You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items

  • Author or Editor: Benson Honig x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Benson Honig

The field of entrepreneurship continues to experience considerable growth, embedded in beliefs of economic development, innovation, and meritocracy. The chapter examines a new concept in entrepreneurship: compensatory entrepreneurship. It is defined as the political endorsement of entrepreneurship promotion activities, including training, incubation, and media dissemination, for the primary objective of maintaining political and/or economic control of one population over another. The paper discusses the contemporary field of entrepreneurship with the expectation of creating more awareness and dialog regarding some of the socio-political consequences of entrepreneurship promotion.

You do not have access to this content

Benson Honig

Entrepreneurship has become a nearly universal synonym for proactive development and initiative worldwide, it generates considerable interest, thousands of professors teaching tens of thousands of classes worldwide, and generates a wealth of research (Aldrich, 2012) of which this encyclopedia is emblematic. For example, all the chapters are fundamentally encouraging and supportive of continuing and expanding entrepreneurship promotion and all its associated activities. Social media and entertainment are saturated with success stories of unicorns, that is, anomalies that fail to reflect the actual entrepreneurial environment (Aldrich and Ruef, 2018). However, from a purely social science perspective, no intervention is without weaknesses, and there are unanticipated consequences of nearly every attempt to advance one group over another (Doane, 2013; Koopmans, 2003; Levy, 2010). The discussion of entrepreneurial failure seems to have been swept under the proverbial rug, as we enthusiastically march on to promote solutions to problems often only poorly understood, such as inequality, lack of mobility and weak economic development. The field’s enthusiasm is effusive, as the noted scholar Don Kuratko (2005: 578) enthusiastically reports: ‘The revolution has begun in an economic sense, and the entrepreneurial perspective is the dominant force!’ Perhaps the most ubiquitous factor promoting entrepreneurship is the education sector, where interventions occur throughout the world, from kindergarten through postgraduate training and on to faculty and research scholars. Yet, despite the enthusiasm for training and preparing individuals, entrepreneurship support is a poorly understood and weakly researched domain. A recent systematic review reported that: Despite considerable enthusiasm in the public policy sphere, our review clearly demonstrates that research in the field provides only limited and highly idiosyncratic findings designed to help general and technology-based entrepreneurs to effectively succeed. Studies rarely utilize control populations and are based on weak theoretical backgrounds. They fail to incorporate state of the art methods and are typically cross sectional or of a case study nature. (Ratinho et al., 2020)

You do not have access to this content

Benson Honig

You do not have access to this content

Benson Honig and Bruce Martin

You do not have access to this content

Israel Drori, Benson Honig and Mike Wright

Our increasingly globalized world creates dynamics and paradoxes that lead to an abundance of entrepreneurial opportunities and patterns. Transnational entrepreneurship (TE) is a unique entrepreneurial model that considers the global and the local as its playing field, accordingly reshaping the entrepreneurial environment. Early research (for example, Light, 2007; Portes et al., 1999, 2002; Saxenian, 2002), identified emerging globalization as impacting and impacted by entrepreneurship, and accordingly depict immigrant entrepreneurship as a cultural and economic process of adaptation and embeddedness. This research typically focused on a host country, usually in North America or Europe. Examples include the Chinese and Taiwanese (Wong, 2003, 2004; Wong and Ng, 2002; Yeung, 1999, 2002), Korean (Yoo, 2000), Dominicans (Itzigsohn et al., 1999), Colombians and Salvadorans (Guarnizo, 1994). Furthermore, TE ventures were said to facilitate the rapid and global transfer of resources, such as capital, labor, technology and knowledge, which made them focal points in expanding transnationalism (Light, 2007; Zhou, 2004). For example, in the wake of critiques such as the ‘brain drain’ (Beine et al., 2001) lamenting the costs of losing high-quality human capital, a new phenomenon termed ‘brain circulation’ was introduced, whereby the migration of technologically educated entrepreneurs helped to develop high-technology industries in countries such as China, India, Taiwan, Ireland and Israel (Breznitz, 2007; Saxenian, 2006). Transnational entrepreneurship scholarship recognizes the prominence and uniqueness of entrepreneurship in the era of intense global transformation of technological and economic systems (Drori et al., 2009). Research continues to expand the study of immigrant and/or ethnic entrepreneurship by advancing our understanding on a variety of issues related to the role, scope and institutional and cultural contexts of transnationalism and entrepreneurship (for example, Drori et al., 2006; Elo and Freiling, 2015; Honig et al., 2010; Urbano et al., 2011). Accordingly, transnational entrepreneurs are defined as social actors who utilize multiple and tangible cross-border networks and resources for the purpose of developing business and other social entrepreneurial opportunities within numerous social fields and multiple locales to promote their entrepreneurial activities.

This content is available to you

Edited by Benson Honig, Joseph Lampel and Israel Drori

You do not have access to this content

Joseph Lampel, Benson Honig and Israel Drori

You do not have access to this content

Israel Drori, Benson Honig and Joseph Lampel

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Benson Honig, Joseph Lampel and Israel Drori

The editors of this Handbook, Benson Honig, Joseph Lampel and Israel Drori, define organizational ingenuity as ‘the ability to create innovative solutions within structural constraints using limited resources and imaginative problem solving’. They and the authors examine the dichotomy between organizational freedom and necessity in order to better understand the role of ingenuity in the success of an organization.
You do not have access to this content

Bruce Martin, Dirk De Clercq and Benson Honig

Research studying the impact of entrepreneurship education and training (EET) has grown rapidly over the past two decades, but the literature has limitations in clarity and depth due to methodological weaknesses in study design and analysis, a lack of theoretical grounding, and use of inconsistent variables for tracking EET outcomes over time. We highlight the specific weaknesses of the literature, argue for the theory of planned behaviour as a grounding theory, outline a plan for improving future EET research, and provide an example study to demonstrate the usefulness of our proposed model. In so doing, we contribute to efforts that seek to provide more rigour and relevance in EET scholarship and practice.