Search results

Given that international research is now consistently showing higher rates of entrepreneurial activity from immigrants above native people, research regarding our understanding of how immigrant entrepreneurs view business opportunity formation remains underdeveloped. Based upon a review of the literature, this chapter examines how ethnicity relates to business opportunity formation through constant interactions. It also introduces the Visual Mixed Embeddedness Framework as an empirical lens for understanding the differences in the business opportunity formation process models between immigrant and native entrepreneurs. By explaining how factors and traits from both home and host countries impact upon the immigrant entrepreneurial business activity process, the framework clearly identifies how the concept of ethnicity influences immigrant entrepreneurial opportunity formation activities in different ways. The framework contributes to existing knowledge by offering a novel method for examining the influence on business opportunity formation of ethnicity, the role of home and host countries and variations between immigrant and native entrepreneurs.

A proposed explanation for why business creation is often found to increase in recessions is that there are two components to entrepreneurship – “opportunity” and “necessity” – the latter of which is mostly counter-cyclical. Although there is some agreement on the conceptual distinction between these two factors driving entrepreneurship, there is little consensus in the literature on empirical definitions. The goal of this chapter is to propose an operational definition of opportunity versus necessity entrepreneurship based on the entrepreneur's prior work status (i.e., based on previous unemployment) that is straightforward, based on objective information, and empirically feasible using many large, nationally representative datasets. We then explore the validity of the definitions with theory and empirical evidence. Using datasets from the United States and Germany, we find that 80–90% of entrepreneurs are opportunity entrepreneurs. Applying our proposed definitions, we document that opportunity entrepreneurship is generally pro-cyclical and necessity entrepreneurship is strongly counter-cyclical both at the national levels and across local economic conditions. We also find that opportunity vs necessity entrepreneurship is associated with the creation of more growth-oriented businesses. The operational definitions of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship proposed here may be useful for distinguishing between the two types of entrepreneurship in future research.

This chapter considers the role of entrepreneurship theory in the development of ideation techniques for entrepreneurship education. It begins by considering how metatheories impact theory construction in entrepreneurship research and discusses the role of ontology, epistemology, axiology, as well as the role of assumptions about human nature and social change. The chapter presents four different paradigms of thought that apply different philosophies and illustrates how these different paradigms conceptualize entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial opportunity differently. The four paradigms include the equilibrium paradigm, the disequilibrium paradigm, the disruptive innovation paradigm, and the social constructionism paradigm. Within each paradigm, the nature of entrepreneurial opportunity is discussed, and the chapter provides examples to show how different ideation techniques can be generated from these different conceptualizations. Forms of ideation technique are presented and explained, as they relate to each paradigm, and the chapter concludes by explaining the value of these techniques for ideation, opportunity discovery, and creation, in the entrepreneurial process.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the concept of public business models and develop a theory for the process of developing and managing public business models.

This research synthesizes insights from various fields into a set of theoretical ideas that lay out what public business models are, to what extent they differ from commercial/industrial business models, and how they are developed and managed by public entrepreneurs.

Developing and managing a business model is an entrepreneurial task that has been missing from the public entrepreneurship literature. Public entrepreneurs perform these tasks using public and private resources, leveraging public institutional systems, and developing capabilities that differ in several dimensions from private entrepreneurs due to the nature of public goods and existence of quasi-markets where public business models are developed and used.

This chapter opens new avenues for research in public entrepreneurship by suggesting that (1) public business models form the foundation of public entrepreneurship, (2) public business models differ from commercial business models not in their functionality but rather in their scope and design, and (3) public business models co-evolve with public institutions to maintain their legitimacy and value creation potential.

This chapter equips public entrepreneurs with new insights into enterprising behaviors and the dynamism of value creation and capture in public ventures.

The current study represents the first attempt to directly incorporate the notion of business models into the public entrepreneurship literature.

How general can a “general” theory of entrepreneurship be? Abstraction is a necessity but is it possible to include venture opportunity variation in a general theory of entrepreneurship building on two contrasting perspectives such as equilibrium economics and disequilibrium economics. Two important boundaries need to be explicated. First, defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new economic activity includes both the creation of new means – ends (cf. Schumpeter, 1934) – as well as optimizing within known means – ends frameworks (cf. Kirzner, 1997). Second, such a theory includes an opportunity – actor nexus because it is the first tangible or intangible evidence of existing venture opportunities. Formal models of entrepreneurship often start with a person and at some point in time an exchange of persons with firms take place which is confusing because both levels of analysis and outcome are mixed with each other. Apparently, there is no such thing as entrepreneurship without actors, but if we want to create knowledge about the creation of economic activity, we need to frame our boundary around the nascent initiative instead of single actors and/or teams of actors because value can only be assessed in relation to the costs of services withdrawn. Analogous to this is, for example, the theory of firm and the theory of organizations with boundaries well beyond single actors or groups of actors. Another factor behind a venture-based theory of entrepreneurship comes from empirical evidence from the Swedish PSED, which suggests that approximately 16% (n=97) nascent entrepreneurs are exchanged during the start-up process. Formal models of entrepreneurship could therefore start with the nexus of venture opportunities and enterprising actors as suggested by Shane (2003) or with resources as suggested by Davidsson (2000) and progress forward in the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurship models built around the economic activity itself needs to be dynamic allowing different outcomes and feedback loops because resource combinations alter our perception of value and diffuses information, which may lead to additional resource combinations (Hayek, 1945).

Entrepreneurs’ decision-making for detecting, evaluating and utilising opportunities across international borders is one of the main subjects of international entrepreneurship research. This study aims to argue that recognising and classifying international entrepreneurship opportunities facilitate the decision-making process. To do such a thing, a multi-layer decision-making approach focusses on the industrial sector of the Kish free zone. In the first stage, the data will be collected by a questionnaire survey of entrepreneurial companies in the industry field and the main international entrepreneurship opportunities will be identified. In the second stage, the importance and relationship between the opportunities will be evaluated based on the identified opportunities. Eventually, in the last stage, the relationship and the importance of the opportunities will be determined by proposing and using a multi-layer decision-making approach. In conclusion, the prioritised international entrepreneurship opportunities will be presented.

This chapter is a reflection of how Venkataraman’s “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research” has influenced the field of entrepreneurship. The theory underlying the original chapter provided the first true theoretical basis for the discipline of entrepreneurship, grounded in Kirzner and Schumpeter. Its two discrete components, opportunity, and role of the individual became the basis for new approaches in empirical research and new conceptualizations of entrepreneurship theory. These components led to new approaches to concepts such as motivation, perception, and information’s role in the entrepreneurial process. The chapter revisits the three core questions raised by “The Distinctive Domain”: how opportunities arise, why do only some recognize and pursue opportunities, and what are the consequences of the pursuit of opportunities. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the impact of the original chapter in practice and academia.

Recognition of a profit opportunity requires a framework of knowledge to place information about a profit opportunity in a context where it can be recognized. The same information about a profit opportunity could be revealed to many people, yet only a few with the appropriate knowledge will be able to place this information into a context that suggests to them a profit opportunity. This paper discusses how entrepreneurs gain knowledge to enable them to be more entrepreneurial, and shows how an economy generates information about entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship adds to an economy’s knowledge base, making it easier to recognize profit opportunities when they arise.

Multidimensional fit (MDF) has been coined as “elusive” and relevant to an individual’s social identity and self-concept, unfolding over time as individuals assess their fit relative to Person-Organization, Person-Vocation, Person-Job, and Person-Team Fit. In this chapter, the literature as it relates to the refugee employment journey, MDF, and HRM practices that facilitate or inhibit MDF is reviewed. Furthermore, in this study, the process-oriented view of the refuge path highlights the complexity of their experience, noting an array of antecedents as they relate to country, host country and individual differences, interventions through NGOs, refugee resettlement agencies, and organizations, as well as the less explored entrepreneurial path. These diverse paths and the process of finding fit, and the obstacles refugees face, are viewed through the lens of shocks and reassessment of MDF throughout their journey. Finally, the study’s outcomes illustrate individual wellbeing factors, organizational level benefits, as well as community level benefits to MDF.

Entrepreneurial activities can be affected by shocks including pandemics. Our study aims at exploring the channels through which Covid-19 pandemic and associated government responses affected entrepreneurial activities, and the opportunities that were created, accessed or utilised in response to the Pandemic. We identified six of these channels. The adverse impact of the Pandemic and different government responses to the Pandemic on economic growth caused the Pandemic to impact more on entrepreneurship. Growth contraction had implications on aggregate demand, expectations of future incomes especially for informal and small businesses, values of assets, and investment levels. However, the Pandemic presented some utilised, unutilised and partially utilised opportunities for entrepreneurship and our study notes that a critical juncture was truncated and wasted by Nigerians because unutilised opportunities included investment in R&D, hospitals and medical supplies, ICT and online businesses.