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.

In this chapter, the authors explore collective entrepreneurship through the lens of how public entrepreneurship boosts collective action towards a common good. The role of public entrepreneurs and the collaborative nature of innovation community members evidence a collective action that pursues a socio-political change. Through a case study contextualized during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in Spain, the authors explore how a public entrepreneur triggered a collective action that led to the creation of the innovation community: The Coronavirus makers. This collaborative network groups more than 20,000 researchers, developers, and engineers. They altruistically put their knowledge and resources at the service of the community to provide solutions for one of the healthcare system’s main problems at that time – the shortage of medical supplies to cope with the increasing number of COVID-19 cases. The collective action of the Coronavirus makers has impacted the health and wellbeing fields, the community and the values that should define social change and allow the construction of a more open, equitable and sustainable society. Potentially, our findings confirm that collective entrepreneurship derives from a function of collective action.

Evidence suggests that international comparison has become a ubiquitous component of educational innovation and entrepreneurship in spite of significant variation among educational contexts worldwide. This chapter provides an overview of educational innovation and public sector entrepreneurship from an internationally comparative perspective. The influence that the global shift from natural resource and industry-based economies to knowledge-based economies has had on the development of educational innovation and entrepreneurship is explained. Several examples of educational innovation and education-oriented public sector entrepreneurship highlight the discussion, which concludes with an examination of specific knowledge society issues related to educational entrepreneurship and its reciprocal effect on innovation.

It has been more than 20 years since the “Reinventing Government” movement swept through the American public sector. Over time, the tenets of public entrepreneurship and new public management have diverged due to liability and risk aversion. One of the core elements of entrepreneurship is risk taking, and with it the likelihood of failure. The purpose of this paper is to reconcile these issues under a simple framework of “entrepreneurial governance” that works across the elements of knowledge, innovation, opportunity, and implementation.

This is primarily a set of problems (liability, risk aversion, critiques) that negatively impacts the application of public entrepreneurship. To build a framework, the author made a substantive review of the literature to “get back to basics” and clarify the problems, as well as draw fundamental concepts about entrepreneurship.

The framework was developed by applying the more current notion of “governance” with the basic elements of entrepreneurship, acknowledging that in implementation we have to account for the critiques by reinforcing responsible risk reduction and ethical decision making.

The intent was to create a framework based on fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship. The limitations/implications are that additional research will have to develop more concrete testing methods and then test the framework.

The intent here was to create a “practitioner friendly” prescriptive framework that could be almost immediately applied.

A culture shift away from risk aversion (and corrupt practices) has to allow risk taking and with it responsible risk reduction (and failure or success).

The reliance on existing literature reduces some of the originality, except to re-conceptualize public entrepreneurship in a way that accounts for its shortcomings. The value in shifting culture and responsibly reducing risk is difficult to estimate.

Public entrepreneurs are an under-researched group in local government. The purpose of this paper is to explore the contextual complexities of public entrepreneurs who pursue more creative ways of “doing more with less” to cope with dynamic financial and societal anxieties of Greek local government fiscal austerity policy reforms. Precisely, this study aims to the understanding of how specific contextual influences impact, first, on the nature of public entrepreneurship and, second, on manifested outcomes. A systematic approach marks the authors attempt to assess the broader impact pointing out the implications for research, policy and practice.

A case study of Greek local government draws on 26 in-depth semi-structured interviews with public entrepreneurs across top, middle and front-line levels of management, field notes, documentary and archival evidence.

The findings demonstrate unique Greek contextual complexities such as contradictory tensions between triggered decentralisation of control and responsibilities of the local government and attempts of external reinvention rather than internal renewal. These complexities influence public entrepreneurs’ systemic entrepreneurship behaviours in Greek local government since the implementation of fiscal austerity policy reforms in 2010. Their representation is manifest in policy, administrative and technological outcomes with public value consequences.

This research contributes to a deeper understanding of public entrepreneurship in context. Greek local government public entrepreneurs bring original insights on the contextual influences of their systemic enactment and manifested outcomes, with implications for research, policy and practice.

The interest in entrepreneurship in the public sector is recognized as an emergent phenomenon in the field of entrepreneurship. Existing theoretical work is limited in helping understand how entrepreneurship in public agencies occurs. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a conceptual paper which develops the literature.

Building on the work of Klein et al. (2010) this paper contributes to theoretical development by providing an overview of public sector entrepreneurship (PSE). Although, there are similar features shared by private and PSE, it is proposed that there are significant differences between them, particularly in that public sector enterprise can be seen as entrepreneurship without entrepreneurs.

As a conceptual paper on PSE the literature is predominantly UK based.

This paper brings entrepreneurship from the periphery to the core of the theoretical debates, as it is an under-researched area. Moreover, theoretical development has implications for policy and practice as existing research is disparate.

The paper considers how entrepreneurship and enterprise in the public sector is formulated. The significance of the paper is to highlight the importance of public entrepreneurs in working alongside a multitude of stakeholders to deal with numerous global and internal environment forces ethically amongst on-going budgetary and fiscal constraints. The contribution is the highlighting of the difficulties and concerns when uniting the discourse of market-based entrepreneurship and the discourse of public sector service provision.

While the term “entrepreneurship” is not exclusively a private sector phenomenon, it is usually associated with private sector business activity and more specifically with small to medium enterprises. However, over the last two decades it has appeared in the public administration literature with increasing frequency. The recent research in public sector entrepreneurial activity makes an exploratory comparative analysis of the key components that are applicable from private sector entrepreneurship timely as the topic is emerging as an area of academic inquiry and research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of private and public sector entrepreneurship using an analytical model from private and public sector entrepreneurship.

A clear understanding of the research issues involved requires an appreciation of the nexus between private sector entrepreneurship and the more limited research field of public sector entrepreneurship. The paper identifies and examines the historical and evolutionary research on entrepreneurship as a basis for analysis of public and private sector entrepreneurship.

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis that highlights key similarities, differences or a combination between public and private sector entrepreneurship and develops an existing model and framework for a systematic approach to the public sector entrepreneurial process.

Based on this exploration, new insights about public sector entrepreneurship are developed, practical implications for public sector entrepreneurs on how to approach public sector entrepreneurship more systematically and effectively are presented and opportunities for further research are identified.

The purpose of this paper is to outline barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship and explore the impact of those barriers on population shifts within the USA.

This paper lays out five specific barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship: barriers to entry and exit for consumers and producers, increased centralization and concentration in government, the lack of residual claim amongst public-sector actors, the rise of public-sector union membership and increasingly uncompetitive elections. The paper then assesses the impact of each of these barriers on population and production changes within the USA from 2010 to 2017.

Those state governments with limited barriers for productive public-sector entrepreneurship are rewarded with faster growing populations. Specifically, states with higher incomes, less centralized spending, lower public-sector unionization rates and higher state credit ratings tend to experience the greatest levels of population growth. States with less centralized spending also experience the largest increases in gross state product per capita.

This paper offers practical applications for policy makers wishing to increase their tax bases, increase the standard of living for their constituents or increase the efficiency in production and distribution of government goods and services. In particular, this paper offers evidence that an improved credit rating carries the most economic significance for population gains.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to examine Tiebout effects from barriers to public-sector entrepreneurship in the USA. Researchers in fields including political science, economics, management and public policy have all contributed to our understanding of public entrepreneurship. And yet, there are still numerous barriers preventing productive public-sector entrepreneurship from occurring at an optimal level.

The decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities is grounded in personal characteristics (motivation) and external environmental factors. One of the main external factors might be the structure of the regional economic activity. Does a high share of the public sector affect positively regional entrepreneurship or vice versa? Does the diversity in regional economic activity is conducive for entrepreneurial development or the regional comparative advantage as expressed by spatial economies of scale offering more entrepreneurial opportunities? Even though economic analysis has extensively examined the impact of the public sector size on the overall national economic activity (the crowding out effect), this impact has not been into scrutiny at regional level on microeconomic issues, such as the decision to engage in entrepreneurial activities. The authors further investigate the relation between diversity and entrepreneurship at regional level. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper uses data for 264 NUTS II EU regions. The time span of the data set is 1999-2008. The paper applies panel data analysis to explain the cross-time cross-section variation of the dependent variable: the self-employment share in total employment at regional level. In order to measure the existence of crowding out from public sector to regional entrepreneurship, the authors use the share of regional public sector gross value added over total regional gross value added. The diversity of the regional economic activity is measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index across sectors.

The findings of the paper show that there is a negative correlation between public sector share and regional entrepreneurship. Hence, as at national level, the increase in the role of the public sector in the regional economic system crowds out regional entrepreneurship. The second finding indicates that the impact of the diversity of the regional economic activity on regional entrepreneurship is inconclusive.

The originality of this paper is due to the fact that the role of the public sector on regional economic phenomena, such as entrepreneurship, is examined for the first time. Also, the investigation of the relationship between diversity (vs localization economies) and entrepreneurship is performed using data for the full sample of regions of the European Union. The findings of the paper have significant policy implications since they provide useful inputs for the design of the regional development policy. The reduction of the public sector at regional level may contribute in entrepreneurial development and finally in regional economic growth and prosperity. Besides, the regional industrial policy should focus on the exploitation of the spatially constraint economies of scope in the framework of the Triple Helix model.