Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Entrepreneurship
View on Wikipedia
| Part of a series on |
| Capitalism |
|---|
| Part of a series on |
| Economics |
|---|
|
|
Entrepreneurship is the creation or extraction of economic value in ways that generally entail beyond the minimal amount of risk (assumed by a traditional business), and potentially involving values besides simply economic ones.[citation needed]
An entrepreneur (French: [ɑ̃tʁəpʁənœʁ]) is an individual who creates and/or invests in one or more businesses, bearing most of the risks and enjoying most of the rewards.[1] The process of setting up a business is also known as "entrepreneurship".[citation needed] The entrepreneur is commonly seen as an innovator, a source of new ideas, goods, services, and business/or procedures.
More narrow definitions have described entrepreneurship as the process of designing, launching and running a new business, often similar to a small business, or (per Business Dictionary) as the "capacity and willingness to develop, organize and manage a business venture along with any of its risks to make a profit".[2] The people who create these businesses are often referred to as "entrepreneurs".[3][4][need quotation to verify]
In the field of economics, the term entrepreneur is used for an entity that has the ability to translate inventions or technologies into products and services.[5] In this sense, entrepreneurship describes activities on the part both of established firms and of startups.
Perspectives on entrepreneurship
[edit]In the 21st century the governments of nation states have tried to promote entrepreneurship, as well as enterprise culture, in the hope that it would improve or stimulate economic growth and competition. After the end of supply-side economics, entrepreneurship was supposed to boost the economy.[6]
As an academic field, entrepreneurship accommodates different schools of thought. It has been studied within disciplines such as management, economics, sociology, and economic history.[7][8] Some view entrepreneurship as allocated to the entrepreneur. These scholars tend to focus on what the entrepreneur does and what traits an entrepreneur has. This is sometimes referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.[9] Others deviate from the individualistic perspective to turn the spotlight on the entrepreneurial process and immerse in the interplay between agency and context. This approach is sometimes referred to as the processual approach,[9] or the contextual turn/approach to entrepreneurship.[10][11]
Elements
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (August 2021) |
Entrepreneurship includes the creation or extraction of economic value.[11][12][13] It is the act of being an entrepreneur, or the owner or manager of a business enterprise who, by risk and initiative, attempts to make profits.[citation needed] Entrepreneurs act as managers and oversee the launch and growth of an enterprise. According to the scholar V. Ratten, entrepreneurship is defined as:
the identification of business-related opportunities through a process of using existing, new or a recombination of resources in an innovative and creative way.[14]
In the early 19th century, the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say provided a broad definition of entrepreneurship, saying that it "shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield". Entrepreneurs create something new and unique—they change or transmute value.
Regardless of the firm size, big or small, it can take part in entrepreneurship opportunities. There are four criteria for becoming an entrepreneur. First, there must be opportunities or situations to recombine resources to generate profit. Second, entrepreneurship requires differences between people, such as preferential access to certain individuals or the ability to recognize information about opportunities. Third, taking on a level of risk is a necessity. Fourth, the entrepreneurial process requires the organization of people and resources.[15]
An entrepreneur uses their time, energy, and resources to create value for others. They are rewarded for this effort monetarily and therefore both the consumer of the value created and the entrepreneur benefit.
The entrepreneur is a factor in and the study of entrepreneurship reaches back to the work of Richard Cantillon and Adam Smith in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. However, entrepreneurship was largely ignored theoretically until the late 19th and early 20th centuries and empirically until a profound resurgence in business and economics since the late 1970s.[16]
In the 20th century, the understanding of entrepreneurship owes much to the work of economist Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s and other Austrian economists such as Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. According to Schumpeter, an entrepreneur is a person who is willing and able to convert a new idea or invention into a successful innovation. Entrepreneurship employs what Schumpeter called "the gale of creative destruction" to replace in whole or in part inferior innovations across markets and industries, simultaneously creating new products, including new business models.[17]
Extensions of Schumpeter's thesis about entrepreneurship have sought to describe the traits of an entrepreneur using various data sets and techniques. Looking at data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), entrepreneurial traits specific to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are: experience in managing or owning a business, pursuit of an opportunity while being employed, and self-employment. In the decision to establish a new business, the ASEAN entrepreneur depends especially on their own long-term mental model of their enterprise, while scanning for new opportunities in the short-term. These driving characteristics allude to the presence of serial entrepreneurship in the region.[18]
It has been argued, that creative destruction is largely responsible for the dynamism of industries and long-run economic growth. The supposition that entrepreneurship leads to economic growth is an interpretation of the residual in endogenous growth theory and as such is debated in academic economics. An alternative description posited by Israel Kirzner suggests that the majority of innovations may be much more incremental improvements such as the replacement of paper with plastic in the making of drinking straws.
Entrepreneurical opportunities
[edit]The exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities may include:[19]
- Developing a business plan
- Hiring human resources
- Acquiring financial and material resources
- Providing leadership
- Being responsible for both the venture's success or failure
- Risk aversion
The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) saw the role of the entrepreneur in the economy as "creative destruction", Which he defined as launching innovations that simultaneously destroy old industries while ushering in new industries and approaches. For Schumpeter, the changes and "dynamic economic equilibrium brought on by the innovating entrepreneur [were] the norm of a healthy economy".[20] While entrepreneurship is often associated with new, small, for-profit start-ups, entrepreneurial behavior can be seen in small-, medium- and large-sized firms, new and established firms and in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, including voluntary-sector groups, charitable organizations and government.[21]
Entrepreneurship may operate within an entrepreneurship ecosystem which often includes:
- Government programs and services that promote entrepreneurship and support entrepreneurs and start-ups
- Non-governmental organizations such as small-business associations and organizations that offer advice and mentoring to entrepreneurs (e.g. through entrepreneurship centers or websites)
- Small-business advocacy organizations that lobby governments for increased support for entrepreneurship programs and more small business-friendly laws and regulations
- Entrepreneurship resources and facilities (e.g. business incubators and seed accelerators)
- Entrepreneurship education and training programs offered by schools, colleges and universities
- Financing (e.g. bank loans, venture capital financing, angel investing and government and private foundation grants)[22][need quotation to verify]
In the 2000s, usage of the term "entrepreneurship" expanded to include how and why some individuals (or teams) identify opportunities, evaluate them as viable, and then decide to exploit them.[23] The term has also been used to discuss how people might use these opportunities to develop new products or services, launch new firms or industries, and create wealth.[24] The entrepreneurial process is uncertain because opportunities can only be identified after they have been exploited.[25]
Entrepreneurs exhibit positive biases towards finding new possibilities and seeing unmet market needs, and a tendency towards risk-taking that makes them more likely to exploit business opportunities.[26][27]
History
[edit]Historical usage
[edit]
"Entrepreneur" (/ˌɒ̃trəprəˈnɜːr, -ˈnjʊər/ ⓘ, UK also /-prɛ-/) is a loanword from French. The word first appeared in the French dictionary entitled Dictionnaire Universel de Commerce compiled by Jacques des Bruslons and published in 1723.[28] Especially in Britain, the term "adventurer" was often used to denote the same meaning.[29] The study of entrepreneurship reaches back to the work in the late 17th and early 18th centuries of Irish-French economist Richard Cantillon, which was foundational to classical economics. Cantillon defined the term first in his Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général, or Essay on the Nature of Trade in General, a book William Stanley Jevons considered the "cradle of political economy".[30][31] Cantillon defined the term as a person who pays a certain price for a product and resells it at an uncertain price, "making decisions about obtaining and using the resources while consequently admitting the risk of enterprise". Cantillon considered the entrepreneur to be a risk taker who deliberately allocates resources to exploit opportunities to maximize the financial return.[32][33] Cantillon emphasized the willingness of the entrepreneur to assume the risk and to deal with uncertainty, thus he drew attention to the function of the entrepreneur and distinguished between the function of the entrepreneur and the owner who provided the money.[32][34]
Jean-Baptiste Say also identified entrepreneurs as a driver for economic development, emphasizing their role as one of the collecting factors of production allocating resources from less to fields that are more productive. Both Say and Cantillon belonged to French school of thought and known as the physiocrats.[35]
Dating back to the time of the medieval guilds in Germany, a craftsperson required special permission to operate as an entrepreneur, the small proof of competence (Kleiner Befähigungsnachweis), which restricted training of apprentices to craftspeople who held a Meister certificate. This institution was introduced in 1908 after a period of so-called freedom of trade (Gewerbefreiheit, introduced in 1871) in the German Reich. However, proof of competence was not required to start a business. In 1935 and in 1953, greater proof of competence was reintroduced (Großer Befähigungsnachweis Kuhlenbeck), which required craftspeople to obtain a Meister apprentice-training certificate before being permitted to set up a new business.[36]
In the Ashanti Empire, successful entrepreneurs who accumulated large wealth and men as well as distinguished themselves through heroic deeds were awarded social and political recognition by being called "Abirempon" which means big men. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries AD, the appellation "Abirempon" had formalized and politicized to embrace those who conducted trade from which the whole state benefited. The state rewarded entrepreneurs who attained such accomplishments with Mena(elephant tail) which was the "heraldic badge"[37]
20th century
[edit]In the 20th century, entrepreneurship was studied by Joseph Schumpeter in the 1930s and by other Austrian economists such as Carl Menger (1840–1921), Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) and Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1992). While the loan from French of the English-language word "entrepreneur" dates to 1762,[38] the word "entrepreneurism" dates from 1902[39] and the term "entrepreneurship" also first appeared in 1902.[40] According to Schumpeter, an entrepreneur is willing and able to convert a new idea or invention into a successful innovation.[41] Entrepreneurship employs what Schumpeter called the "gale of creative destruction"[42] to replace in whole or in part inferior offerings across markets and industries, simultaneously creating new products and new business models,[citation needed] thus creative destruction is largely[quantify] responsible for long-term economic growth. The idea that entrepreneurship leads to economic growth is an interpretation of the residual in endogenous growth theory[clarification needed] and as such continues to be debated in academic economics. An alternative description by Israel Kirzner (born 1930) suggests that the majority of innovations may be incremental improvements – such as the replacement of paper with plastic in the construction of a drinking straw – that require no special qualities.
For Schumpeter, entrepreneurship resulted in new industries and in new combinations of currently existing inputs. Schumpeter's initial example of this was the combination of a steam engine and then current wagon-making technologies to produce the horseless carriage. In this case, the innovation (i.e. the car) was transformational but did not require the development of dramatic new technology. It did not immediately replace the horse-drawn carriage, but in time incremental improvements reduced the cost and improved the technology, leading to the modern auto industry. Despite Schumpeter's early 20th-century contributions, traditional microeconomic theory did not formally consider the entrepreneur in its theoretical frameworks (instead of assuming that resources would find each other through a price system). In this treatment, the entrepreneur was an implied but unspecified actor, consistent with the concept of the entrepreneur being the agent of x-efficiency.
For Schumpeter, the entrepreneur did not bear risk: the capitalist did. Schumpeter believed that the equilibrium was imperfect. Schumpeter (1934) demonstrated that the changing environment continuously provides new information about the optimum allocation of resources to enhance profitability. Some individuals acquire the new information before others and recombine the resources to gain an entrepreneurial profit. Schumpeter was of the opinion that entrepreneurs shift the production-possibility curve to a higher level using innovations.[43]
Initially, economists made the first attempt[when?] to study the entrepreneurship concept in depth.[44] Alfred Marshall viewed the entrepreneur as a multi-tasking capitalist and observed that in the equilibrium of a completely competitive market there was no spot for "entrepreneurs" as economic-activity creators.[45]
Changes in politics and society in Russia and China in the late 20th century saw a flowering of entrepreneurial activity, producing Russian oligarchs[46] and Chinese millionaires.[47]
21st century
[edit]
In the 2000s, entrepreneurship was extended from its origins in for-profit businesses to include social entrepreneurship, in which business goals are sought alongside social, environmental or humanitarian goals and even the concept of the political entrepreneur.[according to whom?] Entrepreneurship within an existing firm or large organization has been referred to as intrapreneurship and may include corporate ventures where large entities "spin-off" subsidiary organizations.[48]
Entrepreneurs are leaders willing to take risk and exercise initiative, taking advantage of market opportunities by planning, organizing and deploying resources,[49] often by innovating to create new or improving existing products or services.[50] In the 2000s, the term "entrepreneurship" has been extended to include a specific mindset resulting in entrepreneurial initiatives, e.g. in the form of social entrepreneurship, political entrepreneurship or knowledge entrepreneurship.[51]
According to Paul Reynolds, founder of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, "by the time they reach their retirement years, half of all working men in the United States probably have a period of self-employment of one or more years; one in four may have engaged in self-employment for six or more years. Participating in a new business creation is a common activity among U.S. workers over the course of their careers".[52] In recent years, entrepreneurship has been claimed as a major driver of economic growth in both the United States and Western Europe.[citation needed]
Entrepreneurial activities differ substantially depending on the type of organization and creativity involved. Entrepreneurship ranges in scale from solo, part-time projects to large-scale undertakings that involve a team and which may create many jobs. Many "high value" entrepreneurial ventures seek venture capital or angel funding (seed money) to raise capital for building and expanding the business.[53] Many organizations exist to support would-be entrepreneurs, including specialized government agencies, business incubators (which may be for-profit, non-profit, or operated by a college or university), science parks and non-governmental organizations, which include a range of organizations including not-for-profits, charities, foundations and business advocacy groups (e.g. Chambers of commerce). Beginning in 2008, an annual "Global Entrepreneurship Week" event aimed at "exposing people to the benefits of entrepreneurship" and getting them to "participate in entrepreneurial-related activities" was launched.[who?]
Relationship between small business and entrepreneurship
[edit]The term "entrepreneur" is often conflated with the term "small business" or used interchangeably with this term. While most entrepreneurial ventures start out as a small business, not all small businesses are entrepreneurial in the strict sense of the term. Many small businesses are sole proprietor operations consisting solely of the owner—or they have a small number of employees—and many of these small businesses offer an existing product, process or service and they do not aim at growth. In contrast, entrepreneurial ventures offer an innovative product, process or service and the entrepreneur typically aims to scale up the company by adding employees, seeking international sales and so on, a process which is financed by venture capital and angel investments. In this way, the term "entrepreneur" may be more closely associated with the term "startup". Successful entrepreneurs have the ability to lead a business in a positive direction by proper planning, to adapt to changing environments and understand their own strengths and weaknesses.[54]
Historians' assessment and ranking
[edit]Meeting the demands of the consumer revolution that helped drive the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, Josiah Wedgwood, the 18th-century potter and entrepreneur and pioneer of modern marketing, which includes devising direct mail, money back guarantees, travelling salesmen and "buy one get one free", was named by the historian Judith Flanders as "among the greatest and most innovative retailers the world has ever seen".[55] Another historian Tristram Hunt called Wedgwood a "difficult, brilliant, creative entrepreneur whose personal drive and extraordinary gifts changed the way we work and live."[56] Victorian-era Welsh entrepreneur Pryce Pryce-Jones, who would capitalise on the railway network created during the Industrial Revolution and the modern postal system that also developed in the UK, formed the first mail order business, with the BBC summing up his legacy as "The mail order pioneer who started a billion-pound industry".[57]
A 2002 survey of 58 business history professors gave the top spots in American business history to Henry Ford, followed by Bill Gates; John D. Rockefeller; Andrew Carnegie, and Thomas Edison. They were followed by Sam Walton; J. P. Morgan; Alfred P. Sloan; Walt Disney; Ray Kroc; Thomas J. Watson; Alexander Graham Bell; Eli Whitney; James J. Hill; Jack Welch; Cyrus McCormick; David Packard; Bill Hewlett; Cornelius Vanderbilt; and George Westinghouse.[58] A 1977 survey of management scholars reported the top five pioneers in management ideas were: Frederick Winslow Taylor; Chester Barnard; Frank Bunker Gilbreth Sr.; Elton Mayo; and Lillian Moller Gilbreth.[59]
Types of entrepreneurship
[edit]Cultural
[edit]According to Christopher Rea and Nicolai Volland, cultural entrepreneurship is "practices of individual and collective agency characterized by mobility between cultural professions and modes of cultural production", which refers to creative industry activities and sectors. In their book The Business of Culture (2015), Rea and Volland identify three types of cultural entrepreneur: "cultural personalities", defined as "individuals who buil[d] their own personal brand of creativity as a cultural authority and leverage it to create and sustain various cultural enterprises"; "tycoons", defined as "entrepreneurs who buil[d] substantial clout in the cultural sphere by forging synergies between their industrial, cultural, political, and philanthropic interests"; and "collective enterprises", organizations which may engage in cultural production for profit or not-for-profit purposes.[60]
In the 2000s, story-telling has emerged as a field of study in cultural entrepreneurship. Some have argued that entrepreneurs should be considered "skilled cultural operators"[61] that use stories to build legitimacy, and seize market opportunities and new capital.[62][63][64] Others have concluded that we need to speak of a 'narrative turn' in cultural entrepreneurship research.[65]
Ethnic
[edit]
The term "ethnic entrepreneurship" refers to self-employed business owners who belong to racial or ethnic minority groups in Europe and North America.[66] A long tradition of academic research explores the experiences and strategies of ethnic entrepreneurs as they strive to integrate economically into mainstream U.S. or European society. Classic cases include Jewish merchants and tradespeople in both regions, South Asians in the UK, Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese in the U.S. and the Turks and North Africans in France.[66][67] The fish and chip industry in the UK was initiated by Jewish entrepreneurs, with Joseph Malin opening the first fish and chip shop in London in the 1860s, while Samuel Isaacs opened the first sit-down fish restaurant in 1896 which he expanded into a chain comprising 22 restaurants.[68][69] In 1882, Jewish brothers Ralph and Albert Slazenger founded Slazenger, one of the world's oldest sport brands, which has the longest-running sporting sponsorship in providing tennis balls to Wimbledon since 1902.[70][71]
In the 2010s, ethnic entrepreneurship has been studied in the case of Cuban business owners in Miami, Indian motel owners of the U.S. and Chinese business owners in Chinatowns across the U.S. While entrepreneurship offers these groups many opportunities for economic advancement, self-employment and business ownership in the U.S. remain unevenly distributed along racial/ethnic lines.[72] Despite numerous success stories of Asian entrepreneurs, a recent statistical analysis of U.S. census data shows that whites are more likely than Asians, African-Americans and Latinos to be self-employed in high prestige, lucrative industries.[72]
Religious
[edit]Religious entrepreneurship refers to both the use of entrepreneurship to pursue religious ends as well as how religion impacts entrepreneurial pursuits. While religion is a central topic in society, it is largely overlooked in entrepreneurship research.[73] The inclusion of religion may transform entrepreneurship including a focus on opportunities other than profit as well as practices, processes and purpose of entrepreneurship.[74][75] Gümüsay suggests a three pillars model to explain religious entrepreneurship: The pillars are the entrepreneurial, socio-economic/ethical, and religio-spiritual in the pursuit of value, values, and the metaphysical.[76]
Feminist
[edit]A feminist entrepreneur is an individual who applies feminist values and approaches through entrepreneurship, with the goal of improving the quality of life and well-being of girls and women.[77] Many are doing so by creating "for women, by women" enterprises. Feminist entrepreneurs are motivated to enter commercial markets by desire to create wealth and social change, based on the ethics of cooperation, equality and mutual respect.[78][79] These endeavours can have the effect of both empowerment and emancipation.[80]
Institutional
[edit]The American-born British economist Edith Penrose has highlighted the collective nature of entrepreneurship. She mentions that in modern organizations, human resources need to be combined to better capture and create business opportunities.[81] The sociologist Paul DiMaggio (1988:14) has expanded this view to say that "new institutions arise when organized actors with sufficient resources [institutional entrepreneurs] see in them an opportunity to realize interests that they value highly".[82] The notion has been widely applied.[83][84][85][86]
Millennial
[edit]The term "millennial entrepreneur" refers to a business owner who is affiliated with millennials (also known as Generation Y), those people born from approximately 1981 to 1996.[87] The offspring of baby boomers and early Gen Xers,[88] this generation was brought up using digital technology and mass media. Millennial business owners are well-equipped with knowledge of new technology and new business models and have a strong grasp of its business applications. There have been many breakthrough businesses that have come from millennial entrepreneurs, such as Mark Zuckerberg, who created Facebook.[89] However, millennials are less likely to engage in entrepreneurship than prior generations. Some of the barriers to entry for entrepreneurs are the economy, debt from schooling, and the challenges of regulatory compliance.[90]
Nascent
[edit]A nascent entrepreneur is someone in the process of establishing a business venture.[91] In this observation, the nascent entrepreneur can be seen as pursuing an opportunity, i.e. a possibility to introduce new services or products, serve new markets, or develop more efficient production methods in a profitable manner.[92][93] But before such a venture is actually established, the opportunity is just a venture idea.[94] In other words, the pursued opportunity is perceptual in nature, propped by the nascent entrepreneur's personal beliefs about the feasibility of the venturing outcomes the nascent entrepreneur seeks to achieve.[95][96][97] Its prescience and value cannot be confirmed ex ante but only gradually, in the context of the actions that the nascent entrepreneur undertakes towards establishing the venture as described in Saras Sarasvathy's theory of Effectuation,[98] Ultimately, these actions can lead to a path that the nascent entrepreneur deems no longer attractive or feasible, or result in the emergence of a (viable) business. In this sense, over time, the nascent venture can move towards being discontinued or towards emerging successfully as an operating entity.
The distinction between the novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs is an example of behavior-based categorization.[99] Other examples are the (related) studies by,[100][101] on start-up event sequences. Nascent entrepreneurship that emphasizes the series of activities involved in new venture emergence,[102][103][104] rather than the solitary act of exploiting an opportunity. Such research will help separate entrepreneurial action into its basic sub-activities and elucidate the inter-relationships between activities, between an activity (or sequence of activities) and an individual's motivation to form an opportunity belief, and between an activity (or sequence of activities) and the knowledge needed to form an opportunity belief. With this research, scholars will be able to begin constructing a theory of the micro-foundations of entrepreneurial action.
Scholars interested in nascent entrepreneurship tend to focus less on the single act of opportunity exploitation and more on the series of actions in new venture emergence,[102][105][104] Indeed, nascent entrepreneurs undertake numerous entrepreneurial activities, including actions that make their businesses more concrete to themselves and others. For instance, nascent entrepreneurs often look for and purchase facilities and equipment; seek and obtain financial backing, form legal entities, organize teams; and dedicate all their time and energy to their business[106]
Project-based
[edit]Project entrepreneurs are individuals who are engaged in the repeated assembly or creation of temporary organizations.[107] These are organizations that have limited lifespans which are devoted to producing a singular objective or goal and get disbanded rapidly when the project ends. Industries where project-based enterprises are widespread include: sound recording, film production, software development, television production, new media and construction.[108] What makes project-entrepreneurs distinctive from a theoretical standpoint is that they have to "rewire" these temporary ventures and modify them to suit the needs of new project opportunities that emerge. A project entrepreneur who used a certain approach and team for one project may have to modify the business model or team for a subsequent project.
Project entrepreneurs are exposed repeatedly to problems and tasks typical of the entrepreneurial process.[109] Indeed, project-based entrepreneurs face two critical challenges that invariably characterize the creation of a new venture: locating the right opportunity to launch the project venture and assembling the most appropriate team to exploit that opportunity. Resolving the first challenge requires project-entrepreneurs to access an extensive range of information needed to seize new investment opportunities. Resolving the second challenge requires assembling a collaborative team that has to fit well with the particular challenges of the project and has to function almost immediately to reduce the risk that performance might be adversely affected. Another type of project entrepreneurship involves entrepreneurs working with business students to get analytical work done on their ideas.
Social
[edit]
Social entrepreneurship is the use of business techniques by start-up companies and other entrepreneurs to develop, fund, and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues.[110] This concept may be applied to a variety of organizations with different sizes, aims, and beliefs.[111] For-profit entrepreneurs typically measure performance using business metrics like profit, revenues and increases in expected future dividends, but social entrepreneurs are either non-profits or blend for-profit goals with generating a positive "return to society" and therefore must use different metrics. Social entrepreneurship typically attempts to further broad social, cultural, and environmental goals often associated with the voluntary sector[112] in areas such as poverty alleviation, health care[113] and community development. At times, profit-making social enterprises may be established to support the social or cultural goals of the organization but not as an end in itself. For example, an organization that aims to provide housing and employment to the homeless may operate a restaurant, both to raise money and to provide employment for the homeless people.
Biosphere
[edit]Biosphere entrepreneurship is "entrepreneurial activity that generates value for the biosphere and ecosystem services."[114] It is part of a larger trend of business schools seeking to incorporate environmental topics more actively into their curricula.[115]
Entrepreneurial behaviours
[edit]Current validated taxonomies
[edit]Several scientifically validated frameworks have been developed to systematically classify entrepreneurial behaviors. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), developed by Icek Ajzen, identifies four key behavioral components: attitude toward entrepreneurship, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and entrepreneurial intention, with extensive validation across over 22 countries.[116][117] Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) encompasses five dimensions—innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy—validated through comprehensive analysis of over 62,000 citations across 822 publications.[118][119] Effectuation Theory, developed by Saras Sarasvathy, provides a taxonomy of decision-making behaviors with five principles (Bird-in-Hand, Affordable Loss, Crazy Quilt, Lemonade, and Pilot-in-the-Plane) validated through longitudinal studies of expert entrepreneurs and generating over 6,800 citations.[120][121]
Emerging frameworks include the Twelve Pillars of Entrepreneurship, developed by Dane Wagner and Dr. Nikki Blacksmith at Symeta Behavior Science, which organizes behaviors into four cornerstones (Cognition, Action, Relational, and Motivational) encompassing twelve dimensions of behaviors: Vision, Strategy, Resourcefulness, Collaboration, Direction, Influence, Decision Making, Innovation, Execution, Autonomy, Intensity, and Tenacity.[122] This framework has a foundation in meta-analysis of over 1,000 studies, and well documented use within incubators and investment firms. The Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) scale, developed by Clark, Covin, and Pidduck (2024), represents another advancement in measuring individual-level entrepreneurial behaviors through a validated 17-item instrument that addresses the gap between firm-level and personal behavioral measurement.[123] These taxonomies collectively provide comprehensive frameworks for understanding, measuring, and predicting entrepreneurial behaviors across different contexts and levels of analysis.
Uncertainty perception and risk-taking
[edit]Theorists Frank Knight[124] and Peter Drucker defined entrepreneurship in terms of risk-taking. The entrepreneur is willing to put his or her career and financial security on the line and take risks in the name of an idea, spending time as well as capital on an uncertain venture. However, entrepreneurs often do not believe that they have taken an enormous amount of risks because they do not perceive the level of uncertainty to be as high as other people do. Knight classified three types of uncertainty:
- Risk, which is measurable statistically (such as the probability of drawing a red color ball from a jar containing five red balls and five white balls)
- Ambiguity, which is hard to measure statistically (such as the probability of drawing a red ball from a jar containing five red balls but an unknown number of white balls)
- True uncertainty or Knightian uncertainty, which is impossible to estimate or predict statistically (such as the probability of drawing a red ball from a jar whose contents, in terms of numbers of coloured balls, are entirely unknown)
Entrepreneurship is often associated with true uncertainty, particularly when it involves the creation of a novel good or service, for a market that did not previously exist, rather than when a venture creates an incremental improvement to an existing product or service. A 2014 study at ETH Zürich found that compared with typical managers, entrepreneurs showed higher decision-making efficiency and a stronger activation in regions of frontopolar cortex (FPC) previously associated with explorative choice.[125]
Designing individual/opportunity nexus
[edit]According to Shane and Venkataraman, entrepreneurship comprises both "enterprising individuals" and "entrepreneurial opportunities", so researchers should study the nature of the individuals who identify opportunities when others do not, the opportunities themselves and the nexus between individuals and opportunities.[126] On the other hand, Reynolds et al.[127] argue that individuals are motivated to engage in entrepreneurial endeavours driven mainly by necessity or opportunity, that is individuals pursue entrepreneurship primarily owing to survival needs, or because they identify business opportunities that satisfy their need for achievement. For example, higher economic inequality tends to increase necessity-based entrepreneurship rates at the individual level.[128]
Opportunity perception and biases
[edit]One study has found that certain genes affecting personality may influence the income of self-employed people.[129] Some people may be able to use[weasel words] "an innate ability" or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion[130] and market demand for new products or services. Entrepreneurs tend to have the ability to see unmet market needs and underserved markets. While some entrepreneurs assume they can sense and figure out what others are thinking, the mass media plays a crucial role in shaping views and demand.[131] Ramoglou argues that entrepreneurs are not that distinctive and that it is essentially poor conceptualizations of "non-entrepreneurs" that maintain laudatory portraits of "entrepreneurs" as exceptional innovators or leaders[132][133] Entrepreneurs are often overconfident, exhibit illusion of control, when they are opening/expanding business or new products/services.[26]
Styles
[edit]Differences in entrepreneurial organizations often partially reflect their founders' heterogenous identities. Fauchart and Gruber have classified entrepreneurs into three main types: Darwinians, communitarians and missionaries. These types of entrepreneurs diverge in fundamental ways in their self-views, social motivations and patterns of new firm creation.[134]
Communication
[edit]Entrepreneurs must practice effective communication both within their firm and with external partners and investors to launch and grow a venture and enable it to survive. An entrepreneur needs a communication system that links the staff of their firm and connects the firm to outside firms and clients. Entrepreneurs should be charismatic leaders, so they can communicate a vision effectively to their team and help to create a strong team. Communicating a vision to followers may be the most important act of the transformational leader.[135] Compelling visions provide employees with a sense of purpose and encourage commitment. According to Baum et al.[136] and Kouzes and Posner,[137] the vision must be communicated through written statements and through in-person communication. Entrepreneurial leaders must speak and listen to articulate their vision to others.[138]
Communication is pivotal in the role of entrepreneurship because it enables leaders to convince potential investors, partners and employees about the feasibility of a venture.[139] Entrepreneurs need to communicate effectively to shareholders.[140] Nonverbal elements in speech such as the tone of voice, the look in the sender's eyes, body language, hand gestures and state of emotions are also important communication tools. The Communication Accommodation Theory posits that throughout communication people will attempt to accommodate or adjust their method of speaking to others.[141] Face Negotiation Theory describes how people from different cultures manage conflict negotiation to maintain "face".[142] Hugh Rank's "intensify and downplay" communications model can be used by entrepreneurs who are developing a new product or service. Rank argues that entrepreneurs need to be able to intensify the advantages of their new product or service and downplay the disadvantages to persuade others to support their venture.[143]
Links to sea piracy
[edit]Research from 2014 found links between entrepreneurship and historical sea piracy. In this context, the claim is made for a non-moral approach to looking at the history of piracy as a source of inspiration for entrepreneurship education[144] as well as for research in entrepreneurship[145] and business model generation.[146]
Psychological makeup
[edit]Ross Levine, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and Yona Rubinstein, a professor at the London School of Economics released a study which suggests entrepreneurs are disproportionately white, male, from wealthy and highly educated backgrounds, and prone to "aggressive, illicit, risk-taking activities" as teenagers and young adults. Entrepreneurs also performed above average on aptitude tests.[147] This masculine image is also found when studying how male entrepreneurs are represented in media. A supporting but invisible family are one of the success factors when being portrayed as a male entrepreneur in media.[148] A study conducted by the Census Bureau and two MIT professors, after compiling a list of 2.7 million company founders who hired at least one employee between 2007 and 2014, found the average age of a successful start-up founder when he or she founded it is 45. They consistently found chances of entrepreneurial success rises with age.[149][150]
Stanford University economist Edward Lazear found in a 2005 study that variety in education and in work experience was the most important trait that distinguished entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs[151] A 2013 study by Uschi Backes-Gellner of the University of Zurich and Petra Moog of the University of Siegen in Germany found that a diverse social network was also an important characteristic of students that would go on to become entrepreneurs.[152][153]
Studies show that the psychological propensities for male and female entrepreneurs are more similar than different. Empirical studies suggest that female entrepreneurs possess strong negotiating skills and consensus-forming abilities.[154] Åsa Hansson, who looked at empirical evidence from Sweden, found that the probability of becoming self-employed decreases with age for women, but increases with age for men.[155] She also found that marriage increased the probability of a person's becoming an entrepreneur.[155]
Jesper Sørensen wrote in 2010 that significant influences on the decision to become an entrepreneur include workplace peers and social composition. Sørensen discovered a correlation between working with former entrepreneurs and how often these individuals become entrepreneurs themselves, compared to those who did not work with entrepreneurs.[156] Social composition can influence entrepreneurialism in peers by demonstrating the possibility for success, stimulating a "He can do it, why can't I?" attitude. As Sørensen stated: "When you meet others who have gone out on their own, it doesn't seem that crazy."[157]
Entrepreneurs may also be driven to entrepreneurship by past experiences. If someone has faced multiple work stoppages or has been unemployed in the past, the probability of becoming an entrepreneur increases[155] Per Cattell's personality framework, both personality traits and attitudes are thoroughly investigated by psychologists. However, in case of entrepreneurship research these notions are employed by academics[which?] too, but vaguely. Cattell states that personality is a system that is related to the environment and further adds that the system seeks explanation to the complex transactions conducted by both—traits and attitudes. This is because both of them bring about change and growth in a person. Personality is that which informs what an individual will do when faced with a given situation. A person's response is triggered by his/her personality and the situation that is faced.[158]
Innovative entrepreneurs may be more likely to experience what psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow". "Flow" occurs when an individual forgets about the outside world due to being thoroughly engaged in a process or activity. Csikszentmihalyi suggested that breakthrough innovations tend to occur at the hands of individuals in that state.[159] Other research has concluded that a strong internal motivation is a vital ingredient for breakthrough innovation.[160] Flow can be compared to Maria Montessori's concept of normalization, a state that includes a child's capacity for joyful and lengthy periods of intense concentration.[161] Csikszentmihalyi acknowledged that Montessori's prepared environment offers children opportunities to achieve flow.[162] Thus quality and type of early education may influence entrepreneurial capability.[citation needed]
Research on high-risk settings such as oil platforms, investment banking, medical surgery, aircraft piloting and nuclear-power plants has related distrust to failure avoidance.[163] When non-routine strategies are needed, distrusting persons perform better, while when routine strategies are needed trusting persons perform better. Gudmundsson and Lechner extended this research to entrepreneurial firms.[164] They argued that in entrepreneurial firms the threat of failure is ever-present, resembling non-routine situations in high-risk settings. They found that the firms of distrusting entrepreneurs were more likely to survive than the firms of optimistic or overconfident entrepreneurs. The reasons were that distrusting entrepreneurs would emphasize failure-avoidance through sensible task selection and more analysis. Kets de Vries has pointed out that distrusting entrepreneurs are more alert about their external environment.[165] He concluded that distrusting entrepreneurs are less likely to discount negative events and are more likely to engage control mechanisms. Similarly, Gudmundsson and Lechner found that distrust leads to higher precaution and therefore increases chances of entrepreneurial-firm survival.
In recent decades, researchers have examined the social and psychological traits that characterize entrepreneurs, which could potentially help identify those who may become entrepreneurs in the future. Entrepreneurial personality is associated with high self-efficacy, autonomy, innovativeness, internal locus of control, achievement motivation, optimism, and stress tolerance.[166][167] Research published in 2022 revealed that enterprising tendency is negatively associated with trait victimhood (a persistent tendency to see oneself as a victim) and that among people with lower self-efficacy, having lower trait victimhood predicted more behavioral entrepreneurship (founding at least one business initiative).[168] Researchers Schoon and Duckworth completed a study in 2012 that could potentially help identify who may become an entrepreneur at an early age. They determined that the best measures to identify a young entrepreneur are family and social status, parental role-modelling, entrepreneurial competencies at age 10, academic attainment at age 10, generalized self-efficacy, social skills, entrepreneurial intention and experience of unemployment.[169]
Strategic entrepreneurship
[edit]Some scholars have constructed an operational definition of a more specific subcategory called "Strategic Entrepreneurship". Closely tied with principles of strategic management, this form of entrepreneurship is "concerned about growth, creating value for customers and subsequently creating wealth for owners".[170] A 2011 article for the Academy of Management provided a three-step, "Input-Process-Output" model of strategic entrepreneurship. The model's three steps entail the collection of different resources, the process of orchestrating them in the necessary manner and the subsequent creation of competitive advantage, value for customers, wealth and other benefits. Through the proper use of strategic management/leadership techniques and the implementation of risk-bearing entrepreneurial thinking, the strategic entrepreneur is, therefore, able to align resources to create value and wealth.[170]
Leadership
[edit]Some aspects of leadership within entrepreneurship can be defined as a subset of the leading of any group: a "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task"[171] in "one who undertakes innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform innovations into economic goods".[172][page needed][failed verification]
This refers to not only the act of entrepreneurship as managing or starting a business, but how one achieves entrepreneurial success by such social processes, or by leadership skills. (Entrepreneurship in itself can be defined somewhat circularly as "the process by which individuals, teams, or organizations identify and pursue entrepreneurial opportunities without being immediately constrained by the resources they currently control".[173][page needed]) An entrepreneur typically has a mindset that seeks out potential opportunities during uncertain times.[173][need quotation to verify]
With the growing global market and increasing technology-use throughout all industries,[citation needed] the core of entrepreneurship and the decision-making has become an ongoing process rather than isolated incidents.[citation needed] This becomes knowledge management,[citation needed] which is "identifying and harnessing intellectual assets"[citation needed] for organizations to "build on past experiences and create new mechanisms for exchanging and creating knowledge".[174] This belief[which?] draws upon a leader's past experiences that may prove useful. It is a common mantra that one should learn from past mistakes, so leaders should take advantage of their failures for their benefit.[citation needed] This is how one may take experiences as a leader for the use in the core of entrepreneurship decision-making.[citation needed]
Global leadership
[edit]The majority of scholarly research done on these topics has taken place in North America.[175] Words like "leadership" and "entrepreneurship" do not always translate well into other cultures and languages. For example, in North America a leader is often thought of as charismatic, but German culture frowns on such charisma due to the charisma of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889–1945). Other cultures, as in some European countries, view the term "leader" negatively, like the French.[176][need quotation to verify] The participative leadership style that is prevalent in the United States is considered disrespectful in many other parts of the world due to the differences in power distance.[177] Many Asian and Middle Eastern countries do not have "open door" policies for subordinates, who would never informally approach their managers/bosses. For countries like that, an authoritarian approach to management and leadership is more customary.[citation needed]
Despite cultural differences, the successes and failures of entrepreneurs can be traced to how leaders adapt to local conditions.[178] Within the increasingly global business environment a successful leader must be able to adapt and have insight into other cultures. To respond to the environment, corporate visions are becoming transnational in nature, to enable the organization to operate in or provide services/goods for other cultures.[179]
Entrepreneurship training and education
[edit]Michelacci and Schivardi are a pair of researchers who believe that identifying and comparing the relationships between an entrepreneur's earnings and education level would determine the rate and level of success. Their study focused on two education levels, college degree and post-graduate degree. While Michelacci and Schivardi do not specifically determine characteristics or traits for successful entrepreneurs, they do believe that there is a direct relationship between education and success, noting that having a college knowledge does contribute to advancement in the workforce.[180]
However, mentorship programs also provide valuable support and guidance for aspiring entrepreneurs. For example, mentorship program connects experienced entrepreneurs with individuals looking to start their own businesses.[181]
Michelacci and Schivardi state there has been a rise in the number of self-employed people with a baccalaureate degree. However, their findings also show that those who are self-employed and possess a graduate degree has remained consistent throughout time at about 33 percent. They briefly mention those famous entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg who were college dropouts, but they don't consider these cases to be exceptional as many entrepreneurs view formal education as costly due to the time that needs to be spent on it. Michelacci and Schivardi believe that for an individual to reach the full success they need to have education beyond high school. Their research shows that the higher the education level the greater the success. The reason is that college gives people additional skills that can be used within their business and to operate on a higher level than someone who only "runs" it.[180]
Resources and financing
[edit]Entrepreneurial resources
[edit]An entrepreneurial resource is any company-owned asset that has economic value creating capabilities. Economic value creating both tangible and intangible sources are considered as entrepreneurial resources. Their economic value is generating activities or services through mobilization by entrepreneurs.[182] Entrepreneurial resources can be divided into two fundamental categories: tangible and intangible resources.[183]
Tangible resources are material sources such as equipment, building, furniture, land, vehicle, machinery, stock, cash, bond and inventory that has a physical form and can be quantified. On the contrary, intangible resources are nonphysical or more challenging to identify and evaluate, and they possess more value creating capacity such as human resources including skills and experience in a particular field, organizational structure of the company, brand name, reputation, entrepreneurial networks that contribute to promotion and financial support, know-how, intellectual property including both copyrights, trademarks and patents.[184][185]
Bootstrapping
[edit]Contextual background
[edit]At least early on, entrepreneurs often "bootstrap-finance" their start-up rather than seeking external investors from the start. One of the reasons that some entrepreneurs prefer to "bootstrap" is that obtaining equity financing requires the entrepreneur to provide ownership shares to the investors. If the start-up becomes successful later on, these early equity financing deals could provide a windfall for the investors and a huge loss for the entrepreneur. If investors have a significant stake in the company, they may as well be able to exert influence on company strategy, chief executive officer (CEO) choice and other important decisions. This is often problematic since the investor and the founder might have different incentives regarding the long-term goal of the company. An investor will generally aim for a profitable exit and therefore promotes a high-valuation sale of the company or IPO to sell their shares. Whereas the entrepreneur might have philanthropic intentions as their main driving force. Soft values like this might not go well with the short-term pressure on yearly and quarterly profits that publicly traded companies often experience from their owners.[186]
Common definition
[edit]One consensus definition of bootstrapping sees it as "a collection of methods used to minimize the amount of outside debt and equity financing needed from banks and investors".[187]
Related methodologies
[edit]Bootstrapping methods include:[188]
- Owner financing, including savings, personal loans and credit card debt
- Working capital management that minimizes accounts receivable
- Joint use, such as reducing overhead by coworking or using independent contractors
- Increasing accounts payable by delaying payment, or leasing rather than buying equipment
- Lean manufacturing strategies such as minimizing inventory and lean startup to reduce product development costs
- Subsidy finance
Additional financing
[edit]Many businesses need more capital than can be provided by the owners themselves. In this case, a range of options is available including a wide variety of private and public equity, debt and grants. Private equity options include:
Debt options open to entrepreneurs include:
- Loans from banks, specialized financial companies (such as credit card companies) and economic development organizations
- Line of credit also from banks and specialized financial companies
- Microcredit also known as microloans
- Merchant cash advance
- Revenue-based financing
Grant options open to entrepreneurs include:
- Equity-free accelerators
- Business plan/business pitch competitions for college entrepreneurs and others
- Small Business Innovation Research grants from the U.S. government
Effect of taxes
[edit]Entrepreneurs are faced with liquidity constraints and often lack the necessary credit needed to borrow large amounts of money to finance their venture.[189] Because of this, many studies have been done on the effects of taxes on entrepreneurs. The studies fall into two camps: the first camp finds that taxes help and the second argues that taxes hurt entrepreneurship.[citation needed]
Cesaire Assah Meh found that corporate taxes create an incentive to become an entrepreneur to avoid double taxation.[189] Donald Bruce and John Deskins found literature suggesting that a higher corporate tax rate may reduce a state's share of entrepreneurs.[190] They also found that states with an inheritance or estate tax tend to have lower entrepreneurship rates when using a tax-based measure.[190] However, another study found that states with a more progressive personal income tax have a higher percentage of sole proprietors in their workforce.[191] Ultimately, many studies find that the effect of taxes on the probability of becoming an entrepreneur is small. Donald Bruce and Mohammed Mohsin found that it would take a 50 percentage point drop in the top tax rate to produce a one percent change in entrepreneurial activity.[192]
Predictors of success
[edit]
Factors that may predict entrepreneurial success include the following:[193]
- Methods
- Establishing strategies for the firm, including growth and survival strategies
- Maintaining the human resources (recruiting and retaining talented employees and executives)
- Ensuring the availability of required materials (e.g. raw resources used in manufacturing, computer chips, etc.)
- Ensuring that the firm has one or more unique competitive advantages
- Ensuring good organizational design, sound governance and organizational coordination
- Congruency with the culture of the society[194]
- Market
- Business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) models can be used
- High growth market
- Target customers or markets that are untapped or missed by others
- Industry
- Growing industry
- High technology impact on the industry
- High capital intensity
- Small average incumbent firm size
- Team
- Large, gender-diverse and racially diverse team with a range of talents, rather than an individual entrepreneur
- Graduate degrees
- Management experience prior to start-up
- Work experience in the start-up industry
- Employed full-time prior to new venture as opposed to unemployed
- Prior entrepreneurial experience
- Full-time involvement in the new venture
- Motivated by a range of goals, not just profit
- Number and diversity of team members' social ties and breadth of their business networks
- Company
- Written business plan
- Focus on a unified, connected product line or service line
- Competition based on a dimension other than price (e.g. quality or service)
- Early, frequent intense and well-targeted marketing
- Tight financial controls
- Sufficient start-up and growth capital
- Corporation model, not sole proprietorship
- Status
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Entrepreneur: What It Means to Be One and How to Get Started". Investopedia. Retrieved 7 October 2025.
Definition[:] An entrepreneur is someone who starts and runs a business or startup, using their own ideas, time, and resources, taking on financial risk to bring products or services to market and earn a profit.
- ^ "What is entrepreneurship? definition and meaning". Business Dictionary. Archived from the original on 16 November 2018. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
- ^ AK Yetisen; LR Bob Volpatti; AF Coskun; S Cho; E Kamrani; H Butt; A Khademhosseini; SH Yun (2015). "Entrepreneurship". Lab Chip. 15 (18): 3638–3660. doi:10.1039/c5lc00577a. ISSN 1473-0189. PMID 26245815.
- ^ Katila, Riitta; Chen, Eric L.; Piezunka, Henning (7 June 2012). "All the right moves: How entrepreneurial firms compete effectively" (PDF). Strategic Entrepreneurship JNL. 6 (2): 116–132. doi:10.1002/sej.1130. Retrieved 18 May 2017.
- ^ Audretsch, David B.; Bozeman, Barry; Combs, Kathryn L.; Feldman, Maryann; Link, Albert N.; Siegel, Donald S.; Stephan, Paula; Tassey, Gregory; Wessner, Charles (2002). "The Economics of Science and Technology". The Journal of Technology Transfer. 27 (2): 157. doi:10.1023/A:1014382532639. S2CID 143820412.
- ^ Alina Hyz; Marzanna B. Lament; Sławomir I. Bukowski, eds. (2021). Competitiveness and Economic Development in Europe: Prospects and Challenges. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781000373288.
- ^ Monica Lindgren; Johann Packendorff (1 January 2009). "Social constructionism and entrepreneurship: Basic assumptions and consequences for theory and research". International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 15 (1): 25–47. doi:10.1108/13552550910934440. ISSN 1355-2554.
- ^ Helle Neergaard; John P. Ulhøi (2007). Handbook of Qualitative R Methods in Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781847204387.
- ^ a b Lena Olaison (2014). Entrepreneurship at the limits. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School (CBS). ISBN 9788793155251.
- ^ Friederike Welter (1 January 2011). "Contextualizing Entrepreneurship: Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 35 (1): 165–184. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x. ISSN 1042-2587. S2CID 153467294.
- ^ a b Gaddefors, Johan; Anderson, Alistair R. (1 January 2017). "Entrepreneurship and context: when entrepreneurship is greater than entrepreneurs". International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 23 (2): 267–278. doi:10.1108/IJEBR-01-2016-0040. hdl:10059/2299. ISSN 1355-2554.
- ^ Diochon, Monica; Anderson, Alistair R. (1 March 2011). "Ambivalence and ambiguity in social enterprise; narratives about values in reconciling purpose and practices". International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 7 (1): 93–109. doi:10.1007/s11365-010-0161-0. hdl:10059/613. ISSN 1555-1938. S2CID 144081539.
- ^ Alvarez, Sharon A.; Busenitz, Lowell W. (1 December 2001). "The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory". Journal of Management. 27 (6): 755–775. doi:10.1177/014920630102700609. ISSN 0149-2063. S2CID 220587830.
- ^ Ratten, Vanessa (2023). "Entrepreneurship: Definitions, opportunities, challenges, and future directions". Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 42 (5): 79–90. doi:10.1002/joe.22217.
- ^ Shane, S. A. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Northampton, Massachusetts: E. Elgar.
- ^ Robert F. Hébert; Albert N. Link (2006). "Historical Perspectives on the Entrepreneur". Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. 2 (4): 261–408. doi:10.1561/0300000008 – via now Publishers.
- ^ Akcigit Ufuk; Reenen John Van; Macron Emmanuel (22 August 2023). The Economics of Creative Destruction: New Research on Themes from Aghion and Howitt. Harvard University Press. p. 475. ISBN 978-0674270367.
- ^ Tan, Jackson Juatco; Arceo, Virginia Ramirez (December 2024). "The regional entrepreneurial lens: an ASEAN 5 developing country perspective". Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 14 (1) 36. doi:10.1007/s40497-024-00408-1.
- ^ Robert D. Hisrich (2011). Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780070620179.
- ^ "Entrepreneurial Ambition – Innovation Provincial Rankings – How Canada Performs". Conference Board Canada. Archived from the original on 19 April 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
- ^ Catherine Clifford (3 September 2013). "Why everyone will have to become an entrepreneur". entrepreneur.com. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
- ^ "Venture Investment – Regional Aggregate Data". National Venture Capital Association and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Archived from the original on 8 April 2016. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
- ^ Scott, S.; Venkatraman, S. (2000). "The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research". Academy of Management Review. 25: 217–226. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.
- ^ Brush, C.; et al. (2003). "Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship". Journal of Management. 29 (3): 309–331. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00014-x.
- ^ Ramoglou, S.; Tsang, E.W.K. (2016). "A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities". Academy of Management Review. 41 (3): 409–434. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0281. S2CID 146376795.
- ^ a b Zhang, Stephen X.; Cueto, Javier (May 2017). "The Study of Bias in Entrepreneurship". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 41 (3): 419–454. doi:10.1111/etap.12212.
- ^ Black, Ervin L.; Burton, F. Greg; Wood, David A.; Zimbelman, Aaron F. (August 2010). "Entrepreneurial success: differing perceptions of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists". The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 11 (3): 189–198. doi:10.5367/000000010792217272. S2CID 167492528.
- ^ Navale, Ashok Bhanudas (October 2013). "Developing Entrepreneur Skills for Corporate Work" (PDF). Research Directions. 1 (4). ISSN 2321-5488. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 March 2017. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
- ^ Carlen, Joe (2016). A Brief History of Entrepreneurship: The Pioneers, Profiteers, and Racketeers Who Shaped Our World. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0231542814.
- ^ Brewer, Anthony (1992). Richard Cantillon: Pioneer of Economic Theory. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07577-0.
- ^ William Stanley Jevons (January 1881), "Richard Cantillon and the Nationality of Political Economy", Contemporary Review, The Contemporary Review Company, pp. 333–360
- ^ a b Cantillon, Richard (1755). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général. London: MacMillan.
- ^ Stevenson, H.; Jarillo, J. (2007), Cuervo, Álvaro; Ribeiro, Domingo; Roig, Salvador (eds.), "A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management, in", Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Theory and Perspective, Springer Science Business Media, pp. 5–, ISBN 978-3-540-48543-8
- ^ • Landström, H. & SpringerLink 2005, Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, N.Y.
- ^ Lowe, Robin; Marriott, Sue (2006). Enterprise: Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Routledge. pp. 5. ISBN 978-0-7506-6920-7.
- ^ Rostam-Afschar, Davud (2013). "Entry regulation and entrepreneurship: A natural experiment in German craftsmanship". Empirical Economics. 47 (3): 1067–1101. doi:10.1007/s00181-013-0773-7. S2CID 154355298.
- ^ Obeng, J.Pashington (1996). Asante Catholicism; Religious and Cultural Reproduction among the Akan of Ghana. Vol. 1. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-10631-4.
- ^ "entrepreneur". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
- ^ "entrepreneurism". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
- ^ "entrepreneurship". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
- ^ Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-10762-4.
- ^
Jones, Campbell; Murtola, Anna-Maria (2012). "Entrepreneurship, crisis, critique". In Hjorth, Daniel (ed.). Handbook on Organisational Entrepreneurship. Elgar Original Reference Series. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 123. ISBN 978-1781009055. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
[...] Schumpeter famously evokes the image of the 'perennial gale of creative destruction' (1950: 84).
- ^ Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1980) [1934]. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-87855-698-4.
- ^ Landstrom, H. (2007). Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-23633-9.
- ^ Marshall, Alfred; Guillebaud, C. W. (1961). Principles of Economics. 9th (variorum) Ed. Macmillan.
- ^
Henderson, James; Ferguson, Alastair (2014). International Partnership in Russia: Conclusions from the Oil and Gas Industry (reprint ed.). SpringerPalgrave Macmillan. p. 86. ISBN 978-1137352279. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
[...] successful oligarchs/entrepreneurs in Russia were 'crooks, who transferred their skimming talents to the enterprises they acquired, and used their wealth to further corrupt the government and block reforms'.
- ^
Malik, Rashid (1997). Chinese Entrepreneurs in the Economic Development of China. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 7. ISBN 978-0275958480. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
[...] the rise to power of the CCP in 1949 signaled the end of entrepreneurship in China until 1978.
- ^ Shane, Scott Andrew (2000). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78100-799-0.
- ^ Deakins & Freel 2009.
- ^ Johnson, D. P. M. (2005). "A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, 2005". Auburn University. Archived from the original on 20 July 2014.
- ^ Staff, G. E. M. "Record-Breaking Entrepreneurial Growth in U.S. according to Latest GEM National Report". GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Retrieved 12 June 2024.
- ^ Paul D. Reynolds (2007). Entrepreneurship in the United States: The Future Is Now. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-45671-3.
- ^ Mark Van Osnabrugge; Robert J. Robinson (2000). Angel Investing. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-7879-5202-0.
- ^ Driessen, Martyn P.; Zwart, Peter S. (2010). "The role of the entrepreneur in small business success: the Entrepreneurship Scan" (PDF).
- ^ Flanders, Judith (9 January 2009). "They Broke It". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 June 2024.
- ^ Hunt, Tristram (2021). The Radical Potter: The Life and Times of Josiah Wedgwood. Henry Holt and Company.
- ^ "Christmas: The mail order pioneer who started a billion-pound industry". BBC. Retrieved 19 June 2024.
- ^ Blaine McCormick, and Burton W. Folsom. "A survey of business historians on America's greatest entrepreneurs." Business History Review 2003; 77(4): 703–716. online
- ^ Thompson Heames, Joyce; Breland, Jacob W. (2010). "Management pioneer contributors: 30-year review" (PDF). Journal of Management History. 16 (4): 427–436. doi:10.1108/17511341011073915.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Christopher Rea and Nicolai Volland, "The Business of Culture" (UBC Press, 2015), pp. 4–7. (See also pp. 9–31: "Enter the Cultural Entrepreneur")
- ^ Lounsbury, Michael; Glynn, Mary Ann (June 2001). "Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources" (PDF). Strategic Management Journal. 22 (6–7): 545–564. doi:10.1002/smj.188.
- ^ Hjorth, Daniel; Steyaert, Chris, eds. (2004). Narrative and Discursive Approaches in Entrepreneurship. doi:10.4337/9781845421472. ISBN 978-1-84542-147-2.[page needed]
- ^ Gartner, William B. (September 2007). "Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination". Journal of Business Venturing. 22 (5): 613–627. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.10.003.
- ^ Patriotta, Gerardo; Siegel, Don (September 2019). "The Context of Entrepreneurship". Journal of Management Studies. 56 (6): 1194–1196. doi:10.1111/joms.12440.
- ^ Hjorth, D (2007). "Lessons from Iago: narrating the event of entrepreneurship". Journal of Business Venturing. 22 (5): 712–732. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.10.002.
- ^ a b Ibrahim, Gamal; Galt, Vaughan (December 2011). "Explaining ethnic entrepreneurship: An evolutionary economics approach". International Business Review. 20 (6): 607–613. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.02.010.
- ^ Light, Ivan (2022). Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare Among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-36505-6.[page needed]
- ^ Jolles, Michael A.; Rubinstein, W. (2011). The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 457.
- ^ "Fish & chips: Drinks & dishes you might not have realised were invented in London". The Telegraph. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
It was, the Federation declared, one Joseph Malin, a Jewish émigré of Cleveland Way, Whitechapel, who opened the first chippie around 1860.
- ^ Lowerson, J. R. (2004). "Slazenger, Ralph [formerly Ralph Slazenger Moss] (1845–1910), manufacturer of sporting goods". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/39048. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)
- ^ "Wimbledon: Official Partners". Wimbledon.com. Retrieved 6 June 2024.
- ^ a b Chaudhary, Ali R. (1 June 2015). "Racialized Incorporation: The Effects of Race and Generational Status on Self-Employment and Industry-Sector Prestige in the United States". International Migration Review. 49 (2): 318–354. doi:10.1111/imre.12087. ISSN 1747-7379. S2CID 145352741.
- ^ Smith, Brett R.; Conger, Michael J.; McMullen, Jeffery S.; Neubert, Mitchell J. (June 2019). "Why believe? The promise of research on the role of religion in entrepreneurial action". Journal of Business Venturing Insights. 11 e00119. doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2019.e00119.
- ^ Smith, Brett R.; McMullen, Jeffery S.; Cardon, Melissa S. (1 September 2021). "Toward a theological turn in entrepreneurship: How religion could enable transformative research in our field". Journal of Business Venturing. 36 (5) 106139. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106139. ISSN 0883-9026.
- ^ Gümüsay, Ali Aslan (3 July 2018). "Unpacking entrepreneurial opportunities: an institutional logics perspective". Innovation. 20 (3): 209–222. doi:10.1080/14479338.2017.1404430.
- ^ Gümüsay, Ali Aslan (August 2015). "Entrepreneurship from an Islamic Perspective". Journal of Business Ethics. 130 (1): 199–208. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2223-7.
- ^ Orser, Barbara; Elliott, Catherine (2015). Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs. Stanford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-8047-9431-2.
- ^ Orser, Barbara J.; Elliott, Catherine; Leck, Joanne (8 November 2011). "Feminist attributes and entrepreneurial identity". Gender in Management. 26 (8): 561–589. doi:10.1108/17542411111183884.
- ^ Orser, Barbara; Leck, Joanne (2010). "Physician as Feminist Entrepreneur: The Gendered Nature of Venture Creation and the Shirley E. Greenberg Women's Health Centre". Women Entrepreneurs and the Global Environment for Growth. doi:10.4337/9781849806633.00021. ISBN 978-1-84980-663-3.
- ^ Roos, Annie (15 March 2019). "Embeddedness in context: understanding gender in a female entrepreneurship network". Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 31 (3–4): 279–292. doi:10.1080/08985626.2018.1551793.
- ^ Penrose, Edith T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley.
- ^ DiMaggio, P. 1988 'Interest and agency in institutional theory'. In Institutional patterns and culture, L. Zucker (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company: 3–22.
- ^ Levy, D.; Scully, M. (2007). "The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of power in contested fields". Organization Studies. 28 (7): 971–991. doi:10.1177/0170840607078109. S2CID 10917386.
- ^ Khan, F., K. Munir, and H. Willmott 2007 "A Dark Side of Institutional Entrepreneurship: Soccer Balls, Child Labour and Postcolonial Impoverishment". Organization Studies 28/7: 1055–1077.
- ^ Hardy, C., and S. Maguire: "Entrepreneurship" in Handbook of organizational institutionalism. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson and R. Suddaby (eds).
- ^ Almeida, Felipe; De Paula, Nilson; Pessali, Huascar (2014). "Institutional entrepreneurship in building the Brazilian market of functional yogurts". British Food Journal. 116: 2–15. doi:10.1108/BFJ-02-2012-0028.
- ^ Rauch, Jonathan (November 2018). "Generation next, Millennials will outnumber baby-boomers in 2019". The Economist. Archived from the original on 13 March 2019. Retrieved 13 March 2019.
- ^ Strauss, William; Howe, Neil (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Cartoons by R.J. Matson. New York: Vintage Original. p. 54. ISBN 978-0375707193. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
- ^ "The 10 Richest Millennial Entrepreneurs in America". Inc.com. 12 December 2016. Retrieved 6 June 2017.
- ^ Wilmouth, Daniel (4 February 2016). "The Missing Millennial Entrepreneurs" (PDF). U.S. Small Business Administration. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 May 2017. Retrieved 2 June 2017.
- ^ Reynolds, P. D. and White, S. (1997). The Entrepreneurial Process. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
- ^ Casson, M., 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
- ^ Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. (2000). "The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research". Academy of Management Review. 25: 217–226. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.
- ^ Davidsson, P (2006). "Nascent entrepreneurship: empirical studies and developments". Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. 2: 1–76. doi:10.1561/0300000005.
- ^ Dimov, D. (2007b). 'Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities' Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31, 713–731. 'From opportunity insight to opportunity intention: the importance of person-situation learning match'
- ^ Dimov, Dimo (July 2007). "From Opportunity Insight to Opportunity Intention: The Importance of Person-Situation Learning Match". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 31 (4): 561–583. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00188.x. S2CID 143353586. SSRN 999462.
- ^ Shepherd, D. A.; McMullen, J. S.; Jennings, P. D. (2007). "The formation of opportunity beliefs: overcoming ignorance and reducing doubt". Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 1 (1–2): 75–95. doi:10.1002/sej.3. S2CID 145411658.
- ^ Sarasvathy, Saras D. (2001). "Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency". The Academy of Management Review. 26 (2): 243–263. doi:10.2307/259121. JSTOR 259121.
- ^ Ucbasaran, Deniz; Westhead, Paul; Wright, Mike (March 2009). "The extent and nature of opportunity identification by experienced entrepreneurs". Journal of Business Venturing. 24 (2): 99–115. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.008.
- ^ Bozward, David; Rogers-Draycott, Matthew Charles (September 2017). "Developing a Staged Competency Based Approach to Enterprise Creation". Proceedings of the International Conference for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development.
- ^ Alsos, G.A.; Kolvereid, L. (1998). "The business gestation process of novice, serial, and parallel business founders". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 22 (4): 101–102. doi:10.1177/104225879802200405. S2CID 151263063. SSRN 1507561.
- ^ a b Delmar, F.; Shane, S. (2004). "Legitimizing first: organizing activities and the survival of new ventures". Journal of Business Venturing. 19 (3): 385–410. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(03)00037-5.
- ^ Gartner, W.B. (1985). "A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation". Academy of Management Review. 10 (4): 696–706. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279094.
- ^ a b Lichtenstein, B. B.; Carter, N. M.; Dooley, K. J.; Gartner, W. B. (2007). "Complexity dynamics of nascent entrepreneurship". Journal of Business Venturing. 22 (2): 236–261. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.06.001.
- ^ Kim, P.H.; Longest, K.C.; Lippmann, S. (2015). "The tortoise versus the hare: Progress and business viability differences between conventional and leisure-based founders". Journal of Business Venturing. 30 (2): 185–204. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.02.005.
- ^ Carter, N.M.; Gartner, W.B.; Reynolds, P.D. (1996). "Exploring start-up event sequences". Journal of Business Venturing. 11 (3): 151–166. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(95)00129-8.
- ^ Ferriani, S.; Cattani, G.; Baden-Fuller, C. (2009). "The Relational Antecedents of Project-Entrepreneurship: Network Centrality, Team Composition, and Project Performance". Research Policy. 38 (10): 1545–1558. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.001. S2CID 1071710.
- ^ Faulkner, R. R.; Anderson, A. B. (1987). "Short-term projects and emergent careers: evidence from Hollywood". American Journal of Sociology. 92 (4): 879–909. doi:10.1086/228586. S2CID 144195668.
- ^ DeFillippi, R.; Spring, S. (2004). "Project entrepreneurs for project-based enterprises: Extension or complement to project management competencies?". Projects and Profits. 4 (2): 50–57.
- ^ The New Heroes, What is Social Entrepreneurship, Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2005
- ^ "The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship," J. Gregory Dees, 1998, rev 2001 "The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship". caseatduke.org. Retrieved 3 May 2013.
- ^ Thompson, J.L. (2002). "The World of the Social Entrepreneur". The International Journal of Public Sector Management. 15 (4/5): 413. doi:10.1108/09513550210435746.
- ^ Wilden, R., Garbuio, M., Angeli, F. and Mascia, D. (2018) Entrepreneurship in Healthcare. Routledge. ISBN 978-1138068407.
- ^ Frederick, Howard H. (2018). "The emergence of biosphere entrepreneurship: are social and business entrepreneurship obsolete?". International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 34 (3) 92785: 381–419. doi:10.1504/IJESB.2018.092785.
- ^ Jack, Andrew (11 November 2021). "European business schools join forces to offer free climate training, November 11 2021". Financial Times. Retrieved 13 November 2021.
- ^ Liñán, Francisco; Chen, Yi-Wen (2009). "Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 33 (3): 593–617. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x.
- ^ Schlaegel, Christopher; Koenig, Michael (2014). "Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 38 (2): 291–332. doi:10.1111/etap.12087.
- ^ Miller, Danny (1983). "The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms". Management Science. 29 (7): 770–791. doi:10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770.
- ^ Wales, William J.; Covin, Jeffrey G.; Monsen, Erik (2020). "The status quo of research on entrepreneurial orientation: Conversational landmarks and theoretical scaffolding". Journal of Business Research. 128: 564–577. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.046. hdl:11475/22370.
- ^ Sarasvathy, Saras D. (2001). "Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency". Academy of Management Review. 26 (2): 243–263. doi:10.2307/259121. JSTOR 259121.
- ^ Chandler, Gaylen N.; DeTienne, Dawn R.; McKelvie, Alexander; Mumford, Troy V. (2011). "Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study". Journal of Business Venturing. 26 (3): 375–390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.006.
- ^ Blacksmith, Nikki; McCusker, Maureen E. (2024). Data-driven decision making in entrepreneurship: Tools for maximizing human capital. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-032-05277-9.
- ^ Clark, Daniel R.; Covin, Jeffrey G.; Pidduck, Robert J. (2025). "Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Scale development and validation". Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 49 (1): 147–180. doi:10.1177/10422587241279900.
- ^ Knight, Frank Hyneman (2005). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Cosimo, Inc. ISBN 978-1-59605-242-0.
- ^ Laureiro-Martínez, Daniella; Canessa, Nicola; Brusoni, Stefano; Zollo, Maurizio; Hare, Todd; Alemanno, Federica; Cappa, Stefano F. (22 January 2014). "Frontopolar cortex and decision-making efficiency: comparing brain activity of experts with different professional background during an exploration-exploitation task". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 7: 927. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00927. PMC 3897871. PMID 24478664.
- ^ Shane, S. (2000). "The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research". Academy of Management Review. 25 (1): 217–226. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791611.
- ^ Reynolds PD, Hay M, Bygrave WD et al. (2002) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2002 Global Executive Report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation.[ISBN missing]
- ^ Xavier-Oliveira et al. (1 July 2015). "What motivates entrepreneurial entry under economic inequality? The role of human and financial capital Archived 18 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine." Human Relations 68(7): 1183–1207, Sage.
- ^ Shane, S.; Nicolaou, N. (2013). "The genetics of entrepreneurial performance". International Small Business Journal. 31 (5): 473–495. doi:10.1177/0266242613485767. S2CID 145370748.
- ^ Miller 2005, p. 278.
- ^ Scheufele & Moy 2000.
- ^ Ramoglou, S. (2013). "Who is a 'non-entrepreneur'? Taking the 'others' of entrepreneurship seriously". International Small Business Journal. 31 (4): 432–453. doi:10.1177/0266242611425838. S2CID 153471645.
- ^ Gartner, William B. (2001). "Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development; Business research" (PDF). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 25 (4): 27–39. doi:10.1177/104225870102500403. S2CID 220124642.
- ^ Fauchart, E; Gruber, M. (2011). "Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries: The Role of Founder Identify in Entrepreneurship". Academy of Management Journal. 54 (5): 935–957. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0211. S2CID 167415395.
- ^ Hackman, M.Z.; Johnson, C.E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
- ^ Baum, Robert J.; Locke, Edwin A.; Kirkpatrick, Shelley A. (1998). "A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms". Journal of Applied Psychology. 83 (1): 43–54. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.43.
- ^ Kouzes, J.M; Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bibcode:1987lcht.book.....K. ISBN 978-1555422110.
- ^ Locke, E.A.; Kirkpatrick, S.; Wheeler, J.K; Schneider, J; Niles, K.; Goldstein, H; Welsh, K; Chah, D.O. (1991). The essence of leadership. New York: Lexington Books.
- ^ Clarke, J.; Cornelissen, J (2011). "Language, communication, and socially situated cognition in entrepreneurship. Academy Of Management Review" (PDF). Academy of Management Review. 36 (4): 776–778. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.65554783 (inactive 12 July 2025).
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link) - ^ Euler, M; Vollmar, B. H.; Kraus, S. (2011). "Communication matters—Network constellations in entrepreneurship". International Journal of Economics and Business Research. 3 (3): 283–301. doi:10.1504/ijebr.2011.040021.
- ^ Giles, H; Wiemann, J.M (1987). Language, social comparison and power. The handbook of communication science. pp. 350–384.
- ^ Ting-Toomey, S (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture in communication. Culture & Organizational processes. pp. 71–86.
- ^ Rank, H (1976). Teaching about public persuasion. National Council of Teachers of English.
- ^ Lawrence, D. (2014) Disruptors are just pirates on the high seas of capitalism. The Globe and Mail Special on Business Education, 5 November 2014. Available at https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/business-education/disruptors-are-just-pirates-on-the-high-seas-of-capitalism/article21443149/
- ^ Roth, S (2014). "Booties, bounties, business models: a map to the next red oceans". International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 22 (4) 64272: 439–448. doi:10.1504/ijesb.2014.064272. S2CID 53140269. Archived from the original on 26 August 2014. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
- ^ Roth, S (2014). "The eye-patch of the beholder". International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 22 (4): 399–407. doi:10.1504/ijesb.2014.064271. S2CID 53131826. Archived from the original on 26 August 2014. Retrieved 26 August 2014.
- ^ Weissmann, Jordan (16 August 2013). "Entrepreneurship: The Ultimate White Privilege?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
- ^ Jernberg, Frida; Lindbäck, Anna; Roos, Annie (9 March 2020). "A new male entrepreneur?: Media representation of male entrepreneurs before and after #metoo". Gender in Management. 35 (2): 211–224. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2019-0004.
- ^ "The Average Age of Successful Entrepreneurs Is Actually 45". Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
- ^ Haden, Jeff (16 July 2018). "A Study of 2.7 Million Startups Found the Ideal Age to Start a Business (and It's Much Older Than You Think)". Inc. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
- ^ Lazear, Edward (2005). "Entrepreneurship". Journal of Labor Economics. 23 (4): 649–680. doi:10.1086/491605.
- ^ Backes-Ge1llner, Uschi; Moog, Petra (December 2013). "The disposition to become an entrepreneur and the jacks-of-all-trades in social and human capital". The Journal of Socio-Economics. 47: 55–72. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2013.08.008.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Baer, Drake (19 February 2015). "Scientists have discovered a personality difference between entrepreneurs and employees". Business Insider. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
- ^ Muljadi, Paul (ed.). Entrepreneurship. Paul Muljadi. Archived from the original on 31 December 2013.
- ^ a b c Hansson, Åsa (2012). "Tax policy and entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from Sweden". Small Business Economics. 38 (4): 495–513. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9282-7. S2CID 153414747.
- ^ Sørensen, J.; Nanda, R. (July 2010). "Workplace Peers and Entrepreneurship" (PDF). Management Science. 56 (7): 1116–1126. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1179. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2013.
- ^ "Peers Influence Decision to Become an Entrepreneur". Stanford Graduate School of Business; News. 1 September 2009. Retrieved 30 June 2013.
- ^ Entrepreneurial Behavior, Retrieved 17 December 2014
- ^ Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2009). Flow. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-187672-1.
- ^ Christensen, Clayton; Johnson, Curtis W.; Horn, Michael B. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. McGraw Hill Professional. ISBN 978-0-07-164174-6.
- ^ Montessori, Maria (1967). The Absorbent Mind. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- ^ Rathunde, Kevin; Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (May 2005). "Middle School Students' Motivation and Quality of Experience: A Comparison of Montessori and Traditional School Environments". American Journal of Education. 111 (3): 341–371. doi:10.1086/428885. S2CID 146766889.
- ^ Conchie, S. M.; Donald, I. J. (2007). "The functions and development of safety-specific trust and distrust". Safety Science. 46 (1): 92–103. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.03.004.
- ^ Gudmundsson, S.V.; Lechner, C. (2013). "Cognitive Biases, Organization, and Entrepreneurial Firm Survival". European Management Journal. 31 (3): 278–294. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.01.001.
- ^ Kets de Vries, M. (2003). "The entrepreneur on the couch". INSEAD Quarterly. 5: 17–19.
- ^ Gielnik, Michael; Bledow, Ronald; Stark, Miriam (2020). "A Dynamic Account of Self-Efficacy in Entrepreneurship". Journal of Applied Psychology. 105 (105–5): 487–505. doi:10.1037/apl0000451. PMID 31535872.
- ^ Cuesta, Marcelino; Suárez-Álvarez, Javier; Lozano, Luis Manuel; García-Cueto, Eduardo; Muñiz, José (2018). "Assessment of Eight Entrepreneurial Personality Dimensions: Validity Evidence of the BEPE Battery". Frontiers in Psychology. 29 2352. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02352. PMC 6281960. PMID 30555379.
- ^ Maaravi, Yossi; Hameiri, Boaz; Tamar, Gur (2022). "Perceptions of Victimhood and Entrepreneurial Tendencies". Frontiers in Psychology. 13 797787. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.797787. PMC 8882629. PMID 35237209.
- ^ Schoon, Ingrid; Duckworth, Kathryn (2012). "Who becomes an entrepreneur? Early life experiences as predictors of entrepreneurship". Developmental Psychology. 48 (6): 1719–1726. doi:10.1037/a0029168. PMID 22746220.
- ^ a b Hitt, M. A.; Ireland, R.; Sirmon, D. G.; Trahms, C. A. (2011). "Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society". Academy of Management Perspectives. 25 (2): 57–75. doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.61020802 (inactive 12 July 2025).
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link) - ^ Martin Chemers tentatively suggests a generic definition of leadership: Chemers, Martin (2014) [1997]. "The Functions of Leadership in Organization". An integrative theory of leadership (reprint ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. p. 1. ISBN 978-1317778400.
A definition of leadership that would be widely accepted by the majority of theorists and researchers might say that 'leadership is a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.'
- ^ Shane, Scott Andrew (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-opportunity Nexus. New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1781007990. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
- ^ a b Hitt, Michael A., Ireland, R. Duane, Hoskisson, Robert E.. (2011). Strategic Management. (9th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
- ^ Heaton, L. H. (2008) Knowledge Management. International Encyclopedia of Communication. Boston: Blackledge.
- ^ Boyacigiller, N.; Adler, N. J. (1991). "The Parochial Dinosaur: The Organizational Sciences in Global Context". Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4278936.
- ^ Graumann, Carl F.; Moscovici, Serge, eds. (2012). Changing Conceptions of Leadership. Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1461248767. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
- ^ Hofestede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
- ^ Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad? Organizational Dynamics.
- ^ Adler, N. J. % Gundersen, A. (2008). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior.
- ^ a b Michelacci, Claudio; Schivardi, Fabiano (December 2020). "Are they all like Bill, Mark, and Steve? The education premium for entrepreneurs" (PDF). Labour Economics. 67 101933. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101933.
- ^ Kuratko, Donald F.; Neubert, Emily; Marvel, Matthew R. (March 2021). "Insights on the mentorship and coachability of entrepreneurs". Business Horizons. 64 (2): 199–209. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2020.11.001.
- ^ Anna Grandori; Laura Gaillard Giordani (2011). Organizing Entrepreneurship. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-57037-4.
- ^ Charles W. L. Hill; Gareth R. Jones (2009). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach. South-Western College Pub. ISBN 978-0-538-75107-0.
- ^ R. Duane Ireland; Robert E. Hoskisson; Michael A. Hitt (8 October 2008). Understanding Business Strategy: Concepts and Cases (Strategic Management). South-Western College Pub. ISBN 978-0-324-57899-7.
- ^ Charles W. L. Hill; Gareth R. Jones (2008). Essentials of Strategic Management. South-Western College Pub. ISBN 978-0-547-19432-5.
- ^ Bhide, Amar (1999). The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses (PDF). Oxford University Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0195170313.
- ^ Ebbena, Jay; Johnson, Alec (2006). "Bootstrapping in small firms: An empirical analysis of change over time". Journal of Business Venturing. 21 (6) (published November 2006): 851–865. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.007.
Bootstrapping has taken on many definitions in the literature, but there has been some recent consensus that it is a collection of methods used to minimize the amount of outside debt and equity financing needed from banks and investors (Winborg and Landstrom, 2001 and Harrison and Mason, 1997).
- ^ Narayanan, V. K.; Colarelli O'Connor, Gina (2010). Encyclopedia of Technology and Innovation Management. John Wiley & Sons. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-4051-6049-0.
- ^ a b Meh, Cesaire Assah (2002). "Entrepreneurial Risk, Credit Constraints, and the Corporate Income Tax: A Quantitative Exploration". Bank of Canada, Working Papers 2002–21.
- ^ a b Donald Bruce; John Deskins (2012). "Can state tax policies be used to promote entrepreneurial activity?". Small Business Economics. 38 (4): 375–397. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9262-y. S2CID 14117173.
- ^ Asoni, Andrea; Sanandaji, Tino (2014). "Taxation and the quality of entrepreneurship". Journal of Economics. 113 (2): 101–123. doi:10.1007/s00712-013-0375-z. JSTOR 43574687. S2CID 154956413.
- ^ Donald Bruce; Mohammed Mohsin (2006). "Tax Policy and Entrepreneurship: New Time Series Evidence". Small Business Economics. 26 (5): 409–425. doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5602-8. S2CID 154429897.
- ^ D.S Adegbenro I.C.T Poytechnic Lecture on EED 126, 2015">Entrepreneurship Lecture( EED 126) in D.S adegbenro Polytechnic, on 1 July 2015. Nigeria
- ^ Scott A. Shane (2008). "7". The Illusions of Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths That Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Policy Makers Live By. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15006-3.
- ^ Perry-Rivers, P. (October 2014). "Stratification, Economic Adversity, and Entrepreneurial Launch: The Converse Effect of Resource Position on Entrepreneurial Strategy". Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 40 (3): 685–712. doi:10.1111/etap.12137. S2CID 153562537.
Works cited
[edit]- Deakins, D.; Freel, M. S. (2009). "Entrepreneurial activity, the economy and the importance of small firms". Entrepreneurship and small firms. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-0-07-712162-4.
- Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- Scheufele, D.; Moy, P. (2000). "Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 12 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3. ISSN 0954-2892.
External links
[edit]
Media related to Entrepreneurship at Wikimedia Commons
Entrepreneurship
View on GrokipediaFundamentals
Definition and Core Concepts
Entrepreneurship refers to the process by which individuals identify unexploited market opportunities, mobilize resources, and organize productive activities to create new economic value, often through the establishment of novel business ventures.[1] This activity inherently involves assuming responsibility for unpredictable outcomes, distinguishing it from routine management or mere speculation.[6] Economists such as Frank Knight emphasized that true entrepreneurship entails bearing "uncertainty"—events not amenable to probabilistic calculation—rather than insurable risks, with profits serving as compensation for this irreducible exposure.[7] A central concept is innovation, as articulated by Joseph Schumpeter, who described the entrepreneur as an agent of "creative destruction," introducing new products, production methods, markets, or organizational forms that disrupt existing equilibria and propel economic progress.[1] Unlike incremental improvements, this form of entrepreneurship drives discontinuous change by reallocating resources toward higher-value uses, often rendering obsolete prior technologies or business models.[8] Complementing this, Israel Kirzner's theory highlights entrepreneurial "alertness": the capacity to perceive and act on dispersed, hitherto unnoticed profit opportunities arising from market disequilibria, such as arbitrage or unmet consumer needs, thereby coordinating knowledge across economic actors without requiring bold invention.[9] At its core, entrepreneurship functions as a mechanism for economic coordination under conditions of scarcity and incomplete information, transforming ideas into scalable enterprises by integrating land, labor, capital, and human ingenuity.[10] Empirical evidence links entrepreneurial activity to aggregate growth, with studies showing that regions with higher rates of new firm formation experience faster productivity gains and job creation, as entrepreneurs experiment with resource combinations that managers in established firms may overlook due to inertial constraints.[2] This process underscores causal realism in economics: profits emerge not from luck or exploitation but from superior foresight in navigating uncertainty, fostering adaptation in dynamic markets.[11]Distinction from Related Activities
Entrepreneurship differs from self-employment in its emphasis on innovation, scalability, and market disruption rather than personal income replacement. Self-employed individuals typically operate solo or with minimal staff, trading their labor for predictable revenue through established services or products, often replicating existing models without significant growth ambitions; in contrast, entrepreneurs pursue novel opportunities, assemble teams, and aim to build ventures that expand beyond the founder's direct involvement, accepting higher uncertainty to achieve outsized returns.[12][13] For instance, a freelance consultant remains self-employed by project-hopping for steady fees, whereas an entrepreneur might develop a platform automating such services to capture broader market share.[14] The activity also contrasts with management, which centers on optimizing and sustaining established operations within predefined structures. Managers allocate resources, enforce processes, and mitigate risks to ensure efficiency and stability in ongoing enterprises, drawing on administrative expertise rather than originating new ones; entrepreneurs, by definition, initiate ventures amid ambiguity, bearing primary financial and operational risks while envisioning untested paths that challenge incumbents.[15][16] Empirical studies highlight this divide: successful entrepreneurs often exhibit traits like high risk tolerance and opportunity recognition, which managers cultivate secondarily to execute rather than invent strategies.[17] Intrapreneurship represents a hybrid, involving innovative pursuits within corporations, where employees leverage organizational resources without personal capital at stake, unlike standalone entrepreneurship's full accountability for failure.[18] Freelancing aligns closely with self-employment, prioritizing autonomy over systemic change, while pure invention lacks the commercial validation and resource orchestration central to entrepreneurial success. These boundaries, though conceptual, underscore entrepreneurship's causal role in economic dynamism, as ventures born from it—such as scalable startups—drive job creation and productivity gains at rates exceeding routine small businesses, per longitudinal data from sources tracking firm growth trajectories.[19][20]Historical Evolution
Pre-Industrial Origins
Entrepreneurial activity predates industrialization, manifesting primarily through trade, risk-bearing commerce, and organized production in agrarian and mercantile societies. Evidence of early exchange networks dates to approximately 17,000 BCE in New Guinea, where communities traded obsidian—a volcanic glass used for tools—for other goods, demonstrating rudimentary risk assessment and value creation via specialization.[21] By around 2000 BCE, Assyrian merchants from Mesopotamia established trading colonies in Anatolia, such as at Kültepe (ancient Kanesh), where they documented transactions on clay tablets, financing long-distance caravans with credit extensions and managing supply chains for textiles and metals.[22] These activities involved bearing uncertainties like travel hazards and market fluctuations, akin to modern entrepreneurial risk. In the classical era, Phoenician and Syrian traders expanded Mediterranean commerce around the 8th century BCE, introducing standardized weights and measures to facilitate exchanges of goods like timber, dyes, and metals across disparate cultures.[23] Roman merchants further institutionalized trade through partnerships (societas) and sea loans (fenus nauticum), which charged premiums for maritime risks, enabling capital accumulation and urban market growth.[24] During the medieval period in Europe, merchant guilds emerged by the 11th century, regulating trade in towns and securing monopolies on commodities, while craft guilds controlled artisan production, apprenticeships, and quality standards—often limiting entry to protect members but fostering stable networks for bulk purchasing and distribution.[25] These structures supported entrepreneurial ventures like wool trading in England and Flanders, where individuals coordinated raw material acquisition and export, though guild rules could stifle innovation by enforcing quotas and prices.[26] The Renaissance marked a surge in financial entrepreneurship, particularly in Italian city-states. Florentine families like the Medici established the Medici Bank in 1397, pioneering branch banking, double-entry bookkeeping, and bills of exchange to finance trade and papal revenues across Europe, amassing wealth through interest disguised as fees amid usury prohibitions.[27] Venetian merchants dominated spice and silk imports via state-backed convoys, developing marine insurance and joint-stock mechanisms by the 14th century to mitigate losses from shipwrecks and piracy.[28] These innovations arose from causal pressures of expanding Atlantic and Asian trade routes, enabling capital mobility and risk diversification that prefigured industrial-scale enterprise, though reliant on political alliances and enforcement against defaults.[29]Industrial and Post-Industrial Developments
The Industrial Revolution, commencing in Britain during the mid-18th century, transformed entrepreneurship by enabling the commercialization of mechanical innovations through factory systems and capital investment. Entrepreneurs shifted from small-scale trade to organizing labor, machinery, and markets for mass production, particularly in textiles and steam power, which increased output efficiency and spurred urbanization. Richard Arkwright exemplified this by constructing Cromford Mill in Derbyshire in 1771, the first successful water-powered cotton spinning mill, which employed over 300 workers by 1776 and integrated multiple production stages to bypass traditional cottage industry limitations.[30] Similarly, Matthew Boulton partnered with James Watt in 1775 to manufacture improved steam engines, producing 496 units by 1800 and applying them to mining, milling, and eventual transportation, thereby reducing energy costs and expanding industrial applications.[31] These ventures required substantial risk capital and legal protections like patents, fostering a model where inventors and financiers collaborated to disrupt agrarian economies, with Britain's GDP growth accelerating from 0.5% annually pre-1760 to over 2% by the 19th century.[32] In the United States, industrial entrepreneurship paralleled Britain's but emphasized interchangeable parts and railroads, with figures like Eli Whitney securing a 1798 contract for 10,000 muskets using standardized components, laying groundwork for mechanized assembly. By the late 19th century, entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie integrated steel production vertically from 1873 onward, controlling raw materials to output, which lowered costs and built infrastructure like railroads spanning 200,000 miles by 1900. Henry Ford's 1913 introduction of the moving assembly line at his Highland Park plant reduced Model T production time from 12 hours to 93 minutes, enabling affordable automobiles and employing 300,000 workers by 1920, though it intensified labor specialization and urban migration. These developments hinged on access to coal, iron, and immigrant labor, but also faced challenges like monopolistic practices, prompting antitrust responses such as the 1890 Sherman Act.[33] The post-industrial transition, accelerated after World War II, redefined entrepreneurship around knowledge-intensive services, information technology, and scalable digital models, as manufacturing outsourced to lower-cost regions. Sociologist Daniel Bell outlined this shift in his 1973 book The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, predicting dominance of theoretical knowledge over physical goods, with the U.S. service sector comprising 70% of GDP by 1980.[34] Venture capital emerged as a critical mechanism, starting with the American Research and Development Corporation's 1946 founding, which funded ventures like Digital Equipment Corporation in 1957, yielding 101x returns by 1971.[35] The industry expanded post-1979 amid tax reforms like the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, which cut capital gains rates, leading to $4.9 billion in U.S. VC investments by 1987 and fueling Silicon Valley's ecosystem.[36] Tech entrepreneurs drove this era's innovations, with Bill Gates founding Microsoft in 1975 to commercialize personal computing software, achieving $16 million revenue by 1981 via MS-DOS licensing to IBM. Steve Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976, launching the Apple II in 1977, which sold 6 million units and popularized graphical interfaces, culminating in the 1984 Macintosh. By the 1990s dot-com surge, VC-backed firms like Netscape (1994 IPO) exemplified rapid scaling, though over 50% failed post-2000 bust, underscoring risks in intangible assets over physical capital. This phase emphasized human capital and networks, with global VC reaching $300 billion annually by 2020, but critics note regulatory hurdles and talent concentration in hubs like California, where 40% of U.S. VC flowed by 2019.[37][35]20th and 21st Century Shifts
In the early 20th century, entrepreneurship shifted toward large-scale industrialization and mass production, exemplified by Henry Ford's introduction of the moving assembly line in 1913, which reduced Model T production time from 12 hours to about 90 minutes and enabled affordable automobiles for the masses. This model emphasized efficiency and vertical integration, influencing entrepreneurs to focus on replicable processes rather than bespoke innovation, though it spurred ancillary ventures in supply chains and services. By mid-century, post-World War II economic expansion in the United States and Europe fostered a boom in small-scale entrepreneurship, with self-employment rates peaking as returning veterans and suburbanization drove consumer-oriented businesses like diners and hardware stores. The late 20th century marked a pivotal transition with the advent of personal computing and deregulation. The release of the IBM PC in 1981 democratized technology access, allowing non-technical entrepreneurs to launch software and hardware firms, contributing to the sector's growth from negligible to over 10% of U.S. GDP by 2000. Venture capital emerged as a structured funding mechanism following the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, which created Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs); by 1985, over 290 U.S. VC firms managed $17 billion across 530 funds, fueling high-risk tech startups. Deregulation under policies like the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 enabled universities to commercialize federally funded research, accelerating biotech and tech spin-offs. Entering the 21st century, digital platforms and the internet transformed entrepreneurship by lowering entry barriers, with e-commerce sales in the U.S. rising from $28 billion in 2000 to over $1 trillion by 2023, enabling scalable ventures like Amazon, founded in 1994. Global venture capital funding grew at a 13.5% compound annual rate from 2015 to 2020, reaching $330 billion, driven by tech unicorns and mobile apps, though this masked a broader decline in new U.S. startups across sectors, dropping 20-30% since the 1980s due to regulatory complexity and market consolidation.[38][39] Globalization expanded opportunities via supply chain access but intensified competition, as seen in China's manufacturing export surge from 5% of global share in 1990 to 28% by 2018, prompting Western entrepreneurs to pivot toward services and IP-driven models. These shifts highlighted entrepreneurship's evolving role in job creation, where new firms accounted for nearly all net U.S. job growth despite comprising under 10% of employment, underscoring causal links between innovative startups and productivity gains over incumbent firms.[39] However, empirical data reveal challenges, including VC concentration in tech hubs like Silicon Valley, which captured 40% of U.S. deals by 2020, potentially stifling regional diversification.[40] Mainstream narratives often overemphasize unicorn successes while underreporting failures rates exceeding 90% for VC-backed firms, reflecting selection biases in academic and media sources favoring high-profile outcomes.Theoretical Foundations
Neoclassical and Equilibrium Models
Neoclassical economics, emerging in the late 19th century with marginalist principles, portrays the entrepreneur primarily as a rational agent who coordinates factors of production to maximize profits under constraints of scarcity and diminishing marginal returns.[41] In these models, entrepreneurship involves identifying arbitrage opportunities, allocating resources efficiently, and responding to price signals to drive markets toward equilibrium, where supply equals demand and economic profits dissipate over time.[42] Unlike dynamic views emphasizing disruption, neoclassical frameworks assume perfect information and competition, rendering the entrepreneur's role residual—essentially a calculator of costs and revenues rather than a source of novelty.[43] A foundational contribution is Frank Knight's 1921 distinction between measurable risk, which can be insured or diversified away, and uninsurable uncertainty arising from unpredictable changes in economic conditions.[44] Knight argued that entrepreneurial profits emerge as compensation for bearing this uncertainty, as routine managerial functions yield only normal returns in equilibrium, while true entrepreneurship involves judgment under ignorance of future outcomes.[6] This positions the entrepreneur as a bearer of non-contractible residuals in firm organization, aligning with later neoclassical extensions like team production theory, where the entrepreneur monitors opportunistic behavior among agents to minimize shirking.[45] Equilibrium models formalize entrepreneurship through occupational choice and firm formation dynamics. In Lucas's 1978 model, heterogeneous abilities lead able individuals to self-select into entrepreneurship, coordinating production and achieving allocative efficiency, with less able agents becoming workers. General equilibrium frameworks, such as those incorporating entry and exit, predict that risk-averse individuals opt for wage labor, while less risk-averse entrepreneurs operate larger firms, restoring balance via profit signals—e.g., entry erodes supernormal returns until zero economic profit prevails.[46] Empirical calibrations of these models, often using panel data on firm sizes and survival rates, show entrepreneurship rates stabilizing around 10-15% of the workforce in developed economies, consistent with equilibrium where marginal entrepreneurial ability matches market wages.[47] Alfred Marshall's earlier synthesis emphasized the entrepreneur's administrative role in agglomeration economies, where clustering reduces costs and spurs localized equilibrium adjustments.[41] These models, while analytically tractable, rely on assumptions of foresight and competition that empirical evidence challenges, as persistent firm heterogeneity and profit differentials suggest deviations from rapid equilibration.[48] Nonetheless, they underpin policy analyses, such as tax incidence on entry barriers, where reducing uncertainty (via property rights) boosts entrepreneurial supply and long-run growth rates by 0.5-1% annually in simulations.[49]Austrian School and Creative Destruction
The Austrian School of economics, originating in the late 19th century with Carl Menger and developed by figures such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, positions entrepreneurship as the central mechanism driving economic coordination and progress through individual action amid uncertainty. Unlike neoclassical models that assume equilibrium states, Austrians view the market as a dynamic process where entrepreneurs identify and exploit discrepancies in knowledge and resources, thereby preventing persistent inefficiencies in production. Ludwig von Mises, in his 1949 treatise Human Action, described the entrepreneur as the agent who "sets in motion the artificial means created by the mind of man, labor, and other non-human productive agents," ensuring resources align with consumer preferences by bearing uncertainty and directing production away from unsuitable states.[50] This praxeological approach emphasizes purposeful human behavior under conditions of incomplete information, with entrepreneurship manifesting as the pursuit of profit opportunities that reveal and correct market imbalances. Israel Kirzner, a key modern Austrian thinker, formalized entrepreneurship as "alertness" to hitherto unnoticed profit opportunities, distinguishing it from routine resource allocation or risk-bearing alone. In his 1973 book Competition and Entrepreneurship, Kirzner argued that entrepreneurs act as discoverers, spotting arbitrage possibilities—such as price discrepancies or undervalued resources—that others overlook due to dispersed knowledge, thereby tending toward market coordination without assuming perfect competition.[9] This alertness is not a calculable skill but a subtle capacity for judgment, enabling entrepreneurs to bridge gaps between supply and demand in real time. Friedrich Hayek complemented this by highlighting the "knowledge problem," where no central authority can aggregate the tacit, local knowledge held by individuals; instead, prices serve as signals that entrepreneurs interpret and act upon, fostering spontaneous order through trial and error.[51] Empirical observations, such as rapid adaptations in markets during crises, underscore this process, as entrepreneurs reallocate resources faster than planned economies could.[52] This entrepreneurial dynamism aligns with the concept of creative destruction, a term coined by Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, though rooted in Austrian emphases on innovation and disequilibrium. Schumpeter, trained under Austrian economists Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser, portrayed creative destruction as the "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one," driven by entrepreneurs introducing novel combinations of resources—new products, methods, markets, or organizations.[53] In Austrian terms, this manifests through Kirznerian discovery disrupting static equilibria, as alertness uncovers superior uses for factors of production, rendering obsolete prior arrangements and reallocating capital toward higher-valued ends. For instance, the shift from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles in the early 20th century exemplified this, with entrepreneurs like Henry Ford exploiting overlooked efficiencies, bankrupting livery stables while expanding mobility and wealth. While Schumpeter diverged from pure Austrian methodology by incorporating mathematical formalism, his insight reinforces the school's rejection of static analysis, attributing long-term growth to entrepreneurial disruption rather than mere accumulation.[54] Critics within academia often downplay these mechanisms due to biases favoring interventionist models, yet historical data on innovation waves—such as the information technology boom post-1980s—demonstrate sustained productivity gains from such processes.[55]Empirical and Behavioral Economics Insights
Empirical analyses of entrepreneurial outcomes reveal high failure rates, with data indicating that approximately 90% of startups ultimately fail to achieve sustained success or exit viability.[56] This pattern holds across industries, though survival probabilities improve with funding stages; for instance, ventures reaching late-stage financing like Series G face roughly a 74% risk of failure to exit.[57] Financial returns exhibit a skewed distribution, featuring low median earnings relative to comparable wage employment—often 20-30% lower even after five years—but with rare high-variance successes driving aggregate economic contributions such as innovation and job creation.%20-%20Does%20Entrepreneurship%20Pay%20An%20Empirical%20Analysis%20Of%20The%20Returns%20To%20Self%20Employment.pdf) Longitudinal studies using matched employer-employee data confirm that switching to self-employment yields negative initial pecuniary gains, persisting for many entrants, which underscores selection effects where lower-ability individuals disproportionately choose entrepreneurship over waged work due to barriers in labor markets.[58] Behavioral economics elucidates persistence amid these adverse averages through documented cognitive biases. Entrepreneurs display pronounced overconfidence, with surveys revealing that 81% of founders peg their venture's success odds above 70%, starkly misaligning with realized outcomes below 20% in most cohorts.[59] Meta-analyses link this bias to heightened entry rates, as overestimation mitigates ambiguity aversion and enables bold resource commitments under uncertainty, though it also correlates with suboptimal scaling decisions and delayed exits.[60] Reference-dependent preferences further explain endurance: prospect theory models show entrepreneurs framing losses relative to sunk investments or status quo employment, amplifying loss aversion and sustaining effort despite mounting evidence of unviability.[61] Field experiments and quasi-experimental designs reinforce these mechanisms, distinguishing over-optimism from rational skewness in beliefs. For example, elicited risk profiles indicate entrepreneurs tolerate greater downside variance not solely for non-pecuniary autonomy but via distorted probabilistic assessments of tail outcomes, where vivid anecdotes of unicorn successes inflate perceived upside. Critically, while such traits spur innovation in dynamic markets, they impose social costs through resource misallocation; econometric corrections for endogeneity suggest that curbing overconfidence via feedback interventions could elevate average returns without stifling aggregate entry.[61] These insights challenge neoclassical assumptions of expected-value maximization, highlighting how psychological primitives shape entrepreneurial supply and economic dynamism.Types and Variations
Entrepreneurs are classified in various ways based on innovation, motivation, business scale, and goals. There is no single universal system, but common categories include small business entrepreneurs focusing on stable, local or family-run operations for steady income; scalable startup entrepreneurs building high-growth ventures designed for rapid expansion and investment; large company entrepreneurs innovating within established firms or through acquisitions; social entrepreneurs prioritizing societal or environmental impact over pure profit; innovative entrepreneurs developing original ideas, products, or inventions; imitative entrepreneurs adapting and improving existing business models; and hustler entrepreneurs succeeding through relentless hard work, persistence, and resourcefulness. Other frequent types include buyer entrepreneurs who acquire and improve businesses, researcher entrepreneurs who are data-driven, lifestyle entrepreneurs focused on personal fulfillment, and tech entrepreneurs specializing in technology-driven ventures.[62][63]Innovative and Scalable Ventures
Innovative and scalable ventures, often termed scalable startups, represent a category of entrepreneurship focused on developing novel products or services with the potential for exponential growth and minimal proportional cost increases. These ventures prioritize disruptive innovation, leveraging technologies such as software platforms or network effects to achieve rapid expansion, distinguishing them from lifestyle businesses that cap growth to maintain founder autonomy and personal income levels.[64][65] Scalable models typically exhibit low marginal costs per additional customer, enabling profitability at high volumes without linear resource demands.[63] Key characteristics include a drive to transform markets through invention, reliance on external capital like venture funding to fuel scaling, and business models designed for sustainability under growth pressures, such as unit economics validation involving customer acquisition costs (CAC), lifetime value (LTV), and payback periods.[66][67] Entrepreneurs in this domain cultivate high-performance teams emphasizing agility, financial discipline, and go-to-market strategies that prioritize scalable sales over bespoke services.[68][69] Unlike replicative enterprises, these ventures often emerge in tech hubs, targeting global markets from inception. Prominent examples illustrate their mechanics: Airbnb, founded in 2008, scaled a peer-to-peer lodging platform to billions in valuation by harnessing network effects, where increased users enhanced value without commensurate cost rises.[70] Similarly, Notion's productivity software, launched in 2016, achieved scalability through cloud-based distribution, serving millions with near-zero marginal delivery costs.[70] Such firms attract investment rapidly; for instance, AI-focused scalable startups in 2023 received funding faster than non-AI peers, reflecting investor preference for high-growth potential.[71] Economically, these ventures amplify local and national growth by drawing foreign investment, generating jobs, and elevating GDP per capita, particularly in emerging markets where they disrupt incumbents and foster clusters of innovation.[72][73] Rapid scalers secure higher market shares and revenue trajectories, though success hinges on proving viable economics before expansion.[74] In the U.S., scalable ventures underpin ecosystems like Silicon Valley, contributing to sustained economic dynamism despite high failure rates inherent to unproven innovations.[64]Replicative and Lifestyle Businesses
Replicative businesses involve entrepreneurs entering established markets by duplicating proven products, services, or operational models, rather than creating novel offerings.[75][76] These ventures capitalize on existing customer demand and reduced uncertainty from market validation, but face direct competition and require efficient execution for viability.[77] Replicative entrepreneurship predominates among small enterprises, constituting the bulk of new business formations such as local restaurants, dry cleaners, or franchise outlets, where success hinges on location, cost control, and service quality rather than invention.[78] Lifestyle businesses, often overlapping with replicative models, prioritize the founder's personal autonomy, work-life balance, and sufficient income over aggressive expansion or exit strategies.[79][80] These are typically owner-operated with limited scalability, relying on bootstrapping and minimal staffing to sustain a desired routine, such as flexible hours or location independence.[81] Examples include boutique consultancies, artisanal crafts operations, or niche online stores where the entrepreneur avoids venture capital or delegation to preserve control and fulfillment.[82] Empirical data underscores their prevalence: in the United States, small businesses—predominantly replicative and lifestyle-oriented—account for 99.9% of all firms, employing 56.4 million workers and generating over $16.2 trillion in revenue as of 2021.[83][84] Such ventures thrive amid economic expansion by serving routine needs, yet they contribute modestly to productivity gains compared to innovative counterparts, with U.S. micro-small-medium enterprises lagging large firms by half in output efficiency.[85][86] While lower barriers enable 82% of owners to report work-life satisfaction, high failure rates—over 50% in the first year—stem from execution flaws like undercapitalization or market saturation.[87][88] Critics note that replicative and lifestyle models, though numerically dominant, rarely drive transformative wealth creation, as replication demands superior operational discipline without proprietary edges, and lifestyle caps constrain compounding returns.[75] Nonetheless, they underpin economic stability by fulfilling localized demands and enabling entry for risk-averse individuals, with 64% starting under $10,000 via personal funds.[89]Social Entrepreneurship and Critiques
Social entrepreneurship refers to the pursuit of innovative solutions to social problems, where the primary objective is generating social value rather than maximizing financial profit, often blending market mechanisms with mission-driven goals.[90] Practitioners typically operate through hybrid organizations, such as nonprofits with earned income streams or for-profits with reinvested earnings directed toward societal benefits like poverty alleviation or environmental protection.[91] The concept gained prominence in the late 20th century, with roots traceable to earlier reformers; for instance, Robert Owen established cooperative communities in the early 19th century to improve worker welfare during the Industrial Revolution. Modern institutionalization began in the 1980s, led by figures like Bill Drayton, who founded Ashoka in 1980 to support fellows tackling issues from education to health.[92] Prominent examples include Muhammad Yunus's Grameen Bank, launched in 1976 in Bangladesh, which pioneered microfinance to extend small loans to the impoverished, reaching over 9 million borrowers by 2011 and reportedly lifting many out of poverty through self-employment opportunities.[90] Another is the Fair Trade movement, formalized in the 1980s, which connects producers in developing countries to global markets via certified ethical supply chains, generating $8.3 billion in sales by 2018 while aiming to ensure fair wages and sustainable practices.[93] Organizations like TOMS Shoes, starting in 2006, adopted a "one-for-one" model, donating a pair of shoes for each sold, though this later evolved amid critiques of dependency creation.[94] Critiques of social entrepreneurship highlight its conceptual ambiguity and overlap with traditional philanthropy or business, arguing it lacks a distinct theoretical framework beyond applying entrepreneurial methods to social aims without clear boundaries on what qualifies as "social."[95] Empirically, evidence of sustained, scalable impact remains mixed; while some studies claim social enterprises support vulnerable populations and address unmet needs, rigorous longitudinal data often shows limited financial viability, with many relying on grants rather than self-sustaining revenues, leading to higher closure risks when funding dries up.[96] For example, a 30-year UK study found social ventures had a 70% survival rate after five years compared to 44% for private limited companies, but this is contested due to selection biases in sampled enterprises and failure to account for unreported closures or mission drift where social goals erode under financial pressures.[97] Critics further contend that prioritizing social metrics over profit distorts incentives, fostering inefficiency and "impact washing"—exaggerated claims of benefit without verifiable causal links—as seen in cases where interventions like product donations create market distortions or dependency without addressing root causes like policy failures.[98] [99] From a causal realist perspective, social entrepreneurship may inadvertently crowd out more effective market-driven solutions by diverting resources to subsidized models that evade competitive discipline, with empirical reviews indicating that true innovation and poverty reduction historically stem more from profit-oriented scalability than mission-locked hybrids.[100] Policy support for such ventures is often critiqued as ad-hoc and wasteful, lacking holistic evaluation of opportunity costs against alternatives like deregulation or direct aid.[101] Moreover, the "dark side" includes unintended harms, such as stakeholder exploitation through overwork in low-margin operations or ethical compromises to secure impact investments, underscoring the tension between altruistic intent and operational realities.[98] Academic sources promoting social entrepreneurship warrant scrutiny for institutional biases favoring interventionist narratives, potentially overlooking how free-market entrepreneurship has empirically generated broader societal gains through wealth creation.[102]Entrepreneurial Process
Opportunity Identification and Alertness
Opportunity identification refers to the process by which individuals detect potential entrepreneurial ventures arising from market disequilibria, such as unmet consumer needs, resource misallocations, or technological shifts that enable profitable arbitrage.[9] In economic theory, this process is distinct from mere idea generation, emphasizing the entrepreneur's ability to perceive value where others do not, often without deliberate search but through heightened sensitivity to environmental signals.[103] A foundational explanation comes from Israel Kirzner's 1973 work Competition and Entrepreneurship, which posits entrepreneurial alertness as the core mechanism driving market coordination. Kirzner describes alertness as an individual's propensity to notice previously overlooked profit opportunities, such as price discrepancies or untapped demands, thereby initiating corrective actions that reduce ignorance-induced inefficiencies.[104] Unlike neoclassical models assuming equilibrium and perfect information, Kirzner's framework views markets as dynamic processes where entrepreneurs exploit temporary imbalances, earning pure profits until imitation erodes them.[105] This alertness is not a calculative optimization under constraints but a discovery process, where the entrepreneur acts on "erroneous" beliefs held by others, propelling the economy toward better resource use.[106] Empirical research supports the role of alertness, though measurement challenges persist due to its subjective nature. Studies indicate that prior industry knowledge creates "knowledge corridors" that facilitate recognition; for instance, entrepreneurs with domain-specific experience identify opportunities 2-3 times more frequently than novices, as they interpret signals through familiar lenses.[107] Social networks amplify this by providing information asymmetry; a 2013 study of R&D personnel found that weak ties to diverse contacts increased opportunity detection by enhancing exposure to novel ideas.[108] Self-efficacy also correlates positively, with higher-confidence individuals reporting 20-30% more viable opportunities in surveys, likely due to reduced perceptual filters.[108] Other influencing factors include cognitive traits like pattern recognition and motivation. Resilience enables persistence in evaluating ambiguous signals, while team heterogeneity in knowledge backgrounds boosts identification, as shown in a 2022 analysis where diverse teams outperformed homogeneous ones by integrating complementary insights.[109] Entrepreneurship education further hones alertness; a survey of 500 students revealed that structured courses improved opportunity identification scores by 15-25%, particularly through exercises simulating market scanning.[110] However, over-reliance on formal training may overlook innate alertness, which Kirzner attributes to unexplained human capacities rather than trainable skills alone.[111] Critiques of alertness theory highlight potential endogeneity, where recognized opportunities may reflect creation rather than pure discovery, as in Schumpeterian innovation. Yet, empirical decompositions, such as those distinguishing replicative from novel ventures, affirm alertness's primacy in routine arbitrage, which constitutes 70-80% of small business starts per U.S. Census data from 2012-2022.[112] Overall, opportunity identification underscores entrepreneurship's causal role in economic dynamism, contingent on individuals' vigilance amid uncertainty.[113]Resource Mobilization and Execution
Resource mobilization in entrepreneurship refers to the strategic acquisition and alignment of critical inputs—such as financial capital, human talent, physical assets, and social networks—to transform identified opportunities into viable operations. This phase emphasizes effectuation over prediction, where entrepreneurs leverage available means to co-create commitments from stakeholders rather than forecasting precise resource needs.[114] Empirical studies indicate that successful mobilization often relies on entrepreneurs' prior experience and networks, with social embeddedness enabling access to resources that power and formal structures alone cannot secure.[115] Financial resource mobilization typically begins with bootstrapping, using personal savings or revenue from initial sales, as seen in cases where founders retain control by minimizing external dependencies; data from U.S. startups show that about 77% initially self-fund to validate concepts before seeking investors.[116] Transitioning to external sources, entrepreneurs pitch to angel investors or venture capitalists during the seed stage, where commitments hinge on demonstrated traction—such as prototypes or early customer acquisition—rather than speculative projections. Human resources are mobilized through relational ties, with founders often recruiting co-founders or early employees via personal connections, which studies link to higher survival rates due to aligned incentives and reduced hiring costs.[117] Execution follows mobilization as the operationalization of the business model, involving product development, market testing, and iterative refinement under uncertainty. This stage demands disciplined implementation, where entrepreneurs allocate mobilized resources to core activities like supply chain setup and go-to-market strategies; evidence from longitudinal surveys of nascent ventures reveals that execution efficacy correlates with rapid pivots based on real-time feedback, with firms adapting within 6-12 months showing 20-30% higher persistence rates.[118] Challenges include resource constraints leading to overcommitment, as empirical analyses document that 40% of early-stage failures stem from cash flow mismanagement during scaling attempts.[119] Effective execution thus prioritizes milestone-based resource deployment, such as achieving product-market fit before expansion, grounded in causal linkages between input efficiency and output viability.[120] In resource-scarce environments, frugal execution emerges as a pragmatic approach, mobilizing grassroots networks and minimal viable products to achieve functionality without excess capital; research on emerging markets highlights how such strategies enable innovation through adaptive reuse of local assets, yielding ventures with lower failure rates in volatile conditions.[121] Overall, the interplay of mobilization and execution underscores entrepreneurship's causal reality: resources must not only be acquired but dynamically executed to generate value, with data affirming that ventures excelling in both phases exhibit sustained growth trajectories over 5-year horizons.[122]Scaling, Adaptation, and Exit
Scaling a venture involves expanding operations, customer base, and revenue streams after achieving initial product-market fit, often requiring investments in infrastructure, talent, and processes to handle increased demand. Empirical evidence indicates that premature scaling—expanding before validating sustainable demand—contributes to high failure rates, with 74% of high-growth digital businesses failing due to this issue.[74] Strategies supported by data include prioritizing product-market fit through market research prior to expansion, building scalable cloud-based infrastructure for flexibility, and assembling teams with complementary skills to maintain operational efficiency.[123][124] Overall startup survival remains low, with only about 10% enduring long-term, underscoring the causal risks of mismatched growth trajectories against market realities.[125] Adaptation entails modifying business models, products, or strategies in response to feedback, competition, or environmental shifts, often through pivots that leverage core competencies while addressing unmet needs. Successful cases demonstrate causal links between timely adaptation and survival: Netflix transitioned from DVD rentals to streaming in 2007, capturing market share as digital consumption surged and achieving over 200 million subscribers by 2020.[126] Similarly, Slack pivoted from a failed internal gaming tool in 2013 to a communication platform, reaching a $27 billion valuation by 2020 before its acquisition.[126] Data from pivot analyses highlight traits like market signal reading and opportunity validation as predictors of positive outcomes, though most attempts fail without rigorous testing, reflecting the uncertainty inherent in reallocating resources under incomplete information.[127] Entrepreneurial exits represent the culmination of value realization, typically via acquisition, initial public offering (IPO), or liquidation, allowing founders to harvest returns or transition stewardship. Acquisitions dominate startup exits, comprising the majority of successful outcomes over IPOs, which remain rare due to regulatory and market barriers; for instance, only a fraction of venture-backed firms reach public markets.[128] Among business owners broadly, 70% favor internal transfers like employee buyouts for continuity, while 17% pursue external sales, though startup-specific data shows exits often yield modest multiples, with founder experience in industry boosting success probabilities.[129][130] Liquidations, including voluntary ones, form another pathway but typically signal underperformance rather than triumph, emphasizing exits as endpoints driven by strategic intent rather than inevitability.[131]Psychological and Behavioral Dimensions
Essential Traits and Mindsets
Empirical research on the personality traits of entrepreneurs, drawing from meta-analyses of studies since 2000, consistently identifies differences relative to the general population and managers, particularly within the Big Five framework. Entrepreneurs exhibit higher levels of openness to experience, facilitating innovation and adaptation to novel opportunities; elevated conscientiousness, supporting disciplined execution and goal persistence; and greater extraversion, aiding in networking and resource mobilization.[132] They also demonstrate lower neuroticism, reflecting emotional stability under uncertainty, though findings on agreeableness are mixed, with some evidence of lower scores enabling tougher decision-making in competitive environments.[133] These patterns hold across multiple meta-analyses comparing entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs, though effect sizes are modest, suggesting traits predispose but do not guarantee success.[134] Beyond the Big Five, entrepreneurial personality often encompasses traits like proactiveness, innovativeness, and autonomy, which meta-reviews link to venture creation and performance. Proactiveness involves anticipating market shifts, as evidenced by longitudinal studies where proactive individuals were 1.5 times more likely to launch viable businesses. Innovativeness correlates with patent filings and product launches, with entrepreneurs scoring higher on creativity measures in controlled experiments. Autonomy preference, a drive for independence, predicts entry into self-employment, with surveys of over 10,000 individuals showing it as a stronger predictor than financial motives.[135][136] These traits interact; for instance, high conscientiousness amplifies proactiveness in early-stage ventures but may hinder pivots later, per stage-specific analyses.[137] Key mindsets underpinning entrepreneurship include opportunity alertness, a cognitive orientation to detect undervalued prospects, validated by field studies where alert individuals identified 20-30% more opportunities in simulated markets than peers. Internal locus of control, the belief in personal agency over outcomes, emerges in meta-analyses as a robust predictor of persistence, with entrepreneurs attributing success to effort over luck at rates 40% higher than the general population. Need for achievement, rooted in McClelland's theory and confirmed empirically, drives goal-setting; high scorers set stretch targets and monitor progress rigorously, contributing to higher revenue growth in tracked cohorts. Resilience, or perseverance amid setbacks, is evidenced by data showing serial entrepreneurs—who fail initially but succeed subsequently—outperform novices by 30% in survival rates.[138][136] Non-academic skills complement these traits, particularly leadership to inspire and manage high-performing teams, storytelling to articulate compelling visions for investors and stakeholders, and sales/recruitment abilities to market ideas and attract talent. Mental resilience and risk management, paired with a strong work ethic, enable navigation of failures and uncertainty, with these skills showing heightened relevance in dynamic sectors like technology while applying broadly to entrepreneurial success.[139][140] These traits and mindsets are not innate universals but can be cultivated, as twin studies estimate heritability at 30-50% for entrepreneurial tendency, leaving room for environmental influences like prior experience. However, selection effects matter: academia's emphasis on traits may overlook situational factors, such as market timing, which explain more variance in outcomes per econometric models. Over-reliance on self-reported surveys risks common method bias, though objective measures like venture funding received corroborate patterns.[141][142]Risk, Uncertainty, and Decision-Making
Entrepreneurs confront both risk and uncertainty in their ventures, with the latter being central to the entrepreneurial function as articulated by economist Frank Knight in his 1921 work Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Knight distinguished risk as situations where outcomes have known probabilities, allowing for insurance or statistical hedging, from true uncertainty, where probabilities cannot be reliably assigned due to novel or unique events.[6] In entrepreneurship, profit emerges not from bearing measurable risks but from exercising judgment under irreducible uncertainty, such as anticipating consumer demands or technological shifts that defy probabilistic forecasting.[143] Decision-making under uncertainty requires heuristics and adaptive strategies rather than predictive models suited to risk. Saras Sarasvathy's framework contrasts causation, which plans from predefined goals using available means in predictable settings, with effectuation, which begins with the entrepreneur's means (identity, knowledge, networks) to co-create opportunities iteratively, emphasizing affordable loss and stakeholder commitments over exhaustive prediction.[144] Empirical studies validate effectuation's efficacy in uncertain contexts; for instance, experiments show entrepreneurs adopting effectual logic achieve higher venture viability by leveraging controllable elements amid unknowns.[145] A scientific approach—hypothesizing, testing, and falsifying assumptions—further enhances outcomes, with field experiments demonstrating that structured experimentation reduces failure rates compared to intuitive leaps.[146] Contrary to popular narratives, empirical evidence does not uniformly support entrepreneurs possessing superior risk tolerance. Surveys of nascent entrepreneurs reveal they are often more risk-averse than non-entrepreneurs, suggesting selection effects where calculated aversion to extreme losses drives entry into self-employment over wage work.[147] However, moderate risk tolerance correlates positively with startup propensity and survival, while excessive tolerance predicts lower profits and higher exit rates, as over-risky bets amplify losses in uncertain markets.[148] Personality traits like high openness and cognitive skills complement these decisions, enabling better opportunity evaluation under ambiguity.[149] The prevalence of business failures underscores the perils of uncertainty: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate 20.4% of private-sector establishments fail within the first year, rising to 49.4% by five years and 65.1% by ten years.[150] These rates reflect not just misjudged risks but genuine unknowns, such as market evolution or competitive disruptions, where even sound judgment yields uneven results; survival hinges on rapid adaptation and resource pivots rather than static planning.[151] Mainstream academic sources, often influenced by institutional incentives favoring optimistic narratives, may underemphasize these stark empirical realities, privileging survivorship bias in case studies over aggregate failure data.[152]Biases and Behavioral Pitfalls
Entrepreneurs frequently encounter cognitive biases that distort judgment and contribute to suboptimal decisions, despite the necessity of bold action in uncertain environments. Overconfidence bias, wherein individuals overestimate their knowledge, control, or success probability, is prevalent among founders; a study of 205 Swiss entrepreneurs found social ventures particularly susceptible, correlating with heightened escalation of commitment to failing projects.[153] This bias manifests in underestimating market risks, as evidenced by surveys where entrepreneurs projected survival rates far exceeding actual figures—around 20-30% for startups after five years, per longitudinal data from the Kauffman Foundation. Confirmation bias exacerbates this by prompting selective information processing, where founders favor data affirming preconceptions while dismissing contradictory evidence, such as negative customer feedback. Empirical research confirms this pattern, with founders interpreting ambiguous signals to validate hypotheses rather than falsify them, often delaying pivots in viable but misaligned ventures.[154] In product development, this leads to confirmation of flawed assumptions, as teams filter user data to support initial ideas, contributing to high failure rates—approximately 42% of startups fail due to lack of market need.[155] The sunk cost fallacy further entrenches errors, driving continued investment in unviable endeavors based on prior expenditures rather than future prospects. Entrepreneurs, having committed time and capital, persist beyond rational thresholds; behavioral economics experiments adapted for business contexts show this fallacy intensifies under resource scarcity, mirroring findings where founders ignore exit signals to avoid admitting losses.[156] A analysis of startup post-mortems attributes this to prolonged "zombie" phases, where irrecoverable costs—averaging $1-2 million in seed-stage failures—prolong agony without recovery.[157][158] Illusion of control and optimism bias compound these pitfalls, fostering undue belief in personal influence over stochastic outcomes like market adoption. While such heuristics may spur initial action against base rates of failure (under 10% of ventures achieve unicorn status), unchecked they yield systematic errors, as serial entrepreneurs exhibit persistent overoptimism despite prior setbacks.[159] Effectuation theory, emphasizing affordable loss over prediction, empirically mitigates overconfidence and control illusions in decision simulations.[159] Mitigating strategies include structured falsification protocols and diverse advisory input to counteract endogenous biases inherent to solitary founder cognition.[160]Financing and Resource Acquisition
Bootstrapping and Internal Funding
Bootstrapping refers to the process by which entrepreneurs launch and expand a business primarily using internal resources, such as personal savings, revenue generated from initial sales, or reinvested profits, rather than seeking external equity financing or debt.[161] This approach emphasizes self-reliance and cash flow management from inception, often involving cost minimization and early customer validation to sustain operations without diluting ownership.[162] Internal funding, a core component, involves channeling operational revenues back into the business to fuel growth, prioritizing profitability over rapid scaling.[163] Common methods include leveraging personal assets like savings or home equity, utilizing low-cost credit options such as credit cards for short-term needs, pre-selling products or services to secure upfront cash, and maintaining lean operations through outsourcing or part-time labor.[164] Entrepreneurs may also bootstrap by retaining day jobs to subsidize the venture or bartering services to avoid cash outflows.[165] As the business matures, internal funding shifts toward systematic reinvestment of earnings, such as allocating 20-50% of profits to product development or marketing, which enforces disciplined resource allocation.[166] Empirical data indicates bootstrapped firms exhibit higher long-term survival rates compared to venture capital-backed counterparts, with 5-year survival estimates ranging from 35-42% for bootstrapped startups versus 10-22% for VC-funded ones, attributable to lower burn rates and a focus on viable markets.[167] Bootstrapped companies are also three times more likely to achieve profitability within three years, as they avoid the pressure for exponential growth that often leads to overexpansion and failure in VC models.[168] However, these outcomes depend on market conditions; in capital-intensive sectors like biotech, bootstrapping proves rarer due to high upfront costs.[169] Advantages of bootstrapping include retained full equity ownership, which preserves founder control and aligns incentives with sustainable value creation, and enhanced operational efficiency from enforced frugality.[170] It facilitates quicker pivots without investor approval and reduces dependency on external validation, fostering resilience.[161] Drawbacks encompass constrained growth velocity, as limited capital hampers marketing or hiring, and elevated personal financial risk, potentially leading to burnout or delayed scalability.[171] Attracting top talent can be challenging without equity incentives or competitive salaries offered by funded rivals.[172] Notable examples illustrate bootstrapping's viability. Mailchimp, an email marketing platform, grew to over $700 million in annual revenue by 2019 without external funding, relying on customer revenues and organic expansion before its 2021 acquisition.[173] Basecamp (formerly 37signals) bootstrapped its project management software to profitability using internal cash flows, rejecting VC to maintain independence and reach millions in revenue.[174] Similarly, Spanx founder Sara Blakely launched her shapewear line in 2000 with $5,000 in personal savings, scaling to $1 billion in sales by 2012 through direct sales and reinvested earnings, without debt or investors.[175] These cases highlight how internal funding enables market-driven iteration, though success correlates with founders' prior expertise and niche focus.[176]| Company | Founding Year | Key Bootstrapping Strategy | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mailchimp | 2001 | Revenue reinvestment from initial tools | $700M+ revenue; acquired for $12B in 2021[173] |
| Basecamp | 1999 | Lean development; customer-funded features | Profitable SaaS with 3M+ users[174] |
| Spanx | 2000 | Personal savings; prototype sales | $1B valuation; self-made billionaire founder[175] |
External Capital Sources
External capital sources for entrepreneurs primarily encompass debt financing mechanisms, which supply funds without equity dilution but impose repayment obligations, interest, and often collateral requirements. Commercial bank loans and lines of credit represent the most prevalent form, with large banks originating 43% of small business loans and small banks 36% as of recent Federal Reserve data.[177] Approval rates vary significantly by institution size; large banks approve approximately 13.8% of applications, while smaller banks approve around 19%, reflecting stricter underwriting for riskier profiles typical of early-stage ventures.[178] In 2023, small banks approved 75% of applicants for at least partial financing sought, underscoring their role in serving entrepreneurs underserved by larger institutions.[179] These instruments suit established or asset-backed businesses more than nascent startups, where lack of collateral and revenue history leads to frequent denials, with overall small business loan denial rates exceeding 20% in surveys.[180] Government-backed debt programs mitigate private lender hesitancy through guarantees, expanding access for entrepreneurs. The U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) program, for instance, guarantees up to 85% of loans up to $5 million, facilitating over $30 billion in annual lending as of fiscal year 2023.[181] Approval rates for SBA loans stand at about 59%, higher than conventional bank loans due to reduced lender risk.[180] Interest rates typically range from 11.5% to 16.5%, variable or fixed, depending on loan size and term.[182] Empirical analyses indicate these programs boost employment and sales growth in recipient firms, though effects diminish for larger or repeat borrowers, suggesting selection biases toward viable projects.[183] Internationally, similar schemes like OECD-monitored SME loan guarantees correlate with higher credit availability during economic downturns, but evidence shows they can crowd out private lending if not calibrated to market failures.[184][185] Grants provide non-repayable external capital, often targeted at innovation, underserved demographics, or specific industries, but their scale remains modest relative to debt. U.S. federal grants via programs like the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) awarded $3.2 billion in 2023, primarily for R&D-intensive ventures.[186] Recipients experience positive innovation outcomes, with subsidies correlating to increased patenting and firm survival, though marginal returns decline beyond optimal levels, implying inefficiencies in over-subsidization.[187] Competitive application processes and bureaucratic hurdles limit accessibility, with success rates under 15% for many programs; moreover, grants signal quality to private lenders, potentially amplifying rather than substituting market finance.[188] Overall, while external debt and grants address capital gaps, empirical data highlight persistent barriers for high-risk entrepreneurs, including credit tightening amid rising rates, which reduced small business lending volumes by 1.5% year-over-year in some quarters of 2024.[189][186]Crowdfunding, VC, and Market Alternatives
Venture capital (VC) financing entails institutional investors, such as limited partnerships, supplying equity capital to early-stage, high-potential ventures, often in technology or scalable sectors, in return for ownership equity, typically 20-30% per round, along with preferential rights and governance influence.[190] This funding supports product development and market entry but demands rigorous due diligence, with investors prioritizing ventures exhibiting strong founder teams, proprietary technology, and large addressable markets. Entrepreneurs often need to develop skills in crafting compelling narratives to pitch visions, presenting effective product demonstrations, and leveraging networking to attract investors.[191][192] VC-backed firms undergo staged investments—seed, Series A through later rounds—where valuation escalates based on milestones, though dilution accumulates across rounds.[193] Global VC investment volume stood at $337 billion in 2024, concentrated in technology sectors, marking the third-highest annual total recorded, with artificial intelligence driving much of the activity through mega-rounds exceeding $1 billion.[194] In the first half of 2025, funding rose 25% year-over-year to $189.93 billion, reflecting rebounding investor confidence amid increased exit activity via acquisitions and IPOs, though deal counts declined as larger rounds dominated.[195] In Q3 2025, investment reached $97 billion, a 38% increase from Q3 2024, underscoring a focus on AI and mature startups over early-stage deals, where sub-$5 million rounds fell to 48.6% of total transactions, a decade low.[196] [193] Empirical analyses reveal VC's risk-return profile features high variability, with most portfolio companies failing to return capital, offset by outlier successes yielding power-law distributions; expected arithmetic returns approximate 38% annualized, adjusted for selection bias and illiquidity, though beta exceeds 2 relative to public markets, implying systematic risk.[197] Default rates remain elevated, often exceeding 70% for individual investments, necessitating diversified funds of 20-50 ventures to achieve viable aggregate returns, which historically lag public equities on a risk-adjusted basis absent mega-hits.[198] [199] Crowdfunding democratizes access to capital by enabling entrepreneurs to solicit funds directly from dispersed online backers via platforms, bypassing traditional gatekeepers, though success hinges on compelling narratives, prototypes, and marketing efforts. Primary types include reward-based, where backers receive non-equity perks like products (e.g., Kickstarter campaigns); equity-based, offering shares under regulations like U.S. Reg CF, limited to accredited and non-accredited investors; and debt-based, involving repayable loans with interest.[200] [201] Equity variants provide ownership without immediate repayment obligations but dilute founder control and impose ongoing disclosure requirements, while reward models validate demand without dilution yet risk delivery failures if targets unmet.[202] [203] Crowdfunding volumes vary by type, with U.S. Reg CF equity raises totaling $343.6 million in 2024, an 18% decline from $423 million in 2023, amid platform competition and regulatory caps per offering.[204] Overall success rates average 22.4-23.7%, with most campaigns raising under $10,000—52.93% of successful Kickstarter projects fall in the $1,000-$9,999 range—and failures often attributable to insufficient promotion or unproven viability.[205] [206] Pros encompass broad validation, marketing exposure, and no debt burden in non-repayment models, but cons include platform fees (5-12%), public scrutiny risks, and low completion odds, particularly for unvalidated ideas.[207] [208] Market alternatives to VC and crowdfunding emphasize non-dilutive or performance-aligned mechanisms, such as revenue-based financing (RBF), where providers advance capital repaid as a fixed percentage of future revenues until a multiple (e.g., 1.5-2x) is achieved, suiting predictable cash-flow businesses without equity surrender.[209] RBF mitigates misalignment by tying payouts to sales, with empirical adoption rising for SaaS firms, though higher effective costs (15-30% annualized) apply versus VC's upside potential. Other options include government grants for R&D-intensive ventures, peer-to-peer debt platforms, and supplier credit lines, which leverage trade relationships for deferred payments, reducing upfront capital needs but exposing firms to counterparty risks.[210] [211] These approaches favor bootstrapped validation prior to scaling, empirically correlating with higher survival rates in data-constrained environments, though they constrain explosive growth absent VC's networks.[212]Institutional and Policy Influences
Regulatory Environments and Barriers
Regulatory environments governing entrepreneurship include rules on business registration, licensing, labor, environmental compliance, and zoning, which can either facilitate or impede market entry and operations. Excessive regulatory barriers raise fixed costs disproportionately for startups and small firms, which lack resources to navigate complex bureaucracies, thereby deterring innovation and reducing entrepreneurial activity. Empirical analyses indicate that stringent entry regulations correlate with lower rates of new business formation; for instance, cross-country data from the World Bank's Doing Business indicators show that economies with simpler procedures for starting a business—averaging fewer than 5 steps and under 10 days—exhibit higher firm entry rates compared to those requiring over 10 procedures and months of delays.[213][214] Occupational licensing exemplifies a pervasive barrier, mandating government approval for practicing in over 1,000 professions across U.S. states, often involving fees, education requirements, and exams with limited relevance to competency. Research demonstrates that such licensing reduces self-employment and entrepreneurship by restricting labor mobility and raising entry costs, with states having higher licensing burdens showing 5-27% lower rates of business ownership in licensed fields, particularly affecting low-income and minority entrepreneurs.[215][216] In Europe, analogous requirements compound administrative loads, where small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) report regulatory compliance as a top obstacle, diverting up to 4% of turnover to bureaucracy—far exceeding U.S. levels—and correlating with stagnant startup densities relative to GDP.[217] Zoning and land-use regulations further erect barriers by limiting commercial space availability and increasing costs, with U.S. studies estimating that restrictive zoning reduces new firm formation by inflating real estate prices and delaying permits. Labor regulations, such as rigid hiring and firing rules in many EU countries, amplify this effect; econometric evidence links higher employment protection indices to 10-20% lower entrepreneurship rates, as they elevate uncertainty and operational risks for nascent ventures.[219] Reforms alleviating these burdens, such as license reciprocity or sunset reviews, have boosted entry in affected sectors by up to 15%, underscoring causal links between deregulation and heightened activity.[220][221] While some regulations address externalities like public health, empirical reviews reveal that many barriers stem from incumbent protectionism rather than necessity, with minimal evidence of quality improvements justifying the entrepreneurial suppression. In the U.S., small businesses spend an estimated 10% more time on compliance than larger firms, perpetuating scale disadvantages that favor established players over innovators.[222] Cross-national comparisons affirm that jurisdictions prioritizing regulatory simplicity—such as New Zealand's top-ranked ease of doing business—sustain higher per capita startup rates, driven by reduced procedural hurdles rather than subsidies.[223][214]Taxation and Fiscal Impacts
Taxation exerts a significant influence on entrepreneurial activity by altering the expected returns on risk-taking and investment decisions. Empirical analyses consistently demonstrate that higher marginal tax rates on income and profits correlate with reduced rates of new business formation and lower entrepreneurial entry. For instance, a study utilizing U.S. data found that increases in tax rates lead to fewer startups and decreased employment generation, with tax cuts exhibiting symmetric positive effects.[224] Similarly, cross-country evidence indicates that elevated tax burdens discourage the allocation of resources toward innovative ventures, as taxes diminish the net rewards from successful outcomes.[225] Corporate income taxes, in particular, impose a direct penalty on business profitability, thereby hindering investment and firm creation. Research based on enterprise surveys across multiple countries reveals a large adverse effect of corporate tax rates on both capital investment and entrepreneurial startups, with a one percentage point increase in the effective corporate tax rate associated with reduced firm entry.[226] In the United States, reductions in corporate tax rates, such as those implemented in 2017, have been linked to heightened innovation productivity, though the magnitude depends on repatriation of foreign earnings and domestic reinvestment incentives.[227] These distortions arise because corporate taxes raise the cost of capital, particularly for high-risk startups reliant on retained earnings or external financing, leading to fewer viable projects being pursued. Capital gains taxation further impacts entrepreneurship by affecting the attractiveness of equity investments and exit strategies essential for venture-backed firms. Evidence from policy changes shows that reductions in capital gains tax rates increase funding raised by startups, as lower taxes enhance investor after-tax returns and encourage risk capital deployment.[228] Studies confirm that higher capital gains taxes reduce venture capital disbursements and entrepreneurial activity, with state-level variations in the U.S. illustrating a negative relationship between tax rates and startup financing from 1969 to 2007.[229] This effect is pronounced for early-stage enterprises, where founders and investors anticipate gains from eventual sales or IPOs, making tax deferral and rate reductions critical for sustaining innovation pipelines. Fiscal incentives, such as R&D tax credits and investment allowances, can mitigate some negative tax effects by subsidizing entrepreneurial inputs. Evaluations indicate that U.S. R&D credits generate substantial additional private spending, with each dollar of credit yielding over one dollar in incremental research activity.[230] However, the effectiveness varies; while credits for high earners boost inventor mobility and patenting, certain angel investor incentives may direct funds toward lower-quality ventures, resulting in suboptimal performance.[231] Overall, broad rate reductions tend to outperform targeted incentives in fostering genuine entrepreneurial dynamism, as the latter risk fiscal inefficiencies and unintended distortions without proportionally enhancing productive activity.[232]Government Interventions: Evidence and Critiques
Government interventions in entrepreneurship commonly include direct subsidies, research and development grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, and industrial policies aimed at fostering innovation and startup activity. Programs such as the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) initiative, established in 1982, allocate federal funds—totaling over $4 billion annually across agencies—to small firms for high-risk R&D projects, with Phase I grants up to $150,000 and Phase II up to $1 million.[233] Empirical analyses of such grants indicate they can increase innovation inputs like R&D spending and outputs such as patents, with one study using propensity score matching finding subsidies enhance firm-level innovation across grants, loans, and tax credits.[234] Similarly, evaluations of SBIR report economic returns, including $2.76 billion in non-SBIR federal procurement funding leveraged in fiscal year 2022 and overall ROI estimates ranging from 14.7:1 to 22:1 based on downstream sales and job creation from program expenditures.[235][236][237] However, these positive findings face methodological critiques, including selection bias where governments fund projects with higher observable promise, potentially overstating causal impacts, and endogeneity issues in subsidy allocation favoring politically connected firms rather than purely merit-based innovation.[187] Cross-country data reveal that while subsidies may stimulate entry in certain sectors, they can crowd out private investment by distorting risk signals and subsidizing incumbents, thereby raising barriers for new entrants.[238] Industrial policies, often justified as correcting market failures in early-stage ventures, exhibit high unseen costs from misallocation, as governments lack the dispersed knowledge of market participants to efficiently "pick winners," leading to persistent failures like subsidized ventures that fail to commercialize despite billions invested.[239] Critics argue that such interventions foster rent-seeking, where entrepreneurs lobby for funds instead of pursuing market validation, and impose opportunity costs by diverting taxpayer resources from broader economic uses, with public choice dynamics exacerbating scope creep and indefinite durations without rigorous sunset clauses.[240] For instance, selective industrial policies show no significant effect on startup innovation outputs in some analyses, particularly when financial support displaces rather than complements private capital.[241] Heterogeneity persists across contexts: subsidies prove more effective in capital-constrained environments but less so in mature economies where they may attenuate entrepreneurial dynamism by reducing incentives for efficiency.[242] Overall, while targeted interventions yield isolated successes, aggregate evidence underscores inefficiencies from political interference and failure to replicate private sector discipline, suggesting limited net benefits for entrepreneurial ecosystems compared to reducing regulatory burdens or enhancing property rights.[239][243]Education and Capability Building
Formal Training Programs
Formal training programs in entrepreneurship primarily consist of structured academic offerings, including undergraduate majors, master's degrees such as MBAs with entrepreneurship concentrations, and specialized certificates from business schools and universities. These programs typically cover topics like business planning, venture financing, market analysis, and innovation management, often incorporating experiential elements such as pitch competitions and incubators.[244][245] Leading institutions include Babson College, which emphasizes hands-on entrepreneurship education across its curriculum, and elite business schools like the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, where students engage in courses on corporate innovation, scaling ventures, and experiential learning pathways.[246][245][247] Undergraduate rankings highlight programs at schools like the University of Michigan and Brigham Young University, which integrate entrepreneurship into broader business degrees.[248] Empirical evidence suggests these programs modestly boost entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacy, with a meta-analysis of 73 studies involving 37,285 participants revealing a small but significant positive correlation (r ≈ 0.10-0.20) between entrepreneurship education and intent to start a business.[249] Tertiary education overall correlates with increased formal entrepreneurship—defined as opportunity-driven ventures rather than necessity-based ones—attributed to heightened self-confidence, lower perceived risk, and improved opportunity recognition skills.[250] However, short-term gains in intentions often fade without sustained action, as longitudinal studies show limited persistence beyond program completion, potentially due to confounding factors like innate motivation or external opportunities.[251] Critiques highlight that formal programs may not causally drive venture success, with regression discontinuity analyses indicating that additional schooling correlates with entrepreneurship entry but not superior outcomes, as unobserved traits like persistence bias results.[252] Only 44% of U.S. entrepreneurs hold a bachelor's degree or higher, underscoring that formal training is neither necessary nor sufficient; high-profile successes like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg bypassed degrees, while program alumni often pursue salaried roles instead.[253] MBA curricula can encourage structured problem-framing that diverges from expert entrepreneurs' intuitive approaches, and the high cost—often exceeding $200,000—yields uncertain returns amid low startup survival rates.[254] Academic sources promoting efficacy may reflect institutional incentives to justify enrollment, warranting skepticism toward self-reported impacts without randomized controls.[255]Informal Learning and Experience
Informal learning in entrepreneurship involves self-directed activities like deliberate practice, mentorship, networking, and trial-and-error experimentation, which foster practical competencies such as opportunity recognition and adaptive decision-making without reliance on structured curricula.[256] A longitudinal study of small business owners demonstrated that sustained deliberate informal learning—defined as goal-oriented, feedback-informed practice—significantly predicted revenue growth and survival rates over five years, outperforming general work experience alone.[257] Prior industry or managerial experience equips entrepreneurs with domain-specific knowledge that enhances venture performance, with meta-analyses across 80 studies revealing a modest yet statistically significant positive correlation (r ≈ 0.10-0.15) between such experience and metrics like firm profitability and longevity.[258] [259] This effect stems from causal mechanisms like refined risk assessment and resource mobilization, as prior exposure reduces common pitfalls in market entry and operations.[260] Notable cases illustrate reliance on experiential paths: Bill Gates, who began programming at age 13 and co-founded Microsoft in 1975 after dropping out of Harvard, attributed success to iterative software development and early business ventures rather than academic credentials.[261] Richard Branson launched Virgin Records in 1972 from informal trading experiences, expanding into a conglomerate valued at billions by 2023 through hands-on management and opportunistic pivots, bypassing formal business training.[262] Similarly, Steve Jobs, after leaving Reed College in 1972, built Apple via self-taught electronics tinkering and garage prototyping, emphasizing experiential innovation over theoretical study. Notable resources for building entrepreneurial capabilities include Peter Thiel's "Zero to One" (2014), which emphasizes creating novel value; Reid Hoffman's "Blitzscaling," focusing on rapid growth strategies; and the free Y Combinator Startup School online program, offering practical guidance from experienced founders.[263] Mentorship and peer networks amplify informal gains; entrepreneurs with prior startup exposure exhibit 20-30% higher intentions and attitudes toward new ventures, per surveys of over 1,000 individuals, due to vicarious learning from failures and successes.[264] However, empirical data underscores variability: while experience mitigates failure—reducing rates by up to 15% in high-growth sectors—success demands complementary traits like resilience, as not all experiential paths yield positive outcomes without deliberate reflection.[265] These patterns challenge overemphasis on formal credentials, highlighting causal primacy of real-world iteration in building entrepreneurial efficacy.Empirical Effectiveness and Limitations
Empirical research on formal entrepreneurship education reveals consistent positive effects on entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacy, with a meta-analysis of 73 studies reporting a modest but significant correlation (effect size r = 0.17) between exposure to such programs and intent to start a business, though results vary by program design and participant demographics.[249] Studies further indicate that these programs enhance knowledge acquisition, particularly among students with preexisting positive attitudes toward entrepreneurship, leading to improved perceived competence in business planning and opportunity recognition.[266] However, translation to actual startup activity is weaker; a Stanford analysis of two major university initiatives found no substantial increase in entrepreneurship rates among alumni relative to non-participants, attributing this to self-selection biases where motivated individuals participate regardless.[267] Similarly, broader reviews confirm that while education correlates with higher funding outcomes for educated founders, it does not reliably elevate overall startup success rates, with experiential factors often dominating.[268] Informal learning mechanisms, such as on-the-job experience and mentorship, demonstrate stronger empirical links to entrepreneurial outcomes. Data from venture-backed firms show that founders with prior industry roles—gaining tacit knowledge through trial-and-error—achieve higher survival rates and performance metrics, with operational expertise explaining up to 20-30% of variance in firm growth beyond formal credentials.[269] Longitudinal studies reinforce this, finding that apprenticeships or self-directed exposure to market challenges predict sustained business viability more effectively than classroom-based training, as informal paths foster adaptive skills like resilience and network-building unmeasurable in controlled settings.[270] For instance, high school-level experiential programs have been shown to raise startup probabilities by 0.3-1.1 percentage points, amplified among those with familial entrepreneurial exposure, highlighting the role of contextual immersion over abstracted instruction.[271] Key limitations persist across both formal and informal approaches, including challenges in causal attribution due to endogeneity—ambitious individuals self-select into opportunities, inflating perceived impacts—and survivorship bias in retrospective data from successful entrepreneurs. Formal programs often underperform for novices lacking baseline skills, yielding diminishing returns at the margin, while overemphasizing theory can constrain creativity in dynamic markets.[272] Informal learning, though potent, suffers from uneven accessibility and scalability, with evidence suggesting upper bounds on benefits for those without initial capital or networks, and potential for inefficient resource allocation in trial-and-error processes.[273] Overall, while capability-building efforts contribute incrementally, empirical gaps underscore that no single educational modality guarantees success, as individual traits like risk tolerance and market timing exert outsized influence.[274]Success Metrics and Failure Dynamics
Key Predictors from Data
Empirical studies of startup performance, often drawing from datasets of thousands of ventures, identify founder experience at leading technology firms as a strong predictor of success. Teams including at least one founder from companies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, or Twitter achieved 160% higher performance metrics and secured 50% greater pre-money valuations compared to those without such experience.[275] Similarly, prior entrepreneurial experience correlates with improved outcomes, as serial founders leverage learned insights from previous ventures to navigate common pitfalls.[275] Educational background from elite institutions also emerges as a predictor in tech-focused cohorts. Startups with founders from Ivy League schools, Stanford, or MIT exhibited 220% superior performance relative to others.[275] However, broader analyses across millions of firms indicate that formal education levels do not consistently forecast high-growth success, with many successful entrepreneurs lacking advanced degrees. Location shows negligible predictive power; ventures outside major hubs like Silicon Valley or New York sometimes outperform, suggesting network effects are not causal necessities.[275] Legal and structural choices provide robust signals in large-scale data. Among over 10 million U.S. firms from 1995 to 2005, those incorporating in Delaware and obtaining patents or trademarks within the first year were 278 times more likely to experience significant equity growth events, such as acquisitions exceeding $100 million in value.[276] These factors also enhance venture capital attraction, which independently boosts growth probabilities even for non-VC firms.[276] Personality traits and team composition yield predictive value in behavioral datasets. Analysis of 21,187 startups linked to founders' Twitter-derived Big Five profiles found adventurousness (from openness) and high activity levels (from extraversion) prevalent among successes, measured by acquisitions or IPOs. Multi-founder teams, particularly those with three or more members exhibiting diverse personality types—such as combinations of leaders and developers—succeeded at over twice the rate of solo ventures.[277] Financial early-stage metrics further discriminate outcomes. In models trained on funding histories, longer seed-stage runways (time between seed raise and subsequent funding) and higher initial seed amounts positively correlate with survival and scaling, as they afford iteration without premature depletion.[278] These predictors, however, derive predominantly from VC-tracked tech startups, limiting generalizability to bootstrapped or non-tech enterprises where operational resilience and market fit dominate.[275][277]High Failure Rates and Causes
Approximately 90% of startups fail, with the majority ceasing operations within the first five years.[279] This figure derives from analyses of venture-backed and independent ventures across industries, where survival beyond a decade is rare, estimated at under 10%.[280] First-time founders face even steeper odds, with only an 18% success rate, though prior entrepreneurial failure correlates with improved subsequent outcomes due to experiential learning.[280] In contrast, broader small business data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate lower attrition: 20.4% fail in year one and 49.4% within five years, reflecting startups' higher-risk profiles involving innovation and scalability rather than established operations.[150] Sectoral variations amplify these rates; technology startups exhibit a 63% failure rate within five years, the highest among industries, driven by rapid obsolescence and capital intensity.[281] Even venture-backed firms, presumed to benefit from rigorous vetting, see 75% failure, with nearly half never achieving profitability, underscoring that external funding does not mitigate inherent uncertainties.[282] These patterns hold globally, though regional factors like regulatory stringency or market maturity influence specifics; for instance, U.K. startup insolvency dipped to 46% of total failures in 2024 amid economic recovery, the lowest in a decade.[283] Empirical postmortem analyses identify primary causes rooted in market misalignment and operational deficits. Lack of product-market fit tops the list at 42% of cases, where ventures develop solutions without validated demand, often due to inadequate customer validation or overreliance on founder assumptions.[158] Cash exhaustion follows at 29%, frequently cascading from the prior issue, as unproven products fail to generate revenue amid high burn rates.[158] Ineffective teams account for 23%, encompassing skill gaps in execution, leadership conflicts, or inability to pivot, as evidenced in longitudinal studies of defunct firms.[158] Competition erodes 19%, where entrants underestimate incumbents or fail to differentiate amid saturated markets.[158] Less frequent but recurrent factors include pricing missteps (18%), poor marketing (14%), and ignoring customer needs (14%), per aggregated failure autopsies.[158] Deeper causal mechanisms involve core competency deficits, such as deficiencies in strategic planning or adaptability, which empirical models link to systemic underpreparation rather than isolated errors.[56] Research emphasizes that failures often stem from interconnected risks—e.g., team discord amplifying financial strain—rather than singular events, with tech sectors particularly vulnerable to competitive displacement and technological shifts.[284] These insights derive from founder surveys and investor data, though self-reporting may understate external shocks like economic downturns; nonetheless, internal controllables dominate verifiable attributions.[285]Resource Allocation via Failure
Entrepreneurial failure serves as a critical market mechanism for reallocating resources from underperforming ventures to more efficient uses, enabling capital, labor, and other inputs to shift toward higher-value opportunities. In competitive markets, unsuccessful businesses signal misjudged consumer demands or operational inefficiencies, prompting the dissolution of these entities and the redeployment of their assets. This process, often termed creative destruction, was conceptualized by economist Joseph Schumpeter, who argued that innovation inherently disrupts established arrangements, freeing resources previously locked in obsolete production for novel applications that drive economic progress.[54] Empirical studies on bankruptcy reveal that liquidation—prevalent in Chapter 7 proceedings under U.S. law—facilitates asset reallocation more effectively than reorganization under Chapter 11, as liquidated assets are sold and repurposed, often yielding higher post-bankruptcy utilization rates in productive sectors. For instance, analysis of U.S. bankruptcy data shows that assets from liquidated firms are reallocated based on industry conditions and local economic activity, with stronger local demand correlating to better subsequent productivity. Similarly, effective insolvency regimes reduce "zombie firms"—subsidized entities that persist unprofitably—and promote capital flows to viable enterprises, enhancing overall economic efficiency, as evidenced by cross-country comparisons where stricter bankruptcy laws correlate with faster resource shifts.[286][287][288] Serial entrepreneurship further underscores this reallocation dynamic, with founders of failed ventures frequently applying lessons learned to subsequent successes, thereby channeling human capital and experiential knowledge into improved endeavors. Research indicates that prior failure experiences, when processed through learning, elevate the likelihood of future venture viability, as entrepreneurs refine resource deployment strategies; for example, surveys of serial founders show that failure-derived insights mitigate overcommitment risks in resource allocation. This pattern holds across contexts, where re-entry after failure leverages accumulated expertise, contributing to net economic gains despite initial losses. Government interventions that artificially sustain failing firms, such as bailouts, distort this mechanism by trapping resources in low-productivity traps, as observed in analyses of subsidized industries where capital misallocation persists.[289][290][291] In aggregate, high entrepreneurial failure rates—often exceeding 70% for startups within five years—facilitate dynamic adjustment, preventing resource stagnation and fostering innovation-led growth. Data from venture-backed firms demonstrate that while most initiatives fail, the survivors generate disproportionate value, with capital recycling through investor exits and reinvestments amplifying reallocation efficiency. This underscores failure's role not as a systemic flaw but as an essential filter in capitalist systems, where unhindered exit enables entry of superior alternatives.[292][293]Economic and Societal Ramifications
Contributions to Growth and Innovation
Entrepreneurship drives economic growth primarily through the introduction of novel products, processes, and business models that enhance productivity and resource allocation. Empirical analyses across multiple countries indicate a positive correlation between entrepreneurial activity, particularly opportunity-driven ventures, and GDP expansion, as new firms disrupt inefficient incumbents and expand market frontiers. For instance, studies examining 74 economies over six years highlight that factors fostering entrepreneurial spirit, such as access to finance and regulatory ease, coincide with higher growth rates.[294] However, necessity-driven entrepreneurship, often arising from unemployment rather than innovation, shows negligible or negative impacts on growth in emerging markets.[295] A core mechanism is job creation by young and small firms, which disproportionately generate employment despite their limited scale. Across OECD countries, firms less than five years old represent about 20% of total employment but account for nearly half of all new jobs created annually.[296] In the United States, from the first quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2024, small businesses with 249 or fewer employees contributed 52.8% of net job gains.[297] Post-COVID recovery data further reveals startups creating 26% of total new jobs, surpassing the 19% share from the prior business cycle, underscoring their role in labor market dynamism.[298] Innovation contributions stem from entrepreneurs' incentives to pioneer technologies, evidenced by higher impact of startup patents. In any given year, a startup patent garners 8.5% more citations than those from established firms, with cumulative effects amplifying over time to influence broader inventive activity.[299] This aligns with Joseph Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction, where entrepreneurial entry erodes obsolete structures, fostering successive waves of productivity gains; modern econometric models operationalize this by linking innovation-driven firm entry to sustained growth in endogenous growth frameworks.[300] Cross-sectional evidence confirms varied effects by entrepreneurship type, with high-tech startups exerting stronger positive influences on innovation metrics like patent intensity compared to low-opportunity sectors.[301] While some critiques note weaker aggregate evidence for Schumpeterian dynamics in certain industries due to incumbent dominance, startup-induced spillovers consistently demonstrate externalities that elevate system-wide inventive output.[302][303]Inequality Debates and Causal Realities
Entrepreneurship has been implicated in debates over rising income inequality, with critics positing that it fosters winner-take-all dynamics where a small number of successful ventures concentrate wealth among founders and early investors, widening gaps measured by Gini coefficients or top income shares. However, empirical analyses across countries indicate that higher entrepreneurial activity correlates with reduced income inequality, as one standard deviation increase in entrepreneurship rates leads to a 6-11% decline in inequality relative to the mean, driven by job creation and broader economic expansion.[304] [305] Distinctions matter: new firm formation tends to lower household income inequality by spurring innovation and employment, whereas increased self-employment can elevate it if it reflects necessity-driven low-productivity ventures rather than opportunity-driven scaling.[306] Causally, entrepreneurship operates through mechanisms of resource reallocation and value creation that challenge zero-sum views of inequality. Joseph Schumpeter's framework of creative destruction posits that entrepreneurial innovation displaces obsolete firms and technologies, temporarily boosting inequality as winners capture rents from superior productivity, yet this process sustains long-term growth by elevating overall living standards and enabling upward mobility.[307] [308] Model-based evidence supports that policies enhancing creative destruction, such as research subsidies, mitigate top-end inequality by accelerating diffusion of innovations beyond initial entrepreneurs.[307] In practice, self-employment and small business ownership yield faster earnings growth for less-educated individuals compared to wage work, with successful entrepreneurs exhibiting significantly higher upward income mobility than non-entrepreneurs.[309] [310] These realities underscore that entrepreneurial inequality often stems from differential risk-bearing and innovation returns rather than systemic extraction, contrasting with cronyist or regulatory barriers that entrench elites without net societal gain. Data from U.S. sectors reveal entrepreneurship's dynamic interplay with unemployment and growth, where entry of high-productivity firms raises aggregate output and compresses dispersion over time through spillover effects like skill upgrading and market expansion.[311] While short-term disparities arise—e.g., in high-tech concentrations—suppression of entrepreneurial rewards via redistribution risks stifling the incentives for discovery that have historically lifted baselines, as evidenced by correlations between entrepreneurial ecosystems and financial inclusion across nations.[312] Mainstream narratives emphasizing entrepreneurship as a primary inequality driver overlook this causal chain, potentially influenced by institutional biases favoring egalitarian priors over growth empirics.[313]Myths, Glorification, and Realistic Assessments
Entrepreneurship is often mythologized as a path to rapid wealth and autonomy accessible to solitary visionaries, yet empirical evidence reveals these notions to be overstated. One prevalent myth posits that successful entrepreneurs operate in isolation, relying solely on individual genius; however, studies indicate that teams are substantially more likely to achieve venture success than solo founders, with collaborative efforts mitigating risks through diverse expertise.[314] Another misconception suggests entrepreneurship demands youth, portraying it as the domain of dropouts in their twenties; in reality, the average age of founders of high-growth startups is around 45 years, drawing on accumulated experience rather than impetuous innovation.[315] Claims of overnight success ignore the protracted timelines, as most enduring businesses require years of iteration before profitability, contradicting narratives of instant unicorn status.[316] Media and cultural portrayals exacerbate these myths by glorifying a select cadre of outliers, fostering survivorship bias that eclipses the norm of failure. Television programs and social platforms amplify tales of venture-backed windfalls, such as those dramatized in investment pitches, while underrepresenting the 90% of startups that dissolve within five years, skewing public perception toward an unattainable glamour.[317] This celebritization, evident in the proliferation of entrepreneur profiles since the early 2010s, equates founding with celebrity, yet it misleads aspirants by omitting the grinding persistence and frequent setbacks inherent to the process.[318] Such depictions, often curated for inspirational effect, contribute to inflated expectations, as noted by industry observers who highlight how social media's selective curation distorts the operational drudgery and financial precarity.[319] Realistic assessments grounded in data underscore entrepreneurship's high-stakes nature, where failure serves as a primary mechanism for capital reallocation rather than a personal indictment. Approximately 75% of venture-backed startups fail outright, with rates climbing to 95% in sectors like blockchain, driven by deficiencies in market demand, competitive positioning, and internal competencies rather than mere execution errors.[320][285] While skill in opportunity recognition and execution correlates with survival, luck—manifesting as timely market conditions or serendipitous partnerships—accounts for a nontrivial portion of outcomes, with successful founders retrospectively attributing roughly equal weight to both factors in qualitative analyses.[321] This interplay tempers glorification: entrepreneurship demands resilience amid asymmetric risks, yielding innovation through iterative trial-and-error, but it rewards persistent, evidence-based adaptation over romanticized bravado.[56]Contemporary Trends and Global Contexts
Technological Disruptions (AI, No-Code)
Artificial intelligence (AI) has created entirely new entrepreneurial opportunities, including AI-first startups and AI-enabled transformations of traditional businesses, marking a fundamental shift in the entrepreneurial landscape that was largely unimaginable a decade ago. Artificial intelligence (AI) and no-code platforms have significantly lowered barriers to entry in entrepreneurship by automating technical tasks traditionally requiring specialized skills and resources. Generative AI tools, such as large language models, enable rapid prototyping of software, content generation, and data analysis, allowing founders to build minimum viable products (MVPs) without hiring developers.[322] For instance, AI adoption among organizations reached 78% in 2024, up from 55% the previous year, reflecting accelerated integration into business operations including startups.[323] Small businesses, often entrepreneurial ventures, saw AI usage rise by 18% in 2025 compared to 2024, more than doubling overall adoption rates.[324] This democratization empowers solo entrepreneurs and non-technical founders to compete, as AI boosts productivity by 40% and yields 2.5 times higher success rates for AI-utilizing startups versus non-users.[325] No-code platforms further disrupt by enabling app and website development through visual interfaces, bypassing traditional coding. By 2025, 65% of applications were built without code, delivering 90% faster launch times and 362% return on investment for users.[326] The low-code/no-code market expanded to $37.39 billion in 2025, projected to reach $264.40 billion by 2032 at a 32.2% compound annual growth rate, driven by cost reductions of up to 65% in development.[327][328] Platforms like Bubble and Adalo have facilitated startups such as Qoins, which automates savings via no-code tools, and Dividend Finance, scaling operations without engineering teams.[329] These tools reduce time-to-market, enabling rapid iteration and validation of business ideas, particularly in software-as-a-service (SaaS) and mobile apps. The synergy of AI and no-code amplifies disruptions, fostering "indie hacker" models where individuals launch ventures with minimal capital. AI integrates into no-code environments for automated testing and personalization, further compressing development cycles. However, while entry barriers fall, success rates remain challenged; 90% of AI-focused startups fail within five years due to factors like poor differentiation and execution flaws, not technological access alone.[330] Over-reliance on these tools risks commoditized outputs and scalability issues, as generic AI-generated solutions struggle against customized competitors. Empirical data underscores that technological access enhances efficiency but does not substitute for viable market fit or causal drivers of demand.[325]Variations Across Economies
Entrepreneurship rates, measured as total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA), vary significantly by economic development level, with developing economies typically recording higher TEA—often exceeding 20% of the adult population—driven primarily by necessity rather than opportunity, as individuals start businesses for subsistence amid limited formal employment options.[331] In contrast, high-income economies average TEA rates around 10-15%, but with a greater share of opportunity-motivated ventures emphasizing innovation and scalability, as evidenced by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys across 56 economies in 2024 showing established business ownership rates 2-3 times higher in developed nations.[332] This disparity stems from structural factors: developing economies suffer from weak institutions, informal markets, and credit constraints, fostering survivalist micro-enterprises with low productivity, while developed ones benefit from robust legal frameworks, access to capital, and skilled labor pools that support high-growth firms.[333] Economic freedom plays a causal role in these variations, as countries classified "free" in the Heritage Foundation's 2025 Index of Economic Freedom—such as Singapore (score 83.5) and Switzerland (83.0)—correlate with 12% higher TEA levels and superior entrepreneurial quality compared to "repressed" economies like Cuba (24.3) or Venezuela (25.8), where regulatory burdens and property rights insecurity suppress private initiative.[334] [335] Empirical analyses confirm that components like business freedom and investment openness explain up to 40% of cross-country differences in entrepreneurial performance, with freer markets enabling resource reallocation toward productive uses via Schumpeterian creative destruction, absent in heavily intervened systems.[336] For instance, the United States maintained a TEA rate of 19% in 2024, reflecting dynamic entry and exit amid rule of law, versus stagnant activity in low-freedom peers.[337] In socialist-oriented economies, entrepreneurship faces systemic barriers from state dominance, as seen in Cuba, where pre-2021 reforms confined private activity to 10% of the workforce in tiny, approved operations, yielding negligible innovation due to profit caps and expropriation risks.[338] China's hybrid model, evolving from Mao-era collectivism to post-1978 market reforms, has generated explosive entrepreneurship—private firms now comprising 60% of GDP by 2023—but remains causally tethered to Communist Party directives, prioritizing state champions over unfettered competition and yielding distortions like overinvestment in subsidized sectors.[338] Capitalist economies like the U.S., by contrast, institutionalize voluntary exchange and limited government, sustaining higher per-capita unicorn startups (over 600 as of 2024) through venture capital ecosystems averaging $150 billion annually in funding.[337] These patterns underscore that institutional quality, not mere policy rhetoric, determines entrepreneurial vitality, with freer systems empirically outperforming controlled ones in fostering sustainable growth.[339]Emerging Challenges and Policy Implications
Entrepreneurs in 2025 confront heightened economic volatility, with inflation cited as the primary barrier to success by 61% of U.S. business owners, exacerbating rising operational costs amid a 0.3% contraction in the U.S. economy during the first quarter.[340] [341] Decelerating consumer spending and escalating tariffs further strain small enterprises, which disproportionately absorb these shocks due to limited scale and buffers.[341] Geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions, intensified by events such as ongoing conflicts and trade barriers, pose additional risks, driving up shipping costs and complicating global sourcing for startups.[342] [343] Talent acquisition remains challenging, with skill gaps in areas like AI integration requiring upskilling amid labor market tightness, while regulatory compliance burdens divert resources from innovation.[344] [343] Empirical studies indicate that regulatory costs exert negative or inverted U-shaped effects on both the quantity and quality of entrepreneurial activity, often favoring incumbents over new entrants by raising entry barriers and stifling dynamism.[345] [346] Cross-country data reveal a consistent negative correlation between regulatory stringency and business formation rates, with more regulated industries exhibiting lower entry and innovation.[347] [348] Policy responses should prioritize enhancing economic freedom, which panel studies across nations show positively predicts subsequent entrepreneurial growth and productive activity, unlike necessity-driven ventures in constrained environments.[349] [350] Reducing startup regulations, taxes, and administrative costs—key factors in indices like the Heritage Foundation's—could mitigate these challenges, as evidenced by higher entrepreneurship rates in jurisdictions with stronger property rights and open markets.[351] [352] However, targeted interventions like special measures during crises have shown positive effects on nascent firms in some contexts, though broad deregulation yields more sustained impacts absent cronyist distortions.[353] [354] Institutions with left-leaning biases, such as certain academic analyses, may overemphasize equity-focused policies that inadvertently increase barriers, underscoring the need for evidence-based reforms grounded in causal links to growth.[355]References
- https://research.[manchester](/page/Manchester).ac.uk/files/36834998/POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS.PDF
