Search results

This chapter introduces the two main topics of ‘entrepreneurial policing’ and ‘criminal entrepreneurship’ and begins in Section 1.1 by considering the concept and scope of entrepreneurial policing around which this monograph is organised. Its definition and ontological development are considered. Thereafter, the author briefly discuss what entrepreneurship is (and is not) and set out examples of entrepreneurship of interest to policing, including – ‘Corporate’ and ‘Team’ Entrepreneurship, ‘Intrapreneurship’, ‘Social Entrepreneurship and Animateurship’, ‘Civic Entrepreneurship’, and ‘Public Service Entrepreneurship’. The author then discusses why entrepreneurship is of critical importance to the police service and discuss worked examples. Having developed a basic understanding of the power and utility of entrepreneurship, then in more detail what the term entrepreneurial policing means and how it evolved in practice and in the academic literature are considered. In Section 1.2, the foundations of entrepreneurial policing considering its ontological and epistemological development from ‘New Public Management’ to ‘New Entrepreneurialism’ and also the influence of the merging literatures of ‘Criminal Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Entrepreneurial Leadership’ are critically examined. In Section 1.3, our consideration to include a more nuanced understanding of the what is referred to as the ‘Entrepreneurship–Policing Nexus’ including consideration of the influence of dyslexia on policing and crime and the power of the ‘Entrepreneurial’ and ‘Gangster’ dreams on entrepreneurial motivation and propensity are expanded. In Section 1.4, an attempt is made to identify who the stakeholders of this new policing philosophy are? Finally, in Section 1.5, the chapter takeaway points which both articulates and confirms the inherent importance of entrepreneurship in policing and criminal contexts are discussed and detailed.

In the past decade, the concept and theory of “Entrepreneurial Policing” has emerged in academic and policing circles, particularly in a UK context. The purpose of this paper is to collect salient articles from extant but diverse literatures such as policing and criminology to synthesise a literature on it, focussing upon conceptual, theoretical and practical elements.

The approach is based on synthesising a literature using an in-depth review methodology and on analysing it to develop new insights into theoretical elements.

The findings are that the literature base is diverse and comes from a variety of policing, criminology, entrepreneurship, management, leadership and policy journals. There is a protean literature but at present little conceptual or theoretical clarity.

There is a need for further empirical research in the form of qualitative face-to-face interviews to be conducted to develop typologies, taxonomies and topographies of entrepreneurial policing (EP). Developing illustrative case studies and teaching cases will educate new generations of police officers into the power and potential of EP as a change agent. This necessitates a change of policing structures, philosophies, processes and practices. From such theoretical groundwork, it is possible at a universal theory of what constitutes EP can be developed and tested. There is a need for commissioned research into the potentially revolutionary phenomenon; a text book and for training courses and seminars on the topic.

There are a number of practical implications for policing and policy practitioners and for its application in the future. From a policing perspective, an increased awareness of EP and criminal entrepreneurship can have positive outcomes in terms of new policing structures, philosophies, methodologies, practices and processes. From a criminal perspective, it heralds a better understanding of entrepreneurial crime, entrepreneurial criminals and organised crime groups. This could result in entrepreneurship educational programmes for police officers, senior officers and other law enforcement personnel and entrepreneurship awareness training for prisoners and ex-offenders and new avenues for utilising entrepreneurship as a diversion out of crime.

There are also a number of social implications including the need for policy makers and politicians to be aware of the policing–entrepreneurship nexus and to award financial grants to encourage enterprising behaviour across the criminal justice system; encourage entrepreneurs to give back to their local communities; and increase the number of social enterprises in under-privileged communities.

This review is the first of its kind to deal specifically with EP and its evolution.

We explore the acceptance of new contingent work relationships in the United States to reveal an emergent entrepreneurial ideology. Our argument is that these new work relationships represent a new social order not situated in the conglomerates and labor unions of the past, but on a confluence of neo-liberalism and individual action situated in the discourse of entrepreneurialism, employability, and free agency. This new employment relationship, which arose during the economic and social disruptions in the 1970s, defines who belongs inside an organization (and can take part in its benefits) and who must properly remain outside to fend for themselves. More generally, the fusing of entrepreneurship with neo-liberalism has altered not only how we work and where we work but also what we believe is appropriate work and what rewards should accompany it.

This paper aims to study the role of the focal firm in local communities. In particular, it aims at analyzing such firms’ contribution to innovation, proposing a classification of the interactions and role systems that contribute to determining the innovational impact of focal firms.

This paper presents a concept-based study. The paper starts with a review of the literature to frame the concepts of local network and focal firm. Two key concepts, related to that of interaction, are then discussed: teaching and learning.

The paper proposes a taxonomy of the interactions and the roles systems that the focal firm can establish. The status of focal actor for innovation in a network stems, not from an “a priori” central strategic role on which the actor builds its interactions, but “a posteriori”, from the actor’s previously recognized roles in interactions on which network innovation is based. The local system may or may not be present in the interaction set of the business network. The interactions and roles systems define the type of local system.

Research implications regard three main aspects: the different roles in the interactions; the types of actors in the local system; and the types of local systems involved in the processes of innovation.

The paper furnishes an original interpretation by focusing on focal firms as leaders in the innovation process, in the attempt to reconcile the “macro” perspective of local systems with the “micro” perspective of the individual firm.

This paper contributes to a growing literature that examines entrepreneurship with a critical perspective, arguing for a research agenda that makes entrepreneurialism as discourse visible. We define the discourse of entrepreneurialism as a style of thinking and economic intervention that invites actors to pursue their interests by drawing on a limited notion of agency that locates itself in an imaginary economic universe independent of institutions, broad social contexts, and identity considerations. Associated with the global rise of neoliberalism, entrepreneurialism provides actors with tools and competences to imagine organizations in narrow, instrumental terms and with an idealized notion of agency. We argue that seeing entrepreneurial capacity in such a limited way makes it impossible to fully understand entrepreneurship as a phenomenon. Highlighting the adverse consequences of entrepreneurialism, we map areas of inquiry that can contribute to the emergence of a more effective and comprehensive critical research agenda concerning entrepreneurialism.

This chapter presents an in-depth inductive analysis of a parent organization and the network of subsidiaries that it has created. The authors identify the significance of organizational processes label as “disciplining entrepreneurialism.” These are activities that encourage entrepreneurial individuals to propose and lead new businesses while also promoting strong identification with the parent firm. The authors explore the emergence of this phenomenon through an examination of subsidiary–headquarter relations. While conventional conceptualization of inter-organizational collaboration has tended to exclude ­subsidiary–headquarter network relationships, we use the Systems of Exchange framework (Biggart & Delbridge, 2004) to categorize disciplined entrepreneurship alongside market, hierarchy, and network relations. Disciplining entrepreneurialism is not experienced as either market nor hierarchy by the individual members in the subsidiaries, and these subsidiaries move between the two in ways that are not adequately captured as a network either. This disciplining entrepreneurship approach can thus be contrasted with networks as well as differentiated from both markets and hierarchies. Entrepreneurship is encouraged while maintaining commitment to the overarching enterprise of the parent company.