Identifies a predicting model for entrepreneurial behaviour, indicating effective interventions across countries and years.
Identifying who is likely to engage in entrepreneurship - both in Intention (EI) and in realized Entrepreneurial Outcome Behaviour (EOB) - is essential for designing training, incubation, and policy interventions. By implementing eight waves of data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) (2014–2021) generated from 43 countries ( n > 1.2 million), this paper identifies a compact and generalisable predictive framework for EI and EOB using an explicit predictive model based on interpretable tree-based machine learning (Classification and Regression Trees (CART) and Stochastic Gradient Boosting (TreeNet)). The aim of the paper is to test whether a small, theory-driven subset can predict entrepreneurial behaviour across countries and years. This is achieved through the use of a construct-level framework that embeds intention models (TPB/EEM) within micro-foundations of management (RBV: human and social capital; dynamic capabilities: perceiving-seizing-transforming) and the institutional/economic context. The results show that the resulting five-variable EI model achieves a sensitivity of 75% and a baseline logistic regression of 12%, respectively. In contrast, the six-variable model for EOB achieves a sensitivity of 82% and a baseline logistic regression of 15%. Furthermore, performance does not change across pre-pandemic and COVID-era data. Finally, the model highlights actionable levers - strengthening self-efficacy, reducing institutional frictions that slow the intention-to-action transition, and reinforcing ties with role models - supporting scalable, low-cost interventions. The approach illustrates the ability of parsimonious, transparent, and self-optimising algorithms to uncover and maintain predictive structures from immensely scaled, class-biased behavioural data, while still adhering to the underlying theory of the chosen constructs and algorithms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duplock et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: