Search results

Using state-level data on productive and unproductive entrepreneurship, shadow economy size, and public official corruption, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether formal sector productive (unproductive) entrepreneurial activity is associated with lower (higher) levels of informal economic activity.

Additionally, the author aims to connect US state-level entrepreneurship, shadow economy size, and corruption by asking whether corruption affects entrepreneurial outcomes primarily through its effects on the shadow economy. The author contends that if this is the case, then estimates of corruption should serve as a good instrument for shadow economy size in regressions on formal sector entrepreneurial outcomes.

Results from OLS regressions suggest that shadow economy size shares a strong, negative (positive), and statistically significant relationship with productive (unproductive) entrepreneurship. These results are fairly robust to GMM estimation. Additionally, the author finds that corruption is a strong instrument for shadow economy size; one for which validity cannot be rejected in regressions on productive, and net entrepreneurship scores.

However, the author cannot safely assert that the author finds evidence of the shadow economy serving as a primary channel through which corruption affects observed entrepreneurial outcomes. Failure to reject validity of the corruption instrument is, at best, suggestive of the primacy of the entrepreneurial choice between formal and informal sector participation.

This study, to the author’s knowledge, is the first to attempt “connecting the dots” between entrepreneurship, corruption, and shadow economy size.

William J. Baumol was one of the most prolific economists of his generation, analyzing a broad range of central economic issues addressing real problems of the world. In this essay, we present and critically evaluate Baumol’s research contributions in entrepreneurship economics and point to areas for future research. Baumol contributed an impressive number of important insights, increasing our understanding of entrepreneurship from both a macro and a micro perspective. He also devoted a large part of his writings to discussing public policy, linking his theoretical insights with policy issues in practice. His analyses are rooted in contemporary mainstream neoclassical economics, and one of his main objectives was to integrate the entrepreneur into this tradition. Today, Baumol is best known for his tripartite distinction between productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurship and his associated idea that the institutional framework, “the rules of the game,” will determine how entrepreneurs allocate their time and effort across different – productive or unproductive – activities. An institutional environment that encourages productive entrepreneurship and spontaneous experimentation while disincentivizing unproductive activities becomes, through this insightful lens, the driving force of economic growth. As an economist, Baumol was knowledgeable and well acquainted with earlier scholars and their writings about entrepreneurship. Baumol’s writings were greatly inspired by Joseph Schumpeter’s views on entrepreneurship, and he made several attempts to formalize Schumpeter’s concept of the innovative entrepreneur. Baumol was in all senses an innovative contributor to entrepreneurship economics. His work has inspired the research community of entrepreneurship scholars, but like all great scientists, he also encountered criticism. His effort to integrate entrepreneurship into the mainstream theory of the firm was only partly successful.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the distinctions and complementary of William Baumol and Israel Kirzner’s classifications of and insights into entrepreneurship, and thus providing a more complete taxonomy of the substance of entrepreneurial activity. This paper also attempts to clarify distinctions between unproductive and destructive entrepreneurship.

This paper illustrates a more complete taxonomy of the substance of entrepreneurial activity by examining entrepreneurial innovation in drug markets both legal and illegal, identifying cases of productive, unproductive, superfluous, erroneous, destructive, and protective entrepreneurship.

This paper finds that the classifications of entrepreneurship (productive, superfluous, unproductive, erroneous, protective and destructive) put forth by Baumol, Kirzner, and the institutional entrepreneurship literature are complementary. While Baumol seeks to explain the disequilibrating tendencies of entrepreneurship, Kirzner seeks to explain the equilibrating tendencies of entrepreneurship within the institutional context.

This paper utilizes case studies from legal and illegal drug markets to uniquely and better explain the six cases of entrepreneurship. This paper also contributes to the literature by clearly articulating the complementarity of Baumolian and Kirznerian entrepreneurship.

Since Baumol (1990), the economic literature has distinguished between two broad categories of entrepreneurship: productive and unproductive. The purpose of this paper is to introduce another subcategory: indirectly productive entrepreneurship. Sometimes, profit-seeking entrepreneurs allocate their talents to indirectly productive activities to mitigate the new costs market participants endure as a result of a government regulation. The resources used to mitigate these costs must be diverted from other uses.

This paper uses the example of cell phone storage outside New York City’s high schools to illustrate an indirectly productive entrepreneurial activity that mitigates the inefficiencies or costs created by a regulation. These costs and the resulting entrepreneurship would not have arisen absent the regulation.

These profit opportunities do not result from market entrepreneurial errors or successes but emerge from inefficiencies or unintended consequences produced by government regulations. When evaluating such entrepreneurship, the question is whether such regulation is desirable from an efficiency viewpoint because such entrepreneurship, while making such regulation less inefficient or less costly, diverts resources from other lines of production.

This paper identifies a new category of entrepreneurship: indirectly productive entrepreneurship. This paper also shows that government regulation often deters productive entrepreneurship. However, under some circumstances, regulation can indirectly encourage productive entrepreneurship by creating artificial profit opportunities that would not have existed otherwise.

The purpose of the paper is to establish the need to study the shame-proneness trait of entrepreneurs – what is it and why is it important to study.

In this conceptual paper, the authors argue that shame-proneness is an important understudied trait of entrepreneurs and put up a case for further research. The authors argue that shame-proneness moderates the effect of social acceptability on opportunity exploitation decisions. The authors also argue that productive entrepreneurship can be promoted and unproductive entrepreneurship can be prevented through policy intervention, and the level of intervention can be determined by knowing the shame-proneness level of entrepreneurs.

The key argument is the following: an entrepreneur is homo economicus and homo sociologicus, i.e. she is driven both by rational economic value consideration and by the prevalent social norms, which influence opportunity exploitation decisions. Since shame enforces compliance with social norms, it is vital to study entrepreneurs' shame-proneness to understand entrepreneurial founding across different regions. Knowing the level of shame-proneness of entrepreneurs in a given region would help the government devise effective interventions to promote productive entrepreneurship and deter unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship.

This paper is an original creation of the authors.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the correlation between the degree of economic freedom in state institutions and industry employment and then determine how these correlations relate to economic growth.

The authors find the correlation between employment and economic freedom for each NAICS industry code and then calculate total employment in industries with positive correlation and negative correlations. The authors use these values in a GDP equation.

The authors find that employment growth in industries characterized by a negative correlation is associated with a decline in state per capita GDP. When the correlations between employment and economic freedom are positive, state per capita GDP tends to grow, even after accounting for overall economic freedom in the state.

Eliminating or reducing opportunities for firms to use government institutions to gain special treatment will lead to greater economic growth.

This paper allows the data to determine which industries potentially engage in productive and unproductive entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship is ubiquitous, but it is not unequivocally a human force for social and economic good. Critical perspectives of the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial success (and failure) are evolving in the scholarly literature. Dark side theory has emerged as a language for critiquing the dominant narratives of entrepreneurship portrayed in scholarship, education, planning, policy, and other forms of practice. This chapter draws from dark side entrepreneurship theory, Baumolian entrepreneurship, and exemplars of counterculture to craft language for an emerging theory of misfit entrepreneurship, which consists of misfit entrepreneurs and alternative enterprises. Alternative enterprises and misfit entrepreneurs are conceptualized, and literary examples (i.e., Robin Hood and Song Jiang) and modern-day examples (i.e., Hacker groups) are supplied. The unique actions and impacts of misfit entrepreneurs and alternative enterprises are offered for discussion. This new theory of misfit entrepreneurship leaves readers with exploratory questions that enhance critical perspectives and modern understandings of entrepreneurship today.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the topic and discuss the individual chapters in this volume as well as to provide an intellectual orientation which will hopefully inspire casual readers to read further. The main thesis behind this volume is that entrepreneurial crime and illegal enterprise span two very distinct yet complimentary academic disciplines – namely Criminology and Entrepreneurial/Business Studies. And that we need to take cognisance of both instead of writing and publishing in disciplinary silos.

Our methodological approach in this volume is predominantly qualitative and in addition mainly review based. Our editorial approach is/was one of laissez-faire in that we did not want to stifle authorial creativity or impose order where there was none, or very little. The result is a very eclectic collection of interesting readings which we hope will challenge researchers interested in the topics to cross inter- and intra-disciplinary literature in search of new theoretical models.

Rather than findings we see the contribution of the volume as being an attempt to start conversations between disciplines. We appreciate that this is only a beginning. There are discoveries and perhaps a need to redraw boundaries. One surprising finding was how much the authors all drew on the seminal work of William Baumol to the extent that it has become a common framework for understanding the cross overs.

There are many limitations to the chapters in this volume. The main one is that in any edited volume the editors are faced with a dilemma of allowing more voices to emerge or imposing a restrictive explanatory framework which in turn shoe horns the chapters into an over-arching sense-making architecture. The limitation of this volume is that it can only present a few of the voices and only begin a synthesis. Interested researchers must work hard to draw meaning from the eclectic voices.

The practical implications from this chapter and the edited chapters are manifold. The chapters deal with complex issues and we have opted to allow the authorial voice to be heard and to allow disciplinary writing styles to remain as they are. This allows a very practical understanding of everyday implications to emerge.

There are many policy implications which arise from this introductory chapter and the chapters in this volume but these will take time to manifest themselves. The main point to take away is that to understand and interdict crime and in particular entrepreneurial crime we must draw on inter-disciplinary knowledge and theories of entrepreneurship and business in a wider sense.

This chapter introduces a series of apparently separate yet interconnected chapters which explore the bounds and boundaries of illegal entrepreneurship and its originality lies in its approach.

The research aims to applying Baumol’s framework to address some research gaps in the literature. This paper aims to analyze how institutional variations at the subnational level impact entrepreneurship decisions and the path toward productive or unproductive entrepreneurship in an institutionally underdeveloped country. The results offer potentially new theoretical insights and practical implications for developing or emergent countries.

The research applies Baumol’s framework to Mexico’s context. The research collects data compounded by individual- and state-level variables from diverse sources for the 32 Mexican states. The individual level and some controls were obtained from sources of regular frequency, but the institutional variables were derived from surveys of irregular frequency, nonsynchronic and mostly nonoverlapping, which required aligning and centered them around 2016 and 2019 to match with the individual variables. The authors apply multilevel nonlinear mixed-effects probit regression to test nine hypotheses regarding the impact of institutional variables on entrepreneurial decisions and the path toward productive or unproductive entrepreneurship.

Improved formal institutions across the Mexican states reduce the entrepreneurship probability, implying interactions with other variables and indirect effects; encourage the selection of productive entrepreneurship, e.g. formal ventures; and discourage self-employment. Consequently, those institutions do not encourage entrepreneurship selection as an occupation but entrepreneurial quality, i.e. the selection of productive-formal entrepreneurship and larger ventures. Deficient informal institutions increase the entrepreneurship and formal entrepreneurship probabilities, implying the interactions with other variables and indirect effects and supporting the corruption “greases the wheels” hypothesis, consequently encouraging productive ventures. New evidence of the positive relationship between criminality and entrepreneurship types in Mexico is reported.

Our findings indicate important impacts of the individual-level variables on the entrepreneurship decisions and that most of those decisions are potentially necessity driven and a minority are driven by opportunity, given their relationship with the macroeconomic controls and the institutional variables. The authors report mixed results on the relationship between institutions and entrepreneurship partially consistent with the literature; some results contribute additional evidence on controversial hypotheses or imply the existence of indirect effects. Overall, the results suggest that institutions impact the individual decisions to venture and the type of venture consequently affecting the amount and quality of entrepreneurship across states.

The research addresses some of the literature gaps by providing empirical evidence on a middle-income country and how diverging regional institutional contexts, including formal and informal institutions, impact the individual’s entrepreneurship decisions within an institutionally underdeveloped country. The paper contributes new knowledge and insights into entrepreneurship in emerging or developing countries with implications for Baumol’s framework in this context and adds to the debated hypothesis on the relationship between some institutions, e.g. corruption and criminality and entrepreneurship.

Richard Cantillon (168?–173?) is known as the first economic theorist and the founder of entrepreneurship theory. Few would describe him as engaged in policy issues, but he did write about policy issues of interest to scholars interested in entrepreneurship and economic development. He has long been classified as a mercantilist of a bygone day, even as many believe he was resolute in not commenting on policy matters at all. His views could be a key to pursuing the policy goals of entrepreneurship scholars.

The authors look at several topics in Cantillon's Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755), read in its historical/political context, to better understand Cantillon's views. The authors then relate Cantillon's views to recent interventions in the economy.

The authors found that Cantillon held clearly antimercantilist, or free market, views. The authors also recognize that his views, given his status as the founder of entrepreneurship theory, can contribute to modern economics. As in Cantillon's day, institutional uncertainty has negative economic consequences and often leads to unproductive entrepreneurship, which is only made worse by the increased complexity of the modern economy.

The authors clarify Cantillon's views against modern-day interpretations and offer a clearer understanding of Cantillon's writings in the context of his Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General (1755). The authors also show the importance of the proper role of institutions for productive entrepreneurship—and the danger of unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship when such institutions do not have policies favorable to entrepreneurship.