Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study advances a comprehensive approach to studying the evolution of entrepreneurial finance literature that differs from the disaggregated perspective on various entrepreneurial finance sources. The current study is a systematic literature review of entrepreneurial financing models. Specifically, we used “PRISMA” methodology to review these thirteen models. Highly relevant 278 scholarly articles were obtained from the Scopus database for qualitative synthesis by implementing concisely framed keywords. We incorporated articles from journals listed in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) quality list only to enhance the quality of this study. Additional 15 studies were included that were highly relevant to this review yet were not found in the database search to increase the robustness of the study. This study’s findings indicate the fragmented and uneven nature of the study. Very few studies have established the interrelationship between the financing models operating in the same ecosystem. Also, we mentioned the deciding factors in the funding dynamics of these sources from the investor’s perspective. We add value to the existing literature by systematically reviewing these financing models, providing a holistic study approach to these diverse constructs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sethy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: