietnam. J Econ Behav Organ 150:432–445
Shinet G, Myrzaliyev B, Ydyrys S (2016) Conceptual approaches to the study of nature of private ownership of private subsidiary farming during post-socialist transformation in agricultural sector. J Adv Res Law Econ 7(2):350–362
Silajdžić I, Kurtagić SM, Vučijak B (2015) Green entrepreneurship in transition economies: a case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina. J Clean Prod 88:376–384
Skokic V, Lynch P, Morrison A (2016) Hotel entrepreneurship in a turbulent environment. Int J Hosp Manag 53:1–11
Skriabikova OJ, Dohmen T, Kriechel B (2014) New evidence on the relationship between risk attitudes and self-employment. Labour Econ 30:176–184
Skute I, Zalewska-Kurek K, Hatak I, de Weerd-Nederhof P (2019) Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations. J Technol Transf 44(3):916–947
Smallbone D, Welter F (2001) The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. Small Bus Econ 16(4):249–262
Smallbone D, Welter F (2006) Conceptualising entrepreneurship in a transition context. Int J Entrep Small Bus 3(2):190–206
Solesvik MZ, Westhead P, Kolvereid L, Matlay H (2012) Student intentions to become selfemployed: the Ukrainian context. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 19(3):441–460
Solesvik MZ, Westhead P, Matlay H, Parsyak VN (2013) Entrepreneurial assets and mindsets: Benefit from university entrepreneurship education investment. Educ + Train 55:748–762
Stefanova B (2009) Ethnic nationalism, social structure, and political agency: explaining electoral support for the radical right in Bulgaria. Ethn Racial Stud 32(9):1534–1556
Szabo ZK, Herman E (2014) Productive entrepreneurship in the EU and its barriers in transition economies: a cluster analysis. Acta Polytech Hungar 11(6):73–94
Szczepański MS, Śliz A (2010) The transition from socialist to a market economy privatization: the point of view of the polish society. Polish Sociol Rev 170(2):233–246
Szent-Gyorgyi KA (1993) Embourgeoisement and the "cultural capital’ variable: rural enterprise and concepts of prestige in northeastern Hungary. Man 28(3):515–532
Szerb L, Rappai G, Makra Z, Terjesen S (2007) Informal investment in transition economies: individual characteristics and clusters. Small Bus Econ 28(2–3):257–271
Szerb L, Trumbull WN (2018) Entrepreneurship development in Russia: is Russia a normal country? An empirical analysis. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 25(6):902–929
Sztompka P (1996) Looking back: the year 1989 as a cultural and civilizational break. Commun Post-Commun 29(2):115–129
Tchalakov I, Mitev T, Petrov V (2010) The academic spin-offs as an engine of economic transition in Eastern Europe. A path-dependent approach. Minerva 48(2):189–217
Tetřevová L, Vlčková V (2019) Academic entrepreneurship in the Czech republic. Ekonom Cas 67(9):995–1010
Todorovic ZW, Ma J (2010) Resolving the paradox of enterprising communities in Eastern Europe. J Enterp Commun 4(3):234–251
Traikova D, Manolova TS, Möllers J, Buchenrieder G (2017) Corruption perceptions and entrepreneurial intentions in a transitional context-the case of rural bulgaria. J Dev Entrep 22(3):1750018
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222
Varblane U, Mets T (2010) Entrepreneurship education in the higher education institutions (HEIs) of post-communist European countries. J Enterp Commun: People Places Glob Econ 4(3):204–219
Vasilevska L, Milanovic D, Nikolic M, Vranic P, Milojkovic A (2015) “Garage capitalism” as a form and process of post-socialist urban changes: its pace, intensity and structural characteristics. A case study of Nis, Serbia. Habitat Int 48:149–158
Vassilieva J, Bennett DN (2012) Mass culture and the production of the capitalist subject in post-communist Russia. Continuum 26(5):783–797
Ventsel A (2019) Reluctant entrepreneurs of the Russian far east: another view on the economic strategies of entrepreneurs. Folklore (estonia) 75:174–190
Vladimirov Z, Davidkov T, Yordanova D (2017) The influence of the perceptions of institutional environment on entrepreneurial plans: exploring the moderating effects of firm age and firm size in Bulgarian enterprises. Probl Perspect Manag 15(1):175–182
Vodă AI, Haller AP, Anichiti A, Butnaru GI (2020) Testing entrepreneurial intention determinants in post-transition economies. Sustainability (switzerland) 12(24):1–28
Wang G, Wu L, Han R (2015) College education and attitudes toward democracy in China: an empirical study. Asia Pac Educ Rev 16(3):399–412
Warnecke T (2018) Social entrepreneurship in China: driving institutional change. J Econ Issues 52(2):368–377
Wdowiak MA, Schwarz EJ, Breitenecker RJ, Wright RW (2012) Linking the cultural capital of the entrepreneur and early performance of new ventures: a cross-country comparison. J East Eur Manag Stud 17(2):149–183
Welter F, Xheneti M, Smallbone D (2018) Entrepreneurial resourcefulness in unstable institutional contexts: the example of European Union borderlands. Strateg Entrep J 12(1):23–53
Williams CC (2014a) Explaining cross-national variations in the commonality of informal sector entrepreneurship: an exploratory analysis of 38 emerging economies. J Small Bus Entrep 27(2):191–212
Williams CC (2014b) Uncoupling enterprise culture from capitalism: some lessons from Moscow. J Enterp Commun 8(2):111–125
Wyrwich M (2013a) Can socioeconomic heritage produce a lost generation with regard to entrepreneurship? J Bus Ventur 28(5):667–682
Wyrwich M (2013b) In the name of my parents: entrepreneurship and the intergenerational transmission of values (No. 2013-031). Jena Econ Res Papers
Wyrwich M (2015) Entrepreneurship and the intergenerational transmission of values. Small Bus Econ 45(1):191–213
Wyrwich M, Stuetzer M, Sternberg R (2016) Entrepreneurial role models, fear of failure, and institutional approval of entrepreneurship: a tale of two regions. Small Bus Econ 46(3):467–492
Xheneti M, Bartlett W (2012) Institutional constraints and SME growth in post‐communist Albania. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 19(4):607–626
Young PT (2010) Captured by business? Romanian market governance and the new economic elite. Bus Polit 12(1):1–38
Yueh L (2009) China’s entrepreneurs. World Dev 37(4):778–786
Yukhanaev A, Fallon G, Baranchenko Y, Anisimova A (2015) An investigation into the formal institutional constraints that restrict entrepreneurship and SME growth in Russia. J East-West Bus 21(4):313–341
Zapalska A, Zapalska L (2000) Small business ventures in post-communist Hungary. J East-West Bus 5(4):5–21
Židonis Z (2007) Entrepreneurial internationalisation: a case study of libra company. Balt J Manag 2(3):273–287
Zupic I, Čater T (2015) Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods 18(3):429–472
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the IReL Consortium. The first author has received research support from University of Dalat, Vietnam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The first author and the corresponding author equally contribute to the research process. The third author revised and proofread. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, L.T., Nguyen-Quoc, A. & Dung, B.T.K. Mapping the research on the legacy of socialism, individual attitudes, and entrepreneurship: a bibliometric analysis and future research agenda. Manag Rev Q 73, 1419–1456 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00278-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00278-5
Keywords
- Bibliometric methods
- Entrepreneurship
- Individual attitudes
- Legacy of socialism
- Systematic literature review