Explaining Variation in Oil Sands Pipeline Projects

While the vast majority of oil pipeline projects in Canada have been successfully built, several mega oil sands projects within and passing through Canada have been cancelled or significantly delayed. This article explains why these delays and cancellations have occurred. A systematic cross-case analysis is used to provide insight into the changing politics of oil sands pipelines. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify combinations of causal conditions that co-occur across cases of proposed new oil pipelines and pipeline expansion projects. The pipeline projects were proposed to the federal regulator—the National Energy Board—between 2006 and 2014. The QCA reveals that social mobilization and major regulatory barrier(s) are necessary conditions in explaining variation in pipeline project outcomes. The analysis of sufficiency reveals more complex configurations of conditions. This article contributes to the literature on the politics of oil sands pipelines by using a comparative approach to identify the impacts of socio-political and legal dynamics that have emerged around pipelines in the last 15 years.

From intention to entrepreneurial action

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the explanatory debate of the entrepreneurial intention-action gap that results from the interposition of normative-regulatory, sociocultural and economic-financial barriers facing potential and intending entrepreneurs.Design/methodology/approachGrounded on post-positivist position, the authors propose a quantitative approach, surveying 569 potential and intending entrepreneurs from a longitudinal and stratified sample of 22 years.FindingsThe economic-financial barrier is the most important, followed by the sociocultural except in the period in which access to banking financial support is facilitated, where the order is reversed. The impact of the normative-regulatory barrier is statistically relevant, but irrelevant on the magnitude. The results also allow us to conclude that a lower development of the project accentuates the entrepreneurial intention-action gap and, finally, support the existence of a medium/long-term temporal relation between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action.Research limitations/implicationsFrom an empirical standpoint, the sample was limited to potential and pretending entrepreneurs from one national institution and one country. This limits the scope of generalization. Further studies in multiple contexts should be undertaken.Practical implicationsThe study points to contradictory results with the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – Portuguese Reports, which, if confirmed, require the reformulation of Portuguese national policies in the promotion and development of entrepreneurial activities.Originality/valueThe study is novel by providing new insights about entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial intention-action gap.