You are looking at 1 - 10 of 14 items

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

Cristina Chaminade and Jan Vang

You do not have access to this content

Donato Cutolo and Jan Vang

Digital platforms have changed the conditions influencing entrepreneurship across the globe. Research has shown that context is critical in understanding how these platforms impact entrepreneurial endeavors. This chapter illustrates how context is critical in understanding and analyzing how digital platforms influence entrepreneurial opportunities. It suggests that digital platforms represent a new type of intersection between the global and the local, where global forces promote conditions of dependent entrepreneurship. In contrast, local forces shape entrepreneurs’ agency in relation to the global processes. We suggest that, to ensure fair competition and just working conditions for platform entrepreneurs and employees within the industry, there is a need for policies not being steered by techno-skeptical or techno-optimistic frameworks but by a balanced approach. Since Joseph Schumpeter at least, it has been recognized that entrepreneurs discover and create opportunities and build new independent firms (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Audretsch, 2007). More recently, scholars such as Brynjolffson and McAfee (2016) have hailed entrepreneurship as a vital response to the increasing concerns about digitization’s impact on entrepreneurship and the future of work. The impact of digital platforms on entrepreneurship has emerged simultaneously with a recognition of the importance of context in generic entrepreneurship research. Researching context in relation to digital platforms provides a particular challenge to researchers owing to their simultaneous global and localized nature; the interplay between the global and the local is more complex than in most other industries given the high digital interconnectivity and limited footlessness for many types of transactions and activities. A request on, for example, Innocentive, the world’s leading problem-solving digital platform, can be promoted to potential problem-solvers across the globe at the same time.

You do not have access to this content

Edited by Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Jan Vang

The success of Asian economies (first Japan, then Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and, more recently, China and India) has made it tempting to look for ‘an Asian model of development’. However, the strength of Asian development lies less in strategies that reproduce successful national systems of innovation and more in the capacity for institutional change to open up new development trajectories with greater emphasis on knowledge and learning. The select group of contributors demonstrate that although there are important differences among Asian countries in terms of institutional set-ups supporting innovation, government policies and industrial structures, they share common transitional processes to cope with the globalizing learning economy.
This content is available to you

Edited by Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Jan Vang

This content is available to you

Edited by Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Jan Vang

This content is available to you

Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Patarapong Intarakumnerd and Jan Vang

You do not have access to this content

Jan Vang, Heidi Wiig and Léo-Paul Dana

Innovation systems research and entrepreneurship research are two of the critical research streams explaining how companies and countries compete and grow in the current globalizing learning or knowledge economy (Asheim and Vang, 2006; Chaminade and Vang, 2008a, 2008b; Dana, 2004; Lundvall et al., 2011). Their centrality reflects that innovation increasingly has become the new source of sustained competitive advantage especially in developed countries, but also in developing countries owing to their recent transformation processes (Chen and Vang, 2008; Landström et al., 2012a; Lundvall et al., 2006, 2011). Developed countries have been going through a gradual deindustrialization process where manufacturing firms have outsourced offshore their manufacturing activities and only kept their headquarters and research and development (R & D) activities in their home countries (Chaminade and Vang, 2008a). These countries, therefore, had to create development trajectories based on innovative activities such as R & D and design as well as find new means for generating growth, prosperity and jobs (Mahnke et al., 2005; Vang and Asheim, 2006). In respect of the latter, entrepreneurs, especially technology entrepreneurs and university spin-offs, have been identified as the central driver in this process (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017). Indeed, with increasing fine slicing of global value chains, R & D has also been outsourced, and even developing countries, especially China and India, rely heavily on innovation and entrepreneurship (Mudambi, 2008; Vang and Asheim, 2006; see Padilla-Pérez, 2011, for Latin American examples).

You do not have access to this content

Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Jan Vang and K.J. Joseph