Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:30:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [ENTREP] SV: [ENTREP] Entrepreneurship as a social "evil"
I had emailed Andrew privately but since there is so
much well deserved interest in the topic, I thought
that I should email the group.
Rob Smith and I have a paper coming out in the next
edition of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
which deals with the topic. We ask if there is a
moral space in entrepreneurship and argue that there
is, at least as far as entrepreneurship is a
socially constructed phenomenon. We spent some time
with a group of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">London</st1:place></st1:city> gangsters collecting data for
this and were surprise to find that one notorious,
but very entrepreneurial villain considered himself
The moral space in entrepreneurship: An exploration
of ethical imperatives and the moral legitimacy of
Alistair R Anderson and Rob Smith
This paper explores the morality associated with
entrepreneurship. It has been argued that there is
no moral space in entrepreneurship, but such
instrumental views may the miss out much of the
nature of enterprise and how it is understood.
Consequently we propose that a socially constructed
perspective, based upon the meanings of
entrepreneurship, may help to understand the
morality of entrepreneurship. By applying such a
lens, we find that the narratives and discourses of
the meanings of entrepreneurship are ideological and
clearly present a moral space. This space lies
between the individual and society and is
normatively articulated in entrepreneurial
discourses. We develop a tentative framework which
links values and outcomes that shows how
"authenticated" entrepreneurship, that is to say
that which resonates with a socially approved moral
dimension, is legitimised by comparisons with a
socially constructed view. The empirical part of the
paper comprises of two case stories. The first is a
local garage owner who has a reputation as a decent
man; the second is a notorious, but entrepreneurial
<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">London</st1:place></st1:city> gangster. Our analysis shows that to be
judged "entrepreneurial", it is not enough to act
entrepreneurially; the social constructs of public
perceptions entail examining both moral means and
moral ends. We conclude that there is a moral
imperative in entrepreneurship.
Happy to send a word copy to anyone interested
----------------------------------------------------
From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv
Sent: 29 October 2007 22:59
Subject: [ENTREP] SV: [ENTREP] Entrepreneurship as a
Since much of the discussion seems to center on
economics and functional views of entrepreneurship,
I think the following statement by Ludwig von Mises
might be of interest. In it, Mises writes of his
very general theory of human action. However, the
value-neutrality of the message is especially valid
in the case of entrepreneurial action:
Ethical doctrines are intent upon establishing
scales of value according to which man should
act but does not necessarily always act. They
claim for themselves the vocation of telling
right from wrong and of advising man concerning
what he should aim at as the supreme good. They
are normative disciplines aiming at the
cognition of what ought to be. They are not
neutral with regard to facts; they judge them
from the point of view of freely adopted
This is not the attitude of praxeology and
economics. They are fully aware of the fact that
the ultimate ends of human action are not open
to examination from any absolute standard.
Ultimate ends are ultimately given, they are
purely subjective, they differ with various
people and with the same people at various
moments in their lives. Praxeology and economics
deal with the means for the attainment of ends
chosen by the acting individuals. They do not
express any opinion with regard to such problems
as whether or not sybaritism is better than
asceticism. They apply to the means only one
yardstick, viz., whether or not they are
suitable to attain the ends at which the acting
The notions of abnormality and perversity
therefore have no place in economics. It does
not say that a man is perverse because he
prefers the disagreeable, the detrimental, and
the painful to the agreeable, the beneficial,
and the pleasant. It says only that he is
different from other people; that he likes what
others detest; that he considers useful what
others want to avoid; that he takes pleasure in
enduring pain which others avoid because it
Two questions arise: 1) Does 'evil' entrepreneurship
differ from 'good' entrepreneurship in its "means
for the attainment of ends"? 2) If not, should
entrepreneurship qua economic function be discussed
__________________________________________________________________________
Department of Technology Management and Economics
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chalmers</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Technology
Phone : +46 (0)708 128 138
Skype : henrik.k.berglund
************************************** This message
is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the
Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of
Management. Please do not post messages with
attached files. Commercial messages or spammed
messages are not allowed on the list. The use of
auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also
lead to your removal from the list. You can manage
your subscription options, including joining or
If you have questions or need help, please contact
************************************** This message
is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the
Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of
Management. Please do not post messages with
attached files. Commercial messages or spammed
messages are not allowed on the list. The use of
auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also
lead to your removal from the list. You can manage
your subscription options, including joining or
If you have questions or need help, please contact