This chapter examines the institutional and regulatory context in which startups and scaleups operate in Spain. It constitutes the first of the ten elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem framework used to diagnose Spain’s ecosystem. This chapter identifies strengths and areas for improvement, presents an international example, reviews recent policy developments, and offers recommendations for further progress.
Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Diagnostics of Spain
Abstract
Formal institutions refer to the laws, regulations and administrative processes that govern what individuals and businesses can and cannot do (Leftwich, 2006[1]). These encompass, among other things, property rights protection, intellectual property regimes, competition rules, corporate tax rates, labour laws, and the justice system, all of which are highly relevant to start-up development. Along with culture, institutions define the “underlying rules of the game” for businesses (Abell et al., 1992[2]). The quality of institutions is one of the most robust drivers of entrepreneurship rates within a country (Boudreaux and Nikolaev, 2019[3]; Nikolaev, Boudreaux and Palich, 2018[4]). The presence of institutions that accommodate and encourage private enterprise and innovation and facilitate the efficient functioning of markets is a key incentive for business creation. There is strong empirical evidence that more business-friendly institutions are associated with higher self-employment rates in a country (Gohmann, 2012[5]) and more business births (Herrera-Echeverri, Haar and Estévez-Bretón, 2014[6]), entrepreneurial activity (Bjørnskov and Foss, 2016[7]), and innovation (Boudreaux, 2017[8]). This chapter reviews the formal institutions in Spain that are important to the development of startups and scaleups and examines the extent to which they are conducive to entrepreneurial activity.
Spain’s institutional fundamentals are broadly in line with most European OECD countries
Spain Institution are broadly in line with those of other European OECD countries and do not represent, in general terms, a major drag on the development of its entrepreneurial ecosystem. At the same time, some regulatory issues require improvement in most European OECD countries, and Spain should align with European strategies to boost the continent’s competitiveness.
An assessment of benchmarking data with other European OECD countries, Institutions is an area where Spain performs relatively well overall, with varying performances across the different aspects that compose the element.
Note: Data are presented as normalised scores obtained by applying min-max transformations to the raw values, where the max/min are equal to the sample mean +/- 2*sample standards deviations, relative to the average of data from the 2020-2023 period. 2016-2020 scores are anchored to the 2020-2023’s data and must be interpreted as relative performance the 2020-2023 period. *The indicator Effective tax rate does not reflect specific tax benefits allowed to startups. **The indicator Insolvency refers to year 2022, before the introduction of reforms in insolvency regulation.
Spain performs well on control of corruption and administrative requirements for setting up a new firm, but somewhat less well in terms of corporate taxation levels, insolvency cost for entrepreneurs and functioning of civil justice (Figure 3.1).
In terms of control of corruption, Spain attains an above-European OECD average performance, which demonstrates that the country has achieved good fundamentals in public governance and has built institutional mechanisms that limit the influence of improper interests on the use of public resources. This is an essential pre-condition for entrepreneurship as potential entrepreneurs can be discouraged by unfair competition from well-connected individuals.
Spain also achieves a strong performance on its service trade restrictiveness index, which indicates that there are less barriers to entry in the Spanish service markets than in other European OECD markets. Moreover, Spain’s performance on administrative requirements for setting up a new company is also above the European OECD level. This means that administrative aspects such as the number of private and public bodies to be contacted, the number of procedures required, and the costs of complying with these procedures to set up a limited liability company or a personally owned enterprise are somewhat less complex in Spain that in the average European OECD country.
When it comes to insolvency regulations, Spain has historically lagged behind other European OECD countries. Based on 2022 data, Spain performance on this aspect was still below the European OECD average. Insolvency frameworks that penalise business failure not only limit the possibility of business renewal but also curb entrepreneurship upfront by discouraging aspiring entrepreneurs to start a business out of fear of the costs associated with failure. The OECD has measured different aspects of insolvency frameworks, and one that is particularly important is the legal treatment of failed entrepreneurs, which can be measured by the number of years it takes for a failed entrepreneur to be freed from their bankruptcy debt (discharge) and the amplitude of asset exemptions from bankruptcy procedures (e.g. which personal assets of the entrepreneurs or the house can be shielded from creditors’ claims) (André and Demmou, 2022[9]). Nonetheless, in Spain, Law 16/2022 has strengthened pre-insolvency proceedings from the moment insolvency is just probable, reducing the involvement of courts. These developments are not reflected in the data and are likely to be reflected in improved insolvency scores when these reforms are fully implemented.
A further factor that contributes to a country’s perceived burdensome bureaucracy is the functioning of the court system. Entrepreneurs benefit from courts that are speedy, transparent and efficient as they mean lower costs and faster resolution of disputes. Spain underperforms on its court system’s efficiency, lagging behind the average of European OECD countries.
Institutions are also assessed against the corporate effective tax rate, which measures the amount of tax paid by companies relative to their profits. This indicator proxies the tax burden on entrepreneurs as it applies to companies of all sizes, not only startups. Startups may be less sensitive to corporate taxes as they often do not generate profits in their first years. Nonetheless, although young companies can often benefit from preferential tax rates, they are again subject to standard tax rates as soon as they pass a certain age, or when they lose their startup certification (e.g. when their revenue exceed a certain amount or do no respect certain other criteria). In Spain the average effective tax rate over the period 2020-2023 was about 23%, on the higher side of tax rates imposed within the European OECD context. Although in Germany and France firms pay a higher share of their profits in taxes (27% and 25% respectively), in many other European OECD countries firms pay less than 20%, and firms in Hungary, Ireland, Poland or Lithuania pay between 11 and 15%. With the passage of the Startup Law (28/2022), Spain has already started to reduce corporate tax rates for startups that are certified as “emerging companies” by ENISA (as defined by Article 3 of Law 28/2022), complementing previous regulation that imposed a reduced taxation of 15% to newly created companies for two years.
Reforms are addressing administrative, fiscal, and insolvency issues, but their impacts on entrepreneurship have not yet fully materialised
The views of Spanish stakeholders tend to align with evidence from the data. Interviewed ecosystem actors often mention regulations, taxation (encompassing corporate tax rates, social security contributions, and investors’ taxation) and insolvency as sensitive areas for their development that could be further improved in Spain.
Ecosystem stakeholders often point to specific bureaucratic and legal hurdles (such as obtaining a business license or registering with social security and tax authorities) as obstacles for startups. Excessively long "positive administrative silence" for treating administrative requests and lack of digitalisation in administrative processes are also reported as issues.
Similarly, some administrative investment-related processes remain complex in the view of stakeholders. Multiple stakeholders in the Spanish ecosystem have pointed to specific legal and administrative issues that delay investments in startups and scaleups. For example, all equity deals need to be registered by a notary, which can be a time-consuming and costly process. Another factor impacting investment in Spanish startups is the 2020 amendment to the 2003 Law on Foreign Investment Regulation, which introduces a requirement for prior approval of investments in strategic sectors, which can create delays and uncertainty.
Improving these and other regulatory conditions could greatly benefit startup creation. An example of the impact of regulatory conditions on startups registration location comes from the relocation of foreign startups to the United States. It is well-known that several startups worldwide relocate to the United States to access the American market and venture capital ecosystem (Weik, Achleitner and Braun, 2024[10]). One of the popular locations for headquarters relocations to the US is Delaware due in particular to flexible legal and regulatory frameworks and a rich collection of case law and precedent, enabling Delaware-registered companies to make more informed decisions that are less likely to result in litigation or disputes. The common knowledge of Delaware Law also speeds up the process of executing financing deals for startups and lowers legal costs (Abdelaziz, 2024[11]).
While stakeholders’ views on the current regulatory and administrative environment is partially critical, recent reforms have started to address these issues. The Create and Grow Law (18/2022) has introduced simplified and harmonised procedures to start a business, expanding the range of economic activities that do not require prior licensing, and reducing the minimum capital required for the formation of limited liability companies from EUR 3 000 to EUR 1. The Law also created an electronic system that allows companies to register their stock at a later point. Meanwhile, the Spanish Startup Law (passed in December 2022) provides for the creation of the National Office of Entrepreneurship (ONE), which serves as the main access point for information related to entrepreneurship and provides resources to aid the business creation process. These improvements are reflected in the share of companies created within one day. Before the passage of the Create and Grow Law, only 6% of newly created companies were registered in one day, while after the Law this share increased to 35%.
Taxation is another area of focus for some stakeholders. In this respect, many welcome recent reforms that are reducing tax burdens for small companies and startups as ways to make the Spanish ecosystem more attractive to start a business. In terms of company size, Law 7/2024 has increased the progressivity of corporate taxation. Notably, starting in 2025, firms with a turnover below 1 million EUR will be taxed at 21% of the first 50 000 EUR of taxable income, and 22% on the taxable income exceeding 50 000 EUR. These tax rates will be progressively reduced every year, to reach 17% on the first 50 000 EUR of taxable income and 20% for the part exceeding 50 000 EUR, in 2027. In parallel, entities with annual revenues below 10 million EUR will also benefit from gradual tax reductions over the same period.
In terms of startups, before 2022, newly created companies were already taxed at a lower tax rate of 15% for two periods (the first tax period in which the tax base is positive and the following tax period). The 2022 Startup Law introduces the category of “emerging company”. These companies must be certified by ENISA according to specific criteria. These companies are taxed at a 15% rate for a period of up to four years (the first tax period in which the tax base is positive and the following three tax periods). While an important signal and first step, the fiscal incentive for creating a company brought about through this measure is relatively modest, particularly considering that that newly formed companies in Spain already benefited from a reduced corporate tax rate for their first two years of activity before the passage of the Startup Law. Moreover, the conditions to become a certified startup limit the benefit to a small proportion of new companies in Spain that are less than 5 years old, or 7 years old in strategic sectors such as biotech, not listed, not exceeding an annual turnover of 10 million euros, and that develop an innovative entrepreneurial project with a scalable business model, as assessed by ENISA.
As of February 2026, there were over 2 000 start-ups certified under the Startup Law. Notably, among excluded companies there are deeptech firms that are older than five years but are still relatively young and innovative. Since the products developed by these firms are based on scientific breakthrough, these firms are capital intensive and often require a longer development period to bring products to market. Similarly, companies cannot be certified (and thus are not eligible to the reduced tax rate) if they are fully owned by a parent company. This excludes entrepreneurs who set up holding companies to manage the personal risks of commencing an entrepreneurial project. Even among those startups that do qualify for certification, many will be at a pre-revenue or low-profit phase in which product development, customer acquisition and investment are the primary areas of focus.
The social security regime for corporate self-employed individuals is another area that recent reforms have tried to improve. The Royal Decree Law 13 of 2022 has changed the system of social security contributions for the self-employed. As of 1 January 2023, contributions for self-employed workers are computed on the net income obtained through self-employment and employment income. However, even following these positive reforms, individuals classed as corporate self-employed (those who either hold at least 33% of the capital stock of their company or hold at least 25% of the capital stock and have a management role within the company) are still required to have a minimum social security contribution base of EUR 1 000. This can represent an important obstacle for very early-stage entrepreneurs at the pre-revenue stage and may discourage the creation of businesses. It is more typical for social security contributions to be tied to income, without a flat minimum contribution as is the case in Spain.
Another important factor mentioned by Spanish stakeholders, is the pace at which companies can be closed down. Streamlined insolvency frameworks can stimulate more business dynamism, through which resources flow from less productive companies to new entrants or more productive incumbents. Efficient insolvency processes are also important in enabling potential serial entrepreneurs to progress to a new business venture after having had an unsuccessful one. They can also encourage more first-time entrepreneurs.
In line with the EU Restructuring Directive of 2019, in 2022 Spain introduced significant reforms to its Insolvency Act (Law 16/2022). This has brought about a raft of improvements by implementing a US-inspired Chapter 11-type system that makes insolvency faster, more efficient, and more likely to preserve value. More specifically, the reform reduces involvement of the courts and allows the debtor companies to retain greater control of their operations in order to turn their business around and restructure financially. The reforms also introduced a new pre-insolvency regime which defines restructuring plans that are available to companies where there is a likelihood of insolvency. These restructuring plans replace the refinancing agreements that were only available in situations of imminent insolvency. Moreover, restructuring plans allow the grouping of liabilities by class according to the “common interest” concept, which means that plan must be accepted by at least two-thirds of the relevant creditors class. This allows an acceleration of the liquidation process even if one single creditor objects.1
These changes make pre-insolvency proceedings available at an earlier stage of financial difficulties, which facilitates preventative restructuring. Another way in which the insolvency regime could be made more manageable, particularly for innovative startups in Spain, would be to reduce the procedural requirements for winding down companies whose sole creditors are public institutions. Currently, public institutions – for example, ENISA – require entrepreneurs to go through the full bankruptcy process, even when they themselves are the sole creditor.
Efforts to reduce cross-regional regulatory heterogeneity should be continued and scaled
One of the regulatory challenges that can be faced by Spanish startups and scaleups is differences in regulatory regimes across the country’s regions. In order for innovative start-ups to scale, they need to be able to grow their customer base. This often necessitates expansion into markets in different regions to their founding base. Spanish start-ups should, in principle, be advantaged by the relatively large internal Spanish market of 48 million people and direct access to European markets. However, Spain is a highly decentralised country, with considerable regulatory differences between its 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. This results in regulatory borders within Spain’s territory inhibiting the ability of start-ups to expand rapidly to markets in other parts of the country. It is harder for an Andalusia-born startup to expand its operations to Catalonia than it would be for a Berlin-born startup to enter Munich or Frankfurt or for a Parisian startup to penetrate the wider French market, for example.
Important steps are being taken to address this issue, including through measures in the Law on Business Creation and Growth (the “Create and Grow Law”), which was passed in September 2022 and came into effect in November 2022 as part of Spain’s Recovery and Resilience Plan (European Commission, 2024[12]). An important measure in the Law is the establishment of the Sectoral Conference for Regulatory Improvement and the Business Climate, strengthening and replacing the Market Unity Council that was in place previously. The Conference is a forum for the Ministry of Economy and the economic departments of the autonomous communities and cities to meet to identify barriers in specific sectors where there is potential for greater harmonisation of regulations. The Conference works to remove unnecessary red tape, simplify business regulations, and improve co-ordination between regions. Stakeholders have reported that the Create and Grow Law has been an important step forward to improve internal procedures. In particular, the Conference is regarded as a mechanism for enhancing regulatory implementation and for addressing sector-specific barriers across regional jurisdictions. In addition, the Territory and Innovative Entrepreneurship Ecosystems Working Group of the recently created National Startup Forum has started to work on improving the territorial distribution of technological hubs across regions, fostering cross-regional synergies, and expanding local access to networks of mentors and investors.
During the seventh meeting of the Sectoral Conference for Regulatory Improvement and the Business Climate – which convened all the Spanish Autonomous Communities, the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP), the presidents of the Productivity Council and the Chamber of Commerce, and the Ministry of Economy, Commerce and Business – the creation of a common framework (“Régimen 20”) was proposed. The goal of “Régimen 20” is to both simplify and harmonise business regulations in Spain – eliminating the disparity of administrative requirements between autonomous communities and local entities while also reducing red tape. This aligns with the recommendations put forward at the European level by Professor Enrico Letta in his high-level report to the European Council, which advocates for greater regulatory coherence and simplification as key drivers for strengthening the Single Market. Instead of relying on a transversal approach, Régimen 20 consists of a menu of targeted interventions, which aim to remove specific barriers in specific sectors. As a first step, a diagnostic assessment by economic sector was conducted to identify co-ordination failures between administrations or a lack of proportionality in different regulations. This involved an analysis of firms’ reclamations to the Spanish Secretariat of Market Unity, which found that more than 80% of reclamations could be attributed to five sectors: 1). regulated professions, 2). infrastructure and construction, 3). education, 4). transportation, and 5). retail, commerce and hospitality. Following the analysis, the Ministry conducted considerable outreach with private companies and other public institutions to identify priorities for action. Between September and December 2024, more than 70 bilateral meetings were held, as well as four workshops involving the Chamber of Commerce. Based on this process, an action plan has been developed covering five priority areas, with a range of concrete actions to be implemented from 2025, for example: Adopting a standard ordinance for the exercise of retail commercial activities and the provision of certain services; Developing a digital platform that will compile all local regulations and help to promote their standardisation; Implementing digital labelling; Reducing barriers for the installation of electric vehicle charging points; Developing a tool to simplify companies’ interaction with the public administration and reduce the bureaucratic burden.
As these actions are implemented, new measures will be introduced to tackle other identified barriers on a continuous basis. These will be set during periodic meetings of the Sectoral Conference. These periodic meetings will also facilitate monitoring progress and the co-ordination of agreed actions.
In addition to regional regulatory inconsistencies within the Spanish domestic market, Spanish startups and scaleups also face regulatory frictions in accessing EU markets, and efforts to increase harmonisation of regulatory regimes across EU countries should also be continued at the EU level.
New regulatory sandboxes will play an important role in boosting deep tech sectors
The Spanish Startup Law promotes the creation of new regulatory sandboxes – a move welcomed by stakeholders in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. While Spain has a strong crop of startups in digital services, there is scope to increase the numbers of startups in deep tech sectors. Given the tightly regulated nature of many of these sectors, establishing sandboxes is important for enabling startups to develop and test their products and ideas. There are already some sandbox initiatives in Spain, including the fintech sandbox led by the Bank of Spain and the Ministry of Economy, which is currently in its second edition, and the artificial intelligence (AI) sandbox led by the Spanish government to help companies in developing and testing their products and technologies in compliance with the EU’s AI Act, with a focus on high-risk AI systems. 35 applications were received for the AI sandbox, with a requirement for each submission to involve at least one startup or SME either as customer, supplier or technology developer.
The new Startup Forum can become the main central public entity co-ordinating startup and scaleup promotion
In 2021, the Government launched a broad and ambitious strategy, Spain: An Entrepreneurial Nation, (“España Nación Emprendedora”) to boost innovative entrepreneurship in Spain (Government of Spain and the Council of Ministers, 2021[13]). Its implementation requires the involvement of many Ministries and entities. However, before the creation of the Startup Forum, as mandated by the 2022 Startup Law, there was no single entity with an overview of this policy area. The Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities is responsible for measures to support university spin-off generation and funds innovative projects, the latter through its subsidiary agency CDTI. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism is broadly responsible for SME support policies and for the certification and funding of innovative startups through its subsidiary ENISA. The Ministry for the Digital Transformation and Civil Service on the other hand has responsibility for supporting digital startups. Furthermore, ICEX Spain Trade and Investment delivers a range of internationalisation-oriented support programmes for Spanish startups. In addition to these national entities, regional government actors also play a very important role in delivering support to entrepreneurs, startups and scaleups due to the decentralised nature of Spain’s governance structure.
The result is a complex institutional framework for startup and scaleup promotion that can be difficult to navigate for entrepreneurs and may result in inefficiencies, for example in the duplication of supports or assessment efforts. To maximise co-ordination and policy coherence, it is important to have an overarching entity with responsibility for startup promotion. Box 3.1 gives the example of how this is achieved in Canada. Along these lines, the Spanish Startup Law has provided for the creation of a National Startup Forum to convene national ministries and agencies as well as major private sector actors to co-ordinate policies in this area. The Forum began its activities in 2025. Such structures are important in achieving greater co-ordination in the design and delivery of public supports for startups and scaleups. However, consideration might also be given to the establishment of an overarching entity with responsibility for startup and scaleup promotion and the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, following the path of other European countries such as Portugal (through Startup Portugal), Estonia (through Startup Estonia) and France (through French Tech).
Description
Like Spain, Canada is a highly federalised country, meaning that it shares the challenge associated with regulatory divergence and internal trade barriers between regions. The passage of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) in 2017 marked an important development in this respect. It committed regional governments to adhere to a set of rules to reduce internal trade barriers within Canada. The CFTA involved the establishment of the Regulatory Reconciliation and Co-operation Table (RCT), responsible for addressing internal trade barriers through regulatory reconciliation. The RCT works by establishing regulatory harmonisation processes that address frictions that Canadian businesses may face when operating across regional borders. Federal or regional government entities can submit regulatory obstacles to the RCT for reconciliation. The federal and regional governments participating in the CFTA as well as the relevant regulators then commence negotiations for a reconciliation agreement, which should detail how the barrier will be addressed, which governments will participate, and the implementation timeline.
Since 2017, 12 Reconciliation Agreements have been made, covering a broad range of topics ranging from health and safety rules and construction codes to energy efficiency requirements for household appliances. Of particular relevance to Canadian startups is the “Extra-Provincial/Territorial Corporate Registration and Reporting Reconciliation Agreement”, which was passed in 2019. Through this agreement, regional governments in Canada committed to harmonising corporate registration and reporting requirements in order to reduce the administrative burden on businesses looking to expand across the country. This included the establishment of the Multi-jurisdictional Registry Access Service (MRAS), which is a digital solution designed to streamline the process of registering and reporting across regions by allowing information submitted by businesses to be shared across jurisdictions, reducing the need for companies to submit duplicate information to multiple regions. The MRAS also includes a search function through which businesses can be looked up and verified by potential suppliers, customers or partners. As of 2020, the provinces and territories of Québec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta had implemented the MRAS. The search function now has information on more than 90% of Canadian companies operating in Canada.
Success factors
Canada’s RCT adopts a focused and bottom-up approach through which federal or regional government actors identify and put forward areas for regulatory harmonisation based on observed challenges being faced by businesses. This approach gives all regions the opportunity to propose areas for regulatory alignment and ensures that the greatest pain points for businesses in different parts of the country are addressed. Reforming the full regulatory regime is a very major undertaking so the RCT’s approach of prioritising specific issues raised by regional governments and developing work plans and Reconciliation Agreements around these represents a realistic and effective approach to reducing regulatory frictions. Another positive aspect of the RCT’s approach is that individual regions have the option to opt out of a particular agreement, which reduces the risk of blockages in the reform process and ultimately enables more alignment to be achieved.
Lessons for Spain
As Spain develops measures such as “Régimen 20” for increasing regulatory alignment between regions, Canada’s RCT provides lessons on how to prioritise areas for action in a way that addresses major bottlenecks and is responsive to the needs of all stakeholders. Spain would also benefit from a similar system to Canada’s MRAS, which could potentially become a feature of the ONE digital platform established under the Startup Law.
Spain has been extremely active in refining its formal institutions to make them more conducive to the creation and growth of innovative startups and scaleups. This has taken place through a series of major legislative moves, most notably the passage of the Startup Law and the Create and Grow Law and the reforms to the insolvency regime. Among other things, these measures have made it easier and cheaper to register a new business, strengthened incentives for investors to fund Spanish startups, made it easier to for startups to recruit talent, lowered the tax burden on a subset of new companies, streamlined the business insolvency process, and reduced regulatory misalignment between Spanish regions.
Spain’s recent institutional reforms relating to the entrepreneurial ecosystem aim to position the country as a leader internationally in this area and there is an impressive breadth of reform activity. Further efforts should seek to address Spain’s most binding remaining institutional bottlenecks. These include significant regulatory differences between regions and administrative, legal frictions discouraging investment in startups, and high social security contributions for entrepreneurs. Moreover, the coverage of the Startup Law is relatively narrow in terms of the startups and scaleups and investors who can benefit. Even for the relatively few startups certified under the Law, the benefits in areas such as tax and employee stock options are less generous than can be found in other countries.
To improve Spain’s formal institutions, it is recommended that the Spanish authorities:
Simplify eligibility criteria for certification under the Startup Law to enable more young companies to benefit. Notably, extend fiscal and other benefits for a longer period, up to eight years, for deep tech startups, taking into account their technical characteristics and development needs.
Further streamline insolvency procedures, especially for companies whose sole creditors are public entities.
Continue progress on the harmonisation of administrative procedures across regions by: i. Enhancing the role of the Sectoral Conference for Regulatory Improvement and the Business Climate; ii. Introducing opt-out regulatory options for regions to accelerate reform convergence; iii. Continuing the implementation of “Régimen 20”.
Remove the minimum social security contribution for self-employment individuals whose main activity is their startup company and who own stock in their company (corporate self-employed).
References
[11] Abdelaziz, H. (2024), Delaware C-Corporations: The First Choice for Founders and Investors, Founders Law.
[2] Abell, P. et al. (1992), “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43/2, https://doi.org/10.2307/591470.
[9] André, C. and L. Demmou (2022), Enhancing insolvency frameworks to support economic renewal.
[7] Bjørnskov, C. and N. Foss (2016), Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What do we know and what do we still need to know?, https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0135.
[8] Boudreaux, C. (2017), “Institutional quality and innovation: some cross-country evidence”, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-04-2016-0015.
[3] Boudreaux, C. and B. Nikolaev (2019), “Capital is not enough: opportunity entrepreneurship and formal institutions”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 53/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0068-7.
[12] European Commission (2024), 2024 Country Report – Spain.
[5] Gohmann, S. (2012), “Institutions, Latent Entrepreneurship, and Self-Employment: An International Comparison”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 36/2, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00406.x.
[13] Government of Spain and the Council of Ministers (2021), España Nación Emprendedora.
[6] Herrera-Echeverri, H., J. Haar and J. Estévez-Bretón (2014), “Foreign direct investment, institutional quality, economic freedom and entrepreneurship in emerging markets”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67/9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.020.
[1] Leftwich, A. (2006), What are Institutions?.
[4] Nikolaev, B., C. Boudreaux and L. Palich (2018), “Cross-Country Determinants of Early-Stage Necessity and Opportunity-Motivated Entrepreneurship: Accounting for Model Uncertainty”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 56, https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12400.
[10] Weik, S., A. Achleitner and R. Braun (2024), “Venture capital and the international relocation of startups”, Research Policy, Vol. 53/7, p. 105031, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105031.