Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify human capital factors that pertain both to setting up and successfully running a business. To achieve this objective, the authors apply and extend the theory of career choice offered by Lazear (2005) that explains individual selection into entrepreneurship.

The authors hypothesise that individuals with broader educational and professional backgrounds are more likely to start a business and are more likely to run a business in the long term. The authors tested the hypotheses using unique data from 800 current entrepreneurs, 800 employees who were previously entrepreneurs and 842 employees with no entrepreneurial experience, by means of a logit regression with robust standard errors and extensive robustness checks.

The authors empirically show that individuals with more diverse educational and professional backgrounds tend to have both greater chances of starting a company, as well as a higher probability of entrepreneurial success. Surprisingly, having managerial experience proved to exert a negative influence on the likelihood of starting a business while having an insignificant impact on the odds of entrepreneurial success.

The findings are informative for those planning or pursuing an entrepreneurial career, but they are also relevant for the purpose of entrepreneurship education.

The author's extend the body of research supporting Lazear's (2005) theory by showing that broad education and professional experience not only contribute to a higher propensity to start a company but they are also success factors in business per se.

In the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.

The close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.