Entrepreneur’s Choice: Productive or Unproductive Activities? (Modelling the Interactive Relationship Between the Governments, Entrepreneurs and Financiers)

Niloofar Rahmani et al.

Journal of Entrepreneurship2026https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557261423268article
AJG 1ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

This article was developed on the dynamic game framework under complete information for strategising three main actors: government, entrepreneurs and banks. The main objective of this study is to find out how entrepreneurs choose between productive and unproductive activities in a particular set of institutional rules and the optimal strategic profiles are mapped according to the Nash equilibrium. A numerical analysis with Iranian data is then presented. The results provide evidence that while optimal government support policies and financial facilitation can increase the level of an entrepreneurial activity, it is primarily the institutional environment that dictates the nature of entrepreneurial engagement. In other words, supportive policies and increased profit potential may encourage the establishment of new ventures, but meaningful changes in the institutional structures will steer an entrepreneur towards productive rather than unproductive activities.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557261423268

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{niloofar2026,
  title        = {{Entrepreneur’s Choice: Productive or Unproductive Activities? (Modelling the Interactive Relationship Between the Governments, Entrepreneurs and Financiers)}},
  author       = {Niloofar Rahmani et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Entrepreneurship},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09713557261423268},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Entrepreneur’s Choice: Productive or Unproductive Activities? (Modelling the Interactive Relationship Between the Governments, Entrepreneurs and Financiers)

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.