{"title":"从静态到过程分析:奥地利经济学的见解如何推动公共政策和创业研究","authors":"Per L. Bylund, Mark D. Packard, David J. Rapp","doi":"10.1108/jepp-03-2022-0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to illustrate how research on the intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship has been bounded by its static approach and how a processual analysis based on Austrian economics can advance the understanding of the subject matter.Design/methodology/approachRooted in the Austrian school of economics, this conceptual paper adopts a processual approach in order to unveil the effects that public policy exerts upon entrepreneurship and the market process.FindingsThe authors argue that by interfering with the market process, public policy detrimentally alters what otherwise would have been the market's natural evolution reflecting acting individuals' subjective valuations. It causes progressively self-reinforcing market distortions which result in comparatively lower levels of both capital accumulation and societal wealth.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper urges future research to rethink public policy's effects on entrepreneurship and to explore them more comprehensively, utilizing market process analysis.Practical implicationsThis research suggests that public policy can never be neutral but necessarily comes with distortive and often detrimental effects. That is, public policy comes at the innate expense of hampering the entrepreneurial process. Thus, new public policies and those already in place should be carefully reconsidered in light of these effects.Originality/valueThis paper offers a novel take on how to best understand the effects public policy has on entrepreneurship and the market process.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From static to processual analysis: how insights from Austrian economics can advance research on public policy and entrepreneurship\",\"authors\":\"Per L. Bylund, Mark D. Packard, David J. Rapp\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jepp-03-2022-0041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to illustrate how research on the intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship has been bounded by its static approach and how a processual analysis based on Austrian economics can advance the understanding of the subject matter.Design/methodology/approachRooted in the Austrian school of economics, this conceptual paper adopts a processual approach in order to unveil the effects that public policy exerts upon entrepreneurship and the market process.FindingsThe authors argue that by interfering with the market process, public policy detrimentally alters what otherwise would have been the market's natural evolution reflecting acting individuals' subjective valuations. It causes progressively self-reinforcing market distortions which result in comparatively lower levels of both capital accumulation and societal wealth.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper urges future research to rethink public policy's effects on entrepreneurship and to explore them more comprehensively, utilizing market process analysis.Practical implicationsThis research suggests that public policy can never be neutral but necessarily comes with distortive and often detrimental effects. That is, public policy comes at the innate expense of hampering the entrepreneurial process. Thus, new public policies and those already in place should be carefully reconsidered in light of these effects.Originality/valueThis paper offers a novel take on how to best understand the effects public policy has on entrepreneurship and the market process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-03-2022-0041\",\"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-03-2022-0041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
From static to processual analysis: how insights from Austrian economics can advance research on public policy and entrepreneurship
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to illustrate how research on the intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship has been bounded by its static approach and how a processual analysis based on Austrian economics can advance the understanding of the subject matter.Design/methodology/approachRooted in the Austrian school of economics, this conceptual paper adopts a processual approach in order to unveil the effects that public policy exerts upon entrepreneurship and the market process.FindingsThe authors argue that by interfering with the market process, public policy detrimentally alters what otherwise would have been the market's natural evolution reflecting acting individuals' subjective valuations. It causes progressively self-reinforcing market distortions which result in comparatively lower levels of both capital accumulation and societal wealth.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper urges future research to rethink public policy's effects on entrepreneurship and to explore them more comprehensively, utilizing market process analysis.Practical implicationsThis research suggests that public policy can never be neutral but necessarily comes with distortive and often detrimental effects. That is, public policy comes at the innate expense of hampering the entrepreneurial process. Thus, new public policies and those already in place should be carefully reconsidered in light of these effects.Originality/valueThis paper offers a novel take on how to best understand the effects public policy has on entrepreneurship and the market process.
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.