Abstract
Researchers’ interest in studying the relationship between age and entrepreneurship has mushroomed in the last decade. While over a hundred articles are published and indexed in the Scopus database alone with varying and fragmented results, there has been a lack of effort in reviewing, integrating, and classifying the literature. This article offers a framework-based systematic review of 174 articles to comprehend the relationship and influencing factors related to an individual's age and entrepreneurship. Bibliographic coupling is used to identify the prominent clusters in the literature on this topic and the most influential articles. Also, the TCCM review framework is adopted to provide a comprehensive insight into dominant theories applied, contexts (geographic regions and industries) incorporated, characteristics (antecedents, consequences, mediating and moderating variables, and their relationships) investigated, and research methods employed in age and entrepreneurship research over the last fifteen (2007–2022). Though the literature covers an array of industries, to better understand the age-entrepreneurship correlation, we need to investigate the new-age technologically driven business sectors further to expand our knowledge. Furthermore, we detect that the Theory of Planned Behavior mostly dominates the literature, with other theories trivially employed. Finally, we apply the TCCM framework to suggest fertile areas for future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Entrepreneurship research has witnessed increased attention on the relationship between age and the entrepreneurial behavior of an individual (Kautonen & Minniti, 2014). Also, investigating the differences in entrepreneurial career/self-employment decisions across various age groups has garnered increasing interest from researchers (Morrar et al., 2022; Seo et al., 2024). Furthermore, comprehending the motivational factors influencing self-employment decisions has shown to be particularly useful, as the factors are fundamental determinants of individuals' mindset and intent (Cowling, 2000; Kautonen et al., 2015). According to Kautonen et al. (2014), an individual's age plays a significant role in converting entrepreneurial intentions into entrepreneurial actions. However, the negative impact of age is also evident in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Shirokova et al., 2016). Age, including gender and personality traits, favors or inhibits engagement in entrepreneurship (Kautonen & Minniti, 2014). Paray & Kumar (2020) stress the importance of predisposition toward willingness to take risks, proactivity, innovation, and self-efficacy as crucial attributes of entrepreneurial intention. Findings have proven the positive relationship between risk aversion and age, which could impact the inclination to pursue an entrepreneurial career path (Bayon & Lamotte, 2020; Hernández et al., 2019). Younger individuals, who tend to be more enthusiastic, dynamic, and ambitious, may be more inclined to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits as they have a relatively higher present value of future income streams (Alvarez-Sousa, 2019). On the other hand, older individuals' larger network of social contacts and extensive professional experience are instrumental in successfully transforming entrepreneurial intentions into entrepreneurial ventures (Curran & Blackburn, 2001; Kautonen & Minniti, 2014). Older individuals are better equipped in terms of social and human capital to navigate the early-stage uncertainties in their ventures successfully (Seo et al., 2024; Karoly & Zissimopoulos, 2003).
According to Becker's (1965) theory of time allocation, each person has a critical threshold age at which their willingness to invest time in initiating new activities declines due to the increasing opportunity cost of time as they grow older (Galenson, 2009). This theory also applies to entrepreneurs and their networking activities, leading to their social capital. Consequently, an individual's motivation for starting new ventures decreases over their lifespan (Ashourizadeh & Schøtt, 2013; Kozubíková et al., 2016). As individuals grow older, they may prefer activities that offer immediate rewards, such as paid work or leisure time, in retirement (Curran & Blackburn, 2001). However, this preference may also be influenced by the social context in which older individuals operate, particularly cultural views of aging (McCrae et al., 1999; Minola et al., 2016). Studies have confirmed an inverted U-shaped relationship between age and entrepreneurship (Paray & Kumar, 2020). The chances of an individual becoming an entrepreneur increase with age up to the late 40s (Kautonen et al., 2014) and decreases thereafter (Minola et al., 2016; Shaw & Sørensen, 2022; Viljamaa et al., 2022). It is evident that age and entrepreneurship have acquired prominence as a research concept, especially in the last ten years, with over a hundred articles indexed in the Scopus database alone with varying, inconclusive, and fragmented results, as exemplified above.
The significance of this topic is evident from the fact that a meta-analysis on this topic was recently published by Liao et al. (2022). Though systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are research methods utilized in synthesizing previous studies, they have unique advantages and functions. While meta-analyses concentrate on quantifying the body of knowledge using a specific statistical analysis and are limited to studies that report correlation coefficients, systematic reviews offer a more comprehensive and broader picture of the state of research (Syed et al., 2023). However, none of the articles (Table 1) attempt to carry out a comprehensive review and analysis to amalgamate the various aspects and themes related to age and entrepreneurship. At this junction, it is necessary to integrate and classify the literature to prevent its further fragmentation and recognize future research avenues. Hence, this paper probes the following research questions:
-
RQ1: How has literature on age and entrepreneurship developed?
-
RQ2: Which theories, contexts, characteristics, and methods have been incorporated in the literature on age and entrepreneurship?
-
RQ3: What are the probable future research avenues regarding Age and Entrepreneurship?
To find answers to the above RQs, we conducted co-citation analysis of journals, bibliographic coupling of documents, identified seminal papers in the area, and most importantly, used the TCCM framework to organize the literature to present an all-encompassing and integrative depiction of research in this area. By using multiple analyses, the first study to do so in this domain, we have provided a deeper and broader understanding of the research topic from different perspectives. A thorough analysis points out gaps in the body of knowledge, opening the door for more studies. Furthermore, thematic analysis has been performed by the earlier literature reviews in this area (Ratten, 2019; Minola et al., 2014); however, we use bibliometric coupling to identify thematic clusters. Using its unique clustering technique, bibliometric coupling identifies emerging themes and new research trends by examining the relationship between documents. The co-citation of journals identified clusters of journals belonging to different arenas in this field, such as management, psychology, and small business. This helps researchers clearly see the underlying disciplines in this field. Scholars frequently congregate around key journals, and figuring out which ones to read can aid in developing cooperative networks. Interacting with researchers who publish in these journals can help build relationships with subject matter specialists and could provide avenues for collaborative studies.
This article is designed as follows: The “Methodology” section explains the research methodology used in this study. The “Bibliometric findings” section illustrates bibliometric findings, including clusters from bibliographic coupling and seminal papers on this topic (RQ 1). The “TCCM framework-based review” section elucidates the theories, contexts, characteristics, and methods incorporated in the published studies (RQ 2). The “Last five years” section highlights the merging themes in the last five years. The “Future research directions” section highlights the future research directions. The “Conclusion” section is the concluding section, which briefly outlines the current research's contributions and limitations.
Methodology
Article selection process
The Scopus database is used to identify the relevant published articles for this study. Scholarly research can also be accessed through other significant databases such as Google Scholar and Web of Science (WoS). Every database has benefits and drawbacks of its own. For example, Google Scholar is the most extensive database with generous citation counts. However, there is a compromise on the quality since Google Scholar not only takes the citation counts from published articles but also from working papers and other less-quality publications, e.g., conference proceedings and book chapters (Ahmad et al., 2020a; b; Asatullaeva et al., 2021; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). On the other hand, the WoS is regarded as a high-quality database that selects citation counts from the papers that have only been published in the WoS journals index (Franceschini et al., 2016; Harzing & Alakangas, 2016). As a result, it is more reliable and of higher quality. Between the two (Scopus & WoS), the Scopus database is a better option for carrying out review work on business/management topics (Máté et al., 2024; Hussain et al., 2023. Franceschini et al., 2016). Furthermore, Scopus is a comprehensive database of research publications that contain titles, abstracts, keywords, and other extensive publications and citation information on thousands of peer-reviewed journals (Sreenivasan & Suresh, 2023; Asatullaeva et al., 2021). Moreover, the Scopus database covers more indexed publications in the field of arts-based management (Santos et al., 2023; Naveed et al., 2023; Franceschini et al., 2016). Therefore, our study considers the Scopus database for data extraction and further analysis. Figure 1 presents the article selection process following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search process begins with appropriate keywords to identify the articles through title, abstract, and author-provided keywords. Based on an initial assessment of the research field and research questions, the keywords/strings are chosen (Xiao & Wu, 2021). Hence, the following words are used in the title, abstract, and author-provided keywords of the documents in Scopus: Age, entrepreneur* startup, "start-up," and self-employment. This search has identified 1,198 documents in the Scopus database. Several filters have been applied to filter out the irrelevant documents. First, the subject area has been restricted to economics, econometrics, finance, business, management, and social science according to Scopus's subject classification. This resulted in the removal of 316 irrelevant documents. In the next step, only journal articles are included in the search. Consequently, 197 conference papers, proceedings, errata, editorials, books, and book chapters have been excluded from the sample. The journal articles are further restricted to the English language, which left with a sample of 640 documents. Next, the articles have been manually screened by two independent researchers to manually skim the title and abstract to remove the irrelevant articles. The relevancy criterion focused on the entrepreneur's age and excluded all articles involving the firm's age only. After this process, 174 articles were found relevant. The final set of papers does not include 9 conceptual, 2 Systematic Literature Review (SLR), and 2 Meta-Analysis papers.
To ensure that our sample was not missing any essential articles, we thoroughly searched the reference list of some important papers on this topic published in different timeframes. Those papers include (Curran & Blackburn, 2001), (Kropp et al., 2008), (Kautonen et al., 2014), and (Zhao et al., 2022). 346 articles have been cited in these five papers. Duplicate and non-Scopus cited references have been removed, leaving us with 215 articles. The title and abstract of these papers were skimmed through two independent research for relevant articles, resulting in 41 relevant articles. However, 10 of them were already included in our sample. Therefore, 31 missing articles have been added to our final sample, consisting of 174 papers. These papers have been published in 108 different journals from 1971 to 2022. 393 researchers have authored these papers and provided 497 different author keywords. These documents have been cited by 6,511 papers, with 42.28 citations per document. VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010) is the software used to construct bibliometric maps (Singh & Malik, 2022).
Bibliometric findings
Publication timeframe
Our study includes all articles published on age and entrepreneurship since the 1970s. However, Fig. 2 illustrates that the publication trend over the last 10 years has increased substantially, indicating that this research topic has garnered substantial interest among academicians and researchers.
Co-citation of journals
Co-citation analysis is a unique method for studying the cognitive structure of science (Ahmad et al., 2020a; Chatha et al., 2018). Co-citation analysis involves tracking pairs of papers cited in the source articles (Ahmad et al., 2020a). When the same pairs of documents are co-cited by many authors, research clusters begin to form (Ferreira, 2018). After analyzing the data, we identified the top 40 outlets with a threshold of 25 citations and categorized them into four different clusters based on the scope of publication (Fig. 3). The first cluster contains 14 outlets representing the broad theme of small business and entrepreneurship. The top outlets in the first cluster based on the link strength are the Journal of Business Venturing, Journal of Small Business Management, International Small Business Journal, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
The network graph shows the Journal of Business Venturing in the center, with the highest link strength among the top 40 journals. The other two journals in terms of link strength are Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Small Business Economics. Our review places the Journal of Business Venturing as a prominent outlet for publishing research on age and entrepreneurship. The four clusters in the co-citation map of journals indicate that the topic has diversity and significance for various publication outlets.
Seminal papers
We used VOS Viewer for co-citation analysis by feeding 174 papers and identifying 9033 cited references. With a threshold of a minimum of 5 citations for cited references, we received 19 papers and a further filter of 10 for ‘total link strength’ (refers to the number of links of a given reference with other references) gave us 13 most cited papers in the given domain of age and entrepreneurship. The selection of 13 articles was based on the thresholds implemented by authors, as there is no standard method to reduce the data (Syed et al., 2022).
The co-citation analysis aided us in extracting 13 seminal papers from the given field (Table 2). The highest number of seminal papers are from the Journal of Business Venturing (3 papers) followed by Small Business Economics (2 papers). Authors for all the seminal papers are associated with universities from the USA (United States of America), the UK (United Kingdom), or other European countries like Sweden. The seminal papers focused on the issues related to entrepreneurial preferences, motivation, and intentions for prime-age entrepreneurs and senior entrepreneurs, and how the interaction of age with other variables has impacted entrepreneurial behavior and success. The seminal papers also highlight the importance of perceived age, personality traits, and other demographic variables on the outcomes like venture growth, self-employment, and entrepreneurship.
We have expanded on the work of seminal papers, which has been discussed in further detail (in the following section) with the help of six clusters attained by using bibliographic coupling in VOSviewer. Bibliographic coupling facilitates studying the recent developments of a given field as it includes recent publications that are not covered in co-citation analysis (Rojas-Lamorena et al., 2022).
Bibliographic coupling
(Ferreira, 2018) describes bibliographic coupling as “…the extent to which two articles are related by virtue of them both referencing the same another article”. In other words, bibliographic coupling occurs when two articles mention a common third article in their bibliographies. Figure 4 illustrates the six different clusters led by a node, which is the largest circle. Table 3 provides further details of each cluster and highlights respective Top-10 papers. The following sub-sections further elucidate the clusters.
Cluster 1: Entrepreneur’s demographic characteristics and firm performance
This cluster primarily focuses on elucidating the impact of demographic characteristics, including age and gender, on entrepreneurial motivation and firm performance. Within this cluster, the top cited articles investigate the extent to which gender plays a role. While the study by Barbieri & Mshenga (2008) concluded that most of the owners of firms with greater annual gross sales than the rest are male or white, Shaw et al. (2009) demonstrated that gender has a scant influence on entrepreneurial capital, which in turn impact the firm. Their study concluded that variables such as age and experience have much greater influence. Along similar lines, the most cited paper in this cluster by Shirokova et al., (2016) ascribe the translation of entrepreneurial intentions into entrepreneurial action to other characteristics too, such as family entrepreneurial background, age, and uncertainty avoidance. However, Laure Humbert and Drew (2010) demonstrate that there is a strong gender effect on some motivational factors but posit that gender itself needs to be examined along with other social factors in order to understand differences in motivations. The findings of their work indicate that marital status, being a parent, and/or age, are helpful in explaining differences in pathways into entrepreneurship for men and women.
Cluster 2: Age and entrepreneurial orientation
This cluster in the literature focuses on the relationship between age and entrepreneurial orientation, which has been investigated from various angles but still has been inconclusive (Zhang & Acs, 2018). The cluster introduces different variables which influence the age-entrepreneurial orientation relationship, such as family firms (Kellermanns et al., 2008), hybrid entrepreneurship (Thorgren et al., 2016), entrepreneurial failure (Baù & Dowling, 2007; Lin & Wang, 2019), education level (Marín et al., 2019), and gender (Baù & Dowling, 2007). Lin & Wang (2019) substantiate that the older the serial entrepreneur, the longer the time takes to start a venture again. Also, the larger the failure loss, the slower the re-venture speed.
Cluster 3: Age and entrepreneurial competencies
This cluster focuses on the linkage between age and entrepreneurial competency building. Numerous studies have covered this topic along with other dependent and independent variables. Ferreras-Garcia et al., (2021) theorize that the experience variable contributes positively to different competency groups, while the age variable does not affect the development of entrepreneurial competencies. On the other hand, Obschonka et al., (2011) posit, through analysis of their findings, that early entrepreneurial competence is related to the availability of entrepreneurial role models and authoritative parenting during their adolescence. Furthermore, Alvarez-Sousa (2019) argues that ‘necessity entrepreneurship’ results from various other independent variables, including entrepreneurial competency building through entrepreneurship education.
Cluster 4: Senior entrepreneurship and life satisfaction
This cluster focuses on the traits and attributes responsible for motivating senior individuals towards entrepreneurship and self-employment, who believe in their experience, and resources like financial, human, and social capital (Gielnik et al., 2018; Raymo et al., 2010; Sahut et al., 2015; Saribut et al., 2017; Soebagio & Burhanudin, 2020). Senior entrepreneurs are very vigilant about their health conditions while making this decision making. The perceived age of an individual matters more than his chronological age, feeling younger than his actual age has a positive impact on an older individual’s engagement in entrepreneurial activities (Kautonen & Minniti, 2014; Louw et al., 2003). In further development, Kautonen et al., (2017) investigated the shift from organizational employment to self-employment for older individuals in terms of income and life satisfaction. They established that for individuals switching to entrepreneurship resulted in a reduction of average income but a significant increase in the quality of life. Thus, self-employment at the late career stage helps build sustainable societies with more economic activities. Literature has adequate evidence of the significant negative association between age and entrepreneurial intent (Kautonen et al., 2011; Sahut et al., 2015).
Cluster 5: Age and risk-taking propensity
The fifth cluster comprises of ten papers mainly representing the risk propensity of entrepreneurs across life spans. This cluster also highlights how the age-based self-image of entrepreneurs helps transform intention into behavior for senior entrepreneurs, and fear of failure works as an obstacle in transforming intentions into entrepreneurial activities. Gielnik et al., (2018) and Minola et al., (2016) are the top two cited papers from this cluster. While the work of the latter established an inverted U-shape curvilinear association between the variations in an individual’s entrepreneurial desirability and feasibility with their age, recording the peak at the age of 22, Gielnik et al., (2018) did not find any inverted U-shape association between age and entrepreneurial activity. Biological age as a predictor of entrepreneurial behavior can be complemented by age-based self-image for a person having a positive perception of a particular entrepreneurial activity relating to his age (Kautonen et al., 2014).
Cluster 6: Youth vs aging entrepreneurship
This cluster consists of articles that consider the two ends of the age spectrum and investigate various aspects associated with the divergent age groups. Athayde (2009) contextually focused on the USA and concluded that young Black pupils were more positive about self-employment and displayed greater enterprise potential than either White or Asian pupils. Furthermore, it was also highlighted that a family background of self-employment positively influenced pupils' intentions to become self-employed. Ayalew and Zeleke (2018) underscored the impact of entrepreneurial education/training and entrepreneurial attitudes on students’ self-employment intention within the African context. On the other hand, Tornikoski and Kautonen (2009) accentuate that the entrepreneurial intentions of older individuals are mostly influenced by their perception of how easy or difficult they think starting up a business would be. Similarly, Kautonen et al., (2011) validate the above findings and posit that entrepreneurial intention among older individuals is partially mediated by whether the individual has a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship, by how the individuals perceive their ability to start and run a business, and by the extent of support from their family and friends. Overall, articles in this cluster provide a comprehensive view of the antecedents, mediating, and moderating variables (Chaudhary, 2017; Hendieh et al., 2019; Zenebe et al., 2018).
TCCM framework-based review
This section illustrates the TCCM framework (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022; Sharma et al., 2020), which is adapted to review articles on age and entrepreneurship. The structure drafted by Donthu et al., (2021) is adapted to display the overview (Fig. 5). Further details about theories, characteristics, contexts, and methods are detailed in the following sub-sections.
Theories
Theoretical support is always needed to frame the hypothesis and back the study's findings (Rao et al., 2021). Findings from our review indicate 38 theories that have been used in age-entrepreneurship research. Table 4 shows the list of key theories used and their sample citations. The most dominating theories in the literature are the theory of planned behavior (with 10 articles), Entrepreneurship Theory (Backman et al., 2021), Life span developmental theory (Obschonka et al., 2011), Cognitive Theory (Abdullah Alnemer, 2021), with each having two articles. In the theory of planned behavior (TPB), three constructs have been held responsible for shaping the intent to engage in a particular behavior: (a) attitude towards the behavior, (b) subjective norms, and (c) perceived behavioral control (Seo et al., 2024).
In the literature, TPB has been prominently used to model the relationship between an entrepreneur’s age and entrepreneurial intention, as the entrepreneurial intention is deemed to be the best predictor of the decision-making related to initiating any entrepreneurial activity (Cowling, 2000). Sahut et al., (2015) studied the direct and indirect effect of chronological age on entrepreneurial intentions. They concluded that prime-age entrepreneurs and third-age entrepreneurs’ social norms have less influence on entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurial intention depends on perceived behavioral control, then on attitude, and less on social norms (Kautonen et al., 2015). An individual's age is crucial in transforming initial intention into actual engagement in a start-up (Commer et al., 2018). Individuals’ age-related self-image is vital in transforming entrepreneurial intention into action (Minola et al., 2016; Moa-Liberty et al., 2016). Aging is a psychological term rather than biological, and age-based self-image positively moderates the relationship between the intention to start a business and actual entrepreneurial behavior (Kautonen et al., 2015). Age norm positively impacts third-age individuals’ enterprising inclinations (Kautonen et al., 2011).
According to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), individuals’ belief in their capabilities influences their motivation, behavior, and performance. Chen et al. (1998) discovered a positive association between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the inclination to pursue entrepreneurship. (Moa-Liberty et al., 2016) established a positive correlation between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. Kropp et al., (2008) established a strong relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and self-efficacy. Individuals with high entrepreneurial self-efficacy are more likely to initiate their own ventures. They strongly believe in their abilities to identify and seize opportunities, manage challenges, and create successful businesses (Gielnik et al., 2012).
Contexts
Bhatia et al., (2021) describe the context as a political or economic environment and circumstance under which the study is performed. This review considers countries as the context to categorize the studies under review. Findings (Table 5 and 6) indicate that most of the studies (69 articles, 45%) under review were carried out in the European context, followed by Asia and North America. In terms of sectors as contexts, education received the maximum attention from researchers (23 articles), closely followed by research focused on multiple sectors (18 articles). All other sectors show an output of articles in the single digit only. The greater interest garnered by the service sector is primarily because of education / higher education, which could be due to the various initiatives implemented across schools and colleges/universities world-over, focusing on student start-ups (Hendieh et al., 2019; Louw et al., 2003), youth entrepreneurship (Gulzar & Fayaz, 2021; Minola et al., 2014), and veteran entrepreneurship (Eltamimi & Sweis, 2021; Kautonen et al., 2008).
Characteristics
This section focuses on the antecedents (independent variables) and consequents (dependent variables), along with mediator and moderator variables used in the studies under review. This comprises of recognizing the age-related antecedents influencing individuals' decisions to pursue/not to pursue an entrepreneurial career path and probing the direct or indirect consequences. Also, the mediator and moderator variables are probed further to understand the relationship between age and entrepreneurship better. In the following sub-sections, each of the characteristics is elucidated.
Antecedent and consequent variables
The review and analysis resulted in a diverse set of 72 antecedents from the articles considered and are broadly classified into six categories: demographic antecedents, personality antecedents, skills and training antecedents, motivation antecedents, family/household antecedents, and country antecedents. Furthermore, the review and analysis of consequent variables resulted in three key categories of consequences, namely, entrepreneurship/self-employment, entrepreneurial success/well-being, and entrepreneurship orientation/behavior. These three categories are mapped with the corresponding antecedents, as shown in Figs. 6, 7, 8, 9.
Our analysis shows that 64 articles investigated the relationship between six antecedent groups and the most dominant consequent group—entrepreneurial career/self-employment. The demographic-related antecedents in these studies included age, gender, education, income, ethnicity/nationality, and marital status (Mahadea & Ramroop, 2015; Palalic et al., 2020; Shaw & Sørensen, 2022). While 50 studies out of these considered age and other demographic-related antecedents together, 14 studies, such as Kautonen et al., (2011, 2015) and Paray & Kumar, 2020), considered only age as an antecedent in their research. The next dominant antecedent group is personality-related (18 articles), which consisted of antecedents such as proactiveness, risk-taking, innovativeness, attitude, passion, confidence, fear of failure, etc., (Babcock, 2021; Chang et al., 2022; Micozzi & Lucarelli, 2016; Sahut et al., 2015; Wyrwich, 2013). The third antecedent group is skills and training-related (12 articles), which consisted of expertise, entrepreneurial education/training, creativity, etc. (Ayalew & Zeleke, 2018; McCrae et al., 1999; Teixeira & Silva, 2012). The fourth antecedent group is family/household-related (11 articles), which includes Family support, Family expectation, Education of parents, Household economic situation, Self-employed parents, etc. (Alvarez-Sousa, 2019; Hendieh et al., 2019; Kljucnikov et al., 2018). The fifth antecedent group is country-related (6 articles), which includes political environment, economic condition, government policies/support, unemployment rate, per capita income, etc. (Alvarez-Sousa, 2019; Debbage & Bowen, 2018; Ferreras-Garcia et al., 2021; Wyrwich, 2013). The sixth antecedent group is motivation-related which included motivation-related antecedents (5 articles), which included self-motivation, life satisfaction, the possibility of higher earnings, etc. (Seo et al., 2024; Staniewski & Awruk, 2015; Teixeira & Silva, 2012).
Our analysis shows that 35 articles investigated the relationship between 4 antecedent groups and the second dominant consequent group—Entrepreneurial Success /Well-Being. All the articles explored demographic-related antecedents, which included Age, Gender, Education, Income, Ethnicity/Nationality, and Marital Status (Mahadea & Ramroop, 2015; Soomro et al., 2019; Palalic et al., 2020; Shaw & Sørensen, 2022). While 26 studies out of these investigated age and other demographic-related antecedents together, 9 studies such as Brieger et al. (2021), Cox et al. (2017), and Prasad et al. (2015) considered only age as an antecedent in their research. The next dominant antecedent group is personality-related (7 articles), which consisted of antecedents such as Attitude, Risk Propensity, and Entrepreneurial characteristics/traits (Fracasso & Jiang, 2022; Preisendörfer et al., 2012; K. Shaw & Sørensen, 2022). This is followed by the family / household-related antecedent group (5 articles), which included retired households, entrepreneurial households, generations in a firm, and authoritative parenting (Kellermanns et al., 2008; Obschonka et al., 2011; S. Sharma & Sahni, 2020). 3 articles investigated skills and training-related antecedents and motivation-related antecedents. Only 2 articles focused on motivation-related antecedents (Preisendörfer et al., 2012; Viljamaa et al., 2022).
Our analysis shows that 18 articles investigated the relationship between 4 antecedent groups and the last dominant consequent group—Entrepreneurial Orientation/Behavior Success. All the articles explored demographic-related antecedents, which included Age, Gender, Education, Income, Ethnicity/Nationality, and Marital Status (Gumusburun Ayalp, 2022; Orihuela-Gallardo et al., 2018; Palalic et al., 2020). While 15 studies out of these investigated ages and other demographic-related antecedents together, 3 studies—Rolison et al., (2012); Vroom & Pahl (1971); and Walsh & O’Shea (2008) considered only age as an antecedent in their research. 3 articles investigated skills and personality-related antecedents (Chatterjee et al., 2022; Chaudhary, 2017; Gumusburun Ayalp, 2022). Only 2 articles each researched motivation-related antecedents (Chaudhary, 2017; Kautonen et al., 2014) and family/household-related antecedents (Chaudhary, 2017; Sharma & Sahni, 2020).
Mediating variables
The analysis reveals that only 12 of the total studies (174 articles) have explored the effects of mediating variables (Table 7). The mediating variables are broadly classified into three categories: personality-related, motivation-related, and skills & training-related.
Studies have significantly explained the mediating mechanisms by focusing on entrepreneurs' personality traits such as intuition, creativity, personal control, attitude, risk willingness, and self-efficacy (Athayde, 2009; Cheraghi et al., 2019; Cox et al., 2017; Kautonen et al., 2011; Newman et al., 2018). The second group of mediating variables explores entrepreneurs’ motivation, such as achievement (Athayde, 2009), travel (Saribut et al., 2017), future perspective (Gielnik et al., 2018), and start-up intention (Commer et al., 2018). The last group of studies focuses on skills and training-related characteristics of entrepreneurs, such as experience (Gielnik et al., 2018; Soebagio & Burhanudin, 2020).
Moderating variables
Analysis of moderating variables shows that only 30 of the total 174 articles (all quantitative) assessed the moderating effects (Table 8). These moderating variables fall under four broad categories: demographic, personality, family/household, and country, with the first two categories being prominent. Demographic characteristics that were explored are age (Bamundo & Kopelman, 1980; Hubner et al., 2021; Kimosop et al., 2016; Newman et al., 2018; Wolfe & Patel, 2022), occupation level (Bamundo & Kopelman, 1980), education (Bamundo & Kopelman, 1980; Chatterjee et al., 2022; Kimosop et al., 2016; Pawitan et al., 2018; Zenebe et al., 2018), and gender (Baù et al., 2017; Chatterjee et al., 2022; Hubner et al., 2021; Shirokova et al., 2016; Wolfe & Patel, 2022; Zenebe et al., 2018). The personality characteristics that were explored include agreeableness (Obschonka et al., 2011), mental health (Gielnik et al., 2012), uncertainty avoidance (Minola et al., 2016), risk-taking (Wolfe & Patel, 2016), fear of failure (Commer et al., 2018; Lin & Wang, 2019), and innovativeness (Frešer et al., 2020). Family/household characteristics that were studied include family background (Shirokova et al., 2016) and family support (Lin & Wang, 2019). According to these two studies, the background and support strengthen the relationship between age and entrepreneurship by further motivating individuals to embark on an entrepreneurial journey, irrespective of the outcome. The last category, country-related characteristics that were explored included the regional level of entrepreneurship (Kautonen et al., 2011), culture (Ashourizadeh & Schøtt, 2013), Economic Development (Marín et al., 2019), Labor Market Situations (Bayon & Lamotte, 2020), and Happiness Index (Eijdenberg & Thompson, 2020).
Methods
Methods include how data was collected and analyzed for empirical investigations (Donthu et al., 2021). This study involves an examination of 174 articles and characterizes them accordingly. Furthermore, almost all studies (98%) adopted the survey technique, with only 3 studies adopting experimental techniques (Table 9). Primary data sources were used by nearly two-thirds of the studies (98 articles), 50 articles used secondary data sources, and 6 articles used both (Table 10).
Table 11 exhibits the different data sampling methods used in the articles under review. It is observed that both primary and secondary methods were adopted in data collection, with the former predominantly used (across 98 studies). The secondary sources of data included the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) database, European country data, USA Government data, EU Surveys, World Bank, etc., with the first two sources incorporated in almost half of the studies (Table 12).
An interesting insight regarding data analysis is that all the articles utilized quantitative methods only. Table 5 illustrates different data analysis methods incorporated. Among all the quantitative data analysis methods, regression and correlation top the list, with 70% of the studies incorporating these two methods (Table 13). Other methods, such as the T-test, Chi-Square Test, ANOVA, and structural Equation Modeling, were used across the remaining 30% of the papers under review.
Last five years
This section will supplement the clusters based on bibliographic coupling by expanding on the research focus of the 74 latest publications in the last five years, 2018–2022. Out of these 74 papers, a few papers (Brieger et al., 2021; Commer et al., 2018) are also mentioned in the bibliographic coupling-based clusters due to their high citations, but in most cases, the recently published papers are unable to get attention in the SLR papers. Therefore, this section can be treated as an extended discussion of the recent themes as compared to the six clusters discussed in the “Bibliographic coupling” section. The classification of the recently published papers in this area discloses 23 research themes in Fig. 10. All the 23 themes mentioned in the section are about the age of the entrepreneurs as a prime antecedent or age as a part of demographic variables. Significant themes like entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, and entrepreneurs’ attributes impacting firm performance have been the consistent choice of the researchers in the past as well in the last five years.
Entrepreneurs always bear a certain degree of risk to start a new venture, but the risk is higher in the case of innovative ventures. Innovative entrepreneurship is crucial for the country's growth, but older individuals with rich experience and an inclination towards entrepreneurship are reluctant to choose risky, innovative entrepreneurship (Bayon & Lamotte, 2020). Another critical area that needs attention is the factors affecting re-venturing, where the age of the entrepreneurs, experience, failure loss, and family support are the crucial factors affecting re-venture speed (Lin & Wang, 2019). Digital entrepreneurship has been trending in the last 5 years, especially during and after Covid-19. Digital platforms are helpful in innovative advertising, social media presence, and maintaining links between suppliers and buyers (Biclesanu et al., 2021). Demographic factors such as age, gender, and education strongly affect the adoption of digital platforms (Chatterjee et al., 2022).
Among the new themes discussed in the literature are the entrepreneur's values, international orientation, and entrepreneurial intentions of immigrants. Foncubierta-Rodríguez (2022) highlighted how happiness at work is related to personal values and the governance style of the entrepreneur. Further, the failure or insolvency of the SMEs (small and medium enterprises) also depends on the success of the business and, up to some extent, on the financial expertise of the entrepreneur, which may depend upon the age, background, and experience of the entrepreneur (Kljucnikov et al., 2018). Much has been discussed about entrepreneurial intentions and orientation, but recent studies (Falcão et al., 2022; Frešer et al., 2020) have added value to the literature by linking the age and entrepreneurial intentions of immigrants with their international orientation.
Future research directions
The future research agenda has been drafted based on the extensive review of the literature covered in the previous sections and is classified in accordance with the TCCM framework.
Theory
The Theory of Planned Behavior mostly dominates the literature on age and entrepreneurship research, with other theories trivially employed. Future research can apply the research framework based on integrating existing theories. Also, researchers could apply new theories in their research as these theories can contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by entrepreneurs at different life stages:
-
Applying age-innovation fit: Applying Kirton's adaptive-innovation theory (1976) and examining the influence of an entrepreneur's age and contextual elements, such as technological advancements, to explain variations in individuals' creative abilities in shaping the compatibility of entrepreneurs in innovative ventures.
-
Applying entrepreneurial ecosystem theory: By implementing systems theory (Von Bertalanffy, 1972) to examine the influence of age-inclusive ecosystems on entrepreneurial achievements, expansion, and economic development.
-
Applying age-based network dynamics: Researchers can utilize the study framework grounded in social network theory proposed by Scott (1992) to examine the interplay between age-related characteristics and social support for entrepreneurs at various phases of life, particularly in the context of social entrepreneurship.
-
Applying age-diversity and entrepreneurial performance: By applying the self-categorization theory (Turner, 1989), which examines several facets of an individual's identity, researchers can analyze how age diversity affects team performance, conflict resolution, and organizational collaborative learning.
Characteristics
Exploring new antecedents and consequent variables in age and entrepreneurship research can enrich our understanding of the factors that shape entrepreneurial behavior and outcomes across different age groups.
-
Investigating factors such as digital literacy, technology acceptance, and the willingness to adopt emerging technologies at different age stages can shed light on the role of technological adaptation as an antecedent to entrepreneurship.
-
Studying exit strategies as consequent variables in age-entrepreneurship is relevant. This includes exploring the factors that influence entrepreneurs' decisions to exit their ventures, the timing of their exits, and the impact of entrepreneurship on post-exit experiences.
-
Knowledge Transfer as a consequent variable: Measuring the impact of age-entrepreneurship on passing knowledge, experience, and entrepreneurial mindset to future generations.
-
Understanding the factors contributing to entrepreneurs' resilience and adaptability across different life stages.
-
Examining the social consequences of age-entrepreneurship: how entrepreneurs of different age groups contribute to job creation, economic development, community engagement, and addressing societal challenges.
-
Retirement Transitions: With more individuals pursuing entrepreneurship after retirement, studying the antecedents related to retirement transitions.
Context
In the current literature on age and entrepreneurship, the dominant industries are education (Fracasso & Jiang, 2022; Paray & Kumar, 2020), manufacturing (Newman et al., 2018), construction (Debbage & Bowen, 2018), food (Abdoli et al., 2012), and beverages (Munawar, 2019). The studies are primarily executed in the USA and Europe, focusing on primary entrepreneurial traits and orientation.
-
Future researchers could select research on new pedagogical tools in entrepreneurial education like gamification and simulation techniques; using an online game can increase students’ motivation, engagement, and learning. The effectiveness of these tools in terms of student engagement, giving real-life scenarios, could be tested with the help of experimental research.
-
Another potential research area could be an entrepreneurial orientation for green products and green technologies.
-
Research is suggested to assess the age-entrepreneurship dynamics in the context of emerging tech or ICT start-ups, especially booming fintech start-ups.
-
Digital technology supported various functions of SMEs during COVID-19; a comparative longitudinal study between SMEs owned by old and young entrepreneurs would surely add value to the literature.
-
Many industries have a feeble representation in the literature; like in India, agriculture and pharmaceutical are the two dominant sectors, but they have a meager presence in the extant literature. There is a wide scope of research on industries like entertainment, finance, gaming, and marketing.
-
More research is required from Asian countries and other developing and underdeveloped countries.
-
Culture is an important and complex construct, and future research may benefit from cross-culture comparisons moderated by age and political and economic environments.
-
A cross-country study with a set of developed and developing countries or democratic and monarchy governments would be useful in receiving insights on the impact of the entrepreneurial ecosystem and corruption on the age and entrepreneurship relationship.
Methods
The existing literature has been dominated by empirical studies based on primary data collected by survey instruments, and a lack of qualitative research studies has been noted. The scope for future research regarding methods is summarized below:
-
Qualitative research designs like phenomenological research on two sets of entrepreneurs (old and young) during crises like COVID-19, re-entry after failure, and risk related to specific ventures.
-
The literature lacks systematic literature reviews based on theories (like action theory) related to the age-entrepreneurship relationship. There is also a wide scope of a review based on meta-analysis.
-
There is a need to critically analyze the implementation of current theories on entrepreneurship in diverse cultures and unexplored geographical regions.
-
Researchers can consider mixed method approaches as they are mighty, and the literature has limited usage of this method. Researchers may apply comparative sentiment analysis on ecosystems and modes of financing in cross-country studies.
-
Researchers may apply text and image analytics on digital and crowdfunding platforms to measure the impact of entrepreneurs’ age and experience.
-
Studies based on experimental and longitudinal research are also limited in this domain.
-
Adopting more advanced data analysis techniques in different settings is also encouraged, as that will add value to the existing literature.
Conclusion
The volume of published research on entrepreneurship and age has increased significantly in recent years. Using a systematic review, this study facilitates researchers and practitioners in navigating this vast amount of information by providing a comprehensive and synthesized overview of existing knowledge on this topic. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has reviewed the literature on age and entrepreneurship in recent years. The latest review on this topic, by Ratten (2019), focused on a narrow topic of older entrepreneurship and covered literature until 2017, a total of 46 studies. Our study, with a total sample of 174, includes 94 studies published since 2018. Ours is the first study in this domain to organize literature using the TCCM framework. TCCM is one of the most widely used frameworks due to its ability to present a comprehensive view of research in a versatile manner (Paul et al., 2023). With the knowledge about the most frequently used independent, dependent, mediating, moderating, and control variables in age and entrepreneurship and how they have evolved over time, the researchers can see the bidirectional relationship between variables and choose appropriate constructs to design future research to move the field forward. We have categorized antecedents into six groups, which can aid researchers in developing clear and testable hypotheses. When navigating the entrepreneurial landscape, individuals and organizations can benefit from actionable insights provided by well-defined independent and dependent variables. Furthermore, identifying widely utilized theories in this field advances the body of knowledge in age and entrepreneurship. Researchers can produce a more logical and cohesive body of work by building upon and improving upon existing theories. Understanding the dominant theories might be helpful for practitioners and entrepreneurs as this information can help make strategic decisions and provide insights into how age affects the processes and results of entrepreneurship. Comprehending the methodologies employed in investigating entrepreneurship and age is imperative for advancing the discipline. The information about respondents, primary and secondary data sources, data collection methods, and analyses can help researchers design more rigorous and relevant studies.
In conclusion, this work provides a distinct and straightforward overview of age and entrepreneurship research using bibliographic coupling and TCCM framework-based review. However, it does have a couple of limitations, like any study. First, only the Scopus database was considered to retrieve published papers on this topic. Further research could be undertaken by examining published papers in databases such as ProQuest, EBSCO, Web of Science, Open Access Journals, etc. Second, only journal articles published in English were considered. Publications from multiple languages could be integrated into future studies. Third, we limited our sample to fields such as economics, econometrics, finance, business, management, and social sciences. Future researchers could consider including other areas as well.
References
Abdoli, G., Tajik, H., Ghasemi, E., & Jamali, B. (2012). A survey on how different factors impact entrepreneurs’ success in the food industry. Management Science Letters, 2(7), 2631–2636.
Abdullah Alnemer, H. (2021). Predicting start-up intention among the females of Saudi Arabia using social cognitive theory. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(4), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-05-2021-0085
Ahmad, N., Aghdam, R. F. Z., Butt, I., & Naveed, A. (2020a). Citation-based systematic literature review of energy-growth nexus: An overview of the field and content analysis of the top 50 influential papers. Energy Economics, 86, 104642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104642
Ahmad, N., Menegaki, A. N., & Al-Muharrami, S. (2020b). Systematic literature review of tourism growth nexus: An overview of the literature and a content analysis of 100 most influential papers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(5), 1068–1110. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12386
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alvarez-Sousa, A. (2019). Necessity entrepreneurs. Determining factors. Revista Espanola De Investigaciones Sociologicas, 166, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.166.3
Asatullaeva, Z., Aghdam, R. F. Z., Ahmad, N., & Tashpulatova, L. (2021). The impact of foreign aid on economic development: A systematic literature review and content analysis of the top 50 most influential papers. Journal of International Development, 33(4), 717–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3543. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Ashourizadeh, S., & Schøtt, T. (2013). Entrepreneurs’ gender, age and education affect their networks in private and public spheres: Denmark, Middle East and North Africa. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 11(4), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2013.056875
Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2), 481–500.
Ayalew, M. M., & Zeleke, S. A. (2018). Modeling the impact of entrepreneurial attitude on self-employment intention among engineering students in Ethiopia. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0088-1
Babcock, J. (2021). The entrepreneurial characteristics of national board certified health and wellness coaches. Coaching, 14(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2020.1831562
Backman, M., & Karlsson, C. (2018). Entrepreneurship and age across time and space. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 109(3), 371–385.
Backman, M., Lopez, E., & Rowe, F. (2021). The occupational trajectories and outcomes of forced migrants in Sweden. Entrepreneurship, employment or persistent inactivity? Small Business Economics, 56(3), 963–983.
Bamundo, P. J., & Kopelman, R. E. (1980). The moderating effects of occupation, age, and urbanization on the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90020-2
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Barbieri, C., & Mshenga, P. M. (2008). The role of the firm and owner characteristics on the performance of agritourism farms. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(2), 166–183.
Bau, F., & Dowling, M. (2007). An empirical study of reward and incentive systems in German entrepreneurial firms. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59, 160–175.
Baù, M., Sieger, P., Eddleston, K. A., & Chirico, F. (2017). Fail but try again? The effects of age, gender, and multiple-owner experience on failed entrepreneurs’ reentry. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 41(6), 909–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12233
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.587
Bayon, M. C., & Lamotte, O. (2020). Age, labour market situation and the choice of risky innovative entrepreneurship. Applied Economics Letters, 27(8), 624–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1728221
Bayraktar, S., & Jiménez, A. (2022). Friend or foe? The effects of harmonious and obsessive passion on entrepreneurs’ well-being, strain, and social loneliness. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 29(2), 320–348.
Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75(299), 493–517.
Bhatia, R., Bhat, A. K., & Tikoria, J. (2021). Life insurance purchase behaviour: A systematic review and directions for future research. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(6), 1149–1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12681. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Biclesanu, I., Anagnoste, S., Branga, O., & Savastano, M. (2021). Digital entrepreneurship: Public perception of barriers, drivers, and future. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040125
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. The Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.2307/258091
Bisk, L. (2002). Formal entrepreneurial mentoring: The efficacy of third-party managed programs. Career Development International, 7(5), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430210440082
Bönte, W., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2009). The impact of regional age structure on entrepreneurship. Economic Geography, 85(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01032.x
Brieger, S. A., Bäro, A., Criaco, G., & Terjesen, S. A. (2021). Entrepreneurs’ age, institutions, and social value creation goals: A multi-country study. Small Business Economics, 57(1), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00317-z
Chang, Y. Y., Sanchez-Loor, D. A., Hsieh, H. C., & Chang, W. S. (2022). How aging affects opportunity-necessity entrepreneurship: Demographic and perceptual view. Australian Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962221101084
Chatha, K. A., Butt, I., Jajja, M. S. S. S. S., & Arshad, M. (2018). Theoretical developments in empirical quantitative manufacturing strategy literature. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(1), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2016-0486. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2022). SME entrepreneurship and digitalization – the potentialities and moderating role of demographic factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, 121648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121648
Chaudhary, R. (2017). Demographic factors, personality, and entrepreneurial inclination: A study among Indian university students. Education and Training, 59(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2016-0024
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.
Cheraghi, M., Adsbøll Wickstrøm, K., & Klyver, K. (2019). Life-course and entry to entrepreneurship:Embedded in gender and gender-egalitarianism. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 31(3–4), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1551791
Commer, P. J., Sci, S., Yasir, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Refining the relationship between entrepreneurial skills and start-up-behavior: The role of fear of failure and age-based self-image. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 12(3), 710–731.
Cowling, M. (2000). Are entrepreneurs different across countries? Applied Economics Letters, 7(12), 785–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/135048500444804
Cox, K. C., Lortie, J., Barreto, T., & Stewart, S. (2017). Different strokes for different folks: How generational differences influence social performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 14583. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2017.14583abstract
Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. A. (2001). Older people and the enterprise society: Age and self-employment propensities. Work, Employment and Society, 15(4), 889–902. https://doi.org/10.1177/095001701400438279
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6
Debbage, K. G., & Bowen, S. (2018). Non-farm proprietorship employment by US metropolitan area. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 12(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-07-2017-0043
Diánez-González, J. P., del Carmen Camelo-Ordaz, M., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2016). Management teams’ composition and academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: A theoretical approach. Entrepreneurship-Practice-Oriented Perspectives, 2, 65–99.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Eijdenberg, E. L., & Thompson, N. A. (2020). Jump for joy: Happiness as the route to increased living standards of entrepreneurs in Zambia. Small Enterprise Research, 27(2), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2020.1751691
Eltamimi, R. A., & Sweis, N. J. (2021). The perceptions of individuals aged 50 years and older towards engaging in entrepreneurial activities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 42(4), 422–450.
Falcão, R. P. D. Q., Cruz, E. P., Paula, F. D. O., & Machado, M. M. (2022). Entrepreneurial intention of Brazilian immigrants in Canada. BAR - Brazilian Administration Review, 19(1), e200018. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-7692bar2022200018
Ferreira, F. A. F. (2018). Mapping the field of arts-based management: Bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses. Journal of Business Research, 85, 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.026
Ferreras-Garcia, R., Sales-Zaguirre, J., & Serradell-López, E. (2021). Developing entrepreneurial competencies in higher education: A structural model approach. Education and Training, 63(5), 720–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2020-0257
Foncubierta-Rodríguez, M.-J. (2022). Influence of the entrepreneur’s personal values in business governance style and their relationship with happiness at work. Corporate Governance: THe International Journal of Business in Society, 22(3), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2021-0197
Forbes, D. P. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self–efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 599–626.
Fracasso, A., & Jiang, K. (2022). The performance of private companies in China before and during the global financial crisis: Firms’ characteristics and entrepreneurs’ attributes. Economic Change and Restructuring, 55(2), 803–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-021-09329-5
Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016). Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 933–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.003
Frešer, B., Širec, K., & Tominc, P. (2020). International orientation of early-stage entrepreneurs in the Balkan Region – the age perspective. Journal of East European Management Studies, 25(3), 555–580. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2020-3-555
Galenson, D. W. (2009). Old masters and young geniuses: The two life cycles of human creativity. Journal of Applied Economics, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(09)60002-7
Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2012). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationship between business owners’ age and venture growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.05.002
Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H., & Wang, M. (2018). Age in the entrepreneurial process: The role of future time perspective and prior entrepreneurial experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(10), 1067–1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000322
Gray, C. (2002). Entrepreneurship, resistance to change and growth in small firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 9(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000210419491
Gulzar, F., & Fayaz, A. (2021). Youth entrepreneurial intentions: An integrated model of individual and contextual factors. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2021-2928
Gumusburun Ayalp, G. (2022). Leadership styles and entrepreneurship orientations in Turkish construction industry. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(4), 690–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1644760
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Heim, B. T. (2015). Understanding the decline in self-employment among individuals nearing retirement. Small Business Economics, 45, 561–580.
Hendieh, J., et al. (2019). Students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship at the Arab Open University-Lebanon. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(2), 1–13.
Hernández, S., Rodríguez-Duarte, A., & Platero, M. (2019). The dual effect of the age of the entrepreneur on the innovation performance of the micro-enterprises. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 11(1), 81–102.
Hubner, S., Rudic, B., & Baum, M. (2021). How entrepreneur’s leadership behavior and demographics shape applicant attraction to new ventures: The role of stereotypes. International Journal of Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1893785
Hussain, M., Rasool, S. F., Xuetong, W., Asghar, M. Z., & Alalshiekh, A. S. A. (2023). Investigating the nexus between critical success factors, supportive leadership, and entrepreneurial success: Evidence from the renewable energy projects. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(17), 49255–49269.
Javed, A., Yasir, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Psychological factors and entrepreneurial orientation: could education and supportive environment moderate this relationship? Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 12(2), 571–597.
Josef, B., & Back, A. (2018). Coworking as a new innovation scenario from the perspective of mature organisations. 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change. April 13th-14th, 2018, Dubrovnik, Croatia (pp. 491–507). Zagreb: Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU).
Karoly, L. A., & Zissimopoulos, J. (2003). Self-employment trends and patterns among older us workers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved May, 9, 2007.
Kautonen, T., & Minniti, M. (2014). ‘Fifty is the new thirty’: Ageing well and start-up activities. Applied Economics Letters, 21(16), 1161–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2014.914138
Kautonen, T., Down, S., & South, L. (2008). Enterprise support for older entrepreneurs: The case of PRIME in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810863071
Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E. T., & Kibler, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: The impact of perceived age norms. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9238-y
Kautonen, T., Down, S., & Minniti, M. (2014). Ageing and entrepreneurial preferences. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9489-5
Kautonen, T., Hatak, I., Kibler, E., & Wainwright, T. (2015). Emergence of entrepreneurial behaviour: The role of age-based self-image. Journal of Economic Psychology, 50, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.07.004
Kautonen, T., Kibler, E., & Minniti, M. (2017). Late-career entrepreneurship, income and quality of life. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.02.005
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Barnett, T., & Pearson, A. (2008). An exploratory study of family member characteristics and involvement: Effects on entrepreneurial behavior in the family firm. Family Business Review, 21(1), 1–14.
Kimosop, J., Korir, M., & White, M. (2016). The moderating effect of demographic characteristics on the relationship between strategic capabilities and firm performance in women-owned entrepreneurial ventures in Nairobi. Kenya. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 33(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1399
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A descripti on and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622.
Kljucnikov, A., Sobekova-Majkova, M., Vincurova, Z., Sarvutyte-Gailiuniene, M., & Kiausiene, I. (2018). The Insolvency of SMEs within the Perspective of the Central European Region. TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, 17(2), 210–224.
Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.008
Kozubíková, L., Vojtovič, S., Rahman, A., Smrčka, L., & Dubcek, A. (2016). The role of entrepreneur´s gender, age and firm´s age in autonomy. The case study from the Czech Republic. Economics & Sociology, 9(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-2/12
Kropp, F., Lindsay, N. J., & Shoham, A. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and international entrepreneurial business venture startup. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 14(2), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550810863080
Lafuente, E. M., & Vaillant, Y. (2013). Age driven influence of role-models on entrepreneurship in a transition economy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001311298475
Laure Humbert, A., & Drew, E. (2010). Gender, entrepreneurship and motivational factors in an Irish context. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261011051026
Lévesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.003
Lévesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2011). Age matters: How demographics influence aggregate entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.117
Liao, Y. K., Nguyen, V. H. A., & Caputo, A. (2022). Unveiling the role of entrepreneurial knowledge and cognition as antecedents of entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analytic study. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(4), 1623–1652.
Lin, S., & Wang, S. (2019). How does the age of serial entrepreneurs influence their re-venture speed after a business failure? Small Business Economics, 52(3), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9977-0
Louw, L., Van Eeden, S. M., Bosch, J. K., & Venter, D. J. L. (2003). Entrepreneurial traits of undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 9(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550310461027
Mahadea, D., & Ramroop, S. (2015). Influences on happiness and subjective well-being of entrepreneurs and labour: Kwazulu-natal case study. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 18(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.17159/2222-3436/2015/v18n2a8
Marín, L., Nicolás, C., & Rubio, A. (2019). How gender, age and education influence the entrepreneur’s social orientation: The moderating effect of economic development. Sustainability, 11(17), 4514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174514
Mas-Verdú, F., Baviera-Puig, A., & Martinez-Gomez, V. (2009). Entrepreneurship policy and targets: The case of a low absorptive capacity region. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 243–258.
Máté, D., Estiyanti, N. M., & Novotny, A. (2024). How do we support innovative small firms? Bibliometric analysis and visualization of start-up incubation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 1–26.
Mayr, S., Mitter, C., Kücher, A., & Duller, C. (2021). Entrepreneur characteristics and differences in reasons for business failure: Evidence from bankrupt Austrian SMEs. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 33(5), 539–558.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Pedroso de Lima, M., Sim, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Marusic, I., Bratko, D., Vittorio Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Chae, J.-H., Piedmont, R. L., Vittorio Ca-prara, G., Sapienza, L., Hempel, S., Rammstedt, B., Reisenzein, R., Riemann, R., Spinath, F., & Langner, G. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 466.
Micozzi, A., & Lucarelli, C. (2016). Heterogeneity in entrepreneurial intent: The role of gender across countries. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-06-2015-0021
Minola, T., Criaco, G., & Cassia, L. (2014). Are youth really different? New beliefs for old practices in entrepreneurship. In International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2014.062881. Inderscience Publishers.
Minola, T., Criaco, G., & Obschonka, M. (2016). Age, culture, and self-employment motivation. Small Business Economics, 46(2), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9685-6
Moa-Liberty, A. W., Tunde, A. O., & Tinuola, O. L. (2016). The influence of self-efficacy and socio-demographic factors on the entrepreneurial intentions of selected Youth Corp members in lagos. Nigeria. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, 34(34), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/bog-2016-0035
Morrar, R., Amara, M., & Syed Zwick, H. (2022). The determinants of self-employment entry of Palestinian youth. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-06-2020-0184
Munawar, F. (2019). The role of entrepreneurial orientation and adaptive capability to performance of SME food & beverages. Global Business and Management Research, 11(1), 139–151.
Naveed, A., Zhuparova, A., Ahmad, N., & FathollahZadeh Aghdam, R. (2023). Sources of information on sustainable innovation: A citation-based systematic literature review and content analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34(9–10), 1126–1151.
Newman, A., Mole, K. F., Ucbasaran, D., Subramanian, N., & Lockett, A. (2018). Can your network make you happy? entrepreneurs’ business network utilization and subjective well-being. British Journal of Management, 29(4), 613–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12270
Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R. K., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2011). Successful entrepreneurship as developmental outcome: A path model from a lifespan perspective of human development. European Psychologist, 16(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000075
Orihuela-Gallardo, F., Fernández-Alles, M., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2018). The influence of the cultural entrepreneur on the performance of cultural and creative firms. Academia Revista Latinoamericana De Administracion, 31(2), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-11-2015-0295
Palalic, R., Ramadani, V., Mariam Gilani, S., Gërguri-Rashiti, S., & Dana, L. (2020). Social media and consumer buying behavior decision: What entrepreneurs should know? Management Decision, 59(6), 1249–1270. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2019-1461
Paray, Z. A., & Kumar, S. (2020). Does entrepreneurship education influence entrepreneurial intention among students in HEIs? The role of age, gender and degree background. Journal of International Education in Business, 13(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2019-0009
Paul, J., Khatri, P., & Kaur Duggal, H. (2023). Frameworks for developing impactful systematic literature reviews and theory building: What, why and how? Journal of Decision Systems, 1–14.
Pawitan, G., Widyarini, M., & Nawangpalupi, C. B. (2018). Moderating Effect of Demographic Factors and Entrepreneurial Phase on the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Competencies and Innovation of ASEAN Entrepreneurs. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum, 26, 151–166.
Prasad, K. V., Ehrhardt, K., Liu, Y., & Tiwari, K. (2015). Examining the age-performance relationship for entrepreneurs: Does the innovativeness of a venture make a difference? New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 41–57.
Preisendörfer, P., Bitz, A., & Bezuidenhout, F. J. (2012). Business Start-ups and Their Prospects of Success in South African Townships. South African Review of Sociology, 43(3), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2012.727542
Rao, P., Kumar, S., Chavan, M., & Lim, W. M. (2021). A systematic literature review on SME financing: Trends and future directions. Journal of Small Business Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955123
Ratten, V. (2019). Older entrepreneurship: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 13(1/2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-08-2018-0054
Raymo, J. M., Warren, J. R., Sweeney, M. M., Hauser, R. M., & Ho, J. H. (2010). Later-life employment preferences and outcomes: The role of midlife work experiences. Research on Aging, 32(4), 419–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027510361462
Revell-Love, C., & Revell-Love, T. (2016). Competencies of women entrepreneurs utilizing information marketing businesses. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(3), 831–853.
Rojas-Lamorena, Á. J., Del Barrio-García, S., & Alcántara-Pilar, J. M. (2022). A review of three decades of academic research on brand equity: A bibliometric approach using co-word analysis and bibliographic coupling. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.025
Rolison, J. J., Hanoch, Y., & Wood, S. (2012). Risky Decision Making in Younger and Older Adults: The Role of Leaming. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024689
Roy Bhattacharjee, D., Pradhan, D., & Swani, K. (2022). Brand communities: A literature review and future research agendas using TCCM approach. In International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12758. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Runyan, R., Droge, C., & Swinney, J. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation versus small business orientation: What are their relationships to firm performance? Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 567–588.
Sahut, J. M., Gharbi, S., & Mili, M. (2015). Identifying factors key to encouraging entrepreneurial intentions among seniors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 32(4), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1358
Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Brochado, A. (2023). Why am I so successful? Self-presentation and deliberative attributions of success in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 19, e00396.
Saribut, S., Na-Nan, K., & Assarut, N. (2017). The effect of previous experience and travel motivation on behavioral intention: Moderating the influence of the new-age elderly of an emerging country. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(10), 103–120.
Scott, G., Jr. (1992). The advent of a cottage industry of Hmong Paj Ntaub textiles in southern California: The roles of an entrepreneur-patron, an applied anthropologist-broker, and a shopping mall sale. Human Organization, 51(3), 284–298.
Seo, J., Kim, J., & Mesquita, L. F. (2024). Does vicarious entrepreneurial failure induce or discourage one’s entrepreneurial intent? A mediated model of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and identity aspiration. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 30(1), 52–71.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017
Sharma, D., Taggar, R., Bindra, S., & Dhir, S. (2020). A systematic review of responsiveness to develop future research agenda: a TCCM and bibliometric analysis. In Benchmarking, 27(9), 2649–2677. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2019-0539. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd.
Sharma, S., & Sahni, S. P. (2020). World of male and female entrepreneurs: Findings from a global study. Strategic Change, 29(6), 725–736. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2377
Shaw, K., & Sørensen, A. (2022). Coming of age: Watching young entrepreneurs become successful. Labour Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.102033
Shaw, E., Marlow, S., Lam, W., & Carter, S. (2009). Gender and entrepreneurial capital: Implications for firm performance. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566260910942327
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., & Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.007
Singh, D., & Malik, G. (2022). A systematic and bibliometric review of the financial well-being: Advancements in the current status and future research agenda. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(7), 1575–1609. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-06-2021-0238
Soebagio, V., & Burhanudin, B. (2020). The role of entrepreneur’s experience, age and education on re-entry after business failure: A path analysis. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 26(4), 1–8.
Soomro, M. A., Memon, M. S., & Bukhari, N. S. (2019). Entrepreneurial education and its impact on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparative analysis of business graduates of public and private universities of Sindh. Pacific Business Review International, 11(6), 35–46.
Spicka, J. (2020). Socio-demographic drivers of the risk-taking propensity of micro farmers: Evidence from the Czech Republic. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 12(4), 569–590.
Sproul, C., Cox, K., & Ross, A. (2019). Entrepreneurial actions: Implications for firm performance. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(5), 706–725.
Sreenivasan, A., & Suresh, M. (2023). Twenty years of entrepreneurship education: A bibliometric analysis. Entrepreneurship Education, 6(1), 45–68.
Staniewski, M., & Awruk, K. (2015). Motivating factors and barriers in the commencement of one’s own business for potential entrepreneurs. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 28(1), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1083876
Syed, R. T., Singh, D., & Spicer, D. (2022). Entrepreneurial higher education institutions: Development of the research and future directions. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(1), 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12379
Syed, R. T., Singh, D., Agrawal, R., & Spicer, D. P. (2023). Entrepreneurship development in universities across Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A systematic review of the research and way forward. Journal of Enterprising Communities. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2022-0045
Teixeira, A. A., & Silva, C. (2012). A new perspective on local political entrepreneurship: Evidence from Portugal. Local Economy, 27(4), 332–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094212439151
Thorgren, S., Nordström, C., & Wincent, J. (2014). Hybrid entrepreneurship: The importance of passion. Baltic Journal of Management, 9(3), 314–329.
Thorgren, S., Sirén, C., Nordström, C., & Wincent, J. (2016). Hybrid entrepreneurs’ second-step choice: The nonlinear relationship between age and intention to enter full-time entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 5, 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.12.001
Tornikoski, E. T., & Kautonen, T. (2009). Enterprise as sunset career? Entrepreneurial intentions in the aging population. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(2), 278–291.
Turner, J. C. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. The psychology of group influence (pp. 233–275).
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F. L., et al. (2006). Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-006-0004-1
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer is a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.
Verheul, I., Thurik, R., Grilo, I., & Van der Zwan, P. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual involvement inself-employment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 325–341.
Vidayana, B., & Adiningrum, T. S. (2020). The role of entrepreneur’s experience, age and education on re-entry after business failure: A path analysis. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 26(4), 1–8.
Viljamaa, A., Joensuu-Salo, S., & Kangas, E. (2022). Part-time entrepreneurship in the third age: Well-being and motives. Small Enterprise Research, 29(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2021.2000483
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426.
Vroom, V. H., & Pahl, B. (1971). Relationship between age and risk taking among managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5), 399.
Walsh, K., & O’Shea, E. (2008). Responding to rural social care needs: Older people empowering themselves, others, and their community. Health and Place, 14(4), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.12.006
Wickstrøm, K. A., Klyver, K., & Cheraghi-Madsen, M. (2022). Age effect on entry to entrepreneurship: Embedded in life expectancy. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 57–76.
Wolfe, M. T., & Patel, P. C. (2016). Grit and self-employment: A multi-country study. Small Business Economics, 47(4), 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9737-6
Wolfe, M. T., & Patel, P. C. (2022). What’s my age again? The association between self-employment and klotho protein. Journal of Business Venturing Insights. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2022.e00313
Wright, M., Westhead, P., & Sohl, J. (1998). Editors’ introduction: Habitual entrepreneurs and angel investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(4), 5–22.
Wyrwich, M. (2013). Can socioeconomic heritage produce a lost generation with regard to entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.09.001
Xiao, W., & Wu, M. (2021). Life-cycle factors and entrepreneurship: Evidence from rural China. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 2017–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00370-8
Yetim, N. (2008). Social capital in female entrepreneurship. International Sociology, 23(6), 864–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580908095913
Zacher, H., Biemann, T., Gielnik, M. M., & Frese, M. (2012). Patterns of entrepreneurial career development: An optimal matching analysis approach. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6(3–4), 177–187.
Zenebe, A., Alsaaty, F. M., & Anyiwo, D. (2018). Relationship between individual’s entrepreneurship intention, and adoption and knowledge of information technology and its applications: An empirical study. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 30(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1397441
Zhang, T., & Acs, Z. (2018). Age and entrepreneurship: Nuances from entrepreneur types and generation effects. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 773–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0079-4
Zhao, H., O’Connor, G., Wu, J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2021). Age and entrepreneurial career success: A review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(1), 106007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106007
Zhao, L., Harvie, C., Arjomandi, A., & Suardi, S. (2022). Entrepreneurs and China’s private sector SMEs’ performance. Applied Economics, 54(28), 3279–3295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.2006135
Zissimopoulos, J. M., & Karoly, L. A. (2007). Transitions to self-employment at older ages: The role of wealth, health, health insurance and other factors. Labour Economics, 14(2), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2005.08.002
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Syed, R.T., Singh, D., Ahmad, N. et al. Age and entrepreneurship: Mapping the scientific coverage and future research directions. Int Entrep Manag J 20, 1451–1486 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-00964-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-00964-8