Search results

Public entrepreneurship is increasingly being propounded as a key means of ‘doing more with less’ during the tough times associated with successive rounds of neoliberal restructuring and austerity. The primary aim of this chapter is to provide a critical-exploratory review of sponsorship – a disruptive interjection or particular form of public entrepreneurship.

Public entrepreneurship provides a useful theoretical frame for exploring some emergent ways of delivering public services in a post-Credit Crunch global operating environment. Empirical insights are derived from a single local authority in the United Kingdom.

There is a widespread concern that straitened economic conditions can engender the prevalence of short-term financial considerations at the expense of other objectives. Sponsorship, as a discrete form of public entrepreneurship in some circumstances has the potential to achieve multiple objectives, enriching public value. However, this is contingent of specific contextual factors.

By identifying some risks associated with disruptive interjections intended to open new paths for the sponsorship of public services as well as indicating some opportunities for risk reduction, it is hoped that our analysis may benefit public authorities when they are exploring or evaluating sponsorship ‘opportunities’.

Examining sponsorship through a public entrepreneurship conceptual frame has received limited research attention. Whether sponsorship is a ‘winning solution’ is contingent on the particular form of sponsorship as well as the specific time and place.

The purpose of this paper is to overcome the traditional general approach to sport policy by taking an entrepreneurial perspective. This helps link the fragmented literatures of entrepreneurship, public policy and sport entrepreneurship in order to develop a new perspective of sport entrepreneurship and public policy.

A literature review is conducted that highlights the need for public policy to focus on entrepreneurship in sports contexts.

In the past, sport policy focused more on governance and political elements but these can be embedded into a policy entrepreneurship perspective regarding sport. This helps to redefine and bridge the literature on sport entrepreneurship and public policy.

Most sport policy research has tended to take a more organizational behavior or political science approach. Thus, this paper takes a new perspective by incorporating the nascent sport entrepreneurship literature into public policy debates. This is helpful to public policy planners but also sports managers who need to work together to build better policy initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the President Obama Youth African Leadership Initiative (YALI) program with evidence from experts and other relevant stakeholders. This study examines YALI program with a focus on entrepreneurship and public management.

Qualitative semi-structured interviews used in this study explore the understanding and diverse views of various stakeholder experts on training of young leaders in entrepreneurship and public management in Africa regarding the YALI program.

The study provides insight into the importance of the YALI program, but questions whether it can make a positive impact and be effectively implemented in Africa. The findings suggest that there is lack of clarity in the objectives of the program, particularly with regards to the role of the key stakeholders including academics, government institutions, policymakers and the private sector. The results underscore the need for sound and clear-cut government policies toward entrepreneurship development that will foster a better relationship between the African governments and the United States Agency for International Development program.

The study focused on academic experts and a number of policymakers and may not have been representative of all stakeholders.

The study specifically emphasizes policies that target entrepreneurship training and education for women and youth, using a participatory approach and multi-stakeholder partnership to promote innovative entrepreneurship and social development in the continent.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate researchers’ interest by acquainting them with some aspects of the entrepreneurship literature they may not have known.

The paper is a non‐meta‐analytic literature review of several literatures in entrepreneurship.

The entrepreneurship literature is vast and can be found in every discipline where humans and their behaviour are the object of analysis.

Because the entrepreneurship literature is so large and widespread, the paper reviews only a small, deliberately chosen sample of the literature.

To the authors’ knowledge, no one has previously written a unified review of the market entrepreneurship, political entrepreneurship, and public choice.

The aim of this chapter is to present and analyze the role of public entrepreneurship programs in fostering technology-based entrepreneurship in Turkey. More precisely, the authors of the chapter present and analyze the public policy programs aimed at entrepreneurship that have been put into action in Turkey in the last 20 years. The particular focus is on the type of programs that have been introduced, what have they achieved so far, and their contribution to the economy in terms of technology-based entrepreneurship. Together with the statistics about the output of the programs, data are also provided by a series of interviews with technology-based entrepreneurs to develop a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of those programs. Recommendations and ideas are derived from the research to improve these programs.

This chapter aims to examine the influence of governance on entrepreneurship in several countries, members of the European Union, in 2012–2017. The selection of the countries was based on human development index and expected years of schooling criteria, thus considering several sustainable development goals, involving the governments’ roles, the private sector, civil society, and citizens. The empirical analysis consisted of correlations, principal component analysis, and regression models. The Pearson correlation coefficient evidenced a series of negative relationships, statistically significant, between the governance indicators and business demography. The principal component analysis returned two main components for our database: the main one incorporates five governance proxies (control of corruption, rule of law, regulatory framework, government effectiveness, and political stability), while the second component is based on the voice and accountability. Therefore, the first governance component is more related to the public sector, while the second one reflects the involvement of civil society. The regression analysis considered besides the ordinary least squares model, the fixed effects and random effects model to emphasize whether or not differences across countries would impact the regression results. Several entrepreneurship variables were employed as dependent variables: business demography, high growth enterprise rates by employment, employer enterprise net growth, and business demography by size class. The consistent regression results emphasized an indirect impact from public governance toward high growth enterprise rates by employment and employer enterprise net growth. Based on our findings, the main conclusion is that public policies do not support entrepreneurship or the national context for entrepreneurs’ development. Moreover, the citizens’ involvement and their opportunities to participate in public decisions in terms of supporting entrepreneurship are also limited.

Practice demonstrates and research validates that entrepreneurship is moving from the individual to the organization and from the private sector to the social and not‐for‐profit sectors. The present study endeavors to complement the emerging public entrepreneurship literature by aiming to identify which of those factors that stimulate corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector are preferred by entrepreneurial civil servants.

A questionnaire was completed by a random sample (n=247) of public servants across 15 Greek prefectures. Results are based on Bayesian factor analysis, conjoint analysis and cluster analysis.

Results provide preliminary evidence about entrepreneurial civil servants' preferences and make available a well‐documented framework for addressing corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector.

The reported research relied on self‐reporting. In addition, because the sample consisted entirely of public servants across Greek prefectures, findings may not be applicable to other public sector contexts (such as hospitals) and other countries. Data are cross‐sectional and alternative relationships may exist. Future research should be multinational and longitudinal to test the assumptions of the present study.

The results of the study are useful both to academics and policy makers interested in formulating a strategy that fosters corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector.

During the last 15 years, considerable effort has been devoted to developing more effective, more efficient, and more flexible public organizations. Using qualitative methods, the results of the present exploratory research identify which factors that foster corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector are preferred by entrepreneurial public servants.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how research on the intersection of public policy and entrepreneurship has been bounded by its static approach and how a processual analysis based on Austrian economics can advance the understanding of the subject matter.

Rooted in the Austrian school of economics, this conceptual paper adopts a processual approach in order to unveil the effects that public policy exerts upon entrepreneurship and the market process.

The authors argue that by interfering with the market process, public policy detrimentally alters what otherwise would have been the market's natural evolution reflecting acting individuals' subjective valuations. It causes progressively self-reinforcing market distortions which result in comparatively lower levels of both capital accumulation and societal wealth.

The paper urges future research to rethink public policy's effects on entrepreneurship and to explore them more comprehensively, utilizing market process analysis.

This research suggests that public policy can never be neutral but necessarily comes with distortive and often detrimental effects. That is, public policy comes at the innate expense of hampering the entrepreneurial process. Thus, new public policies and those already in place should be carefully reconsidered in light of these effects.

This paper offers a novel take on how to best understand the effects public policy has on entrepreneurship and the market process.

The purpose of this research is to elaborate on a model of entrepreneurship within the public sector.

Case studies involving state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) trace three examples of entrepreneurial ventures.

A theme of strategic use of entrepreneurial action within these organisations emerges. It is argued that these examples are representative of both a field of enquiry and a specific concept which has been termed “strategic entrepreneurship”.

On the strength of the findings from this study we are able to draw two important conclusions. First, empirical support is found for the notion of “strategic entrepreneurship”, which is defined and explained in this paper. Second, incidences of strategic entrepreneurship are demonstrated in the SOEs, which extend the range of entrepreneurial types usually described in the public sector.

A number of core and supporting elements of strategic entrepreneurship are identified, providing a clear framework for businesses.

This paper progresses strategic entrepreneurship beyond the purely theoretical, by examining and analysing strategic entrepreneurship in an applied business setting, in this case public sector organisations.

This chapter introduces the two main topics of ‘entrepreneurial policing’ and ‘criminal entrepreneurship’ and begins in Section 1.1 by considering the concept and scope of entrepreneurial policing around which this monograph is organised. Its definition and ontological development are considered. Thereafter, the author briefly discuss what entrepreneurship is (and is not) and set out examples of entrepreneurship of interest to policing, including – ‘Corporate’ and ‘Team’ Entrepreneurship, ‘Intrapreneurship’, ‘Social Entrepreneurship and Animateurship’, ‘Civic Entrepreneurship’, and ‘Public Service Entrepreneurship’. The author then discusses why entrepreneurship is of critical importance to the police service and discuss worked examples. Having developed a basic understanding of the power and utility of entrepreneurship, then in more detail what the term entrepreneurial policing means and how it evolved in practice and in the academic literature are considered. In Section 1.2, the foundations of entrepreneurial policing considering its ontological and epistemological development from ‘New Public Management’ to ‘New Entrepreneurialism’ and also the influence of the merging literatures of ‘Criminal Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Entrepreneurial Leadership’ are critically examined. In Section 1.3, our consideration to include a more nuanced understanding of the what is referred to as the ‘Entrepreneurship–Policing Nexus’ including consideration of the influence of dyslexia on policing and crime and the power of the ‘Entrepreneurial’ and ‘Gangster’ dreams on entrepreneurial motivation and propensity are expanded. In Section 1.4, an attempt is made to identify who the stakeholders of this new policing philosophy are? Finally, in Section 1.5, the chapter takeaway points which both articulates and confirms the inherent importance of entrepreneurship in policing and criminal contexts are discussed and detailed.