Generative Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition in Emerging Economies: A Conceptual Framework

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jed.2026.408930.654635

Abstract

ABSTRACT




Objective: Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, as the central core of the entrepreneurial process, plays a fundamental role in the formation, continuity, and growth of new ventures. A substantial body of classical and contemporary entrepreneurship literature considers this process as the result of the interaction among prior knowledge, entrepreneurial alertness, social networks, and individual cognitive processes. However, this stream of research implicitly assumes the existence of a certain level of information transparency, access to reliable data, and the presence of efficient intermediary institutions, such that the entrepreneur’s main challenge is not the lack of information but its interpretation. In contrast, emerging economies face fundamentally different conditions, where chronic shortages of reliable data, dispersed market signals, weak regulatory institutions, and extensive institutional voids impose serious constraints on the process of opportunity recognition. In such environments, formal information is either unavailable or of insufficient quality, resulting in the structural reproduction of information asymmetry. Consequently, a condition of limited observability emerges, in which many potential opportunities remain essentially undetectable. This situation reduces entrepreneurial activities to limited, short-term, and arbitrage-based opportunities while constraining the identification of innovative and scalable ventures. Against this backdrop, the emergence of generative artificial intelligence offers a new perspective for rethinking these limitations. Unlike previous technologies that primarily relied on structured datasets, generative AI is capable of producing novel insights from incomplete, fragmented, and heterogeneous information. Nevertheless, an important question remains unanswered: how do these capabilities redefine the cognitive boundaries of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition in data-scarce environments, and under what conditions can they contribute to the discovery of more valuable entrepreneurial opportunities?
Method: This study adopts a conceptual and theory-building approach and, by drawing upon the logic of theory synthesis and abductive reasoning, integrates insights from the literature on entrepreneurial opportunity recognition, institutional voids, digital entrepreneurship, and recent studies on artificial intelligence. Within this framework, key concepts from these domains are recombined to provide an integrated explanation of the role of generative artificial intelligence in reshaping the opportunity recognition process. The central argument of the paper is that generative artificial intelligence can be conceptualized as a distinct form of cognitive augmentation that enhances entrepreneurs’ ability to observe, interpret, and recombine market signals under conditions of information scarcity. More importantly, the proposed framework positions generative AI not merely as an analytical tool but as an active cognitive partner capable of expanding entrepreneurs’ search space, enriching sense-making processes, and reshaping the boundaries of entrepreneurial cognition.
Results: The findings of this study, presented in the form of a conceptual framework, indicate that the impact of generative artificial intelligence on opportunity recognition is realized through three primary mechanisms. The first is data augmentation, referring to the ability to combine and integrate dispersed market signals into actionable representations. The second is market insight generation, achieved through identifying hidden patterns and transforming heterogeneous data into meaningful narratives about emerging market trends. The third is pattern recognition and recombination, which enhances entrepreneurial imagination and enables the transition from limited opportunities toward innovative and scalable ones. Collectively, these mechanisms suggest that generative AI can partially compensate for the absence of reliable market-supporting institutions by expanding entrepreneurs’ ability to identify opportunities that would otherwise remain invisible. At the same time, the findings demonstrate that this process is not free from limitations. In some situations, AI-generated outputs may lead to misinterpretations, excessive reliance on algorithmic recommendations, or even the construction of false entrepreneurial opportunities, thereby emphasizing the continuing importance of human judgment.
This study extends opportunity recognition theory by introducing the concept of limited observability as a fundamental constraint in emerging economies and conceptualizes generative artificial intelligence as a mechanism for reducing this limitation. In addition, two variables—the intensity of institutional voids and entrepreneurs’ digital literacy—are introduced as key moderating factors influencing both the magnitude and nature of AI's impact. The proposed framework further demonstrates that, alongside its cognitive enhancement capabilities, risks such as automation bias, algorithmic hallucinations, and excessive dependence on AI-generated outputs may substantially influence the quality of opportunity recognition. From this perspective, the study contributes to the digital entrepreneurship literature by highlighting the unique role of generative technologies in data-scarce and institutionally weak contexts. More importantly, it argues that the primary value of generative AI in emerging economies lies not merely in improving decision efficiency, but in enabling entrepreneurs to observe, imagine, and formulate opportunities that would otherwise remain hidden under conditions of severe informational and institutional constraints.
Conclusion: Overall, the findings suggest that generative artificial intelligence has the potential to transform entrepreneurial opportunity recognition from a limited, experience-based activity into a more systematic, insight-driven, and data-recombination-oriented process, provided that its application is accompanied by human judgment, critical thinking, and continuous validation of AI-generated outputs. Accordingly, from a policy perspective, investment in digital literacy development, improvement of data infrastructures, broader access to intelligent technologies for entrepreneurs, and the design of flexible regulatory frameworks are expected to play decisive roles in enabling the effective use of generative AI for fostering entrepreneurship and innovation in emerging economies.
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects


  • Aghion, P., Bergeaud, A., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). Innovation and top income inequality. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdy027
  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1‐2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4
  • Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586822
  • Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4
  • Arenius, P., & De Clercq, D. (2005). A network-based approach on opportunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-1984-5
  • Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266
  • Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs "connect the dots". Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2006.19873412
  • Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21) (pp. 610–623). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  • Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00213.x
  • Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at work. NBER Working Paper No. 31161. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161
  • Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.40633190
  • Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2019). Generativity tension and value creation in platform ecosystems. Organization Science, 30(3), 617–641. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1270
  • Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R., & Stern, S. (2018). The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 115–146). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c14006
  • Cummings, M. L. (2004). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In Proceedings of the AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6313
  • Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3), 385–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050873
  • Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. P. (2024). Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28), eadn5290. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290
  • Du, Z. Y., & Wang, Q. (2024). Digital infrastructure and innovation: Digital divide or digital dividend? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100542
  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  • Feng, S., Zhang, R., Di, D., & Li, G. (2024). Does digital transformation promote global value chain upgrading? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Economic Modelling, 139, 106810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2024.106810
  • Fossen, F. M., McLemore, T., & Sorgner, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 20(8). https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000130
  • Garud, R., & Giuliani, A. P. (2013). A narrative perspective on entrepreneurial opportunities. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 157-160. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0055
  • Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010). Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0462
  • Grégoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2012). Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 753–785. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0126
  • Grimes, M., von Krogh, G., Feuerriegel, S., Rink, F., & Gruber, M. (2023). From Scarcity to Abundance: Scholars and Scholarship in an Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 66(6), 1617–1624. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.4006
  • Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00081-2
  • Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). A strategic framework for artificial intelligence in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00749-9
  • Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
  • Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
  • Karanasios, S., & Burgess, K. (2025). Digital bricolage and its limits: How microenterprises adapt under resource constraints. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.0193
  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51.
  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2010). Winning in Emerging Markets: A Road Map for Strategy and Execution. Harvard Business Press.
  • Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
  • Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/23043493
  • Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
  • MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
  • Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2009). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
  • Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12254
  • Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 48(8), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
  • Noy, S., & Zhang, L. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586
  • Obschonka, M., Grégoire, D. A., Nikolaev, B., Ooms, F., Lévesque, M., Pollack, J. M., & Behrend, T. S. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Entrepreneurship: A Call for Research to Prospect and Establish the Scholarly AI Frontiers. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/10422587241304676
  • Pirhadi, H., Soleimanof, S., & Feyzbakhsh, A. (2023). Unpacking entrepreneurial alertness: How character matters for entrepreneurial thinking. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 155-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1907584
  • Prahalad, C. K. (2009). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (5th anniversary ed.). FT Press.
  • Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of management review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
  • Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020
  • Sassetti, S., Cavaliere, V., & Lombardi, S. (2021). The rhythm of effective entrepreneurs’ decision-making process: The pathways of alertness scanning and search and cognitive style. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(2), 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00759-1
  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
  • Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00071
  • Shrestha, Y. R., Ben-Menahem, S. M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision making in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619862257
  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in opportunity recognition: A multidimensional construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.07.001
  • Uriarte, S., Baier-Fuentes, H., Espinoza-Benavides, J., & Inzunza-Mendoza, W. (2025). Artificial intelligence technologies and entrepreneurship: a hybrid literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00839-4
  • von Krogh, G. (2018). Artificial intelligence in organizations: new opportunities for phenomenon-based theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0084
  • Webb, J. W., Bruton, G. D., Tihanyi, L., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Research on entrepreneurship in the informal economy: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 598-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.05.003
  • Webb, J. W., Tihanyi, L., Ireland, R. D., & Sirmon, D. G. (2009). You say illegal, I say legitimate: Entrepreneurship in the informal economy. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 492–510. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.40632826
  • Wood, M. S., McKelvie, A., & Haynie, J. M. (2014). Making it personal: Opportunity individuation and the shaping of opportunity beliefs. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.02.001
  • Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization science, 23(5), 1398-1408. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
  • Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 3–23). Ballinger Publishing Company.