{"title":"企业家精神与制度不确定性","authors":"F. D'Andrea","doi":"10.1108/jepp-01-2022-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe study aims to demonstrate how different arrangements and characteristics of institutions can generate or mitigate uncertainty thereby facilitating or hampering the possibilities of entrepreneurial action.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that advances the theoretical understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial uncertainty and the different institutional levels, their characteristics and their interplay.FindingsEntrepreneurial uncertainty also comes from the institutional environment and this has direct impact on the propensity to take action. The characteristics of the different institutional levels, in specific, their quality, stability, alignment and the burden imposed by L2 impact in the emergence of entrepreneurial uncertainty.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a conceptual paper that makes a number of theoretical suggestions which need to be further analyzed by empirical work.Practical implicationsThe findings suggest that different institutional levels need to be dealt with differently by research studies and institutional agents, including policy makers. Among others, the findings also suggest that stability is key to entrepreneurship and that the benefits of high quality regulation can be undermined by its excessive burden, reducing entrepreneurial action and harming development.Social implicationsInstitutional actors should provide stability and allow for the improvement of the environment overall. Specifically, policy makers should aim at good quality regulation that is valid across the board, that provides stability and gives room for improvement of the institutions. Policy makers should refrain from trying to foster specific industries; they should instead provide a leveled playing field without trying to direct the entrepreneurial efforts towards an industry or geographic region and without being overly demeaning.Originality/valueThis research breaks new ground. It unites ideas from entrepreneurship and institutions suggesting a novel, much more nuanced approach to their interplay. The results can be used by scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship, institutions and economic development. They also have the potential to help to educate policy makers in their quest to improve the context for entrepreneurs.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty\",\"authors\":\"F. D'Andrea\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jepp-01-2022-0018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe study aims to demonstrate how different arrangements and characteristics of institutions can generate or mitigate uncertainty thereby facilitating or hampering the possibilities of entrepreneurial action.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that advances the theoretical understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial uncertainty and the different institutional levels, their characteristics and their interplay.FindingsEntrepreneurial uncertainty also comes from the institutional environment and this has direct impact on the propensity to take action. The characteristics of the different institutional levels, in specific, their quality, stability, alignment and the burden imposed by L2 impact in the emergence of entrepreneurial uncertainty.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a conceptual paper that makes a number of theoretical suggestions which need to be further analyzed by empirical work.Practical implicationsThe findings suggest that different institutional levels need to be dealt with differently by research studies and institutional agents, including policy makers. Among others, the findings also suggest that stability is key to entrepreneurship and that the benefits of high quality regulation can be undermined by its excessive burden, reducing entrepreneurial action and harming development.Social implicationsInstitutional actors should provide stability and allow for the improvement of the environment overall. Specifically, policy makers should aim at good quality regulation that is valid across the board, that provides stability and gives room for improvement of the institutions. Policy makers should refrain from trying to foster specific industries; they should instead provide a leveled playing field without trying to direct the entrepreneurial efforts towards an industry or geographic region and without being overly demeaning.Originality/valueThis research breaks new ground. It unites ideas from entrepreneurship and institutions suggesting a novel, much more nuanced approach to their interplay. The results can be used by scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship, institutions and economic development. They also have the potential to help to educate policy makers in their quest to improve the context for entrepreneurs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-01-2022-0018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-01-2022-0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
PurposeThe study aims to demonstrate how different arrangements and characteristics of institutions can generate or mitigate uncertainty thereby facilitating or hampering the possibilities of entrepreneurial action.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that advances the theoretical understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial uncertainty and the different institutional levels, their characteristics and their interplay.FindingsEntrepreneurial uncertainty also comes from the institutional environment and this has direct impact on the propensity to take action. The characteristics of the different institutional levels, in specific, their quality, stability, alignment and the burden imposed by L2 impact in the emergence of entrepreneurial uncertainty.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a conceptual paper that makes a number of theoretical suggestions which need to be further analyzed by empirical work.Practical implicationsThe findings suggest that different institutional levels need to be dealt with differently by research studies and institutional agents, including policy makers. Among others, the findings also suggest that stability is key to entrepreneurship and that the benefits of high quality regulation can be undermined by its excessive burden, reducing entrepreneurial action and harming development.Social implicationsInstitutional actors should provide stability and allow for the improvement of the environment overall. Specifically, policy makers should aim at good quality regulation that is valid across the board, that provides stability and gives room for improvement of the institutions. Policy makers should refrain from trying to foster specific industries; they should instead provide a leveled playing field without trying to direct the entrepreneurial efforts towards an industry or geographic region and without being overly demeaning.Originality/valueThis research breaks new ground. It unites ideas from entrepreneurship and institutions suggesting a novel, much more nuanced approach to their interplay. The results can be used by scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship, institutions and economic development. They also have the potential to help to educate policy makers in their quest to improve the context for entrepreneurs.
期刊介绍:
Institutions – especially public policies – are a significant determinant of economic outcomes; entrepreneurship and enterprise development are often the channel by which public policies affect economic outcomes, and by which outcomes feed back to the policy process. The Journal of Entrepreneurship & Public Policy (JEPP) was created to encourage and disseminate quality research about these vital relationships. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of the political discourse about entrepreneurship and development policies. JEPP publishes two issues per year and welcomes: Empirically oriented academic papers and accepts a wide variety of empirical evidence. Generally, the journal considers any analysis based on real-world circumstances and conditions that can change behaviour, legislation, or outcomes, Conceptual or theoretical papers that indicate a direction for future research, or otherwise advance the field of study, A limited number of carefully and accurately executed replication studies, Book reviews. In general, JEPP seeks high-quality articles that say something interesting about the relationships among public policy and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and economic development, or all three areas. Scope/Coverage: Entrepreneurship, Public policy, Public policies and behaviour of economic agents, Interjurisdictional differentials and their effects, Law and entrepreneurship, New firms; startups, Microeconomic analyses of economic development, Development planning and policy, Innovation and invention: processes and incentives, Regional economic activity: growth, development, and changes, Regional development policy.