Search results

Textbook knowledge about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship is always very sterile because discussion treats enterprises and their actors in an “all are alike” approach as if there is a unique and average size and type. Entrepreneurship takes place in multiple sites and spaces and researchers must specify and contextualize rather than decontextualizing their cases. The chapter argues that the vast majority of entrepreneurs falls into the category of micro-entrepreneurs where economic activities are run without further employees paid by wage or salary. In the average of the European Union, more than 70 out of 100 entrepreneurs belong to this group of small business(wo)men. However, even this category is wide and covers many forms of activities under different labels, such as small farmers, freelancers, solo self-employed, independent professionals and others. In this context, also the development of new media and technologies as well as digitalization influence those economic activities of the actors due to their significant impact on processes and possibilities. Social media influences those one-(wo)men-firm owners privately and commercially but social media are – vice versa – also an object of influence since businesspeople use platforms to orchestrate themselves on the internet. Online platforms serve as tools to advertise where people create their own identity and typical brand. This chapter asks for the links between craftsmen, artisans and micro-entrepreneurs and their use and handling of social media by presenting first empirical results of an investigation which has been undertaken in Austria.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

This article delves into the contributions of Milton Santos (1926–2001) to the economic study of entrepreneurship. Santos made contributions to spatial economics, urbanization, and planning theories, being an important author to the field of regional and urban economics. His most famous idea is the “two circuits” of the urban economy. According to this approach, the urban economies in peripheral countries create two economic-urban circuits that are both distinct and connected. The superior circuit comes from the technological modernization and cultivates international relationships. High-value goods and networks and new technologies circulate through it. The inferior circuit works outside these networks. It consists of low-dimension activities from local populations. Santos elaborated this theory to understand urbanization in peripheral countries and to give voice to the ones left behind by the development process. He did not write directly on entrepreneurship. We argue, however, that his thoughts can be important to entrepreneurship studies. The entrepreneurship discourse, that had in Schumpeter one of its main sources, assumes that the entrepreneur has traits related to the superior circuit, such as access to resources and networks, which would not be available to entrepreneurs in the inferior circuit. We argue that Santos’ contributions can inform economic thought in entrepreneurship by calling attention to how literature can approach structural problems and contribute to making economics a more diverse discipline.