Search results

There is progress in entrepreneurship research. Important works in entrepreneurship increasingly appear in highly respected, mainstream journals (see Busenitz et al., 2003; Davidsson, Low & Wright, 2001). There is conceptual development that attracts attention (e.g. Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) and handbooks are compiled, providing the field with more of a common body of knowledge (Acs & Audretsch, 2003a; Shane, 2000a; Westhead & Wright, 2000). Further, there is evidence of methodological improvements (Chandler & Lyon, 2001) and accumulation of meaningful findings on various levels of analysis (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001). Moreover, due to time lags in publication the reported improvements are likely to be underestimated. This author’s experience as organizer, reviewer and participant in core entrepreneurship conferences on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Babson; RENT) suggests that much of the lower end of the quality distribution has either disappeared from the submissions or is screened out in the review process. Much more than used to be the case a few years back we find among the presented papers research that is truly theory-driven; research on the earliest stages of business development, and research that employs methods suitable for causal inference, i.e. experiments and longitudinal designs.

Tucked in the back of Venkataraman’s 1997 work on the distinctive domain of entrepreneurship (DDE) lies a pointer to a question each individual must face when choosing to start a new venture; “is entrepreneurship worth it?” Inventorying costs associated with risk, uncertainty, and illiquidity against surpluses from financial and psychological factors unique to entrepreneurship, Venkataraman tempts readers to tally entrepreneurial returns. The authors summarize and integrate an academic study of these various cost and return components over the past 20 years using Venkataraman’s original framework. The authors find the answer to the question of “is entrepreneurship worth it?” varies with time. Researcher’s answer to the question has shifted from an early view that entrepreneurs sacrifice financial gain in exchange for soft psychological benefits to a more positive view that entrepreneurs are rewarded both financially and psychologically for the unique costs borne in the DDE. But the rewards are not immediate. In entrepreneur time, break-even emerges by gradually overcoming an initial deficit. As surpluses accrue, returns to entrepreneurs likely eventually exceed those of their wage-earning peers.

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.

Entrepreneurship is a prominent area of inquiry which is enriched by an ample literature base and challenged by definitional deficiencies. Over the years, multiple perspectives of entrepreneurship have emerged and a holistic approach to entrepreneurship has been proposed. This can facilitate the continued enlargement of the entrepreneurship field and allow for interdisciplinary research within the African region. This chapter contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship in developing economies by providing an extensive review of the various approaches that entrepreneurship has been conceptualised. Nine themes are explored: the great person, economic perspective, psychological perspective, sociological perspective, behavioural perspective, management, intrapreneurship, cognitive perspective and leadership perspective. This is followed by an examination of entrepreneurship as a process, as a new venture creation and as an art of opportunity recognition and exploitation. In the last section of this chapter, a clarion call is made for more African scholarship and research in the field of entrepreneurship.

In “The next wave of entrepreneurship research,” Schoonhoven and Romanelli (hereafter S&R, this volume) set forth a broad-gauge review of recent work in entrepreneurship. They challenge standard debates and focus on arguments and research that explore large-scale contextual variation in complex ecologies of entrepreneurship over time. Further, their review puts networks and teams, communities of expertise and knowledge, and collective activity at the center of new directions for entrepreneurial research. They contend, in this paper and elsewhere, that the important questions going forward “concern the mass effects of entrepreneurial activity on the creation of new firms and industries, the pioneering of emerging markets, the evolution of existing industries, the development of regional economies, and even … the competitiveness of nations” (Schoonhoven & Romanelli, 2001, p. 383).

Within a knowledge-driven, entrepreneurial economy, an increase in a university’s importance is observed because of its significant affect on the economy. Thus, entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that could be observed among all university levels: management, academicians, researchers, and undergraduate and postgraduate students. Entrepreneurial universities could produce several externalities in terms of demography, economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education, and societal challenges that will later be reflected in productivity, competitive advantages, and regional capacities, networks, identity, and innovation. In this context, entrepreneurial universities have or are positioned to develop innovative pathways to reinforce entrepreneurship in their communities. This chapter explores how entrepreneurial university pathways (education and training) have had an impact on students’ start-up intentions and actions. Adopting the institutional economics approach, this research proposes a conceptual model, tested with a sample of 1,759 university students enrolled in three entrepreneurial universities (ITESM, Mexico; UNICAMP, Brazil; and UPC, Chile) in Latin America. Our findings confirm the relevant effect of entrepreneurial university pathways on start-up creation. Not only do the results provide important contributions to the literature, they also provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that further benefit society and educational organizations.

Student entrepreneurs account for a considerable number of start-up ventures derived from university settings. Nevertheless, there is little research that demonstrates how university entrepreneurship education (EE) directly influences students’ start-up activities. The primary purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of various types of university entrepreneurship activities (incorporate entrepreneurial courses, extra-curricular initiatives, and start-up support) on student start-up behavior. This quantitative research utilized questionnaire data collected from university students (n = 1,820) in southeast China and was analyzed with hierarchical Poisson regression in STATA procedures. Research results indicate that engaging in any type of university entrepreneurship activities positively predicts students’ start-up activities, yet this positive effect is contingent on students’ prior start-up experience and the overall university entrepreneurial climate. These findings advance our understanding of crucial elements within university entrepreneurial ecosystems and how various entrepreneurship activities within these ecosystems potentially impact students’ venture creation.

The fast-changing, highly competitive and technology-driven business environment forces established firms to continually search for new business opportunities and innovative ideas. In reaction, corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Cisco and Bertelsmann have launched new corporate venture capital (CVC) units or have intensified existing CVC activities. This chapter examines the structure, patterns and investment focus of telecommunication, IT, consumer electronics and media & entertainment firms’ CVC investments by conducting a data-mining project based on the Thomson Reuters Private Equity database. The data-mining project reveals the increasing importance of CVC activities as a strategic development tool to address the requirements of the increasing costs, speed and complexity of a technology-driven industry since the bursting of the Internet bubble. Therefore, following chapter is one of the first CVC studies to describe and compare CVC investments of the last CVC wave across industry sectors.

This study explains the international opportunity development of SMEs from emerging economies during institutional transition. This research enriches our understanding of how these firms adopt different approaches to developing international opportunities when they confront the turbulent institutional environment. We develop a phase-based framework for the evolution of transitional institution for SMEs’ internationalization and the SMEs’ internationalization process in that framework. By providing an empirical case study of a privately owned SME from China, the main finding is that SMEs from emerging economies become more entrepreneurial and proactive in developing the international opportunity during the institutional transition.