Search results

This study focuses on the role of individuals in the innovation management process, by concentrating on leaders and associated behaviors. Specifically, Entrepreneurial Leadership (EL) represent one of the most important fields of innovation management that has become increasingly multifaceted and interdisciplinary with its evolution. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine a newly emerging research trend with a new lens that is “neuroscience”.

This paper finds an evidence-based roadmap by reviewing the literature with a quantitative Bibliometric Analysis (BA) employing Co-Citation (Co-C) and bibliographic coupling analysis (BcA) to find linkages between the leadership and entrepreneurship literature and the neuroscience literature.

This study identifies five promising groups of research areas such as the organizational approach, the biological approach, the cognitive approach, the emotional approach and it identify five future research topics such as dynamic skills in innovation exploitation process, the human aspect of leadership, the building process of leadership, the biological perspective of leadership and the application of neuroscience in the ecosystem. Moreover, we find an evidence-based roadmap for stimulating focused EL within the broad topic of innovation management research, to move the field forward.

Although the past few years have observed the necessity of review studies on the subsets of biological factors, no reviews have sought to bring those different subsets together into a broader biological perspective. This study provides important indications on the interdisciplinary developments between the neuroscience aspects and EL, as a new emerging paradigm within the broad field of innovation management.

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The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.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