The need to contextualize research in entrepreneurship has become an important theme during the last decade. In this monograph we position the increasing prominence of “contextual entrepreneurship†research as part of a broader scholarly wave that has previously washed across other fields. The challenges and promises we face as this wave carries us forward are similar in many ways to the challenges faced by researchers in other fields. Based on a review of the current context debate among entrepreneurship scholars and a selective review of other disciplines, we outline and discuss issues in theorizing, operationalising and empirically studying contexts in entrepreneurship research. Researchers have made rapid and substantial – though uneven – progress in contextualizing their work. Unsurprisingly, there is healthy disagreement over what it means to contextualize research and how it should be done, which we see as expressions of competing implicit theories of context. We argue that no overarching theory of what context is or what it means is likely to be very successful. Instead, we suggest briefly that it may be useful to adopt and develop what we label a “critical process approach†to contextualizing entrepreneurship research.
{"title":"Contextual entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary perspective","authors":"T. Baker, F. Welter","doi":"10.1561/0300000078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000078","url":null,"abstract":"The need to contextualize research in entrepreneurship has become an important theme during the last decade. In this monograph we position the increasing prominence of “contextual entrepreneurship†research as part of a broader scholarly wave that has previously washed across other fields. The challenges and promises we face as this wave carries us forward are similar in many ways to the challenges faced by researchers in other fields. Based on a review of the current context debate among entrepreneurship scholars and a selective review of other disciplines, we outline and discuss issues in theorizing, operationalising and empirically studying contexts in entrepreneurship research. Researchers have made rapid and substantial – though uneven – progress in contextualizing their work. Unsurprisingly, there is healthy disagreement over what it means to contextualize research and how it should be done, which we see as expressions of competing implicit theories of context. We argue that no overarching theory of what context is or what it means is likely to be very successful. Instead, we suggest briefly that it may be useful to adopt and develop what we label a “critical process approach†to contextualizing entrepreneurship research.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"57 1","pages":"357-426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78493458","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 a previous issue of Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, small firms were commonly acknowledged as an important topic in the 20th century literature on industry concentration. Since the turn of the 21st century, startups have become a topic of significant prominence. Despite this fact, none of the recent literature reviews on industry concentration highlights their importance. Likewise, several other factors that have been identified since Marshall’s (1920) work, have received new attention with fresh perspectives in the 21st century literature. These topics have not yet been sufficiently explored in the literature. The purpose of this monograph is to review the early work of scholarship on agglomerations, industrial districts and industry clusters that has been published in the 21st century. This monograph explicates the prominent themes that emerged between 2000–2015, with the specific objective of highlighting the relationships of entrepreneurs, knowledge, networks and creative and high technology industries in industry concentration.
{"title":"Agglomeration, Industrial Districts and Industry Clusters: Trends of the 21st Century Literature","authors":"B. A. Gilbert","doi":"10.1561/0300000069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000069","url":null,"abstract":"In a previous issue of Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, small firms were commonly acknowledged as an important topic in the 20th century literature on industry concentration. Since the turn of the 21st century, startups have become a topic of significant prominence. Despite this fact, none of the recent literature reviews on industry concentration highlights their importance. Likewise, several other factors that have been identified since Marshall’s (1920) work, have received new attention with fresh perspectives in the 21st century literature. These topics have not yet been sufficiently explored in the literature. The purpose of this monograph is to review the early work of scholarship on agglomerations, industrial districts and industry clusters that has been published in the 21st century. This monograph explicates the prominent themes that emerged between 2000–2015, with the specific objective of highlighting the relationships of entrepreneurs, knowledge, networks and creative and high technology industries in industry concentration.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"33 1","pages":"1-80"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2017-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88083959","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}
Following a centuries-long decline in the rate of self-employment, a discontinuity in this downward trend is observed for many advanced economies starting in the 1970s and 1980s. In some countries, the rate of self-employment appears to increase. At the same time, crosssectional analysis shows a U-shaped relationship between start-up rates of enterprise and levels of economic development. We provide an overview of the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between independent entrepreneurship, also known as self-employment or business ownership, and economic development. We argue that the reemergence of independent entrepreneurship is based on at least two 'revolutions'. If we distinguish between solo self-employed at the lower end of the entrepreneurship spectrum, and ambitious and/or innovative entrepreneurs at the upper end, many advanced economies show a revival at both extremes. Policymakers in advanced economies should be aware of both revolutions and tailor their policies accordingly.
{"title":"The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: Is it U-Shaped?","authors":"S. Wennekers, A. Stel, M. Carree, R. Thurik","doi":"10.1561/0300000023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000023","url":null,"abstract":"Following a centuries-long decline in the rate of self-employment, a discontinuity in this downward trend is observed for many advanced economies starting in the 1970s and 1980s. In some countries, the rate of self-employment appears to increase. At the same time, crosssectional analysis shows a U-shaped relationship between start-up rates of enterprise and levels of economic development. We provide an overview of the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between independent entrepreneurship, also known as self-employment or business ownership, and economic development. We argue that the reemergence of independent entrepreneurship is based on at least two 'revolutions'. If we distinguish between solo self-employed at the lower end of the entrepreneurship spectrum, and ambitious and/or innovative entrepreneurs at the upper end, many advanced economies show a revival at both extremes. Policymakers in advanced economies should be aware of both revolutions and tailor their policies accordingly.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"40 1","pages":"167-237"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2010-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83445208","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}
This survey reviews the theoretical literature on high impact entrepreneurship. The survey is guided in part by the recent classification changes at the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) regarding entrepreneurship. The board voted to create a new classification code, L26, for entrepreneurship. The JEL intends to use this code for all articles and books that focus on economic questions related to entrepreneurial activity. Publications related to questions on occupational choice issues will be cross classified with J23; those focusing on innovation and entrepreneurship will be cross classified with O31; those focusing on finance will be cross classified with G24 Investment Banking, venture capital, brokerage and rating agencies; those focusing on new firms, start ups; and business related publications on how to be an entrepreneur will be cross classified (or solely classified) with M13. What does this economic literature tell us about entrepreneurship? In order to answer the questions this review covers the intersection of entrepreneurship with labor markets, innovation, and capital markets — the three pillars of high impact entrepreneurship.
本研究回顾了关于高影响力创业的理论文献。这项调查在一定程度上受到了《经济文献杂志》(Journal of Economic Literature, JEL)最近关于创业的分类变化的指导。董事会投票决定为创业创造一个新的分类代码L26。JEL打算将此代码用于所有关注与创业活动相关的经济问题的文章和书籍。与职业选择问题有关的出版物将与J23交叉分类;以创新创业为重点的将与O31交叉分类;专注于金融的机构将与G24投资银行、风险资本、经纪和评级机构交叉分类;那些专注于新公司，初创公司的;以及有关如何成为企业家的商业相关出版物将与M13交叉分类(或单独分类)。关于企业家精神，这些经济学文献告诉了我们什么?为了回答这些问题，这篇综述涵盖了创业与劳动力市场、创新和资本市场——高影响力创业的三大支柱——的交集。
{"title":"Foundations of High Impact Entrepreneurship","authors":"Z. Acs","doi":"10.1561/0300000025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000025","url":null,"abstract":"This survey reviews the theoretical literature on high impact entrepreneurship. The survey is guided in part by the recent classification changes at the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) regarding entrepreneurship. The board voted to create a new classification code, L26, for entrepreneurship. The JEL intends to use this code for all articles and books that focus on economic questions related to entrepreneurial activity. Publications related to questions on occupational choice issues will be cross classified with J23; those focusing on innovation and entrepreneurship will be cross classified with O31; those focusing on finance will be cross classified with G24 Investment Banking, venture capital, brokerage and rating agencies; those focusing on new firms, start ups; and business related publications on how to be an entrepreneur will be cross classified (or solely classified) with M13. What does this economic literature tell us about entrepreneurship? In order to answer the questions this review covers the intersection of entrepreneurship with labor markets, innovation, and capital markets — the three pillars of high impact entrepreneurship.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"9 1","pages":"535-620"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2008-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80008476","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 : 2006-12-01DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511510816.008
Z. Acs, C. Armington
Introduction As we saw in Chapter One, the latter Schumpeter (1942) had pessimistic prognoses about the future of capitalism, while the early Schumpeter (1911) did not articulate any social feedback problems. In this volume, we propose an American solution to the social feedback mechanism, one that is consistent with the work of the early Schumpeter. American capitalism differs from all other forms of industrial capitalism in its historical focus on both the creation of wealth (entrepreneurship) and the reconstitution of wealth (philanthropy). Philanthropy is part of the implicit social contract that continually nurtures and revitalizes economic prosperity (Schramm, 2005). Much of the new wealth created historically has been given back to the community to build up the great social institutions that have a positive feedback on future economic growth. This entrepreneurship-philanthropy nexus has not been fully explored by either economists or sociologists. We suggest that American philanthropists – especially those who have made their own fortunes – created foundations that, in turn, contributed to greater and more widespread economic prosperity through knowledge creation (Acs and Phillips, 2002). In traditional industrial societies, wealth creation, wealth ownership, and wealth distribution were, in great part, left up to the state or to organized religion. However, in an entrepreneurial society, individual initiative plays a vital role in propelling the economy and the society forward.
{"title":"Entrepreneurship, Geography, and American Economic Growth: A Formulation of Entrepreneurship Policy","authors":"Z. Acs, C. Armington","doi":"10.1017/CBO9780511510816.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511510816.008","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction As we saw in Chapter One, the latter Schumpeter (1942) had pessimistic prognoses about the future of capitalism, while the early Schumpeter (1911) did not articulate any social feedback problems. In this volume, we propose an American solution to the social feedback mechanism, one that is consistent with the work of the early Schumpeter. American capitalism differs from all other forms of industrial capitalism in its historical focus on both the creation of wealth (entrepreneurship) and the reconstitution of wealth (philanthropy). Philanthropy is part of the implicit social contract that continually nurtures and revitalizes economic prosperity (Schramm, 2005). Much of the new wealth created historically has been given back to the community to build up the great social institutions that have a positive feedback on future economic growth. This entrepreneurship-philanthropy nexus has not been fully explored by either economists or sociologists. We suggest that American philanthropists – especially those who have made their own fortunes – created foundations that, in turn, contributed to greater and more widespread economic prosperity through knowledge creation (Acs and Phillips, 2002). In traditional industrial societies, wealth creation, wealth ownership, and wealth distribution were, in great part, left up to the state or to organized religion. However, in an entrepreneurial society, individual initiative plays a vital role in propelling the economy and the society forward.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"21 1","pages":"154-172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79920285","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 1996 the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF) and the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK) have been rewarding research on small business and entrepreneurship with the FSF-NUTEK Award for research on small business and entrepreneurship. This award is given to leading scholars who have had the greatest impact in shaping the field of small business and entrepreneurship research. In particular, FSF and NUTEK invited these pre-eminent scholars of entrepreneurship to share their views, insights and expertise on where the field of entrepreneurship and small business research is coming from and where it is heading. The articles contained in this 10th-year Anniversary Issue of Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship reflects the best of the best of scholarship in the field of entrepreneurship and small business research.
{"title":"Entrepreneurship Research: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects","authors":"A. Lundström, Sune Halvarsson","doi":"10.1561/0300000009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000009","url":null,"abstract":"Since 1996 the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research (FSF) and the Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development (NUTEK) have been rewarding research on small business and entrepreneurship with the FSF-NUTEK Award for research on small business and entrepreneurship. This award is given to leading scholars who have had the greatest impact in shaping the field of small business and entrepreneurship research. In particular, FSF and NUTEK invited these pre-eminent scholars of entrepreneurship to share their views, insights and expertise on where the field of entrepreneurship and small business research is coming from and where it is heading. The articles contained in this 10th-year Anniversary Issue of Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship reflects the best of the best of scholarship in the field of entrepreneurship and small business research.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"79 6","pages":"145-259"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72633193","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}
The field of entrepreneurship continues to struggle with the development of a modern theory of entrepreneurship. In the past 20 years development of the current theories of entrepreneurship have centered on either opportunity recognition or the individual entrepreneur. At the same time many theoretical insights have come from economics including a rediscovery of the work of Schumpeter. However, because there is a lack of clarity about the theoretical assumptions that entrepreneurship scholars use in their work, assumptions from both individual opportunity recognition and economics have been used as if they are interchangeable. This lack of theoretical distinction has hampered theory development in the field of entrepreneurship. While explanations of entrepreneurship have adopted different theoretical assumptions, most of these concern three central features of entrepreneurial phenomena: the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs as individuals, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. Nonetheless, various theoretical traditions in the field have adopted radically different interpretations with respect to these assumptions of entrepreneurial phenomena, therefore arriving at different explanations of these phenomena. This article investigates two sets of assumption about the nature of opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. It is suggested that these two sets of assumptions constitute logically consistent theories of entrepreneurship. Moreover, these two theories are complementary and can be applied to widely studied entrepreneurial phenomena – the organization of the entrepreneurial firm. These applications demonstrate both the differences between these two theories and how they can be complementary in nature.
{"title":"Theories of Entrepreneurship: Alternative Assumptions and the Study of Entrepreneurial Action","authors":"S. Alvarez","doi":"10.1561/0300000003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000003","url":null,"abstract":"The field of entrepreneurship continues to struggle with the development of a modern theory of entrepreneurship. In the past 20 years development of the current theories of entrepreneurship have centered on either opportunity recognition or the individual entrepreneur. At the same time many theoretical insights have come from economics including a rediscovery of the work of Schumpeter. However, because there is a lack of clarity about the theoretical assumptions that entrepreneurship scholars use in their work, assumptions from both individual opportunity recognition and economics have been used as if they are interchangeable. This lack of theoretical distinction has hampered theory development in the field of entrepreneurship. While explanations of entrepreneurship have adopted different theoretical assumptions, most of these concern three central features of entrepreneurial phenomena: the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs as individuals, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. Nonetheless, various theoretical traditions in the field have adopted radically different interpretations with respect to these assumptions of entrepreneurial phenomena, therefore arriving at different explanations of these phenomena. This article investigates two sets of assumption about the nature of opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. It is suggested that these two sets of assumptions constitute logically consistent theories of entrepreneurship. Moreover, these two theories are complementary and can be applied to widely studied entrepreneurial phenomena – the organization of the entrepreneurial firm. These applications demonstrate both the differences between these two theories and how they can be complementary in nature.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"23 1","pages":"105-148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2005-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91185940","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}
This introductory, non-technical, text offers a reflective overview of what economics adds to our understanding of entrepreneurship. It is designed primarily to showcase to young entrepreneurship scholars several interesting research questions and a toolbox of methods to answer them. First, I will illustrate the kinds of questions that can be posed and answered using economics. Then I will present and discuss a selective list of "canonical" theoretical and empirical models that form the intellectual bedrock of the Economics of Entrepreneurship. After that, I present and discuss some well established theoretical contributions and empirical findings that have been generated by the approach. I conclude by discussing aspects of "What we don't know" – and should. This part of the text identifies several ideal future trends in research that build on and complement the foundations of entrepreneurship that are delineated in the main body of the text.
{"title":"The Economics of Entrepreneurship: What We Know and What We Don't","authors":"S. Parker","doi":"10.1561/0300000001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000001","url":null,"abstract":"This introductory, non-technical, text offers a reflective overview of what economics adds to our understanding of entrepreneurship. It is designed primarily to showcase to young entrepreneurship scholars several interesting research questions and a toolbox of methods to answer them. First, I will illustrate the kinds of questions that can be posed and answered using economics. Then I will present and discuss a selective list of \"canonical\" theoretical and empirical models that form the intellectual bedrock of the Economics of Entrepreneurship. After that, I present and discuss some well established theoretical contributions and empirical findings that have been generated by the approach. I conclude by discussing aspects of \"What we don't know\" – and should. This part of the text identifies several ideal future trends in research that build on and complement the foundations of entrepreneurship that are delineated in the main body of the text.","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-54"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2005-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85985072","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}
{"title":"The Evolution of Hidden Champions as Niche Entrepreneurs","authors":"Erik E. Lehmann, Julian Schenkenhofer","doi":"10.1561/0300000108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000108","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45990,"journal":{"name":"Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67069542","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：