Measuring Entrepreneurial Activities in the U.S.: Introducing the Entrepreneurship in the Population Survey

Abstract

This paper introduces the Entrepreneurship in the Population (EPOP) survey, a nationally representative data source for understanding entrepreneurial activities across the United States since 2022. The EPOP survey is distinguished by its focus on a broad set of entrepreneurial activities and collects a wealth of information on the behaviors, challenges, and resources available to entrepreneurs. This data brief provides information on the design and measurement approach of the survey, discusses how to work with EPOP data, and outlines future plans for the survey, including a longitudinal data collection to support research on trajectories of current and prospective entrepreneurs.

Keywords

entrepreneurship entrepreneurial finance new ventures quantitative research methods self-employment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abraham

K. G.

Amaya

(2019). Probing for informal work activity. Journal of Official Statistics, 35(3), 487–508. https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2019-0021

Abraham

K. G.

Haltiwanger

J. C.

Sandusky

Spletzer

J. R.

(2021). Measuring the gig economy: Current knowledge and open issues. In Measuring and accounting for innovation in the twenty-first century (pp. 257–298). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/measuring-and-accounting-innovation-twenty-first-century/measuring-gig-economy-current-knowledge-and-open-issues

Abraham

K. G.

Hershbein

B. J.

Houseman

S. N.

Truesdale

B. C.

(2023). The independent contractor workforce: New evidence on its size and composition and ways to improve its measurement in household surveys. W.E. Upjohn Institute. https://doi.org/10.17848/wp23-380

Acs

Z. J.

Estrin

Mickiewicz

Szerb

(2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: An ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514.

Aldrich

H. E.

Martinez

M. A.

(2001). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 41–56.

Atkins

R. M. B.

Brummet

Johnson

(2025). Understanding the online platform based “gig” workforce in the U.S.: Evidence from the entrepreneurship in the population survey (Working Paper). NORC at the University of Chicago.

Barrios

J. M.

Hochberg

Y. V.

(2022). Launching with a parachute: The gig economy and new business formation. Journal of Financial Economics, 144(1), 24–43.

Bennett

Chatterji

(2019). The entrepreneurial process: Evidence from a nationally representative survey. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.307

Bracha

Burke

M. A.

(2021). How big is the gig? The extensive margin, the intensive margin, and the hidden margin. Labour Economics, 69, Article 101974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2021.101974

10.

Clough

D. R.

Fang

T. P.

Vissa

(2019). Turning lead into gold: How do entrepreneurs mobilize resources to exploit opportunities? Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 240–271.

11.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.

12.

EPOP Research Team. (2023, January 20). Entrepreneurship in the population survey data user guide: 2022. NORC at the University of Chicago, https://EPOP.norc.org

13.

Fairlie

R. W.

(2005). Self-employment, entrepreneurship, and the NLSY79. Monthly Labor Review, 128, 40–47.

14.

Hechavarria

D. M.

Carsrud

Pandey

(2025). Leveraging large-scale secondary data in entrepreneurship research. In Brännback

Carsrud

Hechavarria

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods and application in entrepreneurship and small business (2nd ed., pp. 42–68). Edward Elgar Publishing.

15.

Katz

Gartner

W. B.

(1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 429–441.

16.

Levie

Autio

(2008). A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 235–263.

17.

McMullen

J. S.

Dimov

(2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.

18.

NORC at the University of Chicago. (2022). EPOP survey: 2022 methodology report. Available at: https://epop.norc.org/methodology

19.

NORC at the University of Chicago. (2023). The EPOP survey: Year 1 public use file codebook. Available at: https://epop.norc.org/researchers/public-use-files.html

20.

Osterman

(2023). Contract employment: Measurement and implications for employer–employee relationships. ILR Review, 76(2), 320–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939221132530

21.

Parker

S. C.

(2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press.

22.

Reynolds

Bosma

Autio

Hunt

De Bono

Servais

Lopez-Garcia

Chin

(2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 205–231.

23.

Robb

Reynolds

P. D.

(2009). PSED II and the Kauffman firm survey. In Curtin

Reynolds

(Eds.), New firm creation in the United States: Initial explorations with the PSED II data set (pp. 279–302). Springer New York.

24.

Shane

Venkataraman

(2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

25.

Stam

(2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.

26.

van Gelderen

Wiklund

McMullen

J. S

. (2021). Entrepreneurship in the future: A Delphi Study of ETP and JBV editorial board members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1239–1275.

27.

Yang

Breidt

Ganesh

Mulrow

Herring-Nathan

Pinau

(2022). Hybrid methods for combining probability and nonprobability samples for estimation. In Joint statistical meetings 2022 proceedings, https://0633e92166c0a27ea1aa-ab47878a9e45eb9e2f15be38a59f867e.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/JTJLFYSY-2258703-908764-Upload-1669236724.pdf

28.

Yang

Aldrich

H. E.

(2012). Out of sight but not out of mind: Why failure to account for left truncation biases research on failure rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 477–492.