Hello everybody,
this is probably the point in the discussion where one can draw together the
two threads that have been running alongside each other.
Evolutionary theory is a good example of how to integrate many small theories
into a larger whole, that is still flexible but provides an overarching
framework. It is more of a framework of hierarchically and area-wise related
subtheories than a "grand theory" anyway.
Economics tries to achive this grand theory (or maybe theoretical core) based
on the concepts of Jevons / Walras / Menger / Samuelson type auctioning /
neo-classical economics. The trouble with this is neoclassical ecionomics are
taking an ideologically heavily loaded, (unrealistic) extreme case (perfect
markets, perfect foresight, etc), which runs into problems when the
mathematical framework is applied to real world phenomena, such as those
involved when culture / tradition / worldview / interpretation / psychological
factors need to be included in the equation(s) - see the instititutional
evolutionary streams of research here - e.g. List, Veblen, Hayek.
In Germany we have / had the ordo-liberal school of (political) economics which
argued that markets need institutionalized rules in order to function properly
( the same applies in practice, but not in economic ideology to the US with its
Anti-trust laws / cases) . So not free markets, where those with informational
and power advantages can trake advantage of those without, but rules for
economic exchange and economic competition designed such that the interests of
the electorate / society (or in practice the ruling party, or the most powerful
interest group are favored - which makes it transferable to cases like the
following) . These rules are different across cultural regions and social
sytems as the Soviet Union, and the western hemisphere, modern the GUS markets
or Chinese markets and US / UK free market views versus Rhineland capitalism vs
Southern european market behavior.
Entrepreneurial behavior then is about discovery of opportunities and
implementation of measures that make the entrepreneur and his exchange partners
(hopefully) better - possibly at the expense of other members of the society
(for which you need rules, in order to prevent Hobbesian jungle-societies).
Entrepreneurship is thus possible under a variety of institutional rules /
societal systems and it may be a (predominantly) social activity if the
entrepreneur and his exchange partners are (mainly) interested in improving
social / environmental / whatever conditions. There is then a certain overlap
with the reformator or revolutionary in political / ideological / social
matters - think e.g. Luther, Bismarck, Robbespiere, Thomas Paine, Jefferson,
Franklin, Lenin, Gorbatchev a.s.o. a.s.o. They all are people who believed in
some "hypothesis" and set out to prove it - which means from a societal
standpoint they implemented a test whether their political / ideological /
social / economic system worked under the given conditions. This is not too far
from evolutionary mutations and their testing in specific environmental
conditions.
One can thus argue that economic competition is an evolutionary process as it
is a discovery process about the feasibility of a product idea, business model,
organizational arrangement - just as evolutionary biological processes are
about discovering which combination of features (i.e. hyptheses in the form of
mutations) are relatively good (respectively better) adaptations / responses to
specific environmental conditions. Now the neoclassical case can be integrated
in an evolutionary, mathematical framework of economics (which still requires a
lot of work), where you can use the evolutionary concepts / in order to deal
with all the imperfections / deviations from neoclassical assumptions.
Best,
Carl Henning
Dr. Carl Henning Reschke
Cologne, Germany
> --- "Dr. Bill Schulte" <
wschulte@MSN.COM> wrote:
>
> > Benson makes a great point about a grand theory of entrepreneurship. For
> now
> > it is beyond our understanding. We would have to integrate so many theories
> > and would create a "jungle." Do you remember the "theory jungle" from a
> > couple of decades ago. I think you need to use theories that pull from your
> > own theoretical lens (i.e. cognitive psychology, regional economics). Why
> > reinvent the wheel? I think that our work should link theory to practice.
> >
> > Also, I think Drucker would like Benson's definition. Drucker argued
> against
> > the idea of thinking that management meant "business management."
> >
> > For additional interesting ideas on this direction take a look at Andrew
> > Cardow's (Massey University) work on this.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > William Schulte, Ph.D.
> > Associate Professor
> > Sam Walton Free Enterprise Fellow
> > Harry F. Byrd Jr. School of Business
> > Shenandoah University
> >
wschulte@su.edu
> >
wschulte@msn.com
> > mobile 703-283-9705
> > Individualized Education, Entrepreneurial Thinking, Global Understanding
> and
> > Ethical Practice.
> > Students In Free Enterprise
> >
www.sife.org www.su.edu
> > The mission of the Harry F. Byrd, Jr. School of Business is to educate its
> > students to be successful, principled leaders with a global perspective.
> >
> > "Success Stories Start Here"
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv [mailto:
ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]
> > On Behalf Of Benson Honig
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:12 AM
> > To:
ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ENTREP] what's the point of entrepreneurship?
> >
> > This is why I stick to the definition of entrepreneurship as "the creation
> > of new organizations". It allows for both micro and macro level
> > perspectives, for profit, non-profit, and social entrepreneurship. As to
> one
> > theory - I don't think we're any more likely to find one single theory for
> > entrepreneurship than we would for aesthetics or history.
> > As to the point about free markets - institutions help immensely - but
> > organizations seem to emerge in the oddest places. During Chairman Mao's
> > time, backyard smelters (which were an ecological and economic disaster)
> > undoubtedly drew on aspects of entrepreneurship. Business and bartering
> date
> > back to the dawn of civilization - in fact - may define civilization
> itself.
> > Some of the first writing systems were designed to manage global trade
> > activities. Somewhere, back a few thousand years ago, an entrepreneur
> > figured out that he could reduce "spillage" and increase profits by
> > transporting clay jars of olive oil with standardized seals.
> > Benson
> >
> > Benson Honig Ph.D.
> > Betty and Peter Sims Professor of Entrepreneurship,
> > Director, NeXt
> > Wilfrid Laurier School of Business and Economics
> > Waterloo Ontario Canada N2L3C5
> > Tel: 519-884-0710 ext.2909
> > fax: 519-884-0201
> > Cell: 905-518-1716
> > email:
bhonig@wlu.ca
> >
> >
> > >>> "William D. Schulte" <
wschulte@MSN.COM> 02/07/07 7:20 PM >>>
> > I agree with Andrew. Entrepreneurship, to me, is a way a thinking and
> > acting despite the evironment. Let's take a cue from Drucker (rest his
> soul)
> >
> > and what he had to say about management and the knowledge worker.
> Management
> >
> > is not business management. It includes all types of organizations. Simple.
>
> > So why should entrepreneurship be treated with any less respect.
> >
> > So, does anyone have any thoughts on coming back to the individual
> > entrepreneur? The psychology of entrepreneurship? In the 1980s strategic
> > management was consumed by the Harvard Gang of economists. Where is Ansoff
>
> > when you need him? Can we get back to what makes entrepreneurship
> > possible? A way of seeing the world and acting.
> >
> > I also agree with Norris Kreuger. Neo said that social entrepreneurship
> > research may help get us closer to a theory of entrepreneurship. when you
> > take the profit motive out of the equation, what do you get? Your
> thoughts?
> >
> > Bayou Bill (Ninth Ward for Life)
> >
> >
> > >From: "Cardow, Andrew"