Search results

To expand understanding of the motive, knowledge, and skill acquisition of criminal entrepreneurs while incarcerated and on release.

This chapter uses semi-structured interviews incorporating field observations from a convenience sample of ex-offenders in the state of Colorado, in the United States, who have been engaged in destructive entrepreneurship as well as local experts that work with ex-offenders in transition and reentry into society after a period of incarceration.

Many of these offenders’ actions outside of prison are highly entrepreneurial, with the creation of “ventures” that include production, inventory, sales, employees, managers, distribution, security, etc. When incarcerated with fellow “entrepreneurs,” tricks of the trade are exchanged producing even smarter destructive entrepreneurship upon release.

Limitations include a small sample of interviewees, responses are anecdotal, subjective truth, and localized to the state of Colorado in the United States.

The findings inform research on entrepreneurial cognition set in the destructive space, as well as reveal methods and intentions that lead to a better understanding of the “structure of the reward” for such behavior.

An examination of this behavior and underlying motives provides insights as to how society might be better prepared for and redirect destructive entrepreneurial behavior toward more positive outcomes.

The current sparse literature engaging the concept of destructive entrepreneurship generally does so at the country, institution, or corporate level. This chapter focuses on destructive entrepreneurial behavior at the individual (micro venture) level and provides recommendations for policy consideration.

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.

Why is the quality of innovation-driven entrepreneurship seemingly declining? We argue the growing Entrepreneurship Industry and the way it has transformed entrepreneurship as an activity are important, under-appreciated explanations. By leveraging the Ideology of Entrepreneurialism to mass-produce and mass-market products, the Entrepreneurship Industry has made possible what we term Veblenian Entrepreneurship. This is entrepreneurship pursued primarily as a form of conspicuous consumption, and it is fundamentally different from the innovation-driven entrepreneurship that it emulates and superficially resembles. Aside from lowering average entrepreneurial quality, Veblenian Entrepreneurship has a range of (short-run) positive and (medium- and long-run) negative effects for both individuals and society at large. We argue that the rise of the Veblenian Entrepreneur might contribute to creating an increasingly Untrepreneurial Economy. An Untrepreneurial Economy appears innovation-driven and dynamic but is actually rife with inefficiencies and unable to generate economically meaningful growth through innovation.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the role of trust and distrust in social networks within the entrepreneurial ecosystem and to develop a conceptual scheme of the impact of trust and distrust on productive and unproductive entrepreneurship.

This study develops a conceptual scheme, founded on the social capital and resource-based view of a firm, by exploring the impact of trust and distrust on entrepreneurial behavior in a social network.

As the paper indicates, trust within an entrepreneurial ecosystem has a positive impact on productive entrepreneurship, while distrust within the ecosystem is expected to be unproductive and destructive (or potentially illegal) to an economy.

The research implication of this paper is that it connects levels of trust and distrust within the ecosystem to the type of the behavior exhibited by entrepreneurs leading either to productive or unproductive entrepreneurial endeavors. As this study is based on the theoretical review resulting in a conceptual scheme, it requires further investigation of proposed interactions.

This paper offers strategic alternatives for entrepreneurs seeking to enhance future endeavors by strengthening trust within social networks for the mutual benefits of the ecosystem and businesses within it.

This study highlights the importance of two social constructs of trust and distrust in maintaining existing and developing future ecosystems. It also reviews potential outcomes of entrepreneurial behavior and their impact on economies.

This research examines both trust and distrust (two separate social constructs) as significant predictors of future outcomes in the entrepreneurial ecosystem that go beyond productive entrepreneurship.

Purpose – To explore the links between entrepreneurship and misbehavior.

Approach – Conceptual development using cases as illustrative examples.

Findings – The chapter finds that there is an overlap between the way misbehavior is defined and the way entrepreneurship is conceptualized in the literature. It also finds previous research, distinguishing between desirable and undesirable misbehavior based on the intentions or the outcomes of behavior, insufficient in relation to entrepreneurship as misbehavior. The reason is that for entrepreneurial ventures, the underlying intentions are often good, but the outcomes often not; and that making assessments of the outcomes of entrepreneurial ventures a priori is notoriously difficult. Assessing misbehavior based only on organizational level evaluations is likewise insufficient in relation to entrepreneurship. The reason for this is that support for the venture may be needed also from actors outside of the organization. Furthermore, what constitutes the organization is not always clear. Therefore, we argue that it is necessary to broaden the view of what institutions determine whether a venture classifies as misbehavior when analyzing entrepreneurship.

Research limitations – The cases used to illustrate the overlap between entrepreneurship and misbehavior are conspicuous and not necessarily representative of entrepreneurship and misbehavior in general.

Originality – This is a first attempt at merging the misbehavior and entrepreneurship literatures, which highlights an important niche with a great promise for future research.

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 authors probe the relationships between country institutional support for entrepreneurship and new venture survival. Specifically, the authors unpack the nuanced influences of entrepreneurs' perceived environmental uncertainty and their subsequent entrepreneurial behavioral profiles and how this particularly bolsters venture survival in contexts with underdeveloped institutions for entrepreneurship.

Coleman (1990) ‘bathtub’ framework is applied to develop a model and propositions surrounding how and when emerging market entrepreneur's perceptions of their countries institutional support toward entrepreneurship can ultimately enhance new venture survival.

Entrepreneurs' interpretations of regulatory, cognitive and normative institutional support for private enterprise helps them embrace uncertainties more accurately reflective of “on the ground” realities and stimulates constructive entrepreneurial behaviors. These are critical for increasing survival prospects in characteristically turbulent, emerging market contexts that typically lack reliable formal resources for cultivating nascent ventures.

This paper has implications for international policymakers seeking to stimulate and sustain entrepreneurial ventures in emerging markets. The authors shed light on the practical importance of understanding the social realities and interpretations of entrepreneurs in a given country relating to their actual perceptions of support for venturing—cautioning a tendency for outsiders to over-rely on aggregated econometric indices and various national ‘doing business' rankings.

This study is the first to create a conceptual framework on the mechanisms of how entrepreneurs in emerging economies affect new venture survival. Drawing on Coleman's bathtub (1990), the authors develop propositional arguments for a multilevel sequential framework that considers how developing economies' country institutional profiles (CIP) influence entrepreneurs' perceptions of environmental uncertainty. Subsequently, this cultivates associated entrepreneurial behavior profiles, which ultimately enhance (inhibit) venture survival rates. Further, the authors discuss the boundary conditions of this regarding how the national culture serves to moderate each of these key relationships in both positive and negative ways.

This purpose of this paper is to examine cultural orientations and intention of Ghanaian women to engage in entrepreneurship while assessing the role of perceived support system. The aim is to contribute to the literature in the sub-Saharan African context where women entrepreneurs are generally under-researched, despite their increasing significant roles in socio-economic development in the continent even in the face of huge cultural barriers.

The study uses a hierarchical regression analysis and Hay’s PROCESS moderation technique to analyze survey data from 190 female students from Ghana, Africa.

The results indicate that uncertainty avoidance and power distance cultural orientations have significant positive and negative effects, respectively, on women’s participation in formal entrepreneurship. However, collectivism and masculine cultural orientations do not have any effect on their intention to engage in formal entrepreneurial activity. The study further shows that perceived support system has a buffering effect on the destructive consequences of power distance culture on formal entrepreneurship intentions. On the contrary, perceived support does not moderate the relationship between uncertainty avoidance, collectivism and masculine cultural and formal entrepreneurial intention.

Given the fact that most African governments are making efforts to accelerate the growth and development of their economies via entrepreneurship and economic empowerment, this study’s findings encourage stakeholders to implement measures to leverage on the positive dimensions of cultures to facilitate the development of formal entrepreneurship among Ghanaian women while mitigating the negative consequences of cultural practices. The findings further highlight the need to evaluate the current level of support given to women in Ghana. The study suggests that provision of sufficient level of support can make women more willing to challenge the status quo in power distance cultures and take personal initiatives, thereby leading to more formal entrepreneurial actions.

This study is a significant addition to women entrepreneurship literature because the role of culture in females’ intention to participate in entrepreneurship is generally an under-researched area. Besides, our examination of national cultural variation at the individual level on formal entrepreneurship intention in a heterogeneous setting is novel. The study also highlights the buffering roles of perceived support on the destructive consequences of power distance cultural orientation on formal entrepreneurial development among women.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether, in entrepreneurship disciplines, professors address equally the positive and negative aspects associated with being an entrepreneur. The literature shows that entrepreneurship professors are enthusiastic about entrepreneurial action, and there may be a bias toward predominant emphasis on positive aspects.

The case study strategy was used to analyze disciplines that qualify entrepreneurship professors. The content analysis technique was applied to the description of the discipline contents and texts from the most frequently used literatures. The selected case (the country) satisfied the condition of having a regulatory agency that evaluates courses and also provides descriptive records of the disciplines that are taught.

It was observed that the topics discussed in the disciplines, as well as the texts of the most frequently used articles, contain a higher volume of messages that are positive and favorable toward the entrepreneurial act. Negative effects or aspects of entrepreneurship are addressed superficially.

This article provides important reflections on the activities of those who teach entrepreneurship, as well as editors and reviewers of entrepreneurship journals. Regarding the former, when preparing the content of their disciplines, and for the latter, when evaluating articles, bearing in mind that their articles are also used by students and professors from countries with less developed economies.

Exploring the myths of entrepreneurship, especially the claim that everyone is capable of becoming an entrepreneur and that entrepreneurship promotes economic development, the risk of becoming an entrepreneur was addressed, especially in countries with less developed economies. From this viewpoint, issues regarding the responsible teaching of entrepreneurship were addressed, along with the need to focus equally on the favorable and unfavorable aspects of entrepreneurship.

Although economic and entrepreneurship scholars have argued that high income inequality has a positive impact on entrepreneurship by increasing the incentives for high quality human capital to take entrepreneurial risk and by enabling talented entrepreneurs to accumulate and reinvest capital into new businesses, we suggest that the relationship between economic inequality and entrepreneurship may be more complex than initially indicated in light of recent research on the topic of social trust and entrepreneurship. We propose that income inequality is likely to have a curvilinear effect on entrepreneurial activity. Although moderate levels of inequality can increase entrepreneurial activity, very high levels of inequality will begin to reduce rates of entrepreneurship due to diminished generalized social trust in the community. Lower generalized social trust decreases the sharing of information and resources leading to fewer entrepreneurial opportunities, and as a result, lower levels of entrepreneurship.