Evidence from IPOs show that the initial valuations of entrepreneurial ventures tend to be overvalued (Fisher, 2014). One common explanation is irrationality on the part of the entrepreneur characterized by overconfidence (Galasso and Simcoe, 2011). We provide a different, rational explanation which we term the valuator's curse. It is similar in nature to the winner's curse in auctions (Thaler, 1988) and the optimizer's curse in decision analysis (Smith and Winkler, 2006), but the source of the curse is neither from the competitive effects of an auction-type mechanism nor from the optimization effects in a choice among alternatives. Rather the effect is generated in the evaluation itself, even though the inputs to the evaluation are unbiased. We provide general conditions which result in the valuator's curse, show that they persist even in a Bayesian setting, and suggest several approaches to mitigate the effect.
来自ipo的证据表明，创业企业的初始估值往往被高估(Fisher, 2014)。一种常见的解释是企业家的非理性特征是过度自信(Galasso和Simcoe, 2011)。我们提供了一种不同的、理性的解释，我们称之为估值师的诅咒。它在本质上类似于拍卖中的赢家诅咒(Thaler, 1988)和决策分析中的优化者诅咒(Smith and Winkler, 2006)，但诅咒的来源既不是来自拍卖类型机制的竞争效应，也不是来自备选方案选择中的优化效应。相反，效果是在评估本身产生的，即使评估的输入是无偏的。我们提供了导致估价师诅咒的一般条件，表明它们即使在贝叶斯设置中也会持续存在，并提出了几种减轻影响的方法。
{"title":"The Valuator's Curse or the Entrepreneur's Boon: Decision Analysis of Post-IPO-Launch Disappointment","authors":"Onesun Steve Yoo, K. McCardle","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3124824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3124824","url":null,"abstract":"Evidence from IPOs show that the initial valuations of entrepreneurial ventures tend to be overvalued (Fisher, 2014). One common explanation is irrationality on the part of the entrepreneur characterized by overconfidence (Galasso and Simcoe, 2011). We provide a different, rational explanation which we term the valuator's curse. It is similar in nature to the winner's curse in auctions (Thaler, 1988) and the optimizer's curse in decision analysis (Smith and Winkler, 2006), but the source of the curse is neither from the competitive effects of an auction-type mechanism nor from the optimization effects in a choice among alternatives. Rather the effect is generated in the evaluation itself, even though the inputs to the evaluation are unbiased. We provide general conditions which result in the valuator's curse, show that they persist even in a Bayesian setting, and suggest several approaches to mitigate the effect.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"158 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116232624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In an innovation contest, an organizer seeks solutions to an innovation-related problem from a group of independent agents. Agents, who can be heterogeneous in their ability levels, exert efforts to improve their solutions, and their solution qualities are uncertain due to the innovation and evaluation processes. In this chapter, we present a general model framework that captures main features of a contest, and encompasses several existing models in the literature. Using this framework, we analyze two important decisions of the organizer: a set of awards that will be distributed to agents and whether to restrict entry to a contest or to run an open contest. We provide a taxonomy of contest literature, and discuss past and current research on innovation contests as well as a set of exciting future research directions.
{"title":"Innovation and Crowdsourcing Contests","authors":"Laurence Ales, Soo-Haeng Cho, Ersin Körpeoğlu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3054479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3054479","url":null,"abstract":"In an innovation contest, an organizer seeks solutions to an innovation-related problem from a group of independent agents. Agents, who can be heterogeneous in their ability levels, exert efforts to improve their solutions, and their solution qualities are uncertain due to the innovation and evaluation processes. In this chapter, we present a general model framework that captures main features of a contest, and encompasses several existing models in the literature. Using this framework, we analyze two important decisions of the organizer: a set of awards that will be distributed to agents and whether to restrict entry to a contest or to run an open contest. We provide a taxonomy of contest literature, and discuss past and current research on innovation contests as well as a set of exciting future research directions.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122475431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Company analysis is a type of Case Study method among many types of Case study based Research Methods. While developing a Company Case study based on various issues in Management, the researcher can choose any company of any industry to study an issue or to solve a problem. Usually, a case analysis ends up with the observation of new performance pattern, interpretation of issues in the form of new information, or development of new suggestions to improve the system or to solve the problems optimally. Company analysis is considered to be a most powerful method to study new lessons required to identify, understand, and solve the problems in the process of managing and leading the organizations. Analysing business issues related to a company provides an opportunity to researchers to identify the kinds of situations, decisions, and dilemmas managers facing every day. Company analysis is a powerful tool in developing both research case study and teaching case study in business management subject. In this paper, we have discussed how ABCD Analysis as Research Methodology in company case analysis procedures in order to help the budding researchers while developing and analysing Company analysis as a Case study. In this paper, we have checked whether ABCD (Advantages, Benefits, Constraints, and Disadvantages) analysis framework can be used while analysing a company, how to consider various determinant issues of a company, selecting various affecting factors under these issues and identifying constituent critical elements for each construct using its elemental analysis technique, and the reasons to recommend the ABCD analysis framework in any kind of company analysis.
{"title":"ABCD Analysis as Research Methodology in Company Case Studies","authors":"Sreeramana Aithal","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.891621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.891621","url":null,"abstract":"Company analysis is a type of Case Study method among many types of Case study based Research Methods. While developing a Company Case study based on various issues in Management, the researcher can choose any company of any industry to study an issue or to solve a problem. Usually, a case analysis ends up with the observation of new performance pattern, interpretation of issues in the form of new information, or development of new suggestions to improve the system or to solve the problems optimally. Company analysis is considered to be a most powerful method to study new lessons required to identify, understand, and solve the problems in the process of managing and leading the organizations. Analysing business issues related to a company provides an opportunity to researchers to identify the kinds of situations, decisions, and dilemmas managers facing every day. Company analysis is a powerful tool in developing both research case study and teaching case study in business management subject. In this paper, we have discussed how ABCD Analysis as Research Methodology in company case analysis procedures in order to help the budding researchers while developing and analysing Company analysis as a Case study. In this paper, we have checked whether ABCD (Advantages, Benefits, Constraints, and Disadvantages) analysis framework can be used while analysing a company, how to consider various determinant issues of a company, selecting various affecting factors under these issues and identifying constituent critical elements for each construct using its elemental analysis technique, and the reasons to recommend the ABCD analysis framework in any kind of company analysis.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123222995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the late 1980s, the dominant ideology of corporate governance in the United States has been that, for the sake of superior economic performance, companies should ``maximize shareholder value`` (MSV). As promulgated by agency theorists, however, MSV is an ideology of value extraction that lacks a theory of value creation. As a theory of value creation, I have constructed ``The Theory of Innovative Enterprise``, an analytical framework for understanding how a business enterprise can generate a good or service that is of higher quality and lower cost than products previously available. In this essay, I use innovation theory to provide both a general theoretical critique and a selective empirical critique of agency theory. In Section 2, reviewing Bebchuk and Fried, Pay Without Performance (2004), I argue that the authors fail in their objective to demonstrate that U.S.-style stock-based pay undermines ``shareholder value,`` while I contend that, from the perspective of innovation theory, shareholder value is an illegitimate measure of corporate performance. In Section 3, focusing on Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang, ``The Long-Term Effects of Hedge-Fund Activism`` (2015), which purports to demonstrate empirically that the exercise of shareholder power improves corporate operating performance, return on assets, and stock returns over periods of as long as five years, I argue that innovation theory casts serious doubt on their findings because the supposed long-term improvements in corporate performance could very well have resulted from cost-cutting that increased profits at the expense of the labor force rather than from productivity gains from the generation of higher quality products at lower unit costs—gains of innovative enterprise that are typically shared with the firm`s employees. In Section 4, I turn to a step-by-step critique of Fried and Wang, ``Short- Termism and Capital Flows`` (2017), which, taking issue with the central argument in my article ``Profits Without Prosperity`` (2104) that massive distributions to shareholders in the forms of dividends and buybacks have come at the expense of investment in innovation and higher wages, claims that a number of other sources of funds (debt issues, stock issues) and uses of funds (remuneration, R&D, acquisitions, venture capital) result in innovation and good wages. I demonstrate that Fried and Wang make a series of assertions about the economic impacts of financial flows, which they incorrectly call ``capital flows``, that lack substance. I conclude the essay by arguing that, for analyzing the operation and performance of the economy, innovation theory should replace agency theory. Agency theorists do not address, let alone explain, why since the 1980s, the United States has experienced extreme concentration of income among the richest households and the erosion of middle-class employment opportunities. I contend that the ideology that corporations should be run to ``maximize shareholder value`
{"title":"Innovative Enterprise Solves the Agency Problem: The Theory of the Firm, Financial Flows, and Economic Performance","authors":"William Lazonick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3081556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3081556","url":null,"abstract":"Since the late 1980s, the dominant ideology of corporate governance in the United States has been that, for the sake of superior economic performance, companies should ``maximize shareholder value`` (MSV). As promulgated by agency theorists, however, MSV is an ideology of value extraction that lacks a theory of value creation. As a theory of value creation, I have constructed ``The Theory of Innovative Enterprise``, an analytical framework for understanding how a business enterprise can generate a good or service that is of higher quality and lower cost than products previously available. In this essay, I use innovation theory to provide both a general theoretical critique and a selective empirical critique of agency theory. In Section 2, reviewing Bebchuk and Fried, Pay Without Performance (2004), I argue that the authors fail in their objective to demonstrate that U.S.-style stock-based pay undermines ``shareholder value,`` while I contend that, from the perspective of innovation theory, shareholder value is an illegitimate measure of corporate performance. In Section 3, focusing on Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang, ``The Long-Term Effects of Hedge-Fund Activism`` (2015), which purports to demonstrate empirically that the exercise of shareholder power improves corporate operating performance, return on assets, and stock returns over periods of as long as five years, I argue that innovation theory casts serious doubt on their findings because the supposed long-term improvements in corporate performance could very well have resulted from cost-cutting that increased profits at the expense of the labor force rather than from productivity gains from the generation of higher quality products at lower unit costs—gains of innovative enterprise that are typically shared with the firm`s employees. In Section 4, I turn to a step-by-step critique of Fried and Wang, ``Short- Termism and Capital Flows`` (2017), which, taking issue with the central argument in my article ``Profits Without Prosperity`` (2104) that massive distributions to shareholders in the forms of dividends and buybacks have come at the expense of investment in innovation and higher wages, claims that a number of other sources of funds (debt issues, stock issues) and uses of funds (remuneration, R&D, acquisitions, venture capital) result in innovation and good wages. I demonstrate that Fried and Wang make a series of assertions about the economic impacts of financial flows, which they incorrectly call ``capital flows``, that lack substance. I conclude the essay by arguing that, for analyzing the operation and performance of the economy, innovation theory should replace agency theory. Agency theorists do not address, let alone explain, why since the 1980s, the United States has experienced extreme concentration of income among the richest households and the erosion of middle-class employment opportunities. I contend that the ideology that corporations should be run to ``maximize shareholder value`","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129020092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-06DOI: 10.4337/9781786435347.00038
J. Coffee
Entrepreneurial litigation is litigation in which the plaintiff’s attorney functions as a risk-taking entrepreneur, financing, organizing, managing, and settling the litigation on behalf of numerous clients (who generally hold “negative value” claims), but with only modest oversight from the clients. Although well established in the United States (and to a lesser extent in Australia, Canada, and Israel), it has long been resisted in Europe, the U.K., and elsewhere, where local rules both preclude the opt-out class action, contingent fees, and jury trials in civil cases, and mandate a “loser pays” rule with respect to legal fees. Yet, despite these obstacles, entrepreneurial litigation appears now to be coming to both Europe and Japan, with large settlements having recently been struck in securities litigation (most notably $1.4 billion this year in the Fortis litigation). Perhaps surprisingly, the driving force leading this transition has been American plaintiff law firms, who do not litigate the action, but do organize it, using third party funding and litigation insurance as functional substitutes for the contingent fee and the American Rule on fee shifting. Some have explained this phenomenon as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which barred U.S. courts from exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over the federal securities laws, and thereby arguably encouraged other jurisdictions to compete for the cases that formerly were litigated in the U.S. Although the Morrison decision was a catalyst, this article rejects the claim that foreign jurisdictions are engaged in any competition for securities litigation, finding instead that defense counsel have found that they can sweep absent class members into a low cost settlement class action under The Netherland’s WCAM statute by discriminating between “active” and “non-active” class members.This article examines these developments and the issues they pose for Europe and Japan. Ultimately, despite early successes, the long-term question becomes: How successful can legal entrepreneurs be when operating in a different and skeptical legal culture?
{"title":"The Globalization of Entrepreneurial Litigation: Law, Culture, and Incentives","authors":"J. Coffee","doi":"10.4337/9781786435347.00038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786435347.00038","url":null,"abstract":"Entrepreneurial litigation is litigation in which the plaintiff’s attorney functions as a risk-taking entrepreneur, financing, organizing, managing, and settling the litigation on behalf of numerous clients (who generally hold “negative value” claims), but with only modest oversight from the clients. Although well established in the United States (and to a lesser extent in Australia, Canada, and Israel), it has long been resisted in Europe, the U.K., and elsewhere, where local rules both preclude the opt-out class action, contingent fees, and jury trials in civil cases, and mandate a “loser pays” rule with respect to legal fees. Yet, despite these obstacles, entrepreneurial litigation appears now to be coming to both Europe and Japan, with large settlements having recently been struck in securities litigation (most notably $1.4 billion this year in the Fortis litigation). Perhaps surprisingly, the driving force leading this transition has been American plaintiff law firms, who do not litigate the action, but do organize it, using third party funding and litigation insurance as functional substitutes for the contingent fee and the American Rule on fee shifting. Some have explained this phenomenon as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., which barred U.S. courts from exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over the federal securities laws, and thereby arguably encouraged other jurisdictions to compete for the cases that formerly were litigated in the U.S. Although the Morrison decision was a catalyst, this article rejects the claim that foreign jurisdictions are engaged in any competition for securities litigation, finding instead that defense counsel have found that they can sweep absent class members into a low cost settlement class action under The Netherland’s WCAM statute by discriminating between “active” and “non-active” class members.This article examines these developments and the issues they pose for Europe and Japan. Ultimately, despite early successes, the long-term question becomes: How successful can legal entrepreneurs be when operating in a different and skeptical legal culture?","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"228 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123153172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A new field titled ‘Artificial Human Optimization’ is introduced in this paper. All optimization methods which were proposed based on Artificial Humans will come under this new field. Less than 20 papers were published in this field so far. The goal of this paper is to introduce ‘Artificial Human Optimization’ and to show abstracts of papers published in this new field. The nick name given to this work is ‘ENTREPRENEUR’.
本文介绍了人工优化(Artificial Human Optimization)这一新领域。所有基于人工智能提出的优化方法都将归入这一新领域。目前在该领域发表的论文不足20篇。本文的目的是介绍“人工优化”，并展示在这个新领域发表的论文摘要。这项工作的绰号是“企业家”。
{"title":"Entrepreneur: Artificial Human Optimization","authors":"Satish Gajawada","doi":"10.14738/TMLAI.46.2408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14738/TMLAI.46.2408","url":null,"abstract":"A new field titled ‘Artificial Human Optimization’ is introduced in this paper. All optimization methods which were proposed based on Artificial Humans will come under this new field. Less than 20 papers were published in this field so far. The goal of this paper is to introduce ‘Artificial Human Optimization’ and to show abstracts of papers published in this new field. The nick name given to this work is ‘ENTREPRENEUR’.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127302187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Einar Rasmussen, O. Bulanova, Are Jensen, T. Clausen
How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support. We have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives. Another subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs
{"title":"The Impact of Science-Based Entrepreneurial Firms - A Literature Review and Policy Synthesis","authors":"Einar Rasmussen, O. Bulanova, Are Jensen, T. Clausen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2857118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2857118","url":null,"abstract":"How to convert scientific and technological knowledge developed in public research institutions into economic and societal impact is a key concern for both research and innovation policy. Policy makers and universities have spent considerable resources to promote the creation of science-based entrepreneurial firms (SBEFs) as a tool to create value from investments made in research. The impacts of SBEFs are, however, highly debated among both practitioners and researchers. Some argue that these firms play an important role in terms of revenue and job creation, but also as technology transfer agents. Thus, SBEFs are considered to have an important role in the innovation system by transforming scientific knowledge into application. Others question the impact of SBEFs and argue that exceptional success stories cannot be generalized and that most SBEFs are technology lifestyle firms that remain small, despite strong public support. \u0000We have conducted an extensive search in high quality international journals and identified 162 scientific articles dealing with SBEFs. We observed that the number of studies on SBEFs has grown rapidly over the last decade and has contributed to a better understanding of the role and the particular characteristics of this type of new ventures. The literature is dominated by studies from North America and Western Europe, particularly the US and the UK. A subset of 14 articles explicitly considered the impacts generated by SBEFs. Two different perspectives can be identified. Some studies explored the economic impacts of SBEF, often in terms of contributions to regional development. Other studies discussed the impacts of SBEFs as technology transfer agents serving a role in the dissemination of research into application. Most studies portray a highly positive image of the impacts generated by SBEFs. However, the literature is dominated by a handful of successful case examples and some authors question whether the general prominence given to SBEFs in government policies can be justified. SBEFs seem to be a special type of firms that have other purposes than other startups in terms of technology transfer and other societal benefits. However, many potential types of impacts have not been sufficiently explored by empirical data. For instance, successful acquisitions are rarely included in the datasets used. Much work remains before any general conclusions can be made whether and under which conditions SBEFs creates an impact that exceeds the alternatives. \u0000Another subset of 28 articles included empirical data regarding the links between the start-up conditions and the performance of SBEFs. It seems clear that SBEFs face particular opportunities and challenges compared to other new ventures related to their academic origin and their need to develop links to commercial actors, particularly in the earliest stages of venture development. The studies investigate a number of factors have been found to influence the performance of SBEFs","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"04 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130236611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Juliet Nassozi Ssekandi, Zeridah Zigiti, Daniel Joloba, Benjamin Kachero, Samuel Galiwango
There is a low financial credit take among youth in Uganda because potential beneficiaries perceive the associated risk as high. This study assesses the determinants of entrepreneurial risk tolerance among Ugandan youth using experimental data from a randomised control trial and a real-life investment risk experiment. The intervention consists of credit-counselling and sector-specific business training for young men and women aged 18-35 years who own a business to inform them about the obligations and commitments associated with financial credit. The intervention has a significant impact on the demand for credit and related intermediate outcomes such as the ownership of a bank account and the investment in assets. The study finds that the youth actually exhibit lower demand for credit after the business training. This is attributed to an increased awareness of the actual risk associated with taking out credit. The findings of this research reinforce national strategies to promote soft skills for business entrepreneurship, extending beyond the standard business training.
{"title":"Beyond Technical Skills Training: The Impact of Credit Counselling on Entrepreneurial Behavior of Ugandan Youth","authors":"Juliet Nassozi Ssekandi, Zeridah Zigiti, Daniel Joloba, Benjamin Kachero, Samuel Galiwango","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3164409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3164409","url":null,"abstract":"There is a low financial credit take among youth in Uganda because potential beneficiaries perceive the associated risk as high. This study assesses the determinants of entrepreneurial risk tolerance among Ugandan youth using experimental data from a randomised control trial and a real-life investment risk experiment. The intervention consists of credit-counselling and sector-specific business training for young men and women aged 18-35 years who own a business to inform them about the obligations and commitments associated with financial credit. The intervention has a significant impact on the demand for credit and related intermediate outcomes such as the ownership of a bank account and the investment in assets. The study finds that the youth actually exhibit lower demand for credit after the business training. This is attributed to an increased awareness of the actual risk associated with taking out credit. The findings of this research reinforce national strategies to promote soft skills for business entrepreneurship, extending beyond the standard business training.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121191787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, actions within care marketization are conceptualized as institutional entrepreneurship contesting the present practices of care production. Practices of selling and buying care are described, and the underlying power relations in two care marketization models are analyzed: outsourcing and the so called ‘second wave’, i.e. the customer choice model, in Finland. Drawing from Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural, symbolic, social and economic capital, the article highlights the relevance of capital conversions for understanding institutional entrepreneurship. It is argued that the positions and opportunities to gain a more powerful position are not solely field intern conceptions, but can be related to macro level conceptions. Exploiting such opportunities questions the challenging conception of institutional entrepreneurship, itself. Instead, it is suggested that institutional entrepreneurship can also be conceived as legitimate challenging which points that challenging and conforming may not be necessary to be separated.
{"title":"Money Cares. Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Finnish Social Services Sector","authors":"Petra Merenheimo","doi":"10.7341/20151124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7341/20151124","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, actions within care marketization are conceptualized as institutional entrepreneurship contesting the present practices of care production. Practices of selling and buying care are described, and the underlying power relations in two care marketization models are analyzed: outsourcing and the so called ‘second wave’, i.e. the customer choice model, in Finland. Drawing from Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural, symbolic, social and economic capital, the article highlights the relevance of capital conversions for understanding institutional entrepreneurship. It is argued that the positions and opportunities to gain a more powerful position are not solely field intern conceptions, but can be related to macro level conceptions. Exploiting such opportunities questions the challenging conception of institutional entrepreneurship, itself. Instead, it is suggested that institutional entrepreneurship can also be conceived as legitimate challenging which points that challenging and conforming may not be necessary to be separated.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"415 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133753287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-02-19DOI: 10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041
Peter J. Boettke, E. Piano
Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact of Baumol’s work on entrepreneurship has had on framing the economic development puzzle. Design/methodology/approach - – In many ways, the intuition behind the paper is straightforward. Entrepreneurs allocate their time and attention based on the relative payoffs they face in any given social setting. If the institutional environment rewards productive entrepreneurship, then the time and attention of entrepreneurial actors in the economy will be directed toward realizing the gains from trade and the gains from innovation. If, on the other hand, there are greater returns from the allocation of that time and attention toward rent-seeking and even criminal activity, alert individuals will respond to those incentives accordingly. The simplicity of the point being made is part of the brilliance in Baumol’s article. As with other classics in economics, once stated the proposition seems to be so basic it is amazing that others did not put it that way beforehand. Findings - – It has been 25 years since Baumol published his paper in the Originality/value - – In this paper, the authors will focus on the contribution made by Baumol’s 1990 paper on the field of comparative political economy, and in particular on the literature on transitional political economy. Section 2 places Baumol’s argument in the context of the failure of neoclassical growth theory. Section 3, the authors argue that although the Baumol framing was an improvement over the old comparative economic systems literature, contemporary transitional political economists have failed to fully realize the implications of the institutional revolution. They have therefore been unable to understand the causes of the heterogeneity of outcomes among those countries that transitioned from communism to the market economy in the 1990s. In Section 4, the authors argue that the political economy of transition will gain from a more sophisticated view of the economic process of the market economy, an appreciation of the entrepreneurial function, and a deeper understanding of the role of formal and informal institutions and their effect on entrepreneurship. The authors will illustrate the point with some examples from the recent history of the Russian political and economic transition. Credible commitment problems and the deficiencies of the institutional reforms of the early 1990s were responsible for the failure of reallocating the entrepreneurial talent that existed in the Soviet economy to productive economic activities. The framework can therefore be used to solve the puzzle of why the announced liberalization of Russian markets and privatization of previously state-owned resources led to economic stagnation, the growth of black markets, and the rise of organized crime, instead of economic development through the operations of smoothly operating markets. Section 5 briefly concludes.
{"title":"Baumol's Productive and Unproductive Entrepreneurship after 25 Years","authors":"Peter J. Boettke, E. Piano","doi":"10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-12-2015-0041","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to consider the impact of Baumol’s work on entrepreneurship has had on framing the economic development puzzle. Design/methodology/approach - – In many ways, the intuition behind the paper is straightforward. Entrepreneurs allocate their time and attention based on the relative payoffs they face in any given social setting. If the institutional environment rewards productive entrepreneurship, then the time and attention of entrepreneurial actors in the economy will be directed toward realizing the gains from trade and the gains from innovation. If, on the other hand, there are greater returns from the allocation of that time and attention toward rent-seeking and even criminal activity, alert individuals will respond to those incentives accordingly. The simplicity of the point being made is part of the brilliance in Baumol’s article. As with other classics in economics, once stated the proposition seems to be so basic it is amazing that others did not put it that way beforehand. Findings - – It has been 25 years since Baumol published his paper in the Originality/value - – In this paper, the authors will focus on the contribution made by Baumol’s 1990 paper on the field of comparative political economy, and in particular on the literature on transitional political economy. Section 2 places Baumol’s argument in the context of the failure of neoclassical growth theory. Section 3, the authors argue that although the Baumol framing was an improvement over the old comparative economic systems literature, contemporary transitional political economists have failed to fully realize the implications of the institutional revolution. They have therefore been unable to understand the causes of the heterogeneity of outcomes among those countries that transitioned from communism to the market economy in the 1990s. In Section 4, the authors argue that the political economy of transition will gain from a more sophisticated view of the economic process of the market economy, an appreciation of the entrepreneurial function, and a deeper understanding of the role of formal and informal institutions and their effect on entrepreneurship. The authors will illustrate the point with some examples from the recent history of the Russian political and economic transition. Credible commitment problems and the deficiencies of the institutional reforms of the early 1990s were responsible for the failure of reallocating the entrepreneurial talent that existed in the Soviet economy to productive economic activities. The framework can therefore be used to solve the puzzle of why the announced liberalization of Russian markets and privatization of previously state-owned resources led to economic stagnation, the growth of black markets, and the rise of organized crime, instead of economic development through the operations of smoothly operating markets. Section 5 briefly concludes.","PeriodicalId":131271,"journal":{"name":"IRPN: Innovation & Entrepreneurship (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123605285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：