Towards a theory of entrepreneurship

Over 200 years of the study of entrepreneurship have provided many definitions of the word “entrepreneur”. However, no theory of entrepreneurship has been developed that would explain or predict when an entrepreneur, by any of the definitions, might appear or engage in entrepreneurship. Indeed, the search for a best definition may have impeded the development of theory.The Schumpeter economic outcome-based concept that an entrepreneur creates value by carrying out new combinations causing discontinuity is embodied in many of the definitions offered within the last 50 years. We strongly recommend the adoption of Schumpeter's definition for academic and policy-making purposes.We offer the following tentative entrepreneurship theory, extracted from anecdotal observations and extant literature, in the hope that it will better explain and begin to predict the phenomenon of entrepreneurship:“A person will carry out a new combination, causing discontinuity, under conditions of:

• 1.1. Task-related motivation,
• 2.2. Expertise,
• 3.3. Expectation of personal gain, and
• 4.4. A supportive environment.

”Several relevant research questions are posed in the hope that they will encourage discontinuity in further development of theory.     

The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

According to the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, the context in which decision-making is derived can influence one’s determination to become an entrepreneur. In particular, a context that is rich in knowledge generates entrepreneurial opportunities from those ideas. By commercializing ideas that evolved from an incumbent organization via the creation of a new firm, the entrepreneur (human capital) not only serves as a conduit for the spillover of knowledge, but also for the ensuing innovative activity and enhanced economic performance through resource allocation. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship brings together contemporary theories and thoughts of entrepreneurship with prevailing theories of economic growth, geography, and strategy and therefore explains not just why some people choose to become an entrepreneur, but also why this matters significantly for the economy and society.     

Israel M. Kirzner: An Outstanding Austrian Contributor to the Economics of Entrepreneurship

Israel M. Kirzner is the 2006 winner of The International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. In this essay, we present and evaluate his main contributions to the economics of entrepreneurship. The focus is on how Kirzner defines the entrepreneurial function. In order to better understand his theory, we posit Kirzner’s notion of an entrepreneur in the Austrian tradition. In so doing we emphasize that this concept opens up different perspectives as compared to the neoclassical theoretical framework. The three areas of economic policy, justice and freedom, and economic growth are discussed. We also show why the Kirznerian entrepreneur makes these issues relevant. Perhaps most importantly, Kirzner has made the Austrian School intelligible for non-Austrians. By bridging the chasm between Austrian and mainstream thinking, the crucial role of entrepreneurship and the individual entrepreneur has become visible to a much broader audience.     

Entrepreneurship, developing countries, and development economics: new approaches and insights

This paper provides an introduction to this special issue of Small Business Economics dealing with the (long-postponed) integration of entrepreneurship into the discipline of development economics and casting a formal light on the role of entrepreneurship in developing countries. The paper departs from the premise that with more than a billion people living in absolute poverty, it is of great practical importance to understand if and when entrepreneurship is a binding constraint on economic development and catching up in developing countries. This in turn requires at least a deeper theoretical modeling of the entrepreneur in development economics. This special edition contains a number of contributions emanating from the UNU-WIDER project on Promoting Entrepreneurial Capacity, which integrates the disciplines of entrepreneurship and development economics. These contributions model and explore the role of the entrepreneur in key areas of concern for development economics, such as structural change and economic growth, income and wealth inequalities, welfare, poverty traps, and market failures. This introduction discusses and contextualizes these various contributions and their implications for further theoretical and empirical work.     

In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship

This paper is an attempt to build a bridge between the popular and the academic usage of the terms entrepreneur and entrepreneurship, and to identify the raw materials needed to construct an interpretive framework capable of illuminating the nature of entrepreneurship and its role in economic theory. We review briefly the contributions made to this topic by Cantillon, Schumpeter, Schultz and Kirzner. We advance a synthetic definition of the entrepreneur as someone who specializes in taking responsibility for and making judgemental decisions that affect the location, the form, and the use of goods, resources, or institutions. We then conclude with some observations on the basic choice confronting economics regarding the place of entrepreneurship in economic analysis.     

A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance

Venture capitalists, “angel” investors, and experienced, successful entrepreneurs, when asked to identify the most important determinant of new venture performance, will undoubtedly answer “the entrepreneur.” Likewise, prominent academic scholars responsible for the accelerating development of entrepreneurship theory and research would almost always agree. Unfortunately, empirical and theoretical understanding of the influence of the entrepreneur on new venture performance (NVP) has long been stymied. Studies of entrepreneurial characteristics have failed to demonstrate convincing links with entrepreneurial states of being or with NVP, though studies of the former have shown more promise than have those of the latter. In an attempt to explain the failure to link entrepreneurial characteristics with performance and thus to stimulate and modify research agendas, this paper derives a structural, causal model of the relationships between entrepreneurial characteristics and performance. This derivation draws upon current psychological, management, economic, and entrepreneurship theory.Though there is considerable controversy in the field of psychology concerning the ability of personality traits to explain behavior, it is accepted by many that such traits do exist, that they are stable over time, and that they explain behaviors if the level of aggregation is wide enough. In 1988, Hollenbeck and Whitener noted that one of the problems in using personality traits to explain job performance was that such traits are mediated by motivation and moderated by abilities in their causal connection to performance. Thus personality traits are somewhat removed from performance in the causal chain of events. Applied to the study of the entrepreneur, this research suggests that an initial model of the “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” relationship must include the mediating role of motivation and the moderating role of entrepreneurial management abilities.This paper further redefines this emerging model of “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” by drawing upon other literature from the field of psychology. This literature suggests that “entrepreneurial behavior” and the context in which it is performed both intervene between motivation and ability in their relation to NVP. The paper concludes this section with a psychology-based model of the “characteristics → NVP” relationship that is more comprehensive and realistic than prior models in the entrepreneurship literature.The paper next draws from strategic management, entrepreneurship, and economics literature along with Sandberg's (1986) model of NVP [NVP = f(E,IS,S)] to show that any model of the connection between entrepreneurial characteristics and NVP must further recognize the relationship between strategy and NVP as well as industry structure and NVP. The resultant model suggests strategy and industry structure are “context” variables that interdependently interact with entrepreneurial behaviors to influence NVP. This adaptation of the model is reinforced and expanded by reviewing the management literature on matching managers to situations which in turn implies that the effects of entrepreneurial behaviors on NVP are contingent upon strategy and industry structure. Thus strategy and industry structure, though ultimately determined by entrepreneurial behavior, are themselves important inputs to the behavioral context of entrepreneurship.The last part of the paper examines decision-making, skills, aptitudes, and training as components helping to refine our understanding of the role of motivation as a mediator and ability as a moderator in a model of the “entrepreneurial characteristics → NVP” relationship. The intent here is to identify specific variables that can be studied or acted upon [in an applied sense] to improve the NVP impact of entrepreneurial behaviors.It is hoped that explication of this model will encourage future entrepreneurship research that seeks to examine causes of NVP to reintroduce “the entrepreneur” as the focus or a focus of the research. Hopefully a more fully developed model that includes motivations, abilities, skills, aptitudes, and training as elements in “modeling” entrepreneurial behavior along with the need for strategy and industry structure contexts provides a more compelling and risk-worthy starting point for such research. This should provide an impetus to put the entrepreneur back. into a central position in entrepreneurship research, where both theory and practitioners say he/she belongs.     

Home-based entrepreneurship and multiple roles—an inter-role conflict

Home-based entrepreneurship has been identified as an alternative source of employment and income for residents of non-metropolitan communities. Although economic and social advantages of home-based work have been identified, negative factors associated with home-based entrepreneurship have also been reported Home-based entrepreneurs may experience inter-role conflict as a result of an overlapping of roles (i.e. work/family) within the environs of the home. Findings from interviews with home-based entrepreneurs are discussed in relation to the multiplicity of roles of the home-based entrepreneur. Further, implications are addressed concerning the conflicts arising from multiple role demand as a home-based entrepreneur.     

Business accomplishments,gender and entrepreneurial self-image

Drawing on Bem's psychological theory of self-perception, this paper presents and tests a model that examines the impact of business accomplishments and gender on entrepreneurial self-image and explores the definition of entrepreneurship according to Vesper's entrepreneurial typology. Regression techniques are used to identify those business accomplishments that university alumni associate with self-perceptions of entrepreneurship. Experience as a small business person (founding, running, and/or owning a small business) most clearly predicts entrepreneurial self-image. Results also support predictions of both direct and indirect effects of gender as well as direct effects of education and business degree. Results of a separate expert panel study are used to rank business accomplishments according to degree of entrepreneurship. Results of both studies reveal stark contrasts in the implied definition of entrepreneurship between entrepreneurship experts (academic and practitioner alike) and the general business community (as represented by the alumni). This raises questions about the meaning of the term “entrepreneurship”, what the word “entrepreneur”, in particular, conveys to the general public, and the implications for practice and future research.     

Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

Previous studies suggest that entrepreneurial activity tends to be greater in contexts where investment in new knowledge is relatively high (e.g., entrepreneurial universities). However, in this specific knowledge context, only a few academics recognize opportunities and act on them through entrepreneurial activities (e.g., spin-offs). A plausible explanation could be the existence of several filters that limit the total conversion of knowledge into economically useful knowledge. The vehicle to knowledge transfer is entrepreneurship. Therefore, the main actor is the academic entrepreneur, but no empirical study has highlighted the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship at the individual level. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters on the knowledge transfer process within entrepreneurial university. Adopting the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and the planned behavior theory, a proposed model was tested with a sample of 207 academics enrolled in entrepreneurial universities in Spain using structural equation modeling. Our findings could provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that bring further benefits to society and educational organizations as well as significant contributions to the literature.     

Whose business is it anyway? Closing the gender gap in entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa

This article examines how gender may account for productivity gaps across enterprises. First, using data from six countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the article demonstrates that the extent and significance of any productivity gap by gender depends critically on the criteria used to classify an enterprise. Using a definition of ‘female participation in ownership,’ there are few differences in average performance measures. However, a 12% productivity gap emerges when a tighter definition, based on decision-making control, is used. Second, the article examines which entrepreneurial characteristics (education, management skills, experience and the motivation for being an entrepreneur) are most associated with higher productivity. The findings reveal that there are some gender gaps in the prevalence of these characteristics, but that these do not account for the overall gender productivity gap. Rather, while women benefit as much as men from education and management skills, there are non-linear impacts by gender in the benefits of having a family background in entrepreneurship; sons rather than daughters benefit from having a father that was an entrepreneur or from joining a family enterprise.     

A theory of serial entrepreneurship

The contribution of serial entrepreneurs to entrepreneurial activity is significant: in Europe, 18–30% of entrepreneurs are serial; in the US, their contribution is about one-eighth. Yet, theories of entrepreneurship and industry dynamics presume that all firms are launched by novice entrepreneurs and firm failure is synonymous with exit from entrepreneurship. We propose a theory of serial entrepreneurship in which an entrepreneur has three occupational choices: maintain his business in operation, shut it down to enter the labor market to earn an exogenous wage, or shut it down to launch a new venture while incurring a serial startup cost. In equilibrium, a high-skill entrepreneur shuts down a business of low quality to become a serial entrepreneur, launching and subsequently closing firms until a high quality business is found; a low-skill entrepreneur shuts down a business of low quality to enter the labor market, never to become a serial entrepreneur. A decrease in the wage or serial startup cost, or an increase in the startup capital, enhances the contribution of serial entrepreneurs to entrepreneurial activity and promotes new firm formation (by increasing entrepreneurship and the number of new firms that survive), but its effect on the exit rate of new firms is ambiguous. We show the model is consistent with evidence relating to the impact of an entrepreneur’s characteristics and prior experience in entrepreneurship on the survival of his firm and his entry into and survival in entrepreneurship.     

Lifesizing Entrepreneurship: Lonergan, Bias and The Role of Business in Society

In an era of downsizing and disposable ethics, there is a need to redefine the role of business in society. Central to such a discussion is the frame of reference of the entrepreneur. A traditional business model defines entrepreneurship based on endowing resources with new wealth producing capabilities. This paper defines entrepreneurship as a calling to endow resources with new value. In support of the impact such a distinction would have on repositioning the role of business in society, the paper weaves together writings from the Pope, Drucker, and Lonergan, with emphasis on applying Lonergan’s discussion of bias to the discussion of ethics in business. Adapting the term, “lifesizing”, which was coined by the author in a previous article, to entrepreneurship, the paper takes the position that lifesized entrepreneurship can act as a catalyst similar to Lonergan’s cosmopolis and play a key role in countering bias and repositioning the role of business in society.     

Effects of Unemployment on New Firm Formation: Micro-Level Panel Data Evidence from Finland

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive insight into the role that unemployment plays in influencing new firm formation. Panel data models and micro-level data are used to help achieve this objective. We endeavour to identify simultaneously the separate effects of personal, regional and national unemployment on new firm formation in Finland for the period 1987–1995. The results indicate considerable evidence for a positive and non-linear effect of personal unemployment on the likelihood of an individual to become an entrepreneur. The findings also indicate that the economic situation has an effect on firm formation: times of low unemployment and business prosperity favour entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the analysis gives no clear evidence of the regional unemployment situation affecting the likelihood of founding a business.     

Corporations and entrepreneurs: Paradox and opportunity

The intrapreneur is the corporate entrepreneur. But some people consider “corporation” and “entrepreneur” so opposite that “intrapreneur” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Not so, says the author, who argues that an organization without an entrepreneurial spirit becomes a bureaucracy. On the other hand, the small firm cannot depend on entrepreneurship alone. Without professional management it may stay small—or worse, go broke.     

Entrepreneurs and the context of cooperative organizations: A definition of cooperative entrepreneur

We focus on the role of entrepreneurs in organizations that are structured as cooperatives. In considering the similarities and differences among various forms of entrepreneurship, a comprehensive definition of the cooperative entrepreneur is formulated. A model illustrating four variations in the manner in which cooperative entrepreneurship contributes to the creation of cooperatives is also presented. These contributions help to more clearly frame future research and lend visibility to the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in the cooperative context. Copyright © 2013 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship

Although the field of entrepreneurship is recognized as being of fundamental importance for our economy, and although many researchers throughout the world have turned their attention to it, there is, as yet, no agreement as to the research object in this scientific field. Empirical research has described the phenomenon from different standpoints. It has also shown that the phenomenon is much more complex and heterogeneous than was thought in the 1980s. However, to advance knowledge and produce tools that are useful in practice, it has become necessary to establish theories that will generate more productive empirical research. Some effort at definition is therefore needed.The definition proposed here takes a constructivist stance, and is at the service of a research project—that of understanding or forecasting the entrepreneurial act and its success or failure, and defining more accurately the environmental conditions favourable to that act. Here, the scientific object studied in the field of entrepreneurship is the dialogic between individual and new value creation, within an ongoing process and within an environment that has specific characteristics. This definition emphasizes the fact that we will not understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurship if we do not consider the individual (the entrepreneur), the project, the environment and also the links between them over time. It shows the entrepreneur to be not simply a blind machine responding automatically to environmental stimuli (interest rates, subsidies, information networks, etc.), but a human being capable of creating, learning and influencing the environment.This standpoint is consistent with the practical work done by the people responsible for helping entrepreneurs throughout the entrepreneurial process. It also shows that the phenomenon is heterogeneous and hence that discourse which is too general in nature will produce only truisms or artifacts, and that it is dynamic and sometimes unpredictable. Clearly, it would be paradoxical to suggest that the phenomenon is predictable and therefore situated within a deterministic framework, while at the same time admitting that entrepreneurs have the freedom and capacity to create innovations.     

Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm

Ever since Newton's Principia set mathematical models at the pinnacle of a scientific paradigm, scientists in all disciplines—not just the physical sciences—have striven to express their theories mathematically. In the social sciences, mathematical models are more often than not a little more than a Laplacian fantasy. Nevertheless, mathematics is being used more and more extensively by social scientists—none more so than economists and business researchers. This paper focuses on one area of social science, entrepreneurship, and examines the difficulties of trying to use mathematics to model entrepreneurship processes.The entrepreneurial process is a dynamic, discontinuous change of state. It involves numerous antecedent variables. It is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. To build an algorithm for a physical system with those characteristics would be daunting to the most gifted applied mathematician. But when you add the requirement that the entrepreneurial process is initiated by the volition of a unique human being, mathematical modeling may be impossible, because there is “an essential non-algorithmic aspect to conscious human action.” This article argues that today's most prominent mathematical representation of entrepreneurship, population ecology, falls far short of Penrose's specification for a “useful theory.”Some observers believe that the answer to entrepreneurship theory may be found in the chaos theory—a relatively new science that was popularized by Gleick in his book Chaos: Making a New Science. This article explores the chaotic zones of several algorithms that provide alluringly simple representations for the entrepreneurial process. One of them is the fundamental equation for population ecology theory. It shows how under some conditions that equation exhibits some wild, chaotic behavior that gives an observer the feel of entrepreneurship. But it is no more than a mathematical metaphor because the accuracy of the measurements that are needed to observe true scientific chaos in the entrepreneurial process are unattainable in practice.     

Are success and survival factors the same for social and business ventures?

Despite the growing interest in social entrepreneurship, there exist gaps in research that compares traditional business-oriented entrepreneurship with the social kind. This study attempts to fill the gap by answering the following questions: Are there significant differences between the survival chances of business and social ventures? and Do the traits of the entrepreneur and the firm play the same role as success factors for both types of venture? Hypotheses are tested using data collected from 2,179 firms. The results show that significant differences exist between social and business-oriented entrepreneurship in the form and intensity of the independent variables related to survival.     

The private financial gains to entrepreneurship: Is it a good use of public money to encourage individuals to become entrepreneurs?

Recent evidence comparing earnings from entrepreneurship versus wage earning shows that, after allowing for obvious observable differences, most entrepreneurs in most developed countries earn less than similar wage-earning employees. Does this mean that the decision to become an entrepreneur should be discouraged? The answer depends in part on whether we believe that entrepreneurs report their income truthfully or not. Adjusting for what is considered to be underreporting by entrepreneurs lifts entrepreneurial earnings by between 10 and 40 %, reversing the fortunes of the entrepreneur such that they appear to be earning much more than their counterparts in a wage-earning job. If this adjustment should prove to be appropriate, then there is no obvious reason to increase the incentive for individuals to become entrepreneurs (such as with tax breaks or direct start-up subsidies) in developed countries, and there is reason, instead, to discuss decreasing these subsidies.