The Palgrave Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship by Romeo V. Turcan & Norman M. Fraser

Author:Romeo V. Turcan & Norman M. Fraser
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783319916118
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

The Individual and Other Carriers of Entrepreneurial Processes

A long research tradition on the personality traits and other characteristics of the individual entrepreneur has, complementarily to recent interest in the composition and behavior of teams, been a part of the explanation of why there is still a strong focus upon the individual in entrepreneurship research. As a response, entrepreneurship researchers have, rhetorically, posed questions such as in the article by Bill Gartner, ‘Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question’ (Gartner 1988), as well as questioning why entrepreneurship is not an evolutionary science (Aldrich and Fiol 1994). Also in this discussion is whether the majority of entrepreneurship processes are initiated in a ‘garage start-up’ manner, but this is clearly the special case rather than the rule. The entrepreneurial process is interactive, continuously incorporating signals from customers in the market and taking in resources from stakeholders (Sarasvathy 2008); thereby, it is taking multiple forms, for example, spin-outs, corporate entrepreneurship, and so on. Even going back to the legacy of Schumpeter, the Schumpeter Mark I entrepreneur is often portrayed as an individual who takes independent action; however, there is also the Mark II entrepreneur who works in teams and R&D labs in large firms. The Mark II entrepreneur illustrates the strong interactive character of entrepreneurial processes and dependency on resources and system features.

It could be argued that entrepreneurship studies are intellectually embedded in Schumpeter Mark I, focusing on the individual entrepreneur; meanwhile, innovation studies are more inclined to subscribe to the Mark II model, focusing on firms and R&D institutions. However, both branches of research, and both types of processes (entrepreneurship and innovation), have developed immensely since the formulation of Schumpeter’s thoughts. As indicated earlier, the complexities of these processes, and the ways in which actors are involved in them, have changed substantially. Not only do individuals and firms pursue innovation and entrepreneurship, but often multiple actors are involved, including both public and private actors, and often in a partnership. Therefore, where regulation and policy have previously been regarded as obstacles for entrepreneurship, today they are seen rather as carriers of entrepreneurial processes.

Hence, in the debate on ‘the entrepreneurial state’, two major points are made in order to discuss the role of government in entrepreneurship (Mazzucato 2013). First addressed is the argument that, even when the building of large, successful businesses seems to be the result of individual entrepreneurial action, closer scrutiny of the funding and origin of underlying technologies often shows that governments, not private businesses, provided the development of the core technologies used in commercial businesses.5 Mazzucato mentions examples such as the funding of Arpanet, prior to the internet, and the core technologies used by Apple Computer (2013). In her second point, Mazzucato argues that entrepreneurial action can be pursued by actors other than private individuals. The concept of the entrepreneurial state relates not only to the fact that the state can fund the development of core technologies but also that the state has the opportunity to provide directions for technological development.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.