It is nearly a public knowledge that entrepreneurship is s a potent vehicle for creating value-adding activities, locally and internationally, which create employment, growth, taxes and incremental wealth (Koellinger and Thurik 2012; Van Praag and Versloot). Many mission-oriented governments (Mazzucato 2013), ranging from local to national in emerging regions to highly advanced, have enacted policies (Brander et al. 2015) encourage further local entrepreneurship. The general expectation is that such polices stimulate entrepreneurship of various forms, and they will bear fruits soon to help resolve many socio-economic problems (Baughn and Neupert (2003); but not all entrepreneurial initiatives are equally productive or efficiently run. Theoretically, given conducive conditions, those aspirational government policies, and their corresponding stimulative incentives, hold the potential of bearing bumper crops and delivering results, some of which reach much beyond expectations; but a few do not (Baughn and Neupert 2003), and at times their enterprise will have to migrate to more conducive regions with more appealing environmental conditions to survive and grow. Consider, for example, that very few regions, such the California’s region located between San Francisco and San Jose cities (popularly known as the Silicon Valley), New York City, amongst a few other regions in the United States, or Untied Kingdom, and Germany, among others, have attracted, and still do attract, high number of entrepreneurial start-ups with high growth aspirations and potentials that they do mostly attain, while others have relocated elsewhere in need of higher support. The theoretical question is: what accounts for some entrepreneurial start-ups accomplishing and sustaining their high growth rates; while others do not. Are they due to the initial entrepreneurial orientations (EO) (Covin and Lumpkin 2011), and entrepreneurial intentions (EI) (Moriano et al. 2012) or

中文翻译：

---

重新审视创业的各个方面、创业导向、创业意图、国际创业及其相应的后果

几乎公众都知道，企业家精神是在本地和国际上创造增值活动的有力工具，可以创造就业、增长、税收和增量财富（Koellinger 和 Thurik 2012；Van Praag 和 Versloot）。许多以使命为导向的政府（Mazzucato 2013），从新兴地区的地方到国家，再到高度发达的国家，都制定了政策（Brander 等人，2015）鼓励进一步的本地创业。普遍的预期是，这些政策会刺激各种形式的创业，并且很快就会结出硕果，帮助解决许多社会经济问题（Baughn 和 Neupert（2003）；但并非所有的创业举措都同样富有成效或高效运行。理论上，鉴于有利的条件，那些雄心勃勃的政府政策，及其相应的激励措施，具有丰收和取得成果的潜力，其中一些远远超出预期；但也有少数人不这样做（Baughn 和 Neupert 2003），有时他们的企业将不得不迁移到环境条件更有吸引力的更有利的地区才能生存和发展。例如，考虑到极少数地区，例如位于旧金山和圣何塞城市（通常称为硅谷）之间的加利福尼亚地区、纽约市以及美国或英国的其他几个地区，以及德国等国已经吸引并仍在吸引大量具有高增长愿望和潜力的创业型初创企业，而这些企业大多实现了这些目标，而另一些则已迁往其他需要更高支持的地方。理论上的问题是：是什么原因导致一些创业型初创企业实现并保持了高增长率？而其他人则没有。它们是由于最初的创业方向 (EO) (Covin and Lumpkin 2011) 和创业意图 (EI) (Moriano et al. 2012) 还是