Entrepreneurial finance reconsidered: a systematic review and future research agenda
Anupama Shrestha Panta, Sabin Bikram Panta, Pradeep Kumar GuptaPurpose
This study synthesizes contemporary academic research on entrepreneurial finance, which is fragmented across funding types, theoretical silos, and methodological orthodoxies. Furthermore, this study evaluates its limitations and advances a programmatic research agenda.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic literature review of 53 studies published in A/A*-rated journals listed in the Australian Business Deans Council Journal Quality List (2022) between 2012 and 2024, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines, has been conducted. Searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, SAGE, ProQuest, EBSCOhost and Wiley Online Library. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT v2018). Synthesis was conducted using thematic analysis supported by NVivo 12.
Findings
The findings show that the field is characterized by empirical expansion but is conceptually fragmented. Quantitative methods dominate (79.2%), with venture capital, crowdfunding and angel investing as primary foci. Furthermore, North American and European contexts account for 73.6% of studies. Foundational theories (agency, signaling and the resource-based view) remain influential but are applied in isolation rather than in integration. Critically, entrepreneurs' lived experiences are almost absent from the literature (only 5.7% of studies include interviews with entrepreneurs).
Originality/value
This review provides the first systematic critique of the absence of the entrepreneurial voice as a structural problem in knowledge production, not merely a research gap, with a formal definition and explicit scope. Furthermore, it proposes a multilevel, process-oriented framework with five testable propositions derived directly from thematic synthesis patterns, with explicit tracing of the conceptual leap from findings to propositions. Finally, this study offers a prioritized research agenda that distinguishes diagnostic, urgent and high-risk questions with explicit methodological recommendations and connections to real-world developments.