Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the concept of public business models and develop a theory for the process of developing and managing public business models.

This research synthesizes insights from various fields into a set of theoretical ideas that lay out what public business models are, to what extent they differ from commercial/industrial business models, and how they are developed and managed by public entrepreneurs.

Developing and managing a business model is an entrepreneurial task that has been missing from the public entrepreneurship literature. Public entrepreneurs perform these tasks using public and private resources, leveraging public institutional systems, and developing capabilities that differ in several dimensions from private entrepreneurs due to the nature of public goods and existence of quasi-markets where public business models are developed and used.

This chapter opens new avenues for research in public entrepreneurship by suggesting that (1) public business models form the foundation of public entrepreneurship, (2) public business models differ from commercial business models not in their functionality but rather in their scope and design, and (3) public business models co-evolve with public institutions to maintain their legitimacy and value creation potential.

This chapter equips public entrepreneurs with new insights into enterprising behaviors and the dynamism of value creation and capture in public ventures.

The current study represents the first attempt to directly incorporate the notion of business models into the public entrepreneurship literature.

Within the last two decades, entrepreneurship education has become institutionalized in Germany. It is offered as a stand-alone program or as part of a business degree, combining academic knowledge, practical skills, and personal development to enhance the entrepreneurial success of university graduates. While entrepreneurship education has experienced similar growth worldwide, its emergence in Germany is closely tied to the country’s political and economic developments. The significance of entrepreneurship education for a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem and contemporary economic policy has been instrumental in advancing its academic recognition. This chapter provides a historical analysis of the academization of entrepreneurship in Germany. It explores the recursive and often idiosyncratic processes involving state and financial institutions, companies, and universities that have created, respecified, and mutually reinforced a subdiscipline and field of study. Academic entrepreneurship knowledge successively not only became relevant for starting a business but also for employment within the entrepreneurial infrastructure and beyond. This chapter follows a chronological order, highlighting three key stages in the academization of entrepreneurship education. First, the academic, financial, and political roots (I) of entrepreneurship up until the 1970s. Second, it explores the transformation (II) of entrepreneurship into a viable policy alternative and the challenges faced in establishing complementary research and education in higher education institutions during the 1980s. Finally, it sketches the institutionalization (III) of entrepreneurship as a central driver of government economic policy, allowing for the late bloom of entrepreneurship education and research at universities around the turn of the millennium.

Recent scholarship in neo-evolutionary sociology has rejected stage-models in favor of multilinear theories that shift the study of sociocultural change away from teleological arguments toward those that emphasize selection pressures and macrodynamics. The paper below adopts a neo-evolutionary frame to revisit one of the most epochal moments in human sociocultural evolution, the urban revolution (about 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, China, Egypt, and perhaps the Indus Valley) and the rise of the first political units. Shifting the analysis from conventional perspectives, this paper asks the question why the polity was the first autonomous institution besides kinship and what consequences did this have on the trajectory of the human societies, and more generally, human sociocultural evolution. By doing so, a slightly different historiography is presented in which institutional autonomy corresponds not with stages, but rather an historical “phasing” that emphasizes the role that institutional entrepreneurs have played in driving institutional evolution via structural opportunities and historical contingencies.

This conceptual chapter re-actualizes the Didaktik-inspired discussions in entrepreneurship education, initiated by Kyrö, Blenker et al., and Bechard and Toulouse over 15 years ago. Didaktik in the German educational tradition is a pedagogical sub-discipline which, unlike the Anglo-American understanding of “didactics” as teaching methods, focuses on the relations between the subject, teacher, and students, and considers questions regarding what to teach, how to teach, and why, as being interdependent. A review of literature on entrepreneurship education published in the last decades shows that research in the German Didaktik tradition is sparse, and that the awareness of the differences between Didaktik and “didactics” has been overlooked. This chapter has practical implications for entrepreneurship educators as it presents Didaktik as an approach which comprises planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching in a way that includes an awareness of the learners’ relationship to the subject without excluding the teacher’s key role in education. In a theoretical perspective, the chapter challenges the Anglo-American understanding of “didactics” and proposes Didaktik as an approach to developing entrepreneurship education research and practice to be scientifically based in two fields and encompass transformative learning and critical perspectives, rather than being driven by political agendas and focusing on results.

A typology of interventionism can categorize regulations, taxes, and subsidies both theoretically and as they sequentially unfold in practice. This typology is inspired by, but broader than, the Mises interventionist thesis, which, similar to Madison's lament, recognizes the propensity of intervention to expand from its own shortcomings in the elusive quest to achieve economic rationality (Lavoie, 1982, p. 180; Ikeda, 1997, pp. 41–46; Bradley, 2006).

The Covid-19 pandemic has thwarted global mobility over an unimaginable scale, forcing the competitive market processes of the tourism sector to be seriously disrupted. The ongoing pandemic has closed borders, suspended flights, quarantined more than half of the world population, induced mass fear and shook globalisation. The phenomenon of overtourism is related to the high number of tourists, the nature and time span of their visits and the carrying capability of the destination. To understand the nature of overtourism and the implications, it is essential to recognise why people of particular cities have begun to see tourism as a factor that has an adverse impact on their quality of life. This chapter aims to provide a link between Covid-19 and overtourism and also to examine whether both of these can offer opportunities or challenges to tourist destinations in the future. Based on the analysis of numerous existing crisis recovery mechanisms, the tourism industry is expected to rebound from this abrupt market shock, mostly due to various forms of government interventions. The present startling moment of the Covid-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to find hope in the ruins through the deconstruction of framings of crisis as ‘error’ and through reflecting on the present and future role of tourism in contributing to a more socially and environmentally sustainable community.