Search results

Contemporary entrepreneurial education (EE) has global reach and impact, with a growing number of entrepreneurship courses, specializations, and degrees in all parts of the world. There is no longer a question of the significance and demand for EE in the higher education system. At the same time, the interest in scientific knowledge and proven experience of “what works” has accelerated, resulting in a rapid growth in the number of scholars and research-based publications conversing vividly about the field. This chapter elaborates on the historical evolution of EE as a scholarly field. First, an overview of important milestones and major events that shaped the field is provided. Second, by focusing on the development over the last three decades, the authors present an overview of the advances that have occurred within the field in terms of practice, social, and research-based aspects. The historical review shows how EE began in, but gradually separated from entrepreneurship as a field, which can be observed in the development of research outlets, meeting places, and teaching practice. Consequently, this historical review can serve as a point of departure for showing how the field has emerged and how knowledge has been developed and accumulated over time. The authors believe that this review can be helpful for scholars, particularly new entrants such as PhD students and other scholars entering the EE field, to learn from and contextualize their own research-based historical insight.

We analyzed the global historical change between 2007 and 2014, mainly emanating from economic and political games played between the USA and European countries starting with the Great Crisis and ending with Arab Spring, from the perspective of contemporary philosophy, and found that it not only growth reducing effect but also devastating effects on Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region due to the deterioration of governance. This chapter, by conducting empirical analysis, brings new definitions to existing concepts such as rules of the game, homosapien and sage. The Great Crisis is not a global crisis, but a trans-Atlantic financial crisis initiated by the incapable corporate governance of US-based financial multinational corporations (MNCs). The crisis faced by MENA countries that are exposed to Arab Spring as of 2012 is not the economic spillover effect of the Great Crisis but a consequence of political destabilization as a result of deteriorating governance structures in the region by developed countries under the name of Arab Spring. Not the entire-region, but only the countries exposed to Arab Spring, have experienced negative growth.

Purpose – Taking a configurational perspective, this study explores if there are different market entry strategies used and if there are ideal configurations of subsidiary strategy in different types of foreign countries.

Methodology – The study is based on a sample of 238 subsidiaries of German companies that are located in 38 different countries. Capturing many different facets of the subsidiary strategy, the configuration of top performers in different environments is identified. With a ‘fit as profile deviation’ approach, it is investigated whether the strategy of the top performers indeed constitutes an ideal strategy.

Findings – The host countries of the subsidiaries can be clustered in four types: BRICs, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the USA. Chosen market entry modes differ significantly between those four host country types. The top performing subsidiaries in each of the country types have distinct strategy patterns. However, deviation from the strategy profile of the top performers only explains the lower performance of subsidiaries in country types BRICs and Eastern Europe. Performance differences between subsidiaries in Western Europe and the USA cannot be explained with the variables captured in this study.

Research limitations/implications – Taking a configurational approach on subsidiary strategy proves to be a promising path to create new insights. But subsidiary strategy pattern alone is insufficient to explain performance in two country types. Thus, other influence factors must be investigated. Furthermore, the study did explore subsidiary strategy patterns with a cluster analysis, without ex ante hypotheses about the patterns. Hence, further studies are needed to re-investigate these patterns.

We study how giving depends on income and luck, and how culture and information about the determinants of others’ income affect this relationship. Our data come from an experiment conducted in two countries, the USA and Spain – each of which have different beliefs about how income inequality arises. We find that when individuals are informed about the determinants of income, there are no cross-cultural differences in giving. When uninformed, however, Americans give less than the Spanish. This difference persists even after controlling for beliefs, personal characteristics, and values.