WWW.BOOK.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Books, dissertations, abstract
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 |

«David B. Audretsch Indiana University Donald F. Kuratko Indiana University Albert N. Link University of North Carolina at Greensboro April 2015 ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

Making Sense of the Elusive Paradigm of

Entrepreneurship

Department of Economics Working Paper Series

David B. Audretsch

Indiana University

Donald F. Kuratko

Indiana University

Albert N. Link

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

April 2015

Working Paper 15-04

http://bae.uncg.edu/econ/

MAKING SENSE OF THE ELUSIVE PARADIGM OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

David B. Audretsch

Kelley School of Business

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN 47405

daudrets@indiana.edu Phone: 812-855-6766 *Donald F. Kuratko Kelley School of Business Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 dkuratko@indiana.edu Phone: 812-855-4248 Albert N. Link Bryan School of Business and Economics University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC 27402 anlink@uncg.edu Phone: 336-334-5146 *Corresponding Author Making Sense of the Elusive Paradigm of Entrepreneurship Abstract The term “entrepreneurship” apparently means different things to different people including scholars and thought leaders. Because entrepreneurship is multifaceted, it is studied from many different perspectives, yet, that has fostered a multitude of definitions. Even the scholarly literature (where normally the deepest understanding would be found) is rife with disparities and even contradictions about what is and is not entrepreneurship. Some have suggested a narrower and more defined focus on entrepreneurship where only bona fide entrepreneurship research theories would explain entrepreneurial phenomena. We believe that constricting the field may the wrong approach. Our purpose then is to try and make sense of the disparate meanings and views of entrepreneurship prevalent in both the scholarly literature as well as among thought leaders in business and policy. We reconcile the seemingly chaotic and contradictory literature by proposing a coherent approach to structure the disparate ways that entrepreneurship is used and referred to in the scholarly literature. We examine three coherent strands of the entrepreneurship literature and identify an emerging eclectic view of entrepreneurship, which combines several of the views prevalent in the main approaches discussed.

Key Words: Entrepreneurship, conceptual, behavioral, performance, eclectic.

JEL Code: L26 (Entrepreneurship); L25 (Firm Performance); L29 (Other).

1. Entrepreneurship: An Elusive Term Over 50 years ago, Harold Koontz pointed out a “management theory jungle” of varying definitions and approaches that was plaguing the field of management (Koontz, 1961). He stated “all [theories] have essentially the same goals and deal essentially in the same world” (p. 182).

Twenty years later he revisited his contention only to be shocked by the increase in theories and approaches to the field (Koontz, 1980). The “jungle” according to Koontz still existed with nearly double the approaches to management that were identified nearly two decades earlier.

Yet, the field of management continued to flourish and mature with greater research and knowledge development over the years.

It appears that the emerging field of entrepreneurship research has been confronting a similar “jungle” in the form of different theories on what constitutes entrepreneurship and the manner in which it is being studied. The word “entrepreneurship” implies many different things.

Innovation, ideas, creativity, new venture development, discovery, and economic growth, just to name a few. Trying to make sense of the scholarly literature on entrepreneurship and reconcile that literature with the way the concept is commonly applied in practice must leave more than a few students, scholars from various academic fields including entrepreneurship, confused and perplexed. The term “entrepreneurship” apparently means different things to different people including scholars and thought leaders in business and policy alike. Why is this term so elusive?

Rocha and Birkinshaw (2007) pointed out that the study of entrepreneurship has been associated with various aspects of analysis such as the person (Cantillon, 1931), traits, (McClleland, 1961), behaviors (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), functions (Schumpeter, 1934), actions (Venkataraman, 1997), new businesses (Gartner, 1989), and ownership (Hoang & Gimeno, 2010). They conclude that entrepreneurship is therefore, multifaceted, which is why it is studied from so many different perspectives. Yet, these different perspectives have fostered a multitude of definitions for entrepreneurship.

From a practical view, Business Dictionary.com (2014) considers entrepreneurship to be “the capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business venture along with any of its risks in order to make a profit. The most obvious example of entrepreneurship is the starting of new businesses.” However, in the most widely cited paper on entrepreneurship, Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p. 217) promote as entrepreneurship as the “discovery and exploitation of profitable opportunities.” By contrast, Parker (2009) considers self-employed people to constitute entrepreneurs. Yet a very different view of entrepreneurship consists of business owners (Martin, Van Stel, Thurik & Wennekers, 2007). Still others, such as Lerner, Leamon & Hardymon (2012) refer to venture capital financed ventures as entrepreneurship, while Stuart and Sorenson (2003) consider IPOs as entrepreneurship. Similarly, McKelvie and Wiklund (2010) consider entrepreneurship in terms of the innovative performance of firms. The European Commission (2014) equates small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with entrepreneurship while the United States State Department (2014) seems to think of entrepreneurship in terms of economic goals, as the Secretary of State, John Kerry, explains, “The United States has learned through its own experience that entrepreneurship is an essential driver of prosperity and freedom.” Thus there exists various differences in the meaning of entrepreneurship and the scholarly literature (where normally the deepest understanding would be found) is rife with disparities and even contradictions about what is and is not entrepreneurship. One reaction to the proliferation of what entrepreneurship actually means has been to suggest that the field needs to become narrower and more defined in its focus on entrepreneurship (Bull and Willard, 1993; MacMillan and Katz, 1992). In this manner, only bona fide entrepreneurship research theories would explain entrepreneurial phenomena in a way that is not explained by some other field or even academic discipline so that it becomes unique to entrepreneurship scholarship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Accordingly, future theories of entrepreneurship should be focused solely and exclusively on aspects of behavior that involve creating and/or discovering opportunities, as well as evaluating and subsequently exploiting and acting upon those opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Wiklund et al., 2011). Yet, as Bruyat & Julien (2001) point out, any definition that is attempted should always serve as a construct that can be used to build theories and carry out more effective empirical research, in order to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon and, eventually and be shared by the researchers with a view to promoting the accumulation of knowledge.





Our purpose then is to try and make sense of the disparate meanings and views of entrepreneurship prevalent in both the scholarly literature as well as among thought leaders in business and policy. We try to reconcile a seemingly chaotic and contradictory literature by proposing a coherent approach to structure the disparate ways that entrepreneurship is used and referred to in the scholarly and popular literature. We reject the concept of narrowing the view of entrepreneurship in order to broaden its meaning and gain in impact and significance both among scholars and practitioners. After examining the three most prominent strands of scholarly thought on entrepreneurship we identify an emerging eclectic view of entrepreneurship, which combines several of the views prevalent in the main three approaches discussed in the previous sections. It is our intention to focus the field of entrepreneurship through multiple lenses in order to allow growth and maturation.

2. Distinct Perspectives of Entrepreneurship There are three coherent research perspectives found in the entrepreneurship literature that attempt to make sense of how the concept of entrepreneurship is actually viewed. In this section we first identify the view of entrepreneurship based on organizational status (such as firm size, age or ownership) or the status of individuals which may be considered to represent one coherent strand of the entrepreneurship literature. We then examine a very different approach, which considers entrepreneurship on the basis of behavior and constitutes a second strand of the entrepreneurship literature. A third strand of the literature is also identified, which considers entrepreneurship on the basis of performance.

One of the main views of entrepreneurship in the literature is based essentially on organizational status. This organizational status upon which the particular theory is based can refer to the status of a firm or an individual, or team of individuals (Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven, 1990; Ruef, Aldrich and Carter, 2003). Various strands of literature have provided empirical tests of theories using the operationalization of entrepreneurship based on a measure of organizational status, such as self-employment, business ownership or new-firm startups.

Theories based on the organizational status of what constitutes an entrepreneur can be at the level of the individual (Morris, Kuratko, and Schindehutte, 2012). According to this view, self-employment, is considered to constitute entrepreneurship (Parker and van Praag, 2012;

(Svaleryd, 2015; Audretsch, 2012). A related measure is business ownership (Parker, 2009). The model of occupational choice, which was applied to the context of individuals deciding whether or not to become an entrepreneur involves either maximizing utility or income Parker (2009).

Measures of business ownership are conducive to the analysis of large comprehensive data bases over long periods of time, since they have been a part of official government statistics for decades in most (OECD) countries (Blau, 1987; Blanchflower and Meyer, 1994; Carree, van Stel, and Thurik and Wennekers, 2001). Studies analyzing the propensity for individuals to become an entrepreneur using business ownership and self-employment data have typically linked this to characteristics specific to the individual, such as gender, age, work experience, human capital, and social capital. A particular focus or concern of these studies has thus been to link the propensity of an individual to be an entrepreneur, that is self-employed or a business owner, tocharacteristics specific of that individual, such as age, attainment of a particular educational level, gender, levels and extent of work experience, and occupational status and experience of parents (Audretsch, 2012; Svaleryd, 2015).

An alternative approach focuses on people who are weighing becoming an entrepreneur.

This strand of literature terms this nascent entrepreneurship (Lichtenstein, et al., 2007; Rocha, Carneira, and Varum, 2015). The organizational context of nascent entrepreneurship also has generated theories with a focus on the individual. Unlike the organizational contexts of selfemployment and business ownership, however, nascent entrepreneurship involves individuals who have not actually started a business but are considering doing so or planning to do so. As is the case for business ownership and self-employment, nascent entrepreneurship also involves the unit of observation of the individual. The major distinction is that while the former are actually entrepreneurs, in that they have actually started a business, a nascent entrepreneur is only considering starting a business (Davidsson, and Honig, 2003; Carter, Gartner, Shaver, and Gatewood, 2003; Minniti and Nardone, 2007; Davidson and Forsythe, 2011; Rocha, Carneira, and Varum, 2015).

A very different view of entrepreneurship focuses not on status but rather on behavior.



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 |


Similar works:

«Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy Volume 14, Issue 2 2008 Article 2 Measuring the Effectiveness of Arms Embargoes Michael Brzoska∗ ∗ IFSH, University of Hamburg, brzoska@ifsh.de Copyright c 2008 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Measuring the Effectiveness of Arms Embargoes∗ Michael Brzoska Abstract Arms embargoes are often said to be ineffective but mandated fairly often. A sample of 74 arms embargo cases between 1990 and 2005 is analysed in order to...»

«Criminal Law Forum (2013) 24:87–111 Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com DOI 10.1007/s10609-012-9189-x MANUEL LADIGES* CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS OF A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY SEATED IN GERMANY ABSTRACT. During the last decade, a great number of German businesses formed private limited companies by shares in England and transferred the company’s real seat to Germany in order to avoid the minimum capital rules for the German limited...»

«PartnerStyleguide Version – 1.0 Einführung Partnerschaften sind eine Säule des Geschäftserfolgs. Kein Unternehmen kann den zunehmend komplexen Anforderungen unserer globalen Wirtschaft allein gerecht werden. Für Unify übernehmen spezialisierte Partner wie Sie deshalb eine tragende Rolle auf dem Weg zum Erfolg – unserem gemeinsamen Erfolg. Als einer der führenden globalen Anbieter von Unternehmenskommunikationssystemen entwickelt Unify mit 10.000 engagierten Mitarbeitern...»

«INSTITUT FÜR ANGEWANDTE SYSTEMFORSCHUNG UND OPERATIONS RESEARCH (IASFOR) STUDENTENPROTOKOLLE zum Oberseminar im Anwendungsfach Anwendungen der Spieltheorie Herausgeber: Rudolf Avenhaus Fritz Lehmann Andreas Wölling Bericht-Nr. S-9703 Frühjahrstrimester 1997 II Vorwort Das im Frühjahrstrimester 1997 durchgeführte Oberseminar im Anwendungsfach der Fakultät für Informatik der Universität der Bundeswehr München war den Anwendungen der Spieltheorie gewidmet. Insgesamt wurden im Rahmen des...»

«Der Soziale Wandel Von Ehe Und Familie Its understanding consumer is higher around one business with your turbulent knowledge at someone, living days, period, but Flag leads. An difference you will have it is just simple the first conditioning. A full home training, always stored as a POs is literally the insurance page. They have occurred to post trust to their foil. Any stores include beforehand business Der Soziale Wandel Von Ehe Und Familie skills aside published to loud lawsuits, so you...»

«Efficiently Inefficient Markets for Assets and Asset Management∗ Nicolae Gˆrleanu and Lasse Heje Pedersen† a This version: February 2016 Abstract We consider a model where investors can invest directly or search for an asset manager, information about assets is costly, and managers charge an endogenous fee. The efficiency of asset prices is linked to the efficiency of the asset management market: if investors can find managers more easily, more money is allocated to active management,...»

«März 2014 Evaluierung der Kreativwirtschaftsinitiative „evolve“ Endbericht Alfred Radauer, Tobias Dudenbostel unter Mitwirkung folgender externer Experten: Hasan Bakshi (NESTA, GB) Robert Eysoldt (Create Berlin e.V., DE) Rasmus Winstedt Tscherning (Center for Cultural and Experience Economy, DK) www.technopolis-group.com Evaluierung der Kreativwirtschaftsinitiative „evolve“ Endbericht technopolis |group|, März 2014 Alfred Radauer, Tobias Dudenbostel unter Mitwirkung folgender externer...»

«25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems Trust Formation in information system 8th -10th Dec 2014, Auckland, New Zealand Trust formation in information systems implementation in developing countries: The role of emancipatory expectations Author: Dr. Ranjan Vaidya Lecturer Graduate School of Business The University of The South Pacific Statham Campus, Suva, Fiji ranjan.vaidya@usp.ac.fj Abstract This paper explores trust formation issues in information and communications technology...»

«TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre – Entrepreneurship Success factors for new venture teams: The consequences of trust within entrepreneurial teams Florian Josef Bernlochner Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Wirtschaftswissenschaften (Dr. rer. pol.) genehmigten Dissertation. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Renzo Akkerman Vorsitzender:...»

«Aspekte nachhaltiger Regionalentwicklung im Grenzraum Alpenrheintal Konzeption eines Forschungsprojektes und erste Ergebnisse von Julia Scharting, Karin Saurwein, Stefan Obkircher und Martin Coy 1 Einleitung Bodensee, Bregenzer Festspiele, Steuerparadies Liechtenstein oder die einmaligen Riedlandschaften sind nur einige Assoziationen, die man mit dem Alpenrheintal verbindet. Die Wachstumsregion zwischen Österreich, Liechtenstein und der Schweiz hat in den letzten Jahren vor allem mit positiven...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.book.dislib.info - Free e-library - Books, dissertations, abstract

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.