Search results

This chapter discusses conceptual links among Hazel Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption (1923), the overall work of Thorstein Veblen, and Wesley C. Mitchell’s essays on spending and money. The three authors are concerned with transformations in production, related changes in the organization of consumption, and the effects on people. The approach is based on reading of Kyrk’s book in light of an integrated view of Veblen’s overall work. This chapter explains how Mitchell’s essays on money and spending built on Veblen’s work and discusses their relevance for understanding Kyrk’s book as conceptually linked to institutional economics. This chapter delineates the following commonalities: conception of living humans and money as an institution; distinction between business and industrial concerns; connection between distribution, waste, and consumption; and Veblen’s “machine process” of standardization in production and its relation to consumption. This chapter brings more detail in the conceptual and theoretical discussion of Veblen’s influence on Kyrk’s book.

This chapter examines the role extracurricular activities have in developing higher education (HE) student’s entrepreneurial competencies and capabilities. Specifically, this chapter examines: What type of students participate in extracurricular activities? Why do students choose to participate? and What activities offer for entrepreneurial competency and capability development. An electronic survey (e-survey) collected pre- and post-data from two groups: Group A – students participating in extracurricular enterprise and entrepreneurship (EEEx) activities (n = 119); and Group B – students engaged in non-enterprise-related extracurricular activities (n = 72). Findings indicated that students in both groups were motivated to engage in extracurricular activities to enhance their skills, fulfil personal interests and enhance their employability. Utilising Morris, Webb, Fu, and Singhal’s (2013) entrepreneurial competencies list as a model, there were found to increase in all but one competency (creativity) for Group A, yet for the control group, most competencies decreased. Independent sample T-tests demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the final ratings of entrepreneurial capability between Group A and Group B, however, the degree of improvement for perceived entrepreneurial capability, pre-to-post, for those participating in enterprise activities was substantially higher than the control group. Finally, students participating in EEEx activities were more likely female, studying a programme within the Business School, and in the second or final stage of their programme. This chapter demonstrates the value that EEEx activities provide in a competency context for students and tasks educators with considering how to develop and signpost specific entrepreneurial competencies and capabilities.

With practical entrepreneurship capabilities becoming ever more important for all university graduates, whether they are starting their own business or adding value to an organisation by innovating, improving, and problem-solving, what role do business incubators (BIs) play in helping to develop these capabilities for students? This chapter aims to better understand the role of BIs as extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity in universities through a narrative account of business incubation practice in three institutions – two in England and one in Australia. Utilising a practice-led methodology, the study is underpinned by social capital theory and a critical realist ontological perspective on incubation’s mechanisms, processes, and structures. Across these examples, there are common underpinning principles of entrepreneurial learning and socio-economic development. However, there are differences in implementation regarding space for incubation. Where the BI is on campus and closely integrated with extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity, this results in a cohesive graduate startup community and ongoing peer support. With no BI present, the opposite is observed. The chapter argues that without the infrastructure to build and maintain a community of nascent entrepreneurs to benefit from sustained peer learning, there can be negative impacts on the entrepreneurs and a visible gap affecting the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The chapter concludes with a practice note providing practical considerations for university BIs in communicating the significance of the incubator peer group to prospective entrepreneurs to improve realistic expectations and potentially improve their reach to entrepreneurs who may be experiencing isolation during their startup journey.

This chapter provides an overview of entrepreneurship clubs. It charts the development of these organisations, as a form of extracurricular activity. It introduces different forms of entrepreneurship clubs, such as Junior Achievement (JA) and Enactus, and explains how they grew from 1919 to the present. It also illustrates the differences between self-organised clubs, organised programs using clubs as a learning method, structured societies and nationally organised cooperative societies. The second part introduces research on student clubs in entrepreneurship education. It explores the benefits of clubs. It shows that clubs assist student learning, enable the acquisition of practical skills and improve college attendance, employment opportunities and career attainment. We argue that entrepreneurship clubs have improved student learning outcomes in entrepreneurship and simulated entrepreneurial learning, while impacting student self-efficacy and intentionality as well as improving employability and social learning. The final part of the chapter provides advice and tips for educators advising student-run entrepreneurship clubs. Ultimately, the chapter explains how student clubs have developed, why they are important for student learning and how advisors can support them.

In this chapter, we apply APPNIE to two case studies, BIOerg srl and LiMiX srl, which are innovative start-ups born in the Marche Region in Italy. The choice to analyse two companies in the same region is based on the fact that the surrounding ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurship has a strong impact on the birth and subsequent development of innovative start-ups. Using these two case studies, this chapter shows the differences between SWOT and APPNIE analyses.