Typologies of small venture enterprises within the institutional framework: Implications for improving efficiency
https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2025-3-288-296
Abstract
The Federal Law of the Russian Federation ‘On the Development of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Russian Federation’ contains a contradiction between the goals of administering the small enterprises. To resolve this contradiction, it is necessary to investigate the core signs in order to institutionally guide small enterprises. The article’s urgency is to find a scientifically sound criterion to classify the diversity of small venture enterprises based on the resource-based approach. Due to the Scopus scientometric analysis, a two-pronged criterion has been determined: the way a small enterprise achieves economic sustainability depends on its degree of resource specialisation; the possibility of external interference affects a small enterprise dramatically. The content analysis of scientific literature reveals that market regulation is insufficient to achieve the goals of small-scale venture enterprises development. The practical conclusion is that enterprises should be distinguished according to the degree of specialisation in their resources, in order to be objects of active state-institutional industrial policy.
About the Author
T. V. Aksenova
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Candidate of economic sciences, scientific researcher, associate professor at the Energy and Industrial Enterprise Management Systems Department, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University Named after the First President of Russia
B.N. Eltsin (Yekaterinburg, Russia). ORCID: 0000-0002-0002-9538.
Research interests: economics and management of industrial enterprises in the knowledge-intensive sector.
References
1. Ahuja G., Capron L., Lenox M., Yaod D.A. (2018). Strategy and the Institutional Envelope. Strategy Science, 3(2). DOI: 10.1287/stsc.2018.0062.
2. Barney J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17018-4.
3. Bogatyreva K., Laskovaia A., Osiyevskyy O. (2022). Entrepreneurial activity, intrapreneurship, and conducive institutions: Is there a connection? Journal of Business Research, 146: 45-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.062.
4. De Massis A., Audretsch D., Uhlaner L. Kammerlander N. (2017). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1): 125-46.
5. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
6. Eckhardt J.T., Ciuchta M.P. Carpenter M. (2018). Open innovation, information, and entrepreneurship within platform ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(3): 369-391.
7. Eesley C.E., Eberhart R.N., Skousen B.R., Cheng J.L.C. (2018). Institutions and entrepreneurial activity: The interactive influence of misaligned formal and informal institutions. Strategy Sciences, 3(2): 393-407.
8. Guo H., Wang C., Su Z., Wang D. (2020). Technology push or market pull. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(4): 352-372. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12526.
9. Kondra A.Z., Hurst D.C. (2009). Institutional processes of organizational culture. Culture and Organization, 15(1): 39-58.
10. Kraaijenbrink J., Spender J.-C., Groen A.J. (2010). The Resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Review. Journal of Management, 36(1): 349-372. DOI: 10.1177/0149206309350775.
11. Lin Y., Wu L.-Y. (2014). Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(3): 407-413. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.019.
12. Loon M., Chik R. (2019). Efficiency-centered, innovation-enabling business models of high-tech SMEs: Evidence from Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(1): 87-111.
13. McDonald R.M., Eisenhardt K.M. (2020). Parallel play: Startups, nascent markets, and effective business-model design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(2): 483-523. DOI: 10.1177/00018 39219 852349.
14. Oberholzer-Gee F., Yao D.A. (2018). Integrated strategy: Residual market and exchange imperfections as the foundation of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategy Sciences, 3(2): 463-480.
15. Oliver C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16: 145-179.
16. Prahalad C.K., Hamel G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, summer special issue (15): 5-16.
17. Prahalad C.K., Ramaswamy V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Review. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3): 5-14.
18. Snihur Y., Zott C. (2020). The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2): 554-583. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2017.0706.
19. Teece D.J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3): 359-368. DOI: 10.1017/jmo.2017.75.
20. Waguespack D.M., Dunford E.T., Birnir J.K. (2018). Cultural imprinting, institutions, and the organization of new firms. Strategy Sciences, 3(2): 426-438.
21. Wernerfelt B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250050207.
Review
For citations:
Aksenova T.V. Typologies of small venture enterprises within the institutional framework: Implications for improving efficiency. Strategic decisions and risk management. 2025;16(3):288-296. https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2025-3-288-296
Views:
37
Email this article 