Search results

The chapter provides an integrated analytical account of the contributions of the volume. Next to the results from a comprehensive literature review on gazelle growth factors, two further content blocks of the volume are summarized, one on gazelles in Germany and one on specific under-researched topics, that is, gazelles’ internationalization and gazelles’ corporate citizenship. The chapter highlights main findings and avenues for further research, including a short discussion on the use of the term “gazelle”.

This chapter introduces the readers to the theme of the book. The chapter starts by outlining the socio-economic importance of gazelles and by discussing definitional challenges of what gazelles or high-growth firms are. The chapter then points to the academic relevance and to unresolved issues in international gazelle research. The chapter closes with an outline of the three blocks and eight chapters of the book.

This chapter summarizes existing empirical literature on German gazelles and draws on a large new sample of high-growth firms for a description of the regional and sectoral distribution of gazelles in Germany. In addition, the regional distribution of gazelles is juxtaposed with the occurrence of regional cluster initiatives. In sum, our results are in line with major former findings. We find gazelles in all sectors and many regions with some specificities for young and urban gazelles. We do not find significantly more gazelles in regions, though, which pursue a targeted cluster policy. Finally and consequently, we call for more granular studies on types and characteristics of gazelles in the future.

Despite the mounting evidence of gazelles’ higher economic contribution, there is no consensus on whether and how to support gazelles. In this chapter, we therefore discuss varied gazelle policy views as well as the inherent challenges of supporting gazelles. Here, we draw on relevant academic literature as well as on international policy examples. Additionally, we analyze Germany’s gazelle policy stance by triangulating information collected from the literature, practical policy examples and interviews, we carried out with German support agencies and policymakers. Though Germany’s general policies and framework conditions create necessary conditions for gazelles to emerge, they are insufficient to guarantee their prevalence. Moreover, Germany’s policy approach of encouraging new firm formation and self-employment and its focus on the financial support for small as well as technology or innovation-oriented firms is not consistent with the state-of-the-art knowledge about gazelles. Using the case of Germany, we argue that general entrepreneurship policies and high-growth entrepreneurship (gazelle) policies are distinct approaches having divergent and sometimes conflicting objectives and support mechanisms, which need to be synchronized to be effective.

This chapter critically discusses the many positive aspects that are ascribed to gazelle firms by exploring the external effects and dark sides of high firm growth. On the background of the more general debate on purpose versus profit as a firm’s mission, the chapter theoretically elaborates on the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative growth of gazelles. This is followed by a case-based illustration and exploration as to how quantitative and qualitative growth interrelates in gazelles and what are impediments for high growth that is purpose driven. The chapter closes with a discussion of the Janus-faced nature of gazelles and how their corporate citizenship can be enhanced.

High-growth firms have recently received considerable attention in the firm growth literature. These firms might have grown despite the existence of growth barriers, and evidence also suggests that, having already grown exponentially, they may not be in the best position to grow further. Policies targeting high-growth firms may therefore be misdirected. We argue that entrepreneurship researchers should concentrate more on firms that are not hiring, despite having high profits. We call these firms “sleeping gazelles,” and demonstrate that they represented almost 10% of all limited liability firms in Sweden from 1997 to 2010. Nearly half of these firms continued to earn high or moderate profits in subsequent three-year periods, while still displaying no growth. Regression analyses indicate that these firms were significantly smaller, older, more likely to be active in industries with high profit uncertainty, and more likely to be located in less densely populated municipalities than were corresponding growing firms.

Research on high-growth firms (HGFs) or gazelles is expanding due to their significant contribution to job growth and economic development. However, the knowledge about the conditions and factors that set these firms on their rapid growth trajectory remains fragmented. Therefore, this chapter provides an abreast inventory of the surging gazelle studies by systematically reviewing the international gazelle growth literature and consolidating firm-level, industry-level, and macroeconomic-level growth factors and their interactions as elaborated in the studies. Based on the review of 62 international empirical studies, this chapter finds that the gazelle growth is complex and multidimensional in its scope and nature. The firm’s growth intention and entrepreneurial nature emerge as necessary but not sufficient conditions to guarantee rapid growth as it results from the impact of and interaction between various firm-level and external factors. The different growth-influencing factors are summarized using a theoretical gazelle growth model, which supports the rare and temporal nature of the gazelle growth.

Possible reasons for using kites to kill gazelles are comprehensively reviewed in this article. Even though they are now well inventoried and documented, desert kites are still not well understood, as exemplified by the recurrent controversies about their function and dating. According to the dominant view, kites were hunting structures used to drive and to mass kill large herds of wild ungulates, particularly gazelles. Although kites were intensively used during the Early Bronze Age, some of them could have been built and used before that. Beyond these issues, the cultural and socioeconomic aspects of the kites phenomenon are even less understood, and therefore, we focus on changing reasons for the long-lasting use of kites as hunting devices. We contend that the reasons why they were used during the period of utilization for hunting gazelles changed, in most cases, in response to socioeconomic development. It is hypothesized, for example, that, as a result of urban development, kites may have been increasingly (but not exclusively) used to kill gazelles to trade their products with urban communities and farmers, even though they had other uses as well which are also considered. The main hypothesis presented in this article enables diverse opinions about the types of uses and reasons for utilizing desert kites to be reconciled, including in particular varied reasons given in the literature about why they were used for killing gazelles.

It is clear that entrepreneurship has a major impact on the economy because of the innovation, competition, productivity, wealth generation, and job creation all developed through new ventures. However, researchers have been divided on what specific type of entrepreneurial venture is best for economic growth and job creation. This chapter examines the debate between researchers on whether or not a “gazelle” approach, focusing only on high growth ventures, or a “portfolio” approach, taking in account all the various types of ventures, is better for economic growth and job creation. The gazelle approach’s solution is for the government to only invest in those firms that are high growth. In contrast, the portfolio approach’s solution is to encourage all forms of entrepreneurship because the ventures are interdependent on each other in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and each venture no matter the size is serving some purpose to the economy. This chapter highlights the two sides of the issue but also argues that in order for a true entrepreneurial economy to exist then all various type of ventures need to be encouraged in order for competition to be greatest and for society to reap the highest benefits.