Browse by title
Edited by François Thérin, Francesco P. Appio and Hyungseok Yoon
Edited by François Thérin, Francesco P. Appio and Hyungseok Yoon
Techno-entrepreneurship is defined as the entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial activities of both incumbent and nascent companies operating in a technology- or knowledge-intensive environment that encourages and fosters the development and introduction of technology-based and knowledge-intensive novel products, services, production methods, or business models (Therin, 2009; 2014). It serves as an important conduit to firm growth, job and new industry creation, and economic development (Acs et al., 2016; Audretsch, 2007; Baumol, 2010; Carree and Thurik, 2003; Yoon et al., 2018). Despite its significant socio-economic and spillover effects across other constituents of the global economy, technoentrepreneurship entails high risk and uncertainty that are mainly derived from the fast and dynamically changing nature of technology. Drawing on dynamic and broad views on the phenomenon, this handbook aims to deepen our understanding of techno-entrepreneurship by proposing novel theoretical frameworks, introducing emerging categories of techno-entrepreneurship, and exploring new patterns in entrepreneurial ecosystems and across different countries by using a variety of unique data sources. First, current research is showing that new theoretical frameworks are needed in order to cope with the growing relevance of techno-entrepreneurship initiatives in different countries (Shan et al., 2018; Chaudhry et al., 2018; Judge et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2009; Venkataram, 2004; Phan and Der Foo, 2004; Baark, 1994). At the same time, we have relatively little understanding about emerging categories of entrepreneurship. Accordingly, we include a chapter dedicated to proposing new roles of technological embeddedness in techno-entrepreneurship, and explore relatively new categories of entrepreneurship that are closely related to reverse and frugal innovation, the drone industry, and gender-specific entrepreneurship.
David Smallbone and Friederike Welter
This paper is concerned with the distinctiveness of entrepreneurship and small business development in countries that are at different stages of transition to market based economies. Following a discussion of the potential relevance of selected conceptualisations of entrepreneurship to transition conditions, the authors present original empirical data referring to the characteristics of entrepreneurs and their businesses from countries at different stages of market reform. Distinctive features of entrepreneurial behaviour identified reflect the unstable and hostile nature of the external environment and the scarcity of key resources, particularly capital. In an unstable and weakly structured environment, informal networks often play a key role in helping entrepreneurs to mobilise resources, win orders and cope with the constraints imposed by highly bureaucratic structures and often unfriendly officials. Moreover, the social context inherited from the former socialist period appears to affect both the attitudes and behaviour of entrepreneurs and the attitudes of society at large towards entrepreneurship.
Dafna Kariv, Harry Matlay and Alain Fayolle
Projections for coming entrepreneurial trends predict that artificial intelligence (AI) will be a thriving area for innovation; the evolution of the Internet of things will have more impact on the economy; the digital twin will take on vast importance, and Blockchain technology promises to change applications in government, healthcare, content distribution, and the supply chain (Cearley et al., 2017; Armstrong, 2018). These innovations, among other emerging entrepreneurial endeavors, will result in vast market disruption and innovation-driven growth; in Bower and Christensen’s (1995) terms, these trends encompass ‘disruptive innovation’. While the entrepreneurial landscape is fraught with constant bursts of innovation that reciprocally propel development of progressive modes of production, technology and business dynamics, entrepreneurship education (EE) does not reflect these innovations. The expectation is that EE will provide the relevant entrepreneurial-driven knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), along with agile, creative mindsets and other psychological aspects (for example, self-effacement, motivation, intentions) to enable the implementation of such innovations into a viable, entrepreneurial business. However, research shows that EE for adult entrepreneurs still pursues conservative models, rather than forward-looking ones. This discrepancy between entrepreneurship and EE is echoed throughout the program types: the market is witnessing a gigantic outpouring of enabling systems (Matlay, 2006, 2008; Politis, 2005; Winkler et al., 2018), such as incubators, accelerators, academic programs for entrepreneurs, co-working spaces, corporate-based innovation centers, impact hubs, scaling accelerators, and digital accelerators, among others, but this substantial flux brings with it the question of relevant preparation for the entrepreneurial journey. The massively growing number of programs seems confusing to the learner-entrepreneurs, who need to determine which program will fit their needs as well as those of their stakeholders (Bischoff et al., 2018; Kariv et al., 2018; Steiner et al., 2018). Taken together, while entrepreneurship is characterized by vast innovation and boosted developments, the consequent implementation performance, which is attained through EE, is lagging behind due to the existing conventional EE modalities. These incongruities are the impetus for this book’s undertaking: to bring fresh views and perspectives on these prevailing gaps by illustrating innovative pedagogies and innovative programs through research studies, springing from an array of academic approaches, from various countries and various entrepreneurship programs. Specifically, this book aims to bridge some of the existing and evolving gaps between the entrepreneurship landscape and EE, to introduce a ‘disruptive innovation’-based look into EE, thus providing the groundwork for a better, more vigorous fit between the learners’ needs and EE focuses. This book offers new concepts and cases embodying EE and entrepreneurship learning (EL) in different countries, thereby covering a wide range of educational undertakings for entrepreneurs. The book aims to provide convergent, rather than divergent, perspectives on EE and EL. It sets out to deliver a constructive and focused research and learning agenda that closely matches the education and learning needs of nascent entrepreneurs and the corresponding programs that are being offered at all levels of the educational system.
David B. Audretsch, Erik E. Lehmann and Albert N. Link
Within the span of a generation, innovation and entrepreneurship have emerged as two of the most vital forces in the economy and, even more broadly, in society (Link, 2017). It was not always that way. During the second industrial paradigm, or the era of mass production, particularly following World War II, innovation was barely on the radar screen of economics, management, and other social sciences. Rather, what mattered for economic performance was articulated concisely by the management scholar, Alfred Chandler (1990), in the title of his seminal analysis of firm competitiveness and productivity – Scale and Scope. Economic success lies in largescale production, which enabled companies to attain the highest levels of efficiency and productivity while reducing average cost to a minimum. The primacy of physical capital as the driving force underlying economic performance was mirrored at the macroeconomic level through the Solow (1956) model. Economic policy reflected the capital-driven economy with its focus on instruments to stimulate investment in physical capital. Innovation played at best a marginal role, which was considerably more than could be said for entrepreneurship. In an economy where scale and scope dictated competitiveness and efficiency, new and small firms were typically viewed as a burden on the economy, and they were characterized as constituting “sub optimal capacity,” meaning that they lacked sufficient scale to be efficient.