Sources used in this document:

references either to ultimately competing on a global level or filling gaps left in the local market with acknowledgment of the impact levied on the landscape by globalization. Particularly, when speaking of future strategies, 22 out of 50 German respondents would mention either 'free trade,' 'globalization' or the "EU." This compares with balance to the 24 American respondents of 54 study participants who would mention either 'free trade,' 'globalization,' or 'international growth.' These can be considered relatively equivalent degrees of understanding as to the relationship between SME development and globalization in either context. This is an outcome which suggests that patterns in Germany may well be subject to change in the future, despite the resolutions yielded here.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the findings which have been produced by the survey here conducted would endorse the overall argument that cultural factors have long promoted a distinction in entrepreneurial tendencies between the United States and Germany where the former places a greater deal more emphasis on independent business enterprising than does the latter. Indeed, the survey respondents would produce the qualitatively observed finding that in terms of both motive and means, American entrepreneurs would be illustrative of a culture where small and medium enterprise orientation is encouraged and supported through various sociologically induced avenues. By comparison, it was found that the German entrepreneurs who responded to the survey were less likely than their American counterparts to be either motivated or funded by avenues caused to existence by cultural or sociological factors. Instead, there appears a greater likelihood amongst German entrepreneurs to reflect a motive and a means for entrepreneurship with individual and personal implications. This tends to suggest that compared to their American counterparts, German respondents tend not to reflect specific cultural patterns relating to entrepreneurial activity. This is to say that where we may not necessarily conclude that there is a pattern which dissuades or restrains German entrepreneurs from engagement in the process, we can conclude that there is an apparent pattern whereby lesser opportunity or encouragement exists to help stimulate engagement in the process.

Based on what is understood of the entrepreneurial process through the present body of research, this contributes to the resolution that there does exist a relationship between culture and entrepreneurship and that moreover, this culture is more strongly reflected in the United States than in Germany. Nonetheless, we may also resolve that Germany is currently in a state of opening, with free trade and the various realities of the European Union causing it and many of its neighbors to engage markets with a greater interest in diversification. As so many entities of a large corporate nature move operations to markets where cost opportunities are more flexible, local activity has become an increasingly important part of retaining dynamism and competition in domestic contexts. As the research here denotes, in this regard of encouraging and supporting SME development, the German market will come increasingly to identify with the market in the United States.

The study here conducted elucidates several prospects for more precise or empirical examination. In particular, the basic nature of the survey, which was formed of open-ended questions, bears with it certain strengths but also betrays some weakness in the formality of the study. Namely, the open-ended format does allow for considerable flexibility in response. For a study such as this, which is intended to breach the surface of the subject matter as a way to steward efficiently future studies of a deeper or broader intent, open-ended questioning is appropriate.