The article refers to one company as being "more stagnant" than another. It also mentions how people can behave "more like workers than like entrepreneurs." It

The article refers to one company as being "more stagnant" than another. It also mentions how people can behave "more like workers than like entrepreneurs." It refers to a firm's "growth." What are the assumptions underlying the article? What does it mean for a firm to be "stagnant"? How do "entrepreneurs" behave? What is "growth"? My guess is that the model unspoken is how startups work in, say, the US. An entrepreneur is a person focused primarily on securing more funding/customers/exposure for the company. A stagnant company is one whose revenue/profit/funding/headcount is not steadily increasing. Growth, the opposite of stagnation, is one combination of measures that an investor might use to guess whether an investment in the company will yield favorable returns. Is that what is missing from poor countries? To play the devil's advocate, I think that those things are more likely to occur in an environment flush with money, where there are many founders who will take a gamble, where there are many rich people who will fund the gambles, and where a corrupt state entity cannot easily be used to steal any good that comes from it.