Search results

It has been more than 20 years since the “Reinventing Government” movement swept through the American public sector. Over time, the tenets of public entrepreneurship and new public management have diverged due to liability and risk aversion. One of the core elements of entrepreneurship is risk taking, and with it the likelihood of failure. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these issues under a simple framework of “entrepreneurial governance” that works across the elements of knowledge, innovation, opportunity, and implementation.

This is primarily a set of problems (liability, risk aversion, critiques) that negatively impacts the application of public entrepreneurship. To build a framework, the author made a substantive review of the literature to “get back to basics” and clarify the problems, as well as draw fundamental concepts about entrepreneurship.

The framework was developed by applying the more current notion of “governance” with the basic elements of entrepreneurship, acknowledging that in implementation we have to account for the critiques by reinforcing responsible risk reduction and ethical decision making.

The intent was to create a framework based on fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship. The limitations/implications are that additional research will have to develop more concrete testing methods and then test the framework.

The intent here was to create a “practitioner friendly” prescriptive framework that could be almost immediately applied.

A culture shift away from risk aversion (and corrupt practices) has to allow risk taking and with it responsible risk reduction (and failure or success).

The reliance on existing literature reduces some of the originality, except to re-conceptualize public entrepreneurship in a way that accounts for its shortcomings. The value in shifting culture and responsibly reducing risk is difficult to estimate.

Public entrepreneurs are an under-researched group in local government. The purpose of this paper is to explore the contextual complexities of public entrepreneurs who pursue more creative ways of “doing more with less” to cope with dynamic financial and societal anxieties of Greek local government fiscal austerity policy reforms. Precisely, this study aims to the understanding of how specific contextual influences impact, first, on the nature of public entrepreneurship and, second, on manifested outcomes. A systematic approach marks the authors attempt to assess the broader impact pointing out the implications for research, policy and practice.

A case study of Greek local government draws on 26 in-depth semi-structured interviews with public entrepreneurs across top, middle and front-line levels of management, field notes, documentary and archival evidence.

The findings demonstrate unique Greek contextual complexities such as contradictory tensions between triggered decentralisation of control and responsibilities of the local government and attempts of external reinvention rather than internal renewal. These complexities influence public entrepreneurs’ systemic entrepreneurship behaviours in Greek local government since the implementation of fiscal austerity policy reforms in 2010. Their representation is manifest in policy, administrative and technological outcomes with public value consequences.

This research contributes to a deeper understanding of public entrepreneurship in context. Greek local government public entrepreneurs bring original insights on the contextual influences of their systemic enactment and manifested outcomes, with implications for research, policy and practice.

The interest in entrepreneurship in the public sector is recognized as an emergent phenomenon in the field of entrepreneurship. Existing theoretical work is limited in helping understand how entrepreneurship in public agencies occurs. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a conceptual paper which develops the literature.

Building on the work of Klein et al. (2010) this paper contributes to theoretical development by providing an overview of public sector entrepreneurship (PSE). Although, there are similar features shared by private and PSE, it is proposed that there are significant differences between them, particularly in that public sector enterprise can be seen as entrepreneurship without entrepreneurs.

As a conceptual paper on PSE the literature is predominantly UK based.

This paper brings entrepreneurship from the periphery to the core of the theoretical debates, as it is an under-researched area. Moreover, theoretical development has implications for policy and practice as existing research is disparate.

The paper considers how entrepreneurship and enterprise in the public sector is formulated. The significance of the paper is to highlight the importance of public entrepreneurs in working alongside a multitude of stakeholders to deal with numerous global and internal environment forces ethically amongst on-going budgetary and fiscal constraints. The contribution is the highlighting of the difficulties and concerns when uniting the discourse of market-based entrepreneurship and the discourse of public sector service provision.

While the term “entrepreneurship” is not exclusively a private sector phenomenon, it is usually associated with private sector business activity and more specifically with small to medium enterprises. However, over the last two decades it has appeared in the public administration literature with increasing frequency. The recent research in public sector entrepreneurial activity makes an exploratory comparative analysis of the key components that are applicable from private sector entrepreneurship timely as the topic is emerging as an area of academic inquiry and research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of private and public sector entrepreneurship using an analytical model from private and public sector entrepreneurship.

A clear understanding of the research issues involved requires an appreciation of the nexus between private sector entrepreneurship and the more limited research field of public sector entrepreneurship. The paper identifies and examines the historical and evolutionary research on entrepreneurship as a basis for analysis of public and private sector entrepreneurship.

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis that highlights key similarities, differences or a combination between public and private sector entrepreneurship and develops an existing model and framework for a systematic approach to the public sector entrepreneurial process.

Based on this exploration, new insights about public sector entrepreneurship are developed, practical implications for public sector entrepreneurs on how to approach public sector entrepreneurship more systematically and effectively are presented and opportunities for further research are identified.

The purpose of this paper is to outline barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship and explore the impact of those barriers on population shifts within the USA.

This paper lays out five specific barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship: barriers to entry and exit for consumers and producers, increased centralization and concentration in government, the lack of residual claim amongst public-sector actors, the rise of public-sector union membership and increasingly uncompetitive elections. The paper then assesses the impact of each of these barriers on population and production changes within the USA from 2010 to 2017.

Those state governments with limited barriers for productive public-sector entrepreneurship are rewarded with faster growing populations. Specifically, states with higher incomes, less centralized spending, lower public-sector unionization rates and higher state credit ratings tend to experience the greatest levels of population growth. States with less centralized spending also experience the largest increases in gross state product per capita.

This paper offers practical applications for policy makers wishing to increase their tax bases, increase the standard of living for their constituents or increase the efficiency in production and distribution of government goods and services. In particular, this paper offers evidence that an improved credit rating carries the most economic significance for population gains.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to examine Tiebout effects from barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship in the USA. Researchers in fields including political science, economics, management and public policy have all contributed to our understanding of public entrepreneurship. And yet, there are still numerous barriers preventing productive public-sector entrepreneurship from occurring at an optimal level.

The decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities is grounded in personal characteristics (motivation) and external environmental factors. One of the main external factors might be the structure of the regional economic activity. Does a high share of the public sector affect positively regional entrepreneurship or vice versa? Does the diversity in regional economic activity is conducive for entrepreneurial development or the regional comparative advantage as expressed by spatial economies of scale offering more entrepreneurial opportunities? Even though economic analysis has extensively examined the impact of the public sector size on the overall national economic activity (the crowding out effect), this impact has not been into scrutiny at regional level on microeconomic issues, such as the decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities. The authors further investigate the relation between diversity and entrepreneurship at regional level. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper uses data for 264 NUTS II EU regions. The time span of the data set is 1999-2008. The paper applies panel data analysis to explain the cross-time cross-section variation of the dependent variable: the self-employment share in total employment at regional level. In order to measure the existence of crowding out from public sector to regional entrepreneurship, the authors use the share of regional public sector gross value added over total regional gross value added. The diversity of the regional economic activity is measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index across sectors.

The findings of the paper show that there is a negative correlation between public sector share and regional entrepreneurship. Hence, as at national level, the increase in the role of the public sector in the regional economic system crowds out regional entrepreneurship. The second finding indicates that the impact of the diversity of the regional economic activity on regional entrepreneurship is inconclusive.

The originality of this paper is due to the fact that the role of the public sector on regional economic phenomena, such as entrepreneurship, is examined for the first time. Also, the investigation of the relationship between diversity (vs localization economies) and entrepreneurship is performed using data for the full sample of regions of the European Union. The findings of the paper have significant policy implications since they provide useful inputs for the design of the regional development policy. The reduction of the public sector at regional level may contribute in entrepreneurial development and finally in regional economic growth and prosperity. Besides, the regional industrial policy should focus on the exploitation of the spatially constraint economies of scope in the framework of the Triple Helix model.

The purpose of this article is to look at how internal marketing can be coupled with corporate entrepreneurship. The paper then suggests explicit practices that enhance potential for innovation at the organizational level.

The article presents the results of a survey based on a random sample of 223 public servants working at regional Greek governmental organizations (prefectures). It makes use of full profile conjoint analysis and cluster analysis using an appropriate survey instrument. Drawing from earlier research, different attributes that foster corporate entrepreneurship and their corresponding levels were used to form specific scenarios. The applied methodology captures and formalizes scenario preference by the public servants who participated in the survey.

The results indicated four distinct clusters of respondents, whose classification formed a pattern, which is consistent with Rogers' model of diffusion of technological innovations.

Research relied on a sample of public servants from the Greek public sector and data is cross‐sectional in nature. Future research should be multinational and longitudinal to test the results and assumptions reported herein.

The findings of this paper are original and unique and provide a well‐documented framework in addressing corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector. Furthermore, the results of the study are useful to policy makers interested in formulating a strategy that fosters corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector setting.

The purpose of this paper is to present and compare alternative theoretical frameworks for understanding entrepreneurship policy: targeted interventions to increase venture creation and/or performance. The authors contrast the Standard view of the state as a coherent entity willing and able to rectify market failures with an Individualistic view that treats policymakers as self-interested individuals with limited knowledge.

The authors draw on the perspective of “politics as exchange” to provide a taxonomy of assumptions about knowledge and incentives of both entrepreneurship policymakers and market participants. The authors position extant literature in relation to this taxonomy, and assess the implications of alternative assumptions.

The rationale for entrepreneurship policy intervention is strong under the Standard view but becomes considerably more tenuous in the Individualistic view. The authors raise several conceptual challenges to the Standard view, highlighting inconsistencies between this view and the fundamental elements of the entrepreneurial market process such as uncertainty, dispersed knowledge and self-interest.

Entrepreneurship policy research is often applied; hence, the theoretical rationale for intervention can be overlooked. The authors make the implicit assumptions of these rationales explicit, showing how the adoption of “realistic” assumptions offers a robust toolkit to evaluate entrepreneurship policy.

While the authors agree with entrepreneurship policy interventionists that an “entrepreneurial society” is conducive to economic development, this framework suggests that targeted efforts to promote entrepreneurship may be inconsistent with that goal.

The Individualistic view draws on the rich traditions of public choice and the entrepreneurial market process to highlight the intended and unintended consequences of entrepreneurship policy.

The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy (JEPP).

The paper outlines the primary objectives of JEPP.

JEPP was created to encourage and disseminate quality research about the vital relationships among institutions, entrepreneurship and economic outcomes. JEPP 's aim is to improve the quality of scholarly and public discourse about entrepreneurship and development policies. In general, JEPP seeks high‐quality articles that say something interesting about public policy, entrepreneurship and economic development.

The editorial describes the thinking behind JEPP, and the journal's objectives. JEPP welcomes all scholars and individuals with professional or personal interests in acquiring and sharing knowledge about institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine US public relations professionals' perceptions of the benefits and challenges associated with the concept of moral entrepreneurship, defined as the purposeful process of changing or creating new institutionalized ethical norms. This study argues that the concept of moral entrepreneurship provides organizations with a potentially valuable framework to actively recognize societal pressures and problems and act accordingly to better the environment in which the organization resides and operates.

This exploratory study uses purposive in-depth interviews with 25 diverse public relations professionals, who represented communication firms, in-house public relations departments, higher education, nonprofits and government.

Respondents assigned a high value to the concept of moral entrepreneurship: In addition to its being viewed as the right thing to do, they recognized its practice as a way to help organizations recruit and retain employee talent and improve stakeholder trust. However, based on the interviews, organizational leadership is the primary initiator of ethical changes; therefore, without a seat at the management table, practitioners lack the influence to initiate such new organizational directions and take on the role of moral entrepreneurs only when directed to do so by their superiors. Barriers to adopting a moral entrepreneurship approach included a limited budget and shortage of staff, employees' resistance to change, fear of failure, poor leadership and a politically polarized workplace.

Practice implications include considerations for furthering moral entrepreneurship in organizations.

This study is the first to explore the applicability of the concept of moral entrepreneurship in public relations. The paper underscores the need for further discussion around novel approaches to ethics in public relations that go beyond simple compliance with professional codes and industry standards and that help organizations lead societal change.