Lots of studies show that the U.S. is by far the most entrepreneur-friendly in the world, at least as far as government and tax policies go.  But, it also seems that basic attitudes towards entrepreneurship differ from one nation to another.

That’s according to a new study conducted by a European Union commission.

First, there’s the matter of just how much people admire small-business founders. Fact is, in this country, entrepreneurs are close to heroes, all-American, independent-minded, do-it-yourselfers, the heart and soul of our economy. So, it’s not surprising that  73% of Americans have positive opinions of entrepreneurs.

But, apparently, that admiration is not shared by others. The study found that just 49% of EU residents have the same high opinion of entrepreneurs.

At the same time, a significant number of  Europeans–45%–want to be their own boss.  That’s substantial, especially when compared, say, to the Japanese, where 39% have that preference. But it doesn’t compare to the number of those in the U.S. who’d like to be on their own. (55%).

When you drill down to specific European countries, however, you see different patterns. In Cyprus and Greece, for example, a preference for self-employment is even larger than in the U.S.  (Perhaps a good thing in Greece, where entrepreneurship may be the only way to make a living right now). But, in Slovakia, Belgium and Denmark, a mere one third of the population or less wants to be an entrepreneur.

But, where’s the strongest preference for entrepreneurship?

It’s China, where 71% of the population studied wants to be self-employed.  Whether that’s thanks to encouragement from government policy or reluctance to work for such companies as Foxconn , with their grueling, totalitarian-like policies that have contributed to a recent spate of suicides, is unclear.

But, it’s quite a remarkable finding.

Image via Wikipedia

In all the coverage of Zipcar’s recent announcement that it’s planning to go public, one important point has been mostly ignored:  This is not just any old IPO. This is an IPO of a not-only-for-profit–and that’s unusual.

Of course, whether it’s ultimately a positive–or wise–step for any mission-driven company isn’t clear, as the famed Ben & Jerry’s-Unilever experience showed. In that oft-discussed situation, after Ben & Jerry’s went public in 1985, it was forced to accept an acquisition offer from Unilever in 2000. That, ultimately, forced the company to backtrack on part of its social mission. It’s often referred to as a cautionary tale for social enterprises and one of the reasons behind the move to form a new corporate form, something I recently wrote about.

There are other potential hitches, as well.  The Cambridge, Mass-based car-sharing pioneer filed for its $75 million IPO to take care of its mushrooming debt.  In April, the company bought Streetcar, the UK’s largest car-sharing service; the deal reportedly was worth $50 million.  But, while Zipcar has said that it sees great potential in the London consumer–it’s pretty much an ideal market for the company–the deal poses lots of challenges. It’s the first large-scale international acquisition for Zipcar. And UK antitrust regulators  are still evaluating the merger.

Another pesky issue is profitability or lack of it. In fact, the company isn’t profitable and, not only that, expects a loss for 2010. In the three months that ended March 31, losses were $5.33 million compared to $2.97 million the year before.

And, there’s the matter of timing. The market for IPOs is uncertain at the moment. About one-third of IPOs planned in May were postponed or withdrawn, according to AP. The ones that stayed the course were deeply discounted.

Put it all together and you don’t see a recipe for great success. Still, if the move works, it will be more than an IPO of an unprofitable company with a lot of potential: It could spell a new chapter in the world of social enterprise.

Image via Wikipedia

Next week is the second annual conference of the Slow Money Alliance. That’s the group recently founded by Woody Tasch, co-founder of the social enterprise angel group Investors’ Circle.   Its aim is ambitious: developing a fundamentally new approach to investment–to capitalism, really.

And, judging from response to the conference, it seems to picking up speed.

Borrowing a lot from the Slow Food movement, the Slow Money philosophy seeks to encourage investment in local food enterprises, an approach explained in Tasch’s book, Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money: Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered.  He calls for investors to put some of their money into local sustainable farming. And that, he says, would discourage the unfettered growth -at -any- cost attitude that has created the  current, untenable on-the-precipice of environmental collapse situation we now face, forging, instead, a stronger, healthier, more solid and sustainable economy.

The system to support these efforts would include regional financial hubs where investors and entrepreneurs could meet.  Investors’ returns would be relatively modest, but still healthy, steady–and, well, sustainable.  Revenues from these mostly farming, agricultural ventures also would strengthen local communities and,  at some point, other types of businesses could also get in on the act.

To spread the risk–investing in one little farm could be a recipe for losing all your money–there would be Slow Money funds, with many farms in the portfolio. In fact, Tasch is trying to raise $50 million to $100 million to launch a series of funds, which could bankroll hundreds of businesses.

One thing seems sure about the movement: the timing is right. Tasch’s book came out around the time the economy crashed and disenchantment with traditional approaches to investment started growing.  I’ve heard people say that the local food movement–and, with it, Slow Money–may be the new youth  movement of the decade,  the thing that really galvanizes the current generation of disillusioned young people.

In the meantime, the conference, which meets June 9-11 in Shelburne Farms, Vt, has a series of well-known socially minded speakers, like Bill McKibben, author of Deep Economy, and a roster of 22 interesting sustainable small businesses, like Rotokawa Cattle, a Jericho, Vt., farm selling grass-fed beef and Greenling, an Austin, Tx, online service for grocery delivery from local organic farms.

It certainly will provide a first-hand look at the birth of a movement.

Image via Wikipedia

As far as small business is concerned, New York City is famous for one notable feature:  its unfriendly climate. Red tape, hundreds of regulations,  lots of taxes: not a real small-company Mecca.

But, it looks like Mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to change that.

For one thing, he’s launching an aggressive program to cut red tape and make it easier to navigate the city’s overwhelmingly complicated labyrinth of regulations. At least 20 city agencies are involved in the effort, according to Crain’s New York Business. For example, a new web site, NYC Business Express, explains all the permits and licenses needed to open a business.  The ultimate goal is to provide entrepreneurs with one source to visit for learning about and applying for licenses and permits.

Also, the city is trying to streamline the hundreds of rules agencies issue each year and to introduce a process whereby companies can pay or adjudicate violations online, says Crain’s.

In other areas, Bloomberg just announced a new $22 million investment fund for fledgling technology startups. The city is contributing $3 million; the rest is coming from venture capital firm FirstMark Capital.  It’s part of a larger effort to boost technology startups in the city.  The fund’s first investment will be  $300,000 in MyCityWay, which has a mobile application aimed at helping users search for such things as restaurants and jobs.

Obviously, the friendlier the climate, the more likely it is  small companies will stay in New York or will start up there–and, ultimately, will thrive. And, while chances are slim New York can become another Silicon Valley, there is a critical mass of venture capitalists in the city now.

Bottom line: It’s hard to imagine New York City becoming symonmous with entrepreneurship–but stranger things have happened.

We are in an era of massive speed-up at work, thanks to job cuts–people doing the work of two, maybe three co-workers. (Or former co-workers).  Making it harder,  business these days never stops, thanks to the relentless connectedness of our electronic world.

You’d think that small business employees would have it the worst, right? After all, small firms have many fewer resources than bigger enterprises, which are, well, a lot bigger.

But that assumption is wrong, at least according to the results of a new study. It surveyed more than 800 people in North America and discovered that: 1) 79% of all employees report that their workloads have increased; 2) 57% say their work has grown “a lot”; 3) 68% of employees at large organizations think their work demands have increased “a lot”; and 4) 33% of those at small firms feel that way. (Full disclosure:  I do freelance work for the company that produced the survey, Right Management).

In other words, the percent of employees at small companies who think their workload has gone through the stratosphere is half of those at bigger places.

Don’t you think that’s odd? After all, both large and small companies have been afflicted by big layoffs. And, as I wrote last time, the trend is now worse at smaller establishments.

It does get you wondering.  Like, for example, why on earth would small-company employees feel less hassled than counterparts at larger organizations?

As you think it over, though, the conclusions make sense. Perhaps people at small companies work so hard under any circumstances–back to the fewer resources thing–that the current situation isn’t  overwhelmingly different.  Maybe demand at small companies hasn’t risen much, so there’s simply less work to do. Maybe employees at big companies didn’t have to work that hard before.

In any case, it’s sort of a silver lining, at least for those people who are employed by small businesses.