entrepreneurship essay pdf

Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature

• First Online: 14 March 2020

Cite this chapter

• Robert James Crammond 2  

603 Accesses

1 Citations

In this chapter, Crammond discusses the origins, and ever-evolving concept, of entrepreneurship through time. Exploring many perspectives in relation to entrepreneurship, Crammond highlights the many economic, philosophical, political, and sociological considerations of entrepreneurship, as evolved understandings became increasingly apparent through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Drawing on seminal understandings of entrepreneurship and original economic activity, this chapter conceptually progresses the notions of entrepreneurship, rooted in economic theory, towards its impact on modern business and society today. ‘Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature’ concludes by discussing many examples of entrepreneurship in practice, and crucially, how this benefits business and education in the twenty-first century.

In conceding what we have yet to realise, we realise the value of what we already know. Robert James Crammond

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Acs, Z. J. (2007) ‘How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?’ American Institute for Economic Research: Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. Vol.1(1), pp. 97–107.

Google Scholar  

Aldrich, H. E. (2012) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal essay on institutional entrepreneurship’. Research Policy. Vol.41, pp. 1240–1248.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, A. R. and Starnawska, M. (2008) ‘Research practices in entrepreneurship: Problems of definition, description and meaning’. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Vol.9(4), pp. 221–230.

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development.’ Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(1), pp. 105–123.

Audretsch, D. B. (1999) ‘Knowledge spillovers and the role of small firms’. In CRENOS Conference on Technological Externalities and Spatial Location, University of Cagliari, 24th–25th September.

Audretsch, D. B. (2006) Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Baron, R. A. (2002) ‘OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links’. Research in Organisational Behaviour. Vol.24, pp. 225–269.

Baumol, W. J. (1968) ‘Entrepreneurship in economic theory’. The American Economic Review. pp. 64–71.

Berglann, H., Moen, E. R., Røed, K. and Skogstrøm, J. F. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship: Origins and returns’. Labour Economics. Vol.18(2), pp. 180–193.

Bicknell, A., Francis-Smythe, J. and Arthur, J. (2010) ‘Knowledge transfer: de-constructing the entrepreneurial academic’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.16(6), pp. 485–501.

Birley, S. (1986) ‘The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process.’ Journal of business venturing. Vol.1(1), pp. 107–117.

Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bridge, S., O’Neill, K. and Cromie, S. (2003) Understanding Enterprise: Entrepreneurship and Small Business.

Brockhaus, R. H., Hills, G. E., Klandt, H. and Welsch, H. P. (Eds.) (2001) Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Bruyat, C. and Julien, P. A. (2000) ‘Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.16(2), pp. 165–180.

Bryson, J. R., Daniels, P. W. and Ingram, D. R. (1999) ‘Evaluating the impact of business link on the performance and profitability of SMEs in the United Kingdom’. Policy Studies. Vol.20(2), pp. 95–105.

Buchanan, D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour. 7th ed. London: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Burke, R. (2006) Entrepreneurs Toolkit. London: Burke Publishing.

Burns, P. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Small Business: Start-up, Growth and Maturity. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N. and Zacharakis, A. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future directions’. Journal of Management. Vol.29(3), pp. 285–308.

Bygrave, W. D. and Hofer, C. W. (1991) ‘Theorizing about entrepreneurship’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.16(2), pp. 13–22.

Cantillon, R. (1755) Essay on the Nature of Trade in General. Translated Edition, 1959. London: Henry Higgs.

Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R. and Carland, J. A. C. (1984) ‘Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: a conceptualisation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.9(2), pp. 354–359.

Casson, M. (1982) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Casson, M. (1985) ‘Entrepreneurship and the dynamics of foreign direct investment’. In The Economic Theory of the Multinational Enterprise (pp. 172–191). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Casson, M. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurship, business culture and the theory of the firm’. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research . (pp. 223–246). California: Springer US.

Casson, M. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm’. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization. Vol.58(2), pp. 327–348.

Casson, M., Yeung, B. and Basu, A. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H. and Steier, L. P. (2003) ‘An introduction to theories of family business’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(4), pp. 441–448.

Cooper, S.Y. (1998) ‘Entrepreneurship and the location of high technology small firms; implications for regional development’. New Technology-Based Firms in the 1990s. London: Paul Chapman, pp. 247–267.

Dana, L. P. (2011) World Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dana, L. P., Welpe, I. M., Han, M., Ratten. V. (2008) (eds.) Handbook of Research on European Business and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Theory of Internationalization. Cheltenham: Edward Elger Publishing.

De Brentani, U. (1991) ‘Success Factors in Developing New Business Services’. European Journal of Marketing. Vol.25(2), pp. 33–59.

Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (2012) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Dean, T. J. and Meyer, G. D. (1996) ‘Industry environments and new venture formations in US manufacturing: A conceptual and empirical analysis of demand determinants’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.11(2), pp. 107–132.

Dibben, M., Harris, S. and Wheeler, C. (2003) ‘Export Market Development: Planning and Relationship Process of Entrepreneurs in Different Countries’. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol.1, pp. 383–403.

Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.

Drucker, P. F. (2007) Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Classic Drucker Collection). Paperback.

Eckhardt, J. T. and Shane, S. A. (2003) ‘Opportunities and entrepreneurship’. Journal of Management. Vol.29(3), pp. 333–349.

European Commission (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe: National Strategies, Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, March 2012.

European Commission (2015) Entrepreneurship Education: A Road To Success. A compilation of evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship education strategies and measures. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.

Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2007) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education: A general perspective. (Vol. 2). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2010) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education:

Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) (Eds.) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fayolle, A., Kyrö, P. and Ulijn, J. M. (Eds.) (2005) Entrepreneurship research in Europe: outcomes and perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fletcher, M. (1999) ‘Promoting entrepreneurship as a career option-the graduate enterprise programme’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.23(3), pp. 127–139.

Garavan, T. N. and O’Cinneide, B. (1994) ‘Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation – Part 1’. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.18(8), pp. 3–12.

Gartner, W. B. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation’. The Academy of Management Review. Vol.10(4), pp. 696–706.

Gibb, A. (2002) ‘In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge’. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol.4(3), pp. 233–269.

Gilder, G. (1984) The Spirit of Enterprise. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gray, C. (2006) ‘Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.12(6), pp. 345–360.

Greene, F. J. and Saridakis, G. (2007) ‘Understanding the factors influencing graduate entrepreneurship’. National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Research Report. Vol.1.

Guzmán, J. and Liñán, F. (2005) ‘Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Education: A US-Europe Comparison’. Jean Monnet European Studies Centre Universidad Antonio de Nebrija.

Hébert, R. F. and Link, A. N. (1982) The Entrepreneur. New York: Praeger.

Hébert, R. F. and Link, A. N. (1988) ‘The Entrepreneur: Mainstream views and radical critiques’.

Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006) ‘An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?’ Journal of Management Development. Vol.25(1), pp. 80–94.

Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000) ‘Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career’. Career Development International. Vol.5(6), pp. 279–287.

Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I’. Education and Training. Vol.47(2), pp. 98–111.

Herron, L., Sapienza, H. J. and Smith-Cook, D. (1991) ‘Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume I’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.16(2), pp. 7–12.

Hisrich, R. D. and Kearney, C. (2004) Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A. R. (1999) ‘Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.5(3), pp. 110–125.

Jennings, P. D., Greenwood, R., Lounsbury, M. D. and Suddaby, R. (2013) ‘Institutions, entrepreneurs, and communities: A special issue on entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28(1), pp. 1–9.

Katz, J. A. (2003) ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(2), pp. 283–300.

Keating, A. and McLoughlin, D. (2010) ‘The entrepreneurial imagination and the impact of context on the development of a new venture’. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol.39, pp. 996–1009.

Kent, C. A. (Ed.). (1990) Entrepreneurship Education: Current Developments, Future Directions. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Kickul, J. and Gundry, L.K. (2002) ‘Prospecting for Strategic Advantage: The Proactive Kierkegaard’

Kirby, D. A. (2003) Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Kirzner, I. M. (1979) Perception, opportunity, and profit: Studies in the theory of entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Klapper, R. (2004) ‘Government goals and entrepreneurship education – An investigation at a Grande Ecole in France’. Education and Training. Vol.46(3), pp. 127–137.

Knight, G. (2000) ‘Entrepreneurship and Marketing Strategy: The SME Under Globalisation’. Journal of International Marketing , Vol.8(2), pp. 12–32.

Kolodko, G. W. (2000) ‘Transition to a Market and Entrepreneurship: The Systemic Factors and Policy Options’. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol.33, pp. 271–293.

Krueger Jr, N. F. (2002) ‘The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship.’ In Handbook of entrepreneurship research. (pp. 105–140). Springer US.

Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D. and Hornsby, J. S. (2001) ‘improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions: acordia’s corporate entrepreneurship strategy’. Academy of Management Executive. Vol.15(4), pp. 60–71.

Landström, H., Harirchi, G. and Åström, F. (2012) ‘Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base’. Research Policy. Vol.41(7), pp. 1154–1181.

Libecap, G. D. (1999) ‘The Sources of Entrepreneurial Activity’. Vol.11. Jai Pr.

Lipsey, R. G. and Chrystal, K. A. (2004) Economics. 10th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Llewellyn, D. J. and Wilson, K. M. (2003) ‘The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology’. Education and Training. Vol.45(6), pp. 341–345.

Low, M. B. and MacMillan, I. C. (1988) ‘Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges’. Journal of Management. Vol.14(2), pp. 139–161.

Marcati, A., Guidoa, G. and Pelusob, A. M. (2008) ‘The Role of SME Entrepreneurs’ Innovativeness and Personality in the Adoption of Innovations’. Research Policy. Vol.37, pp. 1579–1590.

Matlay, H. (2005a) ‘Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does it matter?’ Education and Training. Vol.47(8/9), pp. 665–677.

Matlay, H. (2005b) ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and policy considerations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.12(4), pp. 627–643.

Matlay, H. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers?’ Education and Training. Vol.48(5).

Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.15(2), pp. 382–396.

Matlay, H. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations’. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol.16(2), pp. 355–368.

Matlay, H. (2011) ‘The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK HEIs’. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. Vol.17(2), pp. 166–182.

Matlay, H. (2012) ‘International perspectives on entrepreneurship education and learning, introduction to the special issue’. Industry and Higher Education. Vol.26(3), pp. 159–162.

McDougall, P. P., Oviatt, B. M. and Shrader, R. C. (2003) ‘A Comparison of International and Domestic New Ventures’. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol.1, pp. 59–82.

McElwee, G. and Al-Riyami, R. (2003) ‘Women entrepreneurs in Oman: some barriers to success’. Career Development International. Vol.8(7), pp. 339–346.

McLarty, R. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship among graduates: towards a measured response’. Journal of Management Development. Vol.24(3), pp. 223–238.

McMullan, W. and Long, W. A. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship education in the nineties’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.2(3), pp. 261–275

Meyer, M., Libaers, D., Thijs, B., Grant, K., Glänzel, W. and Debackere, K. (2014) ‘Origin and emergence of entrepreneurship as a research field’. Scientometrics. Vol.98(1), pp. 473–485.

Minniti, M. and Lévesque, M. (2008) ‘Recent developments in the economics of entrepreneurship’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.23(6), pp. 603–612.

Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F. and Schindehutte, M. (2001) ‘Towards integration: understanding entrepreneurship through frameworks’. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship And Innovation. Vol.2(1), pp. 35–49.

Myers, M. D. (2013) Qualitative Research in Business and Management. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Nabi, G. and Holden, R. (2008) ‘Graduate entrepreneurship: intentions, education and training’. Education and Training. Vol.50(7), pp. 545–551.

Neck, H. M. and Greene, P. G. (2011) ‘Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.49(1), pp. 55–70.

Needle, D. (2004) Business in Context: An Introduction to Business And its Environment. 4th ed. Cengage Learning EMEA.

O’Connor, A. (2013) ‘A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.28, pp. 546–563.

Oakey, R. (2007) ‘A commentary on gaps in funding for moderate ‘non-stellar’ growth small businesses in the United Kingdom’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance. Vol.9(3), pp. 223–235.

Oviatt, B. M. and McDougall, P. P. (1994) ‘Toward a Theory of International New Ventures’. Journal Of International Business Studies , Vol.25(1), pp. 45–64.

Peng, M.W. (2001) ‘How Entrepreneurs Create Wealth in Transition Economies.’ Academy of Management Executive. Vol.15(1), pp. 95–110.

Pike, R. H., Neale, B. and Linsley, P. (2012) Corporate Finance and Investment: Decisions and Strategies. 7th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Rae, D. (2007) Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Redlich, F. (1949) ‘The Origin of the Concepts of ‘Entrepreneur’ and ‘Creative Entrepreneur”. Explorations in Entrepreneurial History . Vol.1(2), pp. 1–7.

Risker, D. C. (1998) ‘Toward an innovation typology of entrepreneurs’. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Vol.15(2), pp. 27–41.

Romijn, H. and Albaladejo, M. (2002) ‘Determinants of Innovation Capability in Small Electronics and Software Firms in Southeast England’. Research Policy. Vol.31, pp. 1053–1067.

Say, J. B. (1816) Catechism of Political Economy: Or, Familiar Conversations on the Manner in which Wealth is Produced, Distributed, and Consumed in Society. London: Sherwood, Neely and Jones.

Schumpeter, J. (1928) ‘The instability of capitalism’. The Economic Journal. Vol.38(151), pp. 361–386.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1961) Teoria do desenvolvimento econômico. Fundo de Cultura.

Sexton, D. L. (1988) ‘The field of entrepreneurship: is it growing or just getting bigger’. Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.26(1), pp. 5–8.

Shane, S. A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research’. Academy of Management Review. Vol.25(1), pp. 217–226.

Shepherd, D. A. and Zacharakis, A. (2001) ‘Speed to Initial Public Offering of VC-Backed Companies.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.25(3), pp. 59–69.

Shepherd, D. A., Zacharakis, A. and Baron, R. A. (2003) ‘VCs’ decision processes: Evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.18(3), pp. 381–401.

Shrader, R. C. and Simon, M. (1997) ‘Corporate Versus Independent New Ventures: Resource, Strategy, and Performance Differences’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.12, pp. 47–66.

Steier, L. (2007) ‘New venture creation and organization: A familial sub-narrative’. Journal of Business Research. Vol.60(10), pp. 1099–1107.

Stevenson, H. H. and J. C. Jarillo (1990) ‘A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management’. Strategic Management Journal. Vol.11, pp. 17–27.

Stewart, W. H., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C. and Carland, J. W. (1999) ‘A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers’. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol.14(2), pp. 189–214.

Stokes, D., Wilson, N. and Mador, M. (2010) Entrepreneurship . London: Cengage Learning.

Timmons, J. A. and Spinelli, S. (2008) New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. 8th ed. London: McGraw Hill.

Turker, D. and Selcuk, S. S. (2009) ‘Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?’ Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol.33(2), pp. 142–159.

Upton, N., Teal, E.J. and Felan, J.T. (2001) ‘Strategic and Business Planning Practices of Fast-Growing Family Firms.’ Journal of Small Business Management. Vol.39(4), pp. 60–72.

Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Marlotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S. and Sepulveda, A. (2009) Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative.

Weber, R. (2012) Evaluating Entrepreneurship Education. Gabler Verlag.

Wickham, P. (2006) Strategic Entrepreneurship. 4th ed. United Kingdom: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Wickham, P. A. (1998) Strategic Entrepreneurship: A decision-making approach to new venture creation and Management. London: Pitman Publishing.

Zahra, S.A., Kuratko, D.F. and Jennings, D.F. (1999) ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship and Wealth Creation: Contemporary and Emerging Perspectives.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol.24(2), pp. 5–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business and Enterprise, University of the West of Scotland, South Lanarkshire, UK

Robert James Crammond

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert James Crammond .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Crammond, R.J. (2020). Entrepreneurship: Origins and Nature . In: Advancing Entrepreneurship Education in Universities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35191-5_2

Published : 14 March 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-35190-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-35191-5

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

UC San Diego

Essays in Entrepreneurship

• Sarada, Sarada

This dissertation contains three essays in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is a key generator of economic growth. Entrepreneurial firms innovate, both on the product and process margins, creating new technologies and organizational novelties, bringing about positive spillovers to the economy as a whole. As such, understanding the factors underlying such activity is vital. This dissertation is concerned with who becomes an entrepreneur and why he or she does so, what factors influence the success of an entrepreneurial venture, and what types of institutions best facilitate entrepreneurial activity. The first chapter resolves a longstanding empirical puzzle; that most entrepreneurs enter and persist in self-employment, despite lower initial earnings and earnings growth (Hamilton, 2000). I hypothesize that reported income is not a good measure for the returns to self-employment. The self-employed have the ability to underreport earnings (estimated to be between 18 and 57 percent (Slemrod, 2007)), and can compensate themselves in various ways that do not manifest as reported labor income. The estimation strategy employed to test this hypothesis relies on the presumption that reported consumption by the self-employed will not be systematically misreported, even though income can easily be. Using longitudinal data from the PSID, I find that while individuals report earning 27 percent less in self- employment they in fact consume 5 percent more. This implies a 32 percent differential between reported wage and consumption for the self-employed. Furthermore, this increased consumption does not seem to be offset by lower savings or higher uncertainty. Other results include that the self-employed work longer hours and that lifetime consumption is no lower for those who leave self- employment. The second chapter links the network structure amongst initial employees to the performance of a newly founded firm. We use a large employee-employer linked panel data set from Brazil that allows us to track workers across jobs and establish whether new firm employees have prior joint work experience. We use this information to construct a quantifier for network concentration using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI), and test the impact of network concentration on new firm performance as measured by survival, employment, and wages. We find that new firms with higher network concentrations, i.e. wherein initial employees have worked together previously, are on average larger, have higher wages and survive longer when controlling for industry fixed effects and employees' human capital, demographic characteristics, formal sector experience, and size of parent firms. This association increases with the initial size of the newly founded firm. However, we find a negative relationship between network concentration and initial firm growth. Finally, we look at how the size of an individual's parent firm affects the success of her new entrepreneurial venture and find that small firm experience correlates with better survival rates, but lower employment and average wages at the new firm. The third chapter examines the conditions under which an informal network may decide to formalize into an entrepreneurial organization. Such organizations are formal, not-for-profit entities whose main objective is to facilitate networking so as to generate partnerships leading to entrepreneurial ventures. In order to create fruitful business partnerships, both the informal network and the formal organizations seek to grow. The growth process in the informal network occurs via bilateral sponsorship which rigorously screens entrants and is therefore slow, while that for a formal organization is much faster but less certain to only admit high types. We formally model these two entities and set the stage for an analysis of the tradeoffs between them

Enter the password to open this PDF file:

The Definition of Entrepreneurship Definition Essay

Introduction, opportunity, beyond resources controlled.

Entrepreneurship is defined from different perspectives depending on the discipline and context where the definition is applied. Here, the general definition of entrepreneurship captures the core elements of “discovery, evaluation, exploitation of opportunities, and the organisation of markets that had not previously existed” (Bruton, Ahlstrom & Li 2010, p.34).

Another definition is the “new firm formation and self-employment and the subsequent creation of new economic activities to exploit the opportunities”. On the other hand, the definition provided in the extract focuses on the “pursuit of opportunities beyond resources controlled” (Bruton, Ahlstrom & Li 2010, p.34).

However, the congruence of both definitions with that extracted from the Harvard definition fall short of capturing all the elements of the definition of entrepreneurship, leading to the conclusion that the definition is useful for an individual entrepreneur.

According to the extracts from the definition, an entrepreneur is a person defined by a relentless and singular focus on an idea that is acceptable because it is consistent with the characteristics of entrepreneurial behavior. Kuratko (2013) contends that the element of singly focusing on the pursuit of opportunities by consuming limited resources efficiently and effectively makes one introduce more profits to an organisation, making the definition comprehensive about an entrepreneur.

The definition fits well because entrepreneurs exist in different categories and each category is defined by various elements such as the personality of an individual, the background or environmental factors and the social processes that define what a person gets involved in, leading one to conclude that entrepreneurship is about pursuing opportunities.

While the relentless focus is evidently a definition of an entrepreneur, a question arises on “what are the elements to focus on?” Here, an entrepreneur must first identify a “good idea” before even preparing themselves to focus and pursue the idea. How good an idea is, depends on the provision of answers to the core elements of entrepreneurship of “why, when, and how” opportunities arise and the type of entrepreneurial skills required to identify and pursue the opportunity.

Here, it is important to filter out what should be focused on although the Harvard definition fails to capture in the definition the initial phase of the core elements of “discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities” in the context of being a risk-taker and the ability to combine innovation and pro-activeness.

In addition, the pursuit of opportunities in an environment that is defined by a sense of urgency is an appropriate definition of an entrepreneur. However, a question arises as to “why should the opportunities be limited to the sense of urgency?” when critically evaluated, the statement provides a definition that narrows the entrepreneur to one who already has ideas that enables them to respond urgently to an opportunity using readily available and resources.

Here, the issue of the scarcity of resources or the optimal use of resources to optimise output from scarce inputs has not been explored in the definition. However, a comprehensive definition must include the concept of initiation, identification, discovery or creation of opportunities as underpinning the definition in the study.

The definition also must encompass the decision to exploit the opportunities when they have been identified because some do not provide economic value and other opportunities that add economic value. Entrepreneurship is about the pursuit of new ideas and the willingness to pursue those ideas and combine resources to achieve the goal of fulfilling the needs of market.

The relentless pursuit is based on the individual decision to pursue an opportunity that makes an opportunity profitable. Here, when opportunities arise, they do not lead to spontaneous exploitation but get exploited by the people who relentlessly pursues them for profit. One can dispute the Harvard definition, which bases the definition on the relentless focus of the pursuit of an opportunity without factoring risk.

Here, risk can impede and therefore tend to discredit the definition. However, a critical focus on the definition shows that a risk cannot be estimated merely because uncertainties are not known until the opportunity has been pursued by the entrepreneur who will determine the extent of the demand for a product or service and whether a value chain can be created.

Here, the core elements are to get organised and creating a new way of doing things and pursuing and exploiting opportunities innovatively.

A continuum of Academic literature agrees that entrepreneurship cannot exist where opportunities do not exist. In fact, the nature of the opportunities differs across different disciplines even though the general definition is the same.

Here, opportunity is about some unfulfilled desire in the market place or the creation of services or products that meet the unmet needs of the customers in the marketplace. Opportunity can also be defined as an idea that leads to a business concept which leads to newness, economic value, and perceived desirability (Levie J & Lichtenstein 2010).

From the extract presented by the Harvard school, opportunity is an element that is used to define entrepreneurship. In the context of the extract, opportunity arises in any of the four ways, which include pioneering innovation, targeting a product to new customers, creating cheaper substitute products, or devising new ways of doing business.

The scope of the definition perfectly fits into the definition of entrepreneurship because it captures the timing of the opportunity and the issues of venture creation leading to the conclusion that innovation, identification of new products and markets are necessarily sufficient to define an entrepreneurial opportunity.

Here, there is some degree of consensus on the definition that vindicates the earlier definition contained in the extract by pointing out that the method used by an entrepreneur distinctively defines the pursuit, although some other academicians object to the assumption by arguing that time is left out in the definition. Here, opportunity depends on circumstances that are defined by conditioning or the probability or improbability of an event.

One can conclude that opportunity is a favourable event that presents itself to be exploited to add value to the economic activities of institutions (Nicholls 2010). However, a critical analysis of the definition shows that even if the time frame within which entrepreneurial the activities occur is not mentioned, yet one can keenly note that the continuum of entrepreneurial activities that define entrepreneurship must exist or occur in a time frame.

Also, the definition is not for a specific discipline but is a generalised form of definition. When it gets done to specifics, then one can expand on the definition by addressing the particular needs of each discipline. It is important to note that the business practises that an entrepreneur gets involved in do not deviate from the standard business practises but are done by making combination of different factors of production to bring about innovation.

However, innovation is based on new combinations of factors of production to meet the unmet needs in the market. However, innovation from the entrepreneurial perspective should be distinguished from chance because innovation comes and disappear because of the failure to succeed in the market.

On the other hand, the definition distinguishes and entrepreneur with normal business pursuit by affirming that the definitions that focus on profit improvement do not fit into the correct definition of entrepreneurship. It is true that an entrepreneur can innovatively introduce new ways of increasing profits, such as identifying new markets with unfulfilled needs or through the innovation of a new product.

Even though the scope of the definition does not clearly show where an entrepreneur and the normal business transactions end and start, the definition shows that opportunities are about venture creation, which leads to profit generation. In conclusion, opportunity is about an occurrence that can be exploited to make profits.

The definition of entrepreneurship based on the component of “beyond resources controlled” is another acceptable element that fits an entrepreneur. The argument here is that new organising does not require the use of a new resource, but leads to the optimisation of resources and is not contained by the unavailability of resources.

In addition, an entrepreneurial activity can be exploited with minimum of resources so long as there is a profitable opportunity to be exploited. For instance, a person can discovers a new opportunity which he sells to another person to be exploited (Shane 2012). It has been demonstrated through empirical research studies that entrepreneurship goes beyond the controlled resources because the opportunities being pursued are risky.

The entrepreneur seeks for ways of making the dormant customer to accept the new idea, ensure that the technology is available to make an idea become successful, and be able to attract the customer buy in into the idea and attract people to work out the idea.

The definition fits an entrepreneur because when starting to pursue an opportunity, the plan must encompass the resources that are not available but which can make idea successful. To address the deficiency of resources, an entrepreneur will need to create partnerships with others who could be stakeholders in the business, expand resources that are less likely to be adversely affected by risks, and be able to explain to others that a new idea brings about better life for others.

In conclusion, the definition presented in the Harvard extract fits well because an entrepreneur is one who identifies opportunities and pursues them to create profit and value by exploiting the opportunities. In addition, opportunities can only be pursued to become profitable by the people. Here, opportunities can be identified by an entrepreneur who can device new ways of doing things such as creating new business models or by improving on existing opportunities to add value and profit to an organisation.

It is important to note that entrepreneurs sometimes are limited by inadequate resources, but the entrepreneurial spirit takes the entrepreneur beyond the available resources by making partnerships and looking for other sources of income to exploit the opportunities without getting limited to exploit an opportunity.

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D. & Li, H. L. 2010, ‘Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future’, Entrepreneurship theory and practice , vol. 3, no. 34, pp. 421-440.

Kuratko, D. 2013, Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice , New York, Cengage Learning.

Levie, J. & Lichtenstein, B. B. 2010, ‘A terminal assessment of stages theory: Introducing a dynamic states approach to entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , vol. 2, no. 34, pp. 317-350.

Nicholls, A. 2010, ‘The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre‐Paradigmatic Field’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , vol. 4, no. 34, pp. 611-633.

Shane, S. 2012, ‘Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review , vol. 1, no. 37, pp. 10-20.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 24). The Definition of Entrepreneurship. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-definition-of-entrepreneurship/

"The Definition of Entrepreneurship." IvyPanda , 24 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-definition-of-entrepreneurship/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Definition of Entrepreneurship'. 24 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Definition of Entrepreneurship." December 24, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-definition-of-entrepreneurship/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Definition of Entrepreneurship." December 24, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-definition-of-entrepreneurship/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Definition of Entrepreneurship." December 24, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-definition-of-entrepreneurship/.

• Corporate Entrepreneurship in Business Articles
• Strategy and Structure in Business
• General Directorate of Residency and Foreigners Affairs Dubai
• The Determinants of Self-Employment for Artists
• Organizational Diagnostic Models: Congruence Model
• Blocking Paradigm. Conditioned Learning Variables
• The Significance of congruence between an organization’s strategy and Human Resource Management Practices
• Congruence Model and Strategy Analysis
• The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model-Palm Inc
• Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model
• Entrepreneurship and Innovation: The United Arab Emirates
• Entrepreneurship Development in the UAE
• Women and Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia:”Can Women Entrepreneurial Micro Businesses Grow in Saudi Arabia”
• Start-up Businesses in Saudi Arabia: Challenges of Finding Finance
• Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Dynamic Capitalism

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

ENTERPRENEURS ARE BORN AND NOT MADE ESSAY

Related Papers

Michael Meeks

Journal of Labor Economics

cherry purwito

Muhammad Zainuddin

Research in Applied Economics

ionica oncioiu

Anthony Wafula

Small Business Economics

Robert Hebert

William Gartner

Christos Kalantaridis

African Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(10), pp. 3570-3575

Sergiu Rusu , Florin Lucian Isac , Radu Cureteanu

The field of entrepreneurship is still a relative one that is less explored, and many opinions in regard to defining the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs remain the same. A trial was made by this paper to explore the diversity of concepts identified in specialty literature, and this was approached in their historical evolution. Entrepreneurship entails forming a new organization or restructuring an organization which has already been in existence. It is often a complicated enterprise, so, consequently, numerous enterprises find loads of difficulties in survival. This is an entirely different field involving unique personality traits on the part of the entrepreneur, such as good communication skills, patience, foresightedness, and many more traits, which heads his personality to a brighter side. We believe in opportunities for advancing understanding on the historical role of culture and values on entrepreneurial behavior, using more careful methodologies than in the past, and seeking to specify more exactly how important culture is relative to other variables. There still are major opportunities to complement research on the role of institutions in economic growth by exploring the precise relationship between institutions and entrepreneurs. Finally, conclusions are drawn and some future research directions outlined.

RELATED PAPERS

Ana Lúcia Pé-Curto

dipti prasad

BioMed Research International

Lena Jørgensen-Kaur

Susanna Hecht

Stanislav Kolenikov

Heart & Lung: The Journal of Acute and Critical Care

Elaine Larson

Aiaze Mitha

Jurnal Kesehatan Vokasional

uswatun hasanah

Linear and Multilinear Algebra

Vladimir Rakocević

Χαράλαμπος Ιντζεσίλογλου

Germinal: Marxismo e Educação em Debate

Samara Mendes

Asmita Saha

aju krisnaningsih

Stefan Engelter

Journal of ethnopharmacology

Mushtaq Ahmad

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Judith lopez zepeda

ANNALS OF THE ORADEA UNIVERSITY. Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering.

Radoje Cvejic

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Thomas Oetting

hjjkhjhg gghgt

Radiology and Oncology

gorazd bunc

Physical Review D

Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya

Nigerian Journal of the Humanities 18

Andrew Oyedola

Gustavo Eugenio Elizondo Alanís

Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Laurent Goffart

The Journal of Medical Sciences

aniya shouk

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.1: Chapter 1 – Introduction to Entrepreneurship

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 21253

• Lee A. Swanson
• University of Saskatchewan

Whilst there is no universally accepted definition of entrepreneurship, it is fair to say that it is multi-dimensional. It involves analyzing people and their actions together with the ways in which they interact with their environments, be these social, economic, or political, and the institutional, policy, and legal frameworks that help define and legitimize human activities. – Blackburn (2011, p. xiii)

Entrepreneurship involves such a range of activities and levels of analysis that no single definition is definitive. – Lichtenstein (2011, p. 472)

It is complex, chaotic, and lacks any notion of linearity. As educators, we have the responsibility to develop our students’ discovery, reasoning, and implementation skills so they may excel in highly uncertain environments. – Neck and Greene (2011, p. 55)

Learning Objectives

• Examine the challenges associated with defining the concepts of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship
• Discuss how the evolution of entrepreneurship thought has influenced how we view the concept of entrepreneurship today
• Discuss how the list of basic questions in entrepreneurship research can be expanded to include research inquiries that are important in today’s world
• Discuss how the concepts of entrepreneurial uniqueness, entrepreneurial personality traits, and entrepreneurial cognitions can help society improve its support for entrepreneurship
• Apply the general venturing script to the study of entrepreneurship

This chapter provides you with an overview of entrepreneurship and of the language of entrepreneurship. The challenges associated with defining entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are explored, as is an overview of how entrepreneurship can be studied.

The objective is to enable you to apply current concepts in entrepreneurship to the evaluation of entrepreneurs, their ventures, and the venturing environment. You will develop skills, including the capability to add value in the new venture sector of the economy. You will acquire and practice evaluation skills useful in consulting, advising, and making new venture decisions.

Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship

Considerations influencing definitions of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship.

It is necessary to be able to determine exactly who entrepreneurs are before we can, among other things, study them, count them, provide special loans for them, and calculate how and how much they contribute to our economy.

• Does someone need to start a business from scratch to be called an entrepreneur?
• Can we call someone an entrepreneur if they bought an ongoing business from someone else or took over the operations of a family business from their parents?
• If someone starts a small business and never needs to hire employees, can they be called an entrepreneur?
• If someone buys a business but hires professional managers to run it so they don’t have to be involved in the operations, are they an entrepreneur?
• Is someone an entrepreneur if they buy into a franchise so they can follow a well-established formula for running the operation?
• Is someone an entrepreneur because of what they do or because of how they think?
• Can someone be an entrepreneur without owning their own business?
• Can a person be an entrepreneur because of the nature of the work that they do within a large corporation?

It is also necessary to fully understand what we mean by entrepreneurship before we can study the concept.

Gartner (1990) identified 90 attributes that showed up in definitions of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship provided by entrepreneurs and other experts in the field. The following are a few of these attributes:

• Innovation – Does a person need to be innovative to be considered an entrepreneur? Can an activity be considered to be entrepreneurial if it is not innovative?
• Activities – What activities does a person need to do to be considered an entrepreneur?
• Creation of a new business – Does someone need to start a new business to be considered to be an entrepreneur, or can someone who buys a business, buys into a franchise, or takes over an existing family business be considered an entrepreneur?
• Starts an innovative venture within an established organization – Can someone who works within an existing organization that they don’t own be considered an entrepreneur if they start an innovative venture for their organization?
• Creation of a not-for-profit business – Can a venture be considered to be entrepreneurial if it is a not-for-profit, or should only for-profit businesses be considered entrepreneurial?

After identifying the 90 attributes, Gartner (1990) went back to the entrepreneurs and other experts for help in clustering the attributes into themes that would help summarize what people concerned with entrepreneurship thought about the concept. He ended up with the following eight entrepreneurship themes:

1. The Entrepreneur – The entrepreneur theme is the idea that entrepreneurship involves individuals with unique personality characteristics and abilities (e.g., risk-taking, locus of control, autonomy, perseverance, commitment, vision, creativity). Almost 50% of the respondents rated these characteristics as not important to a definition of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990, p. 21, 24).

• “The question that needs to be addressed is: Does entrepreneurship involve entrepreneurs (individuals with unique characteristics)?” (Gartner, 1990, p. 25).

2. Innovation – The innovation theme is characterized as doing something new as an idea, product, service, market, or technology in a new or established organization. The innovation theme suggests that innovation is not limited to new ventures, but recognized as something which older and/or larger organizations may undertake as well (Gartner, 1990, p. 25). Some of the experts Gartner questioned believed that it was important to include innovation in definitions of entrepreneurship and others did not think it was as important.

• “Does entrepreneurship involve innovation?” (Gartner, 1990, p. 25).

3. Organization Creation – The organization creation theme describes the behaviors involved in creating organizations. This theme described acquiring and integrating resource attributes (e.g., Brings resources to bear, integrates opportunities with resources, mobilizes resources, gathers resources) and attributes that described creating organizations (new venture development and the creation of a business that adds value). (Gartner, 1990, p. 25)

• “Does entrepreneurship involve resource acquisition and integration (new venture creation activities)?” (Gartner, 1990, p. 25)

4. Creating Value – This theme articulated the idea that entrepreneurship creates value. The attributes in this factor indicated that value creation might be represented by transforming a business, creating a new business growing a business, creating wealth, or destroying the status quo.

• “Does entrepreneurship involve creating value?” (Gartner, 1990, p. 25).

5. Profit or Nonprofit

• “Does entrepreneurship involve profit-making organizations only” (Gartner, 1990, p. 25)?
• Should a focus on growth be a characteristic of entrepreneurship?

7. Uniqueness – This theme suggested that entrepreneurship must involve uniqueness. Uniqueness was characterized by attributes such as a special way of thinking, a vision of accomplishment, ability to see situations in terms of unmet needs, and creates a unique combination.

• “Does entrepreneurship involve uniqueness?” (Gartner, 1990, p. 26).

8. The Owner-Manager – Some of the respondents questioned by Gartner (1990) did not believe that small mom-and-pop types of businesses should be considered to be entrepreneurial. Some respondents felt that an important element of a definition of entrepreneurship was that a venture be owner-managed.

• To be entrepreneurial, does a venture need to be owner-managed?

Examples of Definitions of Entrepreneur

An entrepreneur can be described as “one who creates a new business in the face of risk and uncertainty for the purpose of achieving profit and growth by identifying significant opportunities and assembling the necessary resources to capitalize on them” (Zimmerer & Scarborough, 2008, p. 5).

An entrepreneur is “one who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise” (Entrepreneur, n.d.).

Examples of Definitions of Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship can be defined as a field of business that

seeks to understand how opportunities to create something new (e.g., new products or services, new markets, new production processes or raw materials, new ways of organizing existing technologies) arise and are discovered or created by specific persons, who then use various means to exploit or develop them, thus producing a wide range of effects (Baron, Shane, & Reuber, 2008, p. 4)

A concise definition of entrepreneurship “is that it is the process of pursuing opportunities without limitation by resources currently in hand” (Brooks, 2009, p. 3) and “the process of doing something new and something different for the purpose of creating wealth for the individual and adding value to society” (Kao, 1993, p. 70)

The Evolution of Entrepreneurship Thought

This section includes an overview of how entrepreneurship has evolved to the present day.

The following timeline shows some of the most influential entrepreneurship scholars and the schools of thought (French, English, American, German, and Austrian) their perspectives helped influence and from which their ideas evolved. Schools of thought are essentially groups of people who might or might not have personally known each other, but who shared common beliefs or philosophies.

Figure 1 – Historical and Evolutionary Entrepreneurship Thought (Illustration by Lee A. Swanson)

The Earliest Entrepreneurship

The function, if not the name, of the entrepreneur is probably as old as the institutions of barter and exchange. But only after economic markets became an intrusive element of society did the concept take on pivotal importance. Many economists have recognized the pivotal role of the entrepreneur in a market economy. Yet despite his central importance in economic activity, the entrepreneur has been a shadowy and elusive figure in the history of economic theory (Hebert & Link, 2009, p. 1).

Historically those who acted similarly to the ways we associate with modern day entrepreneurs – namely those who strategically assume risks to seek economic (or other) gains – were military leaders, royalty, or merchants. Military leaders planned their campaigns and battles while assuming significant risks, but by doing so they also stood to gain economic benefits if their strategies were successful. Merchants, like Marco Polo who sailed out of Venice in the late 1200s to search for a trade route to the Orient, also assumed substantial risks in the hope of becoming wealthy (Hebert & Link, 2009).

The entrepreneur, who was also called adventurer , projector , and undertaker during the eighteenth century, was not always viewed in a positive light (Hebert & Link, 2009).

Development of Entrepreneurship as a Concept

Risk and uncertainty.

Richard Cantillon (1680-1734) was born in France and belonged to the French School of thought although he was an Irish economist. He appears to be the person who introduced the term entrepreneur to the world. “According to Cantillon, the entrepreneur is a specialist in taking on risk, ‘insuring’ workers by buying their output for resale before consumers have indicated how much they are willing to pay for it” (Casson & Godley, 2005p. 26). The workers’ incomes are mostly stable, but the entrepreneur risks a loss if market prices fluctuate.

Cantillon distinguished entrepreneurs from two other classes of economic agents; landowners, who were financially independent, and hirelings (employees) who did not partake in the decision-making in exchange for relatively stable incomes through employment contracts. He was the first writer to provide a relatively refined meaning for the term entrepreneurship . Cantillon described entrepreneurs as individuals who generated profits through exchanges. In the face of uncertainty, particularly over future prices, they exercise business judgment. They purchase resources at one price and sell their product at a price that is uncertain, with the difference representing their profit (Chell, 2008; Hebert & Link, 2009).

Farmers were the most prominent entrepreneurs during Cantillon’s lifetime, and they interacted with “arbitrageurs” – or middlemen between farmers and the end consumers – who also faced uncertain incomes, and who were also, therefore, entrepreneurs. These intermediaries facilitated the movement of products from the farms to the cities where more than half of the farm output was consumed. Cantillon observed that consumers were willing to pay a higher price per unit to be able to purchase products in the smaller quantities they wanted, which created the opportunities for the intermediaries to make profits. Profits were the rewards for assuming the risks arising from uncertain conditions. The markets in which profits were earned were characterized by incomplete information (Chell, 2008; Hebert & Link, 2009).

Adolph Reidel (1809-1872), form the German School of thought, picked up on Cantillon’s notion of uncertainty and extended it to theorize that entrepreneurs take on uncertainty so others, namely income earners, do not have to be subject to the same uncertainty. Entrepreneurs provide a service to risk-averse income earners by assuming risk on their behalf. In exchange, entrepreneurs are rewarded when they can foresee the impacts of the uncertainty and sell their products at a price that exceeds their input costs (including the fixed costs of the wages they commit to paying) (Hebert & Link, 2009).

Frank Knight (1885-1972) founded the Chicago School of Economics and belonged to the American School of thought. He refined Cantillon’s perspective on entrepreneurs and risk by distinguishing insurable risk as something that is separate from uncertainty, which is not insurable. Some risks can be insurable because they have occurred enough times in the past that the expected loss from such risks can be calculated. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is not subject to probability calculations. According to Knight, entrepreneurs can’t share the risk of loss by insuring themselves against uncertain events, so they bear these kinds of risks themselves, and profit is the reward that entrepreneurs get from assuming uninsurable risks (Casson & Godley, 2005).

Distinction Between Entrepreneur and Manager

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832), also from the French School, advanced Cantillon’s work, but added that entrepreneurship was essentially a form of management. Say “put the entrepreneur at the core of the entire process of production and distribution” (Hebert & Link, 2009, p. 17). Say’s work resulted in something similar to a general theory of entrepreneurship with three distinct functions; “scientific knowledge of the product; entrepreneurial industry – the application of knowledge to useful purpose; and productive industry – the manufacture of the item by manual labour” (Chell, 2008, p. 20).

Frank Knight made several contributions to entrepreneurship theory, but another of note is how he distinguished an entrepreneur from a manager. He suggested that a manager crosses the line to become an entrepreneur “when the exercise of his/her judgment is liable to error and s/he assumes the responsibility for its correctness” (Chell, 2008, p. 33). Knight said that entrepreneurs calculate the risks associated with uncertain business situations and make informed judgments and decisions with the expectation that – if they assessed the situation and made the correct decisions – they would be rewarded by earning a profit. Those who elect to avoid taking these risks choose the relative security of being employees (Chell, 2008).

Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), from the English School of thought, was one of the founders of neoclassical economics. His research involved distinguishing between the terms capitalist, entrepreneur, and manager. Marshall saw capitalists as individuals who “committed themselves to the capacity and honesty of others, when he by himself had incurred the risks for having contributed with the capital” (Zaratiegui & Rabade, 2005, p. 775). An entrepreneur took control of money provided by capitalists in an effort to leverage it to create more money; but would lose less if something went wrong then would the capitalists. An entrepreneur, however, risked his own reputation and the other gains he could have made by pursuing a different opportunity.

Let us suppose that two men are carrying on smaller businesses, the one working with his own, the other chiefly with borrowed capital. There is one set of risks which is common to both; which may be described as the trade risks of the particular business … But there is another set of risks, the burden of which has to be borne by the man working with borrowed capital, and not by the other; and we may call them personal risks (Marshall, 1961, p. 590; Zaratiegui & Rabade, 2005, p. 776).

Marshall recognized that the reward capitalists received for contributing capital was interest income and the reward entrepreneurs earned was profits. Managers received a salary and, according to Marshall, fulfilled a different function than either capitalists or entrepreneurs – although in some cases, particularly in smaller firms, one person might be both an entrepreneur and a manager. Managers “were more inclined to avoid challenges, innovations and what Schumpeter called the ‘perennial torment of creative destruction’ in favour of a more tranquil life” (Zaratiegui & Rabade, 2005, p. 781). The main risks they faced from firm failure were to their reputations or to their employment status. Managers had little incentive to strive to maximize profits (Zaratiegui & Rabade, 2005).

Amasa Walker (1799-1875) and his son Francis Walker (1840-1897) were from the American School of thought, and they helped shape an American perspective of entrepreneurship following the Civil War of 1861-1865. These scholars claimed that entrepreneurs created wealth, and thus played a different role than capitalists. They believed that entrepreneurs had the power of foresight and leadership qualities that enabled them to organize resources and inject energy into activities that create wealth (Chell, 2008).

Entrepreneurship versus Entrepreneur

Adam Smith (1723-1790), from the English School of thought, published An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776. In a departure from the previous thought into entrepreneurship and economics, Smith did not dwell on a particular class of individual. He was concerned with studying how all people fit into the economic system. Smith contended that the economy was driven by self-interest in the marketplace (Chell, 2008).

Also from the English School, David Ricardo (1772-1823) was influenced by Smith, Say, and others. His work focused on how the capitalist system worked. He explained how manufacturers must invest their capital in response to the demand for the products they produce. If demand decreases, manufacturers should borrow less and reduce their workforces. When demand is high, they should do the reverse (Chell, 2008).

Carl Menger (1840-1921), from the Austrian School of thought, ranked goods according to their causal connections to human satisfaction. Lower order goods include items like bread that directly satisfy a human want or need like hunger. Higher order goods are those more removed from satisfying a human need. A second order good is the flour that was used to make the bread. The grain used to make the flour is an even higher order good. Entrepreneurs coordinate these factors of production to turn higher order goods into lower order goods that more directly satisfy human wants and needs (Hebert & Link, 2009).

Menger (1950 [1871], p. 160) established that entrepreneurial activity includes: (a) obtaining information about the economic situation, (b) economic calculation – all the various computations that must be made if a production process is to be efficient, (c) the act of will by which goods of higher order are assigned to a particular production process, and (d) supervising the execution of the production plan so that it may be carried through as economically as possible (Hebert & Link, 2009, p. 43).

Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), from the English School of thought, considered entrepreneurs to be innovators. They “depart from routine, discover new markets, find new sources of supply, improve existing products and lower the costs of production” (Chell, 2008).

Joseph Schumpeter’s (1883-1950) parents were Austrian, he studied at the University of Vienna, conducted research at the University of Graz, served as Austria’s Minister of Finance, and was the president of a bank in the country. Because of the rise of Hitler in Europe, he went to the United States and conducted research at Harvard until he retired in 1949. Because of this, he is sometimes associated with the American School of thought on entrepreneurship (Chell, 2008).

Whereas Menger saw entrepreneurship as occurring because of economic progress, Schumpeter took the opposite stance. Schumpeter saw economic activity as leading to economic development (Hebert & Link, 2009). Entrepreneurs play a central role in Schumpeter’s theory of economic development, and economic development can occur when the factors of production are assembled in new combinations .

Schumpeter (1934) viewed innovation as arising from new combinations of materials and forces. He provided the following five cases of new combinations.

• The introduction of a new good – that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar – or of a new quality of good.
• The introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially.
• The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before.
• The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created.
• The carrying out of the new organisation of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position … or the breaking up of a monopoly position (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 66).

Another concept popularized by Schumpeter – in addition to the notion of new combinations – was creative destruction . This was meant to indicate that the existing ways of doing things need to be dismantled – to be destroyed – to enable a transformation through innovation to a new way of doing things. Entrepreneurs use innovation to disrupt how things are done and to establish a better way of doing those things.

Basic Questions in Entrepreneurship Research

According to Baron (2004a), there are three basic questions of interest in the field of entrepreneurship:

• Why do some persons but not others choose to become entrepreneurs?
• Why do some persons but not others recognize opportunities for new products or services that can be profitably exploited?
• Why are some entrepreneurs so much more successful than others (Baron, 2004a, p. 221)?

To understand where these foundational research questions came from and what their relevance is today, it is useful to study what entrepreneurship research has uncovered so far.

Entrepreneurial Uniqueness

Efforts to teach entrepreneurship have included descriptions of entrepreneurial uniqueness based on personality, behavioural, and cognitive traits (Chell, 2008; Duening, 2010).

• Need for achievement
• Internal locus of control (a belief by an individual that they are in control of their own destiny)
• Risk-taking propensity
• Behavioural traits
• Cognitive skills of successful entrepreneurs

Past studies of personality characteristics and behavioural traits have not been overly successful at identifying entrepreneurial uniqueness.

As it turned out, years of painstaking research along this line has not borne significant fruit. It appears that there are simply not any personality characteristics that are either essential to, or defining of, entrepreneurs that differ systematically from non-entrepreneurs…. Again, investigators proposed a number of behavioural candidates as emblematic of entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, this line of research also resulted in a series of dead ends as examples of successful entrepreneurial behaviours had equal counterparts among samples of non-entrepreneurs. As with the personality characteristic school of thought before it, the behavioural trait school of thought became increasingly difficult to support (Duening, 2010, p. 4-5).

This shed doubt on the value of trying to change personality characteristics or implant new entrepreneurial behaviours through educational programs in an effort to promote entrepreneurship.

New research, however, has resurrected the idea that there might be some value in revisiting personality traits as a topic of study. Additionally, Duening (2010) and has suggested that an important approach to teaching and learning about entrepreneurship is to focus on the “cognitive skills that successful entrepreneurs seem uniquely to possess and deploy” (p. 2). In the next sections we consider the new research on entrepreneurial personality traits and on entrepreneurial cognitions.

Entrepreneurial Personality Traits

While acknowledging that research had yet to validate the value of considering personality and behaviour traits as ways to distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs or unsuccessful ones, Chell (2008) suggested that researchers turn their attention to new sets of traits including: “the proactive personality, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perseverance and intuitive decision-making style. Other traits that require further work include social competence and the need for independence” (p. 140).

In more recent years scholars have considered how the Big Five personality traits – extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (sometimes presented as emotional stability ), and openness to experience (sometimes referred to as intellect) – might be used to better understand entrepreneurs. It appears that the Big Five traits might be of some use in predicting entrepreneurial success. Research is ongoing in this area, but in one example, Caliendo, Fossen, and Kritikos (2014) studied whether personality constructs might “influence entrepreneurial decisions at different points in time” (p. 807), and found that “high values in three factors of the Big Five approach—openness to experience, extraversion, and emotional stability (the latter only when we do not control for further personality characteristics)—increase the probability of entry into self-employment” (p. 807). They also found “that some specific personality characteristics, namely risk tolerance, locus of control, and trust, have strong partial effects on the entry decision” (p. 807). They also found that people who scored higher on agreeableness were more likely to exit their businesses, possibly meaning that people with lower agreeableness scores might prevail longer as entrepreneurs. When it came to specific personality traits, their conclusions indicated that those with an external locus of control were more likely to stop being self-employed after they had run their businesses for a while. There are several implications for research like this, including the potential to better understand why some entrepreneurs behave as they do based upon their personality types and the chance to improve entrepreneurship education and support services.

Entrepreneurial Cognitions

It is only fairly recently that entrepreneurship scholars have focused on cognitive skills as a primary factor that differentiates successful entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs and less successful entrepreneurs. This approach deals with how entrepreneurs think differently than non-entrepreneurs (Duening, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2007).

Entrepreneurial cognitions are the knowledge structures that people use to make assessments, judgments or decisions involving opportunity evaluation and venture creation and growth. In other words, research in entrepreneurial cognition is about understanding how entrepreneurs use simplifying mental models to piece together previously unconnected information that helps them to identify and invent new products or services, and to assemble the necessary resources to start and grow businesses (Mitchell, Busenitz, et al., 2002, p. 97).

Mitchell, Smith, et al. (2002) provided the example of how the decision to create a new venture (dependent variable) was influenced by three sets of cognitions (independent variables). They described these cognitions as follows:

Arrangements cognitions are the mental maps about the contacts, relationships, resources, and assets necessary to engage in entrepreneurial activity; willingness cognitions are the mental maps that support commitment to venturing and receptivity to the idea of starting a venture; ability cognitions consist of the knowledge structures or scripts (Glaser, 1984) that individuals have to support the capabilities, skills, norms, and attitudes required to create a venture (Mitchell et al., 2000). These variables draw on the idea that cognitions are structured in the minds of individuals (Read, 1987), and that these knowledge structures act as “scripts” that are the antecedents of decision making (Leddo & Abelson, 1986, p. 121; Mitchell, Smith, et al., 2002, p. 10)

Cognitive Perspective to Understanding Entrepreneurship

According to Baron (2004a), by taking a cognitive perspective, we might better understand entrepreneurs and the role they play in the entrepreneurial process.

The cognitive perspective emphasizes the fact that everything we think, say, or do is influenced by mental processes—the cognitive mechanisms through which we acquire store, transform, and use information. It is suggested here that this perspective can be highly useful to the field of entrepreneurship. Specifically, it can assist the field in answering three basic questions it has long addressed: (1) Why do some persons but not others choose to become entrepreneurs? (2) Why do some persons but not others recognize opportunities for new products or services that can be profitably exploited? And (3) Why are some entrepreneurs so much more successful than others (Baron, 2004a, p. 221-222)?

Baron (2004a), illustrated how cognitive differences between people might explain why some people end up pursuing entrepreneurial pursuits and others do not. For example, prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1977) and other decision-making or behavioural theories might be useful in this regard. Research into cognitive biases might also help explain why some people become entrepreneurs.

Baron (2004a) also revealed ways in which cognitive concepts like signal detection theory, regulation theory, and entrepreneurial might help explain why some people are better at entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. He also illustrated how some cognitive models and theories – like risk perception, counterfactual thinking, processing style, and susceptibility to cognitive errors – might help explain why some entrepreneurs are more successful than others.

Cognitive Perspective and the Three Questions

• Prospect Theory
• Cognitive Biases
• Signal Detection Theory
• Regulation Theory
• Entrepreneurial Alertness
• Risk Perception
• Counterfactual Thinking
• Processing Style
• Susceptibility to Cognitive Errors

Entrepreneurial Scripts

• “Cognition has emerged as an important theoretical perspective for understanding and explaining human behavior and action” (Dutta & Thornhill, 2008, p. 309).
• Cognitions are all processes by which sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used (Neisser, 1976).
• Cognitions lead to the acquisition of knowledge, and involve human information processing.
• Is a mental model, or information processing short-cut that can give information form and meaning, and enable subsequent interpretation and action.
• The subsequent interpretation and actions can result in expert performance … they can also result in thinking errors.
• the processes that transfer expertise, and
• the actual expertise itself.
• Scripts are generally framed as a linear sequence of steps, usually with feedback loops, that can explain how to achieve a particular task – perhaps like developing a business plan.
• Sometimes scripts can be embedded within other scripts. For example, within a general venturing script that outlines the sequences of activities that can lead to a successful business launch, there will probably be sub-scripts describing how entrepreneurs can search for ideas, screen those ideas until one is selected, plan how to launch a sustainable business based upon that idea and including securing the needed financial resources, setting up the business, starting it, effectively managing its ongoing operations, and managing the venture such that that entrepreneur can extract the value that they desire from the enterprise at the times and in the ways they want it.
• The most effective scripts include an indication of the norms that outline performance standards and indicate how to determine when any step in the sequence has been properly completed.

General Venturing Script

Generally, entrepreneurship is considered to consist of the following elements, or subscripts (Brooks, 2009; Mitchell, 2000).

• Idea Screening
• Planning and Financing
• Ongoing Operations

Searching (also called idea formulation or opportunity recognition)

• This script begins when a person decides they might be a potential entrepreneur (or when an existing entrepreneur decides they need more ideas in their idea pool ).
• This script ends when there are a sufficient number of ideas in the idea pool.
• overcome mental blockages to creativity which might hinder this person’s ability to identify viable ideas;
• implement steps to identify a sufficient number of ideas (most likely 5 or more) which the person is interested in investigating to determine whether they might be viable given general criteria such as this person’s personal interests and capabilities;

Idea Screening (also called concept development)

• This script begins when the person with the idea pool is no longer focusing on adding new ideas to it; but is instead taking steps to choose the best idea for them given a full range of specific criteria .
• This script ends when one idea is chosen from among those in the idea pool.
• Evaluate the political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal climates
• Evaluate the degree of competitiveness in the industry, the threat of substitutes emerging, the threat of new entrants to the industry, the degree of bargaining power of buyers, and the degree of bargaining power of suppliers.
• Do a market profile analysis to assess the attractiveness of the position within the industry that the potential venture will occupy.
• Formulate and evaluate potential strategies to leverage organizational strengths, overcome/minimize weaknesses, take advantage of opportunities, and overcome/minimize threats;
• Complete financial projections and analyze them to evaluate financial attractiveness;
• Assess the founder fit with the ideas;
• Evaluate the core competencies of the organization relative to the idea;
• Assess advice solicited from trusted advisers

Planning and Financing (also called resource determination and acquisition)

• This script begins when the idea screening script ends and when the person begins making the plans to implement the single idea chosen from the idea pool, which is done in concert with securing financing to implement the venture idea.
• This script ends when sufficient business planning has been done and when adequate financing has been arranged.
• The scripting process involves a logical flow of steps to develop a business plan and secure adequate financing to start the business.

Set-Up (also called launch)

• This script begins when the planning and financing script ends and when the person begins implementing the plans needed to start the business.
• This script ends when the business is ready to start-up.
• The scripting process involves a logical flow of steps, including purchasing and installing equipment, securing the venture location and finishing all the needed renovations, recruiting and hiring any staff needed for start-up, and the many other steps needed to prepare for start-up.
• Start-Up (also called launch)
• This script begins when the set-up script ends and when the business opens and begins making sales.
• This script ends when the business has moved beyond the point where the entrepreneur must continually fight for the business’s survival and persistence. It ends when the entrepreneur can instead shift emphasis toward business growth or maintaining the venture’s stability.
• The scripting process involves a logical flow of steps needed to establish a new venture.

Ongoing Operations (also called venture growth)

• This script begins when the start-up script ends and when the business has established persistence and is implementing growth (or maintenance) strategies.
• This script ends when the entrepreneur chooses to harvest the value they generated with the venture.
• The scripting process involves a logical flow of steps needed to grow (or maintain) a venture.

Studying Entrepreneurship

The following quotations from two preeminent entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education researchers indicate the growing interest in studies in this field.

Entrepreneurship has emerged over the last two decades as arguably the most potent economic force the world has ever experienced. With that expansion has come a similar increase in the field of entrepreneurship education. The recent growth and development in the curricula and programs devoted to entrepreneurship and new-venture creation have been remarkable. The number of colleges and universities that offer courses related to entrepreneurship has grown from a handful in the 1970s to over 1,600 in 2005 (Kuratko, 2005, p. 577).

Interest in entrepreneurship has heightened in recent years, especially in business schools. Much of this interest is driven by student demand for courses in entrepreneurship, either because of genuine interest in the subject, or because students see entrepreneurship education as a useful hedge given uncertain corporate careers (Venkataraman, 1997, p. 119).

Approaches to Studying Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a discipline, which means an individual can learn about it, and about how to be an effective entrepreneur. It is a myth that people are born entrepreneurs and that others cannot learn to become entrepreneurs (Drucker, 1985). Kuratko (2005) asserted that the belief previously held by some that entrepreneurship cannot be taught has been debunked, and the focus has shifted to what topics should be taught and how they should be covered.

Solomon (2007) summarized some of the research on what should be covered in entrepreneurship courses, and how it should be taught. While the initial focus was on actions like developing business plans and being exposed to real entrepreneurs, more recently this approach has been supplemented by an emphasis on technical, industry, and personal experience. “It requires critical thinking and ethical assessment and is based on the premise that successful entrepreneurial activities are a function of human, venture and environmental conditions” (p. 172). Another approach “calls for courses to be structured around a series of strategic development challenges including opportunity identification and feasibility analysis; new venture planning, financing and operating; new market development and expansion strategies; and institutionalizing innovation” (p. 172). This involves having students interact with entrepreneurs by interviewing them, having them act as mentors, and learning about their experiences and approaches through class discussions.

Sources of Information for Studying Entrepreneurship

According to Kuratko (2005), “three major sources of information supply the data related to the entrepreneurial process or perspective” (p. 579).

• Academic journals like Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Journal of Business Venturing , and Journal of Small Business Management
• Proceedings of conferences like Proceedings of the Academy of Management and Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada
• Textbooks on entrepreneurship
• Books about entrepreneurship
• Biographies or autobiographies of entrepreneurs
• News periodicals like Canadian Business and Profit
• Trade periodicals like Entrepreneur and Family Business
• Government publications available through sources like the Enterprise Saskatchewan and Canada-Saskatchewan Business Service Centre (CSBSC) websites and through various government resource centers
• Data might be collected from entrepreneurs and about entrepreneurs through surveys, interviews, or other methods applied by researchers.
• Speeches and presentations by practicing entrepreneurs