Search results

Money in general, and cash in particular, is not a fixed and independent entity. Cash has always changed its nature to reflect the requirements for its use. As society has shifted from the predominantly agricultural ‘first wave’ through a predominantly industrial ‘second wave’ to the information‐based ‘third wave’, so cash has mutated to meet the needs of society. The relationship between the needs of commerce and the nature of cash is, however, one of feedback and reinforcement: the development of paper money, for example, not only supported but drove the development of banking systems to facilitate widespread commerce. Developments in IT mean that the ability to maintain property rights and exchange cash in ‘cyberspace’ is now feasible. Thus, as the infobahn causes shifts in demand for commerce and banking services, these shifts will feed back and accelerate changes in the nature of commerce. The widespread implementation of electronic property rights and electronic cash (e‐cash) — the former linked to personal and corporate identities, the latter anonymous — will therefore catalyse change in banking and commerce. This article draws on some of Hyperion's recent experience in helping to develop the Mondex e‐cash scheme (and other projects, ranging from the re‐engineering of financial institutions to procuring advanced communications networks for developing countries) and attempts to extrapolate and speculate to help businesses plan for the future

A great deal of policy thinking in the last ten to 15 years has been driven by the insights gained from the so‐called “new growth theory”. The theory emphasizes that investments in knowledge and human capital generate economic growth through spillover of knowledge, and the policy implication is that investments in knowledge and human capital are the best way to stimulate growth. However, there is a couple of missing links in the “spillover argument” in that the theory seems to disregard the role of the entrepreneur. The paper aims to answer the question: Why haven't entrepreneurship researchers become a strong voice regarding the understanding of the development of the knowledge economy?

The author argues that a dynamic and innovative research field is characterized by a balance between the pursuit of new issues and knowledge in research, for example, by being sensitive for changes in society, and the development of existing knowledge, by integrating and validating the knowledge base already existing within the field.

The paper shows that one important reason for the lack of visibility of entrepreneurship research can be found in an internal scientific development of the research field – entrepreneurship research has become more and more theory‐driven and shows less sensitivity and openness for changes in society.

The article gives a critical reflection on the development of entrepreneurship as a research field. In this sense the article provides an increased understanding of the knowledge that is within the field, and gives also suggestions for the future development of the research field.

Discusses the limitations of cash as a means of exchange and looks to the digital networks of the future to exploit the new technologies of e‐cash. Highlights the convenience and increasingly widespread use of digital money in business‐to‐consumer and business‐to‐business transactions. The emzergence of common standards and pilot projects on a variety of Internet‐based payment mechanisms by companies such as IBM, Digital, Barclays and Unisource is considered. Looks at the social issues surrounding digital money and the impact of lowering the entry costs in the money business. Options for domain regulation of fiat and private currencies are discussed, concluding that the central issue rests on whether government or the market controls the issuing of e‐cash.

With the rapid emergence of scholarly thinking and analysis about entrepreneurship has come a multiplicity of approaches, emanating from different academic traditions. This has resulted in an academic field that is complex and heterogeneous with respect to approaches, methodologies and even the understanding about what exactly constitutes entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to try to reconcile the different approaches and views about entrepreneurship that are prevalent in the literature.

The paper takes the form of a literature review.

The paper finds that while such heterogeneity can be the source of a nuanced and at times contractor research field, it is also the source of richness and diversity that has contributed to making the emerging field so dynamic.

The field of entrepreneurship should remain committed to a diversity of approaches, understandings and methodologies about what constitutes entrepreneurial activity.

The value of the paper is that it presents a coherent framework that reconciles disparate approaches and understandings about what actually constitutes entrepreneurship.

After slicing and dicing their way to the '90s, American corporations are finding that job‐cutting is really a double‐edged sword.

‘Imagine the situation where an electronic purse is built into your PC. At the instant you access an information resource you see in the corner of your screen “$0.75 fee: accept or reject?”: you hit the enter key and the 75 cents is instantly whisked from your electronic purse to the information producer's purse. In this scheme there are no publishers, no clearing houses, no settlements and no overheads.’