Pub Date : 2023-10-24DOI: 10.1108/jepp-11-2022-0123
Feler Bose, Arkadiusz Mironko
Purpose This study aims to try and understand under what cultural conditions entrepreneurship will thrive and prosper, whether under shame or guilt cultures. Design/methodology/approach The authors use basic game theory to model the conditions under which entrepreneurship will thrive. The authors anticipate that guilt cultures allow for the development of a rules-based culture that allows for the development of impersonal exchange, whereas shame cultures, which are relationship-oriented, focus on strong ties and hence lack the means to expand firms from small and medium family/clan-based businesses. Findings Empirical results are completed to see whether guilt-dominating cultures are more conducive to having larger firms and whether guilt-dominating cultures have less informality. The authors find support for the latter but lack the right data to test the former. Originality/value The authors use a new measure of culture to see how it impacts entrepreneurship.
{"title":"Entrepreneurs and firm growth under guilt vs shame cultures","authors":"Feler Bose, Arkadiusz Mironko","doi":"10.1108/jepp-11-2022-0123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-11-2022-0123","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose This study aims to try and understand under what cultural conditions entrepreneurship will thrive and prosper, whether under shame or guilt cultures. Design/methodology/approach The authors use basic game theory to model the conditions under which entrepreneurship will thrive. The authors anticipate that guilt cultures allow for the development of a rules-based culture that allows for the development of impersonal exchange, whereas shame cultures, which are relationship-oriented, focus on strong ties and hence lack the means to expand firms from small and medium family/clan-based businesses. Findings Empirical results are completed to see whether guilt-dominating cultures are more conducive to having larger firms and whether guilt-dominating cultures have less informality. The authors find support for the latter but lack the right data to test the former. Originality/value The authors use a new measure of culture to see how it impacts entrepreneurship.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135268101","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 : 2023-10-23DOI: 10.1108/jepp-03-2023-0026
Andreas Kuckertz, Alexander Brem
Purpose All over the world, countries are searching for ways to foster innovation and growth through startups. This viewpoint paper presents the aims, development procedure and contents of Germany's “Startup Strategy,” published for the first time in 2022, along with a fundamental assessment of its potential usefulness. Design/methodology/approach In this opinionated viewpoint paper, the authors provide an overview of the strategy's contents and discuss it against established policy frameworks focusing on the determinants of innovative entrepreneurial activity and the potential consequences of the strategy on the micro-, meso- and macro levels of the German economy. Additionally, the authors evaluate and analyze the strategy's proposed fields of action to illustrate its potential impact on innovative entrepreneurial activity. Findings The strategy's development avoids considering an evidence-based, fundamental framework to structure its fields of action and instead relies on diverse input from various entrepreneurial agents. As a result, it emphasizes access to finance for startups and building entrepreneurial capabilities as its main fields of action. On the one hand, the authors show how the contents of the German “Startup Strategy” can be matched with the OECD (2017) framework. On the other hand, the authors offer detailed insights into how the “Startup Strategy's” fields of action might influence the German economy's micro, meso and macro levels. Research limitations/implications To the best of the authors' knowledge, this article is the first one commenting on the German government's first-ever published startup strategy. Hence, this might offer several starting points for other researchers to analyze future startup strategies. Also, comparing such strategic approaches in other European countries and beyond might be a starting point for developing public policies in this field. Also, researchers on entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation ecosystems will find concrete anchor points for these subject areas. Practical implications Policymakers can use this viewpoint paper to devise future actions. The paper provides concrete fields of action on the individual and company levels, as well as on a national economic and regional ecosystem level, to derive such recommendations. Originality/value Germany is one of the strongest economic nations in the world and by far in Europe. Hence, this startup strategy comes with the potential for substantial impact. This viewpoint paper may inspire the development of other national strategies to create a positive economic and societal environment supporting the emergence of more innovative startups. In particular, the strategy's focus on diversity and social entrepreneurship seems promising.
{"title":"Supporting innovation and growth through entrepreneurship: reflections on the German Federal Government's “startup strategy”","authors":"Andreas Kuckertz, Alexander Brem","doi":"10.1108/jepp-03-2023-0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-03-2023-0026","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose All over the world, countries are searching for ways to foster innovation and growth through startups. This viewpoint paper presents the aims, development procedure and contents of Germany's “Startup Strategy,” published for the first time in 2022, along with a fundamental assessment of its potential usefulness. Design/methodology/approach In this opinionated viewpoint paper, the authors provide an overview of the strategy's contents and discuss it against established policy frameworks focusing on the determinants of innovative entrepreneurial activity and the potential consequences of the strategy on the micro-, meso- and macro levels of the German economy. Additionally, the authors evaluate and analyze the strategy's proposed fields of action to illustrate its potential impact on innovative entrepreneurial activity. Findings The strategy's development avoids considering an evidence-based, fundamental framework to structure its fields of action and instead relies on diverse input from various entrepreneurial agents. As a result, it emphasizes access to finance for startups and building entrepreneurial capabilities as its main fields of action. On the one hand, the authors show how the contents of the German “Startup Strategy” can be matched with the OECD (2017) framework. On the other hand, the authors offer detailed insights into how the “Startup Strategy's” fields of action might influence the German economy's micro, meso and macro levels. Research limitations/implications To the best of the authors' knowledge, this article is the first one commenting on the German government's first-ever published startup strategy. Hence, this might offer several starting points for other researchers to analyze future startup strategies. Also, comparing such strategic approaches in other European countries and beyond might be a starting point for developing public policies in this field. Also, researchers on entrepreneurial ecosystems and innovation ecosystems will find concrete anchor points for these subject areas. Practical implications Policymakers can use this viewpoint paper to devise future actions. The paper provides concrete fields of action on the individual and company levels, as well as on a national economic and regional ecosystem level, to derive such recommendations. Originality/value Germany is one of the strongest economic nations in the world and by far in Europe. Hence, this startup strategy comes with the potential for substantial impact. This viewpoint paper may inspire the development of other national strategies to create a positive economic and societal environment supporting the emergence of more innovative startups. In particular, the strategy's focus on diversity and social entrepreneurship seems promising.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135365354","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 : 2023-09-13DOI: 10.1108/jepp-02-2023-0015
Nurul Hidayana Mohd Noor, Amirah Mohamad Fuzi, Afief El Ashfahany
Purpose The success of a young entrepreneur depends on how institutional support can facilitate venture performance. Drawing on the institutional theory, this study posited the role of self-efficacy in supporting the effect of institutional support. Self-efficacy is a driving factor for entrepreneurs in managing and implementing business action confidently and successfully. With macro- and micro-oriented research, this study aims to examine how the micro-level factor that is self-efficacy could mediate the influence of macro-level factors (i.e. institutional governance, cultural and social norms and cognitive structure) toward iGen's new venture performance. Design/methodology/approach A total of 462 respondents representing the population of Malaysian iGen entrepreneurs participated in this study. The samples were selected using a multistage sampling technique (i.e. probability cluster sampling technique and non-probability purposive sampling). Survey items were adapted from the previous studies. Structural equation modelling was used, and the first stage involved testing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the measurement items' unidimensionality, validity and reliability. The second stage of analysis is to test the mediation model. Findings The mediation analysis results confirm that the relationship between institutional governance, cultural and social norms, cognitive structure and new venture performance is mediated by self-efficacy. The results confirm that the relationship between institutional governance and cultural and social norms toward new venture performance is fully mediated by self-efficacy. On the other hand, the relationship between cognitive structure and new venture performance is partially mediated by self-efficacy. Research limitations/implications For future research, it is necessary to consider a wide-ranging sample size in improving research generalisation. Moreover, the cross-sectional study only observes the phenomenon at a certain point and cannot explain the process in the correlational relationship. Future researchers are encouraged to adopt a longitudinal study, which allows the researchers to study a sample throughout a period to draw firm conclusions. Survey data also raise the concern of common method variance (CMV), and future studies may use different data types to solve the problem. In addition, future studies are encouraged to examine other factors that could influence new venture performance. Originality/value This study extends the current literature on public policy and entrepreneurship. It comprehensively explains the relationship between institutional governance, cultural and social norms, cognitive structure and self-efficacy toward new venture performance. This study was also conducted in a developing country and iGen context, which can offer new insights into the current literature. Many empirical studies have applied institutional theory in examining entrepreneurship action and behaviour, yet
{"title":"Institutional support and self-efficacy as catalysts for new venture performance: a study of iGen entrepreneurs","authors":"Nurul Hidayana Mohd Noor, Amirah Mohamad Fuzi, Afief El Ashfahany","doi":"10.1108/jepp-02-2023-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-02-2023-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The success of a young entrepreneur depends on how institutional support can facilitate venture performance. Drawing on the institutional theory, this study posited the role of self-efficacy in supporting the effect of institutional support. Self-efficacy is a driving factor for entrepreneurs in managing and implementing business action confidently and successfully. With macro- and micro-oriented research, this study aims to examine how the micro-level factor that is self-efficacy could mediate the influence of macro-level factors (i.e. institutional governance, cultural and social norms and cognitive structure) toward iGen's new venture performance. Design/methodology/approach A total of 462 respondents representing the population of Malaysian iGen entrepreneurs participated in this study. The samples were selected using a multistage sampling technique (i.e. probability cluster sampling technique and non-probability purposive sampling). Survey items were adapted from the previous studies. Structural equation modelling was used, and the first stage involved testing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the measurement items' unidimensionality, validity and reliability. The second stage of analysis is to test the mediation model. Findings The mediation analysis results confirm that the relationship between institutional governance, cultural and social norms, cognitive structure and new venture performance is mediated by self-efficacy. The results confirm that the relationship between institutional governance and cultural and social norms toward new venture performance is fully mediated by self-efficacy. On the other hand, the relationship between cognitive structure and new venture performance is partially mediated by self-efficacy. Research limitations/implications For future research, it is necessary to consider a wide-ranging sample size in improving research generalisation. Moreover, the cross-sectional study only observes the phenomenon at a certain point and cannot explain the process in the correlational relationship. Future researchers are encouraged to adopt a longitudinal study, which allows the researchers to study a sample throughout a period to draw firm conclusions. Survey data also raise the concern of common method variance (CMV), and future studies may use different data types to solve the problem. In addition, future studies are encouraged to examine other factors that could influence new venture performance. Originality/value This study extends the current literature on public policy and entrepreneurship. It comprehensively explains the relationship between institutional governance, cultural and social norms, cognitive structure and self-efficacy toward new venture performance. This study was also conducted in a developing country and iGen context, which can offer new insights into the current literature. Many empirical studies have applied institutional theory in examining entrepreneurship action and behaviour, yet","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135689704","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 : 2023-03-08DOI: 10.1108/jepp-03-2023-123
N. Wenzel
{"title":"Editorial: Three intellectual debts and the three horses of entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy celebrates ten years","authors":"N. Wenzel","doi":"10.1108/jepp-03-2023-123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-03-2023-123","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44962857","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 : 2023-03-08DOI: 10.1108/jepp-03-2023-122
Per L. Bylund
{"title":"Guest editorial: Introduction to the 10th-anniversary special issue","authors":"Per L. Bylund","doi":"10.1108/jepp-03-2023-122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-03-2023-122","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49027480","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 : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1108/jepp-08-2022-0087
Julia R. Norgaard, H. Walbert
PurposeThis paper tests the degree to which Sunstein's law of group polarization predicts the increase or decrease in polarization among individuals in an out-group during a polarizing event. The authors use the discourse on Parler surrounding the events of January 6th as a case study.Design/methodology/approachThe study includes an overall sentiment analysis, a statistical analysis of emotions, along with eight other feelings, including anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise and trust. Specifically, the authors measure the differences in feelings related language used in posts as they pertain to Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement vs. Trump's Vice President Mike Pence both before and after January 6, 2021. The authors use this empirical analysis to show whether polarization in the Parler community increased or decreased after January 6th.FindingsThe authors find evidence that there is more complexity to polarization than Sunstein's theory would predict. The authors would expect a very polarized outed group to become more polarized relative to the general public after a central event; however, the authors see two extremes emerging within the Parler community (both strongly positive and strongly negative feelings toward Trump). The authors do not see unanimous consent across the Parler platform as Sunstein's theory would suggest; the out-group is becoming more polarized relative to the rest of the population. Instead, the authors observe a wide mix in reactions. The results of this study demonstrate that there is dissent even among the Parler echo chamber. For many themes surrounding the January 6th riots, Parler users express strong disagreement with each other and a lack of unity in their feelings for former President Trump.Research limitations/implicationsThe results suggest further research into polarization of outed groups and the policy implications of their polarization changes over time.Practical implicationsIncreases in group polarization are often a motivator for public policy and are further becoming a major focus for research. Brookings' authors Stephanie Forrest and Joshua Daymude point to polarization as a substantial threat to American society, claiming “reducing extreme polarization is key to stabilizing democracy” (2022). Researchers Diana Epstein and John D. Graham demonstrate that polarized politics has impacted the “substance of rulemaking, judicial decisions, and legislation” along with “complicating long-term policy changes” (2007). The authors study how entrepreneurs have responded to this increase in polarization and its implications for public policy.Social implicationsNot only does group polarization impact all types of groups, from the social to the economic, but also it has “particular implications for insulated ‘outgroups’” (Sunstein, 1999, p. 21). Groups that are excluded by either coercion or choice from dialog with other groups become even more polarized and extreme (Sun
{"title":"Group polarization?: an analysis of Parler data in the wake of the capitol riot","authors":"Julia R. Norgaard, H. Walbert","doi":"10.1108/jepp-08-2022-0087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-08-2022-0087","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper tests the degree to which Sunstein's law of group polarization predicts the increase or decrease in polarization among individuals in an out-group during a polarizing event. The authors use the discourse on Parler surrounding the events of January 6th as a case study.Design/methodology/approachThe study includes an overall sentiment analysis, a statistical analysis of emotions, along with eight other feelings, including anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise and trust. Specifically, the authors measure the differences in feelings related language used in posts as they pertain to Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement vs. Trump's Vice President Mike Pence both before and after January 6, 2021. The authors use this empirical analysis to show whether polarization in the Parler community increased or decreased after January 6th.FindingsThe authors find evidence that there is more complexity to polarization than Sunstein's theory would predict. The authors would expect a very polarized outed group to become more polarized relative to the general public after a central event; however, the authors see two extremes emerging within the Parler community (both strongly positive and strongly negative feelings toward Trump). The authors do not see unanimous consent across the Parler platform as Sunstein's theory would suggest; the out-group is becoming more polarized relative to the rest of the population. Instead, the authors observe a wide mix in reactions. The results of this study demonstrate that there is dissent even among the Parler echo chamber. For many themes surrounding the January 6th riots, Parler users express strong disagreement with each other and a lack of unity in their feelings for former President Trump.Research limitations/implicationsThe results suggest further research into polarization of outed groups and the policy implications of their polarization changes over time.Practical implicationsIncreases in group polarization are often a motivator for public policy and are further becoming a major focus for research. Brookings' authors Stephanie Forrest and Joshua Daymude point to polarization as a substantial threat to American society, claiming “reducing extreme polarization is key to stabilizing democracy” (2022). Researchers Diana Epstein and John D. Graham demonstrate that polarized politics has impacted the “substance of rulemaking, judicial decisions, and legislation” along with “complicating long-term policy changes” (2007). The authors study how entrepreneurs have responded to this increase in polarization and its implications for public policy.Social implicationsNot only does group polarization impact all types of groups, from the social to the economic, but also it has “particular implications for insulated ‘outgroups’” (Sunstein, 1999, p. 21). Groups that are excluded by either coercion or choice from dialog with other groups become even more polarized and extreme (Sun","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49286126","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 : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.1108/jepp-02-2022-0031
M. Thornton, Chris R. Brown
PurposeRichard Cantillon (168?–173?) is known as the first economic theorist and the founder of entrepreneurship theory. Few would describe him as engaged in policy issues, but he did write about policy issues of interest to scholars interested in entrepreneurship and economic development. He has long been classified as a mercantilist of a bygone day, even as many believe he was resolute in not commenting on policy matters at all. His views could be a key to pursuing the policy goals of entrepreneurship scholars.Design/methodology/approachThe authors look at several topics in Cantillon's Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755), read in its historical/political context, to better understand Cantillon's views. The authors then relate Cantillon's views to recent interventions in the economy.FindingsThe authors found that Cantillon held clearly antimercantilist, or free market, views. The authors also recognize that his views, given his status as the founder of entrepreneurship theory, can contribute to modern economics. As in Cantillon's day, institutional uncertainty has negative economic consequences and often leads to unproductive entrepreneurship, which is only made worse by the increased complexity of the modern economy.Originality/valueThe authors clarify Cantillon's views against modern-day interpretations and offer a clearer understanding of Cantillon's writings in the context of his Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755). The authors also show the importance of the proper role of institutions for productive entrepreneurship—and the danger of unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship when such institutions do not have policies favorable to entrepreneurship.
{"title":"Richard Cantillon and public policy","authors":"M. Thornton, Chris R. Brown","doi":"10.1108/jepp-02-2022-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-02-2022-0031","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeRichard Cantillon (168?–173?) is known as the first economic theorist and the founder of entrepreneurship theory. Few would describe him as engaged in policy issues, but he did write about policy issues of interest to scholars interested in entrepreneurship and economic development. He has long been classified as a mercantilist of a bygone day, even as many believe he was resolute in not commenting on policy matters at all. His views could be a key to pursuing the policy goals of entrepreneurship scholars.Design/methodology/approachThe authors look at several topics in Cantillon's Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755), read in its historical/political context, to better understand Cantillon's views. The authors then relate Cantillon's views to recent interventions in the economy.FindingsThe authors found that Cantillon held clearly antimercantilist, or free market, views. The authors also recognize that his views, given his status as the founder of entrepreneurship theory, can contribute to modern economics. As in Cantillon's day, institutional uncertainty has negative economic consequences and often leads to unproductive entrepreneurship, which is only made worse by the increased complexity of the modern economy.Originality/valueThe authors clarify Cantillon's views against modern-day interpretations and offer a clearer understanding of Cantillon's writings in the context of his Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755). The authors also show the importance of the proper role of institutions for productive entrepreneurship—and the danger of unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship when such institutions do not have policies favorable to entrepreneurship.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43500737","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 : 2022-12-08DOI: 10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0061
Peter Jacobsen
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the full opportunity cost of population policies by contrasting standard models of optimal population, which consider individuals to be homogeneous laborers, with a view that considers individuals' capacity for entrepreneurship. This paper therefore examines this relationship between population and economic growth with entrepreneurship considered.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on James Buchanan's dichotomy of the organismic theory of government finance vs the individualistic theory and applies this dichotomy to population planning. This framework reveals entrepreneurial capacity is only compatible with the open-ended individualistic view. Lastly, the paper utilizes considers the number of potential entrepreneurs lost to China's one child policy and considers the case of Jack Ma as a concrete example of the potential opportunity cost of policies which seek to curb population growth.FindingsThe analysis shows it is impossible for either natural scientists or economists to determine a welfare-enhancing population policy. Creative and entrepreneurial individuals contribute to the economy in ways not captured by standard models. The implication is policies seeking to curb population growth may inhibit economic growth by reducing potential entrepreneurs. Politicians cannot measure the opportunity cost of forgone entrepreneurs, and therefore the costs of such policies are unseen.Originality/valueWhile economists have examined the potential gains from creativity, this contribution is unique in that it highlights the inherent open-endedness involved in entrepreneurship means the opportunity cost of a forgone individual cannot be know because market conditions created by entrepreneurs do not exist absent the entrepreneurs.
{"title":"The population brain versus the population's brains: how entrepreneurs confound population planning","authors":"Peter Jacobsen","doi":"10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0061","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-05-2022-0061","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the full opportunity cost of population policies by contrasting standard models of optimal population, which consider individuals to be homogeneous laborers, with a view that considers individuals' capacity for entrepreneurship. This paper therefore examines this relationship between population and economic growth with entrepreneurship considered.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on James Buchanan's dichotomy of the organismic theory of government finance vs the individualistic theory and applies this dichotomy to population planning. This framework reveals entrepreneurial capacity is only compatible with the open-ended individualistic view. Lastly, the paper utilizes considers the number of potential entrepreneurs lost to China's one child policy and considers the case of Jack Ma as a concrete example of the potential opportunity cost of policies which seek to curb population growth.FindingsThe analysis shows it is impossible for either natural scientists or economists to determine a welfare-enhancing population policy. Creative and entrepreneurial individuals contribute to the economy in ways not captured by standard models. The implication is policies seeking to curb population growth may inhibit economic growth by reducing potential entrepreneurs. Politicians cannot measure the opportunity cost of forgone entrepreneurs, and therefore the costs of such policies are unseen.Originality/valueWhile economists have examined the potential gains from creativity, this contribution is unique in that it highlights the inherent open-endedness involved in entrepreneurship means the opportunity cost of a forgone individual cannot be know because market conditions created by entrepreneurs do not exist absent the entrepreneurs.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43144257","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 : 2022-12-02DOI: 10.1108/jepp-06-2022-0069
Colin O’Reilly
PurposeCross-country studies have shown that higher costs to starting a business tend to reduce entrepreneurship (Chambers and Munemo, 2019) and that an unfavorable environment for business can increase poverty and income inequality (Chambers et al., 2019a; Djankov et al., 2018). Building on the current literature, the authors test whether barriers to starting a business at the state and city level in the USA are associated with changes in entrepreneurship and income inequality.Design/methodology/approachMeasures of entrepreneurship (establishment entry rate and exit rate) are regressed on measures of barriers to entry in a cross-section of 50 states as well as a cross-section of 73 cities in the USA. Further, the authors regress measures of income inequality on measures of barriers to entry using the same two cross-sections. State level data on barriers to entry are from Teague (2016), published in the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy. City level data on barriers to starting a business are from the Doing Business in North America (DBNA) dataset.FindingsResults show that there is a negative and significant association between barriers to starting a business and the rate of firm exit. A standard deviation increase in barriers to entry is associated with a five percent decrease in the firm exit rate at the state level. The authors find only limited evidence that barriers to entry are associated with income inequality.Originality/valueDespite a large volume of scholarship on how regulation and barriers to entry influence entrepreneurship, no study (to the authors’ knowledge) has investigated how general entry regulation affects the entry or exit rate of establishments at the state or municipal level in the USA.
{"title":"Barriers to entry, entrepreneurship and income inequality within the USA","authors":"Colin O’Reilly","doi":"10.1108/jepp-06-2022-0069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-06-2022-0069","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeCross-country studies have shown that higher costs to starting a business tend to reduce entrepreneurship (Chambers and Munemo, 2019) and that an unfavorable environment for business can increase poverty and income inequality (Chambers et al., 2019a; Djankov et al., 2018). Building on the current literature, the authors test whether barriers to starting a business at the state and city level in the USA are associated with changes in entrepreneurship and income inequality.Design/methodology/approachMeasures of entrepreneurship (establishment entry rate and exit rate) are regressed on measures of barriers to entry in a cross-section of 50 states as well as a cross-section of 73 cities in the USA. Further, the authors regress measures of income inequality on measures of barriers to entry using the same two cross-sections. State level data on barriers to entry are from Teague (2016), published in the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy. City level data on barriers to starting a business are from the Doing Business in North America (DBNA) dataset.FindingsResults show that there is a negative and significant association between barriers to starting a business and the rate of firm exit. A standard deviation increase in barriers to entry is associated with a five percent decrease in the firm exit rate at the state level. The authors find only limited evidence that barriers to entry are associated with income inequality.Originality/valueDespite a large volume of scholarship on how regulation and barriers to entry influence entrepreneurship, no study (to the authors’ knowledge) has investigated how general entry regulation affects the entry or exit rate of establishments at the state or municipal level in the USA.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43423275","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 : 2022-11-24DOI: 10.1108/jepp-07-2022-0074
R. Behr, V. Storr
PurposeThere is a large literature about crisis entrepreneurship, spanning from necessity, natural disaster and long-term conflict entrepreneurship. This paper situates pandemic entrepreneurship as a unique form of crisis entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilize the Kirznerian and Schumpeterian theories of entrepreneurship to understand pandemic entrepreneurship. Using evidence from the US COVID-19 pandemic, the authors argue that pandemics impact both the “identification” and “action” moments of entrepreneurship.FindingsThe Kirznerian identification moment becomes much more uncertain for entrepreneurs because of fluctuating conditions, such as public health conditions, new potential variants of the virus causing the pandemic, shifting government mandates and rules and so forth. The Schumpeterian action moment becomes more challenging because of the necessity of physical distancing and because, generally, all crises raise the cost of entrepreneurial action. That said, the authors still document considerable entrepreneurship during pandemics as entrepreneurs adapt to the increased uncertainty and costs by rely upon local and customary knowledge.Research limitations/implicationsThis research finds that entrepreneurs, depending upon the crisis, face differing constraints. Specifically in times of pandemic, entrepreneurs face difficulty recognizing opportunities because of shifting conditions and acting upon opportunities because of financial and political constraints. This research thus implies that there are large opportunities for alleviation of such constraints if there were to be future variants or pandemics.Practical implicationsPractically speaking, this research affects how people study entrepreneurship. By recognizing the differing constraints that pandemic entrepreneurs face, the authors can better understand the last several years, and can also prepare better policy wise for future pandemics or further variants of COVID-19.Social implicationsSocially, entrepreneurship can be a large factor in recovery from disasters and crises. By recognizing and perhaps alleviating constraints that pandemic entrepreneurs face, future crises could have better responses and recoveries.Originality/valueAlthough several studies have examined entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 pandemic, the extant literature on pandemic entrepreneurship remains relatively underdeveloped and has not yet focused on what distinguishes pandemic entrepreneurship from other forms of crisis entrepreneurship. The authors highlight what pandemic entrepreneurship has in common with other forms of crisis entrepreneurship and pinpoint the various ways that is distinct.
{"title":"Understanding pandemic entrepreneurship as a unique form of crisis entrepreneurship","authors":"R. Behr, V. Storr","doi":"10.1108/jepp-07-2022-0074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-07-2022-0074","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThere is a large literature about crisis entrepreneurship, spanning from necessity, natural disaster and long-term conflict entrepreneurship. This paper situates pandemic entrepreneurship as a unique form of crisis entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilize the Kirznerian and Schumpeterian theories of entrepreneurship to understand pandemic entrepreneurship. Using evidence from the US COVID-19 pandemic, the authors argue that pandemics impact both the “identification” and “action” moments of entrepreneurship.FindingsThe Kirznerian identification moment becomes much more uncertain for entrepreneurs because of fluctuating conditions, such as public health conditions, new potential variants of the virus causing the pandemic, shifting government mandates and rules and so forth. The Schumpeterian action moment becomes more challenging because of the necessity of physical distancing and because, generally, all crises raise the cost of entrepreneurial action. That said, the authors still document considerable entrepreneurship during pandemics as entrepreneurs adapt to the increased uncertainty and costs by rely upon local and customary knowledge.Research limitations/implicationsThis research finds that entrepreneurs, depending upon the crisis, face differing constraints. Specifically in times of pandemic, entrepreneurs face difficulty recognizing opportunities because of shifting conditions and acting upon opportunities because of financial and political constraints. This research thus implies that there are large opportunities for alleviation of such constraints if there were to be future variants or pandemics.Practical implicationsPractically speaking, this research affects how people study entrepreneurship. By recognizing the differing constraints that pandemic entrepreneurs face, the authors can better understand the last several years, and can also prepare better policy wise for future pandemics or further variants of COVID-19.Social implicationsSocially, entrepreneurship can be a large factor in recovery from disasters and crises. By recognizing and perhaps alleviating constraints that pandemic entrepreneurs face, future crises could have better responses and recoveries.Originality/valueAlthough several studies have examined entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 pandemic, the extant literature on pandemic entrepreneurship remains relatively underdeveloped and has not yet focused on what distinguishes pandemic entrepreneurship from other forms of crisis entrepreneurship. The authors highlight what pandemic entrepreneurship has in common with other forms of crisis entrepreneurship and pinpoint the various ways that is distinct.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43314381","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：