Entrepreneurship and economic development: a framework for policy

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 28-40

  Wren, Colin ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

competitiveness policy; Economic development policy; entrepreneurship

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945726921     PISSN: 1368275X     EISSN: 17415098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2004.004499     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1998) ‘What makes an entrepreneur?’ Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 16, No.1, pp.26–60.
2. OECD (1996) The Knowledge-Based Economy, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, OCDE/GD (96)102.
3. Oughton, C. (1997) ‘Competitiveness policy in the 1990s’, Economic Journal, Vol. 107, pp.1486–1503.
4. Wren, C. (2001) ‘The industrial policy of competitiveness: a review of recent developments in the UK’, Regional Studies, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.847–860.
5. Baumol, W.J. (1968) ‘Entrepreneurship and economic theory’, American Economic Review, (Papers and Proceedings) Vol. 58, pp.64–71.
6. Kirzner, I.M. (1982) ‘Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: a study of the entrepreneurial profile in the Misesian System’, in I.M. Kirzner (Ed.) Method, Process and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honour of Ludwig von Mises, Lexington, Mass, D.C. Heath.
7. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
8. Calvo, G.A. and Wellisz, S. (1980) ‘Technology, entrepreneurs and firm size’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 95, pp.663–77.
9. Casson, M. (1982) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Oxford, Martin Robertson.
10. The new information may be in the form of net additions to the stock of knowledge (eg. a scientific breakthrough) or more commonly a replacement of obsolete knowledge, involving the updating of knowledge in the light of changed circumstances (eg. a stock-market crash or a change in tastes).
11. Casson (1982) notes that there are two approaches to defining entrepreneurship. The ‘indicative’ approach attempts to describe the characteristics of the entrepreneurial function. This much used in the managerial and sociological disciplines, but it tends to be descriptive, focusing on the entrepreneur and leading to a taxonomy. The ‘functional’ approach examines what the entrepreneur does. It is favoured by economists, as it is this which impacts on the allocation of resources, and it lends itself to an analytical framework. These two approaches essentially capture the distinction between the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship.
12. We would need to know where the new information is being generated, to what purpose it might be put and whether it can be applied successfully.
13. Cohendet, P. and Steinmueller, W.E. (2000) ‘The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.195–210.
14. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard, Cambridge MA, University Press.
15. Cohendet and Steinmueller (2000) define codification as the “extent to which knowledge can be exchanged as information” (p.202). The distinction between codified and tacit knowledge is illustrated by Ancori et al (2000) as follows: driving instructors make sure that their pupils know the Highway Code (codified knowledge) and they train them to drive through practice and experience (tacit knowledge). The relative nature and roles of tacit and codified knowledge is subject to ongoing debate.
16. Leibenstein, H. (1968) ‘Entrepreneurship and development’, American Economic Review, Vol. 58, pp.72–83.
17. Ancori, B., Bureth, A. and Cohendet, P. (2000) ‘The economics of knowledge: the debate about codification and tacit knowledge’, Industrial and Corporate Change, pp.255–88.
18. Qhah (2001) sees information as aspatial as it can be transported arbitrary distances. However, this is not the case, as its usefulness can degrade with distance, as this will depend on tacit knowledge held by the receiver and on the environment in which it is received. For example, a copy of the UK Highway Code has limited use outside the UK and may be completely unintelligible.
19. The terms risk and uncertainly are used interchangeably, as Hirshleifer and Riley (1992) argue that in practice the distinction is sterile as ultimately all evaluations are subjective.
20. Schumpeter separates these two functions, in the same way that the farmer is distinct from the landowner or the manager from the shareholder, but this ignores the risks that are still faced by the farmer or manager.
21. Henderson, J.V., Shalizi, Z. and Venables, A.J. (2001) ‘Geography and development’, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 1, pp.81–105.
22. Klette, T.J., Moen, J. and Griliches, Z. (2000) ‘Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? microeconomertric evaluation studies’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.471–95.
23. Harris, R.I.D. and Robinson, C. (2001) ‘A critical review of the empirical research on hindrances to business development and productivity growth and the relative importance of different constraints on UK business’, Research Project on DTI Industrial Support Policies, Department of Trade and Industry, (April), Final Report.
24. Geroski, P.A. (2000) ‘Models of diffusion’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.603–25.
25. Gordon, R.J. (2000) ‘Does the ‘new economy’ measure up to the great inventions of the past?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.49–74.
26. Casson, M. (1990) Enterprise and Competitiveness: A Systems View of International Business, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
27. Borenstein, S. and Saloner, G. (2001) ‘Economics and electronic commerce’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.3–12.
28. Keeble, D. (1997) ‘Small firms, innovation and regional development in Britain in the 1990s’, Regional Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.281–93.
29. Graham, A. (2001) ‘The assessment: economics of the internet’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 17, No. l2, pp.145–58.