Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
Governments Supported Entrepreneurial Activities Emerging
Countries Perspectives: Exploring Chinese Experience
Oskar Kayasan
This paper explored the government supported entrepreneurial strategies adapted by many
emerging countries. The result of our analysis indicates that there are three interrelated
strategies that are very relevant and adaptable and adaptable large and medium size
enterprises. We also observed that though each approach can stand alone under certain
conditions, a multi-decision model serves the various enterprises. We recommend this model
for all categories of businesses and to test the model in a enterprises that has supported by
various government supported initiatives. Specific attention is focused on the impact of
networks in the model, in particular, how networks and other informal institutions can act to
supplement or replace formal institutions when they are weak in many emerging countries.
Field of Research: Management
1. Introduction
This explorative paper considers the recent developments in the emerging role of public
policy and of the state in stimulating entrepreneurship. The state and public policy have
been seen as fundamental to Asia‟s innovation and business system (Fruin, 1992; Wade,
1990; Amsden, 2001; Amsden and Chu, 2003). Although, the role of public policy and of
the state in stimulating entrepreneurship, innovation and technology districts is becoming a
growing area of technology and innovation research as well as a source of debate among
economic policymakers throughout the emerging and transforming economies special in
China. Emerging and transforming economies are characterized by fundamental and
comprehensive institutional transformations as their economies begin to mature. How
entrepreneurship functions in environments where innovation, and technology that differ so
fundamentally from those of the mature markets where entrepreneurship was initially
developed has only begun to be addressed. This paper builds a framework to further the
understanding of entrepreneurship practice in emerging and transforming markets.
This paper is about creating a typology of global frameworks for understanding emerging
new business system models where public policy and of the state in stimulating
entrepreneurship in the 21st century. There has been research by exploring the potential for
creating a typology of three types of global entrepreneurship models. Firstly, there is the
pure market-driven technology district such as Silicon Valley in the U.S. and Cambridge in
the U.K (Saxenian, 1992; Miller & Garnsey, 2001). Secondly, there are state-driven
technology districts, which are mainly targeting foreign multinational companies, such as in
Sophia Antipolis in France and Singapore in Asia (Choi, Carty and Millar, 2005; Albert,
1991; Dore, Lazonick and O‟Sullivan, 1999). Thirdly, there are state-driven business
districts, which especially nurture local companies, such as the Hsinchu Science and
Industrial Park in Taiwan (Amsden, 2001; Amsden and Chu, 2003; Choi, Carty and Millar,
2005).
________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Oskar Kayasan, European Research Centre University of London, 45 Russell Square, London, WC1B
4JP United Kingdom, email: oskarkay@gmail.com
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
2. Emerging Entrepreneurship Models
Most commonly, the term entrepreneur applies to someone who establishes a new entity to
offer a new or existing product or service into a new or existing market, whether for a profit
or not-for-profit outcome (Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N, 1988). Business entrepreneurs often
have strong beliefs about a market opportunity and are willing to accept a high level of
personal, professional or financial risk to pursue that opportunity. Business entrepreneurs
are often highly regarded in western culture as critical components of its capitalist societies
(Casson, M., 2005). Entrepreneurship is the practice of starting new organisations,
particularly new business generally in response to identified opportunities (Younkins, E.,
2000). Entrepreneurship is often a difficult undertaking, as a majority of new businesses
fail. Entrepreneurial activities are substantially different depending on the type of
organization that is being started. Entrepreneurship ranges in scale from solo projects
(even involving the entrepreneur only part-time) to major undertakings creating many job
opportunities. Extensive attention has been given in recent years to the role of
entrepreneurship in facilitating global economic development, with research indicating that
much employment growth originates from the “entrepreneurial sector” of the economy. In
many parts of the world, emphasis has also been placed on the so-called “informal sector”
as a contributor to the economic welfare of society.
Emerging
and
transforming
economies
are
characterized
by
fundamental
and
comprehensive institutional transformations as their economies begin to mature. How
entrepreneurship functions in environments that differ so fundamentally from those of the
mature markets where entrepreneurship was initially developed has only begun to be
addressed. This paper builds a framework to further the understanding of entrepreneurship
practice in emerging and transforming markets. Specific attention is focused on the impact
of networks in the model, in particular, how networks and other informal institutions can act
to supplement or replace formal institutions when they are weak.
The purpose this paper would be develop further the concept of a typology of global
entrepreneurship models (Choi, Carty and Millar, 2005) in the following ways. Firstly, the
existing research has tended to focus on developed economies such as the United States,
United Kingdom, France, Singapore, Taiwan.
This PhD research would analyse the
institutional adaptations that are needed in the context of emerging markets. Secondly,
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
this PhD would analyse in more depth based on case studies, these different models of
entrepreneurship, technology and innovation with 3 different cases of emerging markets.
Thirdly, we would look at cases from China, Turkey and Eastern Europe. We believe that
comparisons between the emerging economy of China with other emerging markets such
as Turkey and Bulgaria would also contribute to the comparative literature on international
management in the 21st century.
Can you give examples of some public-private business district initiatives that have been
successful
in
reforming
the
public
private
entrepreneurship
models?
Should
competitiveness partnerships focus on micro-reforms or tackle comprehensive and
structural reform efforts? What safeguards are needed for such an initiative to succeed?
How should the success of reforms be measured once they have been enacted? How can
reforms resulting from such partnerships be sustained? Do you think that competitiveness
partnerships should be short-term efforts or stay over the long term and become
institutionalized?
3. Comparative Models from Emerging Countries Perspectives
From the early writings of Joseph Schumpeter until the present day, much of the research
on entrepreneurship has focused on answering two questions: Who is an entrepreneur?
and What does an entrepreneur need to do to start a successful business? Little theorizing
and research has been conducted to explore what happens to entrepreneurs after they
build a successful enterprise (Maria T. Brouwer, 2002). Indeed, the assumption seems to
be that once a new enterprise is viable the entrepreneur's subsequent career path ceases
to be of interest since it may not focus on traditional entrepreneurial activities. Past
perspectives used in entrepreneurship may be limited; a move towards a more dynamic
model that not only includes cognitive but also emotional and physiological elements may
be more useful in the study of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. A model of
experience is developed based on the theory of connectionism from the recent
psychological literature. This model recognizes the interaction of the entrepreneur, not only
with the environment but also with the venture and venture creation process. Action theory
suggests that organizations are “continuously constructed, sustained, and changed by
actors‟ definitions of the situation – the subjective meanings and interpretations that actors
impute to their worlds as they negotiate and enact
their
organizational
surroundings
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
(Astley & Van de Ven 1983). Strategic choice view indicates the pliability of the
environment based upon the decisions and actions taken by the individual (Pfeffer and
Salancik 1978; Lorange 1980). This indicates that a holistic monitoring of this process of
interpretation will reveal the reasons behind entrepreneurial decisions and behavior.
The importance of entrepreneurship research in business schools, and the increasing
amount of research on the topic in disciplines such as management, international business
and institutional analysis have indirectly shown the potential role of applied economic
theories of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter‟s (1934) famous concept of
“creative
destruction” and other more recent works such as Kirzner (1997) have helped to clarify the
differences between the Austrian approach to economic theories and the neoclassical
theories, driven by research schools such as the University of Chicago (Arrow, 1974). In
terms of entrepreneurship research, we believe that the traditional neoclassical economics
frameworks do not allow a sufficient interdisciplinary approach to analyse the richness and
complexity of entrepreneurship within the global environment.
The study of entrepreneurial choice and development has evolved by using the theories
and methodologies of established social sciences such as economics, sociology,
institutional analysis and psychology. Such methods need to be developed to be able to
take account of the complexity of the dynamic and changing variables as well as the high
level of uncertainty (Yu, 1997), which determine entrepreneurship. It was Joseph
Schumpeter (1934) who long ago pointed out the vital role of entrepreneurship - the finding
of new combinations of resources in organisations. The individual entrepreneur is able to
take risks, innovate, and make progress both in good times and in the face of adversity.
The same abilities are pervasively evident in some vibrant organisations today (Bhide,
2000; Baden-Fuller and Stopford, 1992). In this sense, entrepreneurial activity can be part
of the broader society, including public policy and government-business relations. Thus the
discipline of applied economics recognises the links between economic frameworks and
entrepreneurship.
The idea that entrepreneurship and economic growth are very closely and positively linked
together has undoubtedly made its way since the early works of Schumpeter (1911)1. An
increase in the number of entrepreneurs leads to an increase in economic growth.
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
This effect is a result of the concrete expression of their skills, and more precisely, their
propensity to innovate. Schumpeter has already described this innovative activity, “the
carrying out of new combinations”, by distinguishing five cases2: “(1) The introduction of a
new good – that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar – or of a new quality of a
good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by
experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded
upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a
commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market that is a market into which the
particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered,
whether or not this market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply
of raw materials or half manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source
already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying out of the new
organisation of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through
trustification) or the breaking up of a monopoly position” (Schumpeter, 1963 (1911), p. 66).
Through his innovative activity, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur seeks to create new profit
opportunities. These opportunities can result from productivity increases, in which case,
their relationship to economic growth appears quite clearly. Moreover, the disequilibrium
created by the entrepreneur can be propitious for additional innovations and profit
opportunities. Therefore, more entrepreneurs means more growth, which in turn leads to
more entrepreneurs, the phenomena seem to be self-feeding.
4. Private Entrepreneurship Vs Public Networks
Public entrepreneurship responds to this challenge. It acknowledges shifts in institutional
resources among private sector and citizens groups that have moved the locus of initiative
and change outside the state. Policy development increasingly occurs in an intermediate
arena that is neither governmental nor private. Interaction and negotiation between the
government and the private sector has become unavoidable as firms have developed
internal capacities for analysis and action. Their increasing competence has highlighted the
importance securing their active participation to make policy effective. Environmental and
citizens groups have increased their capacity to pursue their aspirations outside of state
policy.
The
cases
reviewed
in
this
report acknowledge these trends, but suggest that
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
successful policy-making still depends on the ability of the government to work
collaboratively with the private sector and citizens groups. At the same time, the robustness
of this institutional transformation means that strategies for pursuing sustainable
development will need to be synchronized with changes in organizational relationships.
This paper approach explores an insight compatible with this emerging institutional
environment. One way that radical change happens in complex systems is when
“something starts somewhere and grows.” Therefore, we work from the assumption that
radical change is necessary and a pool of available “greener” technologies creates a ready
supply of positive steps. The public entrepreneurship network (PEN) is our model to
capture the dynamics of change and the implications for action by government agencies
and other actors interested in sustainable development. Five key features distinguish public
entrepreneurship networks:
- A pattern of inter-organizational cooperation that spans public, private, and civic spheres
and develops through
- Interaction in problem centred networks.
- Public regarding local initiative supported by a set of
- Specific organizational roles related in an
- Institutional ecology that facilitates development.
Public entrepreneurship networks combine local initiative that has a distinctively
entrepreneurial character with a strong orientation to sustainability and other public goals.
This is accomplished in part because of the variety of organizations that participate in these
networks. Public entrepreneurships networks are characterized by both the pattern of
development and the key facilitative roles that have to be played for development to thrive.
These roles stress facilitative rather than managerial activities and tend to parallel the
range of entrepreneurial roles that private sector actors have played in the dynamic
economic sectors like information technology over the past few decades. They include:
- Pioneers who recognize opportunity, seize initiative, and catalyze action by making
commitments.
- Public venture capitalists who understand and embrace risk and package financial, social,
and human capital to meet project driven needs.
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
- Superintendents who provide an environment in which innovation can flourish by fostering
the development of relationships that are sustained through formal and informal networks.
- Mediators who build consensus on goals and direction and bring directed problem-solving
to bear on conflicts that threaten to stall or derail the development of ventures.
- Stewards of the common good who focus attention on the common good, maintain
standards for responsible behavior, and facilitate the coalescence of democratic community
around programs of action.
Given what is at stake, it is neither practical nor desirable to rely on private and nongovernmental actors to consistently fulfil these roles. Emerging and Transforming countries
public actors must participate to ensure that public entrepreneurship networks function
effectively and stay oriented to publicly endorsed goals. Yet government action must not
threaten the ecology of relationships that generates the attention and energy that make
these networks effective. This sets a challenge for government agencies. Their participation
is essential. Yet efforts to “legislate” change may disrupt the very patterns of development
they seek to promote. Identifying public entrepreneurship networks and understanding how
they work is only the first step. Emerging and Transforming countries must learn how to
facilitate the creation of these networks and enhance their impact.
5. Public Policy and Entrepreneurship
Audretsch and Fritsch (2002) proposed two explanations for the mixed evidence regarding
the relationship between new firm formation and regional development or technology
districts. Firstly, they found evidence for the existence of long time lags needed before the
main effects of new firm formation on employment change become evident. Secondly, they
suggested that regions may be characterized by different growth regimes in which new
firms and entrepreneurship assume different roles and accordingly lead to different effects
(Burke, A.E. 1995). This enabled us to investigate the transition between different types of
growth regimes in further detail. Furthermore, our analysis is not on the level of planning
regions but on the level of districts ('Kreise') and we have explicitly accounted for spatial
autocorrelation in the analysis, which turns out to be highly relevant. There are three major
ways in which such technology based industrial districts are created. First, they can be
created over time, and are then often based around a major research university. This
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
happened in Silicon Valley, which has benefited from the technologies developed within
universities such as Stanford (Saxenian 1994). Silicon-fen is a similar example of benefiting
from the technologies and knowledge generated by Cambridge University (Miller &
Garnsey 2000). The growth of such clusters of innovation can therefore be explained in
terms of Applied Economics including market exchange and competitive advantage (Porter
1990).
Secondly, they can be regulated and created through government intervention, which in
turn can subsidise foreign high technology companies and MNCs to locate in a particular
part of the world. The best examples of this are in Southern France, in Sophia-Antipolis,
which has now attracted over 1,500 high technologies companies (Miller and Garnsey
2000) and Singapore, which has become the leading centre of multinational corporations in
technology in the Asian region. These developments are best explained in terms of the
dynamic interactions between firms and governments in a global context, within the
disciplines of Management and International Business.
Thirdly, industrial districts can be created through government intervention in stimulating
and developing local technology companies; the best example of this is the Hsinchu
Science and Industrial Park (HSIP) in Taiwan.
These cases can be considered within their institutional, social context and legitimacy,
relying in their development on the formal and informal rules within the context of the
national society in which they operate. This paper will apply this typology to the context of
emerging and transforming markets. There is strong empirical evidence that comparison of
China, Eastern European and Russia would be a contribution to the academic literature in
international management and comparative business systems.
6. Applications to Chinese Experience
In some emerging economies, there are conflicting laws and regulations at various levels of
government operations, which actually impact negatively on development (in particular,
industrial development) and frustrate the efforts of potential investors, both domestic and
foreign. Such inconsistencies can only be effectively addressed through public-private
partnerships. A culture of public-private partnerships is gradually emerging in China
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
to critically assess patterns of development, define policies and strategies and formulate
programs that could transform the economic/industrial landscape in China. Countries that
have
established
national
and
sustained
public-private
partnership/consultative
mechanisms, such as Turkey, Russia, Poland and South Africa, have generated
considerable benefits...for example, in terms of change of attitudes of the stakeholders in
the public and private sectors.
In the context of reforming China, the emerging role of public policy and of the state
entrepreneurship not only indicates a significant institutional change, but also reflects
changes of the mechanisms of stratification. Ever since China opened its door toward the
outside world in 1978 and launched out market oriented reforms, history has witnessed a
great transformation of this society. In contrast to the radical reforms of post socialist
societies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Chinese state socialism adopted
social capitalism to promote the reform from the external of the redistributive system to the
internal. This change is manifested by the rapid growth of the private sector outside the
state-owned sector which has been adopted in many areas of state enterprises with rather
unpresented settings.
In recent years there has been private business sector in post-reform China as the country
embraces socio-economic and structural transition from a centrally planned to a marketorientated system. The important contributions that Chinese private firms play in the
acceleration of private sector development across the social and industrial sectors as well
as the geographic boundaries of the Pacific Rim are highlighted (Nee, Victor, 1989). This
paper proposes typologies of new entrepreneurship model and tentative enterprise policy
recommendations for the future development of state and private enterprises in China.
New Chinese entrepreneurship model is emerging that can predict that behavior of future
Chinese business trends and organizational behavior. Since „4 Tigers‟ models over decade
ago where these were general models that described the broad trends in those economies
as they developed and engaged with international markets (Choi Taewook, 2004). There
has been many academic and writers have been referring to China‟s ongoing „privatization‟
as if it were the dominant model and then backtracking, qualifying, explaining and generally
performing all manner of semantic acrobatics to
reconcile
their
theories
with
actual
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
practice. Although there have been lack of progress about Chinese privatizations to
stimulate the entrepreneurship however, at least not in the way that open economists and
market followers desperately want to believe that progress is happening. And, consistent
with its cultural context new entrepreneurship models is considered to be equally important
in business as it is in life for all types of Chinese enterprises. Therefore, the discussion is
extended to describe the concept of emerging entrepreneurship models as a means of
garnering social capital in order to maintain legitimacy (Binks, M. and Vale, P, 1990).
Furthermore, some practical means are suggested for entrepreneurs and small business
owners to build a necessary foundation for survival.
The model that is emerging is a new kind of State and Private Entrepreneurship. This
emerging system is a refinement of the old-style partnership in some areas of overall state
and private enterprises. Bureaucratic and administrative „direction‟ has replaced politburo
mandates, but the means of production are still organized by a central authority. China
cooperates well with international markets, allows foreign companies and individuals to
make lots of money, and is a strong and reliable trading partner. It is technocratic, rational,
and fairly efficient (considering its size, scope and mandate). What it is not is privatized,
and anyone who thinks it is ever going to be will have a real problem when China‟s growth
numbers go to single digits which should happen some time this year after the first dip in
US/International demand for inexpensive manufactured goods. They aren‟t pulling the wool
over anyone‟s eyes its western investment bankers, management consultants and
Chundits (China pundits) who have promoting the “more Capitalist than New York” image.
The Chinese business community considers this is obvious to everyone, and suspects
western investors are either a little dim or have some kind of double-reverse secret-fake up
their sleeves when they dump investment funds into this market. It‟s only the western
media that even talks about privatization and individual entrepreneurship. Locals are still
talking to one another about how to get the most out of government ties. in their career
choices by social and relational factors, whereas boys interested in entrepreneurship were
more motivated by autonomy. Here with we can explore more detail about the nature of the
China and Entrepreneurship model in coming posts, but let‟s take a look at some of the
emerging concepts of State and private Entrepreneurship.
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, there is the need for partnership between the private and public sectors in
order to stimulate new business districts. While the private sector is expected to inject
capital into infrastructure, the public sector is expected to create an enabling environment
for the private sector to thrive. A positive interaction between growth and entrepreneurship
is grounded on the innovation activity that entrepreneurs convey. Thus, a significant
entrepreneurial supply in the economy stirs up scholarly interest.
The first argument in this paper suggested that bringing the public and the private sectors
together to work towards a common goal is a good idea. The problem is that private capital
tends to go where it can grow quickest, and the delivery of public service has not generally
been a dynamic sector. A second argument concerned the concept of public-private
partnerships in developing business districts needs tailoring to combine the best of the
private and public partners. This requires hard work, consensus, courage, and compromise
from both private and public enterprises and various regulatory bodies. The partnership can
deliver investment reforms if the government can design a good regulatory framework that
can determine the future operating environment of any infrastructure service provider in a
private as well as public-based market on technical criteria to be determined through
public-private dialogue, independent of political interference. The regulatory agencies
should be politically independent and equipped with necessary technical expertise to
consistently balance the interests of government, investors, and consumers in a neutral
manner.
The private sector in China consists of three parts roughly: the self-employed individuals,
private enterprises, and foreign firms. The emergence and development of the private
sector is a profound institutional change in reform-era China. This dynamic process
happens in an interconnected, multilevel system consisting of the state, organizations and
individuals. Whereby public sector in a better position to understand and appreciate each
other's views and role in promoting economic and social development. Therefore
developments of business districts are one of the important steps in the emerging role of
public policy and of the state in stimulating entrepreneurship.
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
References
Albert, Michel. 1991. Capitalism against Capitalism. Centre for Economic Research,
Paris.
Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia’ next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York:
Oxford University Press.
_______ & W. Chu. 2003. Beyond Late Development: Taiwan’s Upgrading Policies.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baden-Fuller, C. and Stopford, JM 1992 Rejuvenating the Mature Business, London:
Routledge
Binks, M. and Vale, P. (1990). Entrepreneurship and Economic Change. Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill.
Bhide, Amar V. 2000. The Origin and Evolution of New Business. New York: Oxford,
Burke, A.E. (1995), “The Re-emergence of entrepreneurial analyses”, in Burke, A.E.,
ed., Enterprise and the Irish Economy, Dublin: Oak Tree Press, 4-20.
Casson, M. 1990. Entrepreneurship. Aldershot, Elgar
Casson, M. (1982), The Entrepreneur. An Economic Theory, Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Casson, M. (2005). 'Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm'. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 58 (2) , 327-348
Choi, C.J., Hilton, B., and Millar, C. 2004. Emergent Globalization: A New Triad of
Business Systems. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Choi Taewook (2004) "Promoting a Northeast Asia Economic Integration Policy", Korea
Focus, May-April, 2004, vol 12, no 2.
Choi, C.J., Carty, R. and Millar, C. 2005. Global entrepreneurship models. Paper
presented at the UK Academy of International Business, competitive track, April,
2005.
Dore, Ronald, William Lazonick, M. O'Sullivan 1999. Varieties of capitalism in the twentieth
century. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15/4: 102-120
Fruin, Mark. 1992. The Japanese enterprise system. Oxford / New York: Oxford University
Press
Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1988). The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical
Critiques. New York: Praeger, 2nd edition.
Hobday, M. 2000 . 'The project-based organisation: an ideal form for organising complex
products and systems?' Research Policy
Proceedings of 26th International Business Research Conference
7 - 8 April 2014, Imperial College, London, UK, ISBN: 978-1-922069-46-7
Holm, Peter. 1995. “The Dynamics of Institutions: Transformation Processes in Norwegian
Fisheries.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 398-422.
Kirzner, Israel. 1997. "Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An
Austrian Approach". Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. XXXV. (March): 60-85.
Knight FH (1921/61). Risk uncertainty and profit. Kelley, 2nd edition.
Maria T. Brouwer (2002). 'Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on entrepreneurship and
economic development'. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, vol. 12(1-2), p. 83.
Heidelberg
Miller, D. and E. Garnsey 2000. "Entrepreneurs and technology diffusion: How diffusion
research can benefit from a greater understanding of entrepreneurship." Technology
in Society 22(4): 445-465 Top of Form
Nee, Victor. 1989. “A Theory of Market Transition: From Redistribution to Markets in State
Socialism.” American Sociological Review 54: 663-81.
OPIE, The Theory of Economic Development. An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit,
Interest, and the Business Cycle, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1963 (1934)).
Saxenian, A.L. 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and
Route 128 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Saxenian, A. & J. Hsu. 2001. The Silicon Valley-Hsinchu Connection:
TechnicalCommunities and Industrial Upgrading. Industrial and Corporate Change,
10(4): 893-920.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1911), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung
über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus ; translated
by R.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambride: Harvard
University Press. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.) First published in
German, 1912
Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. NY: Harper.
Wade, R. 1990. Governing the Market. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Younkins, E. (2000) "Entrepreneurship Properly Understood", Le Quebecois Libre, July 8,
2000, No. 64.