Keywords

2.1 Introduction

The impact of entrepreneurship is felt through all walks of life. Entrepreneurial activity and the behaviours that lead to it, from entrepreneurs and innovative organisations, affects the economic and societal outcomes of industries and countries worldwide. This chapter outlines the nature of entrepreneurship, and what it is commonly viewed as by various definitions, in practice and in both past and present research undertaken in the field.

Entrepreneurship, as a noted field of academic investigation, has considerably grown during the past twenty years: What does entrepreneurship mean? How has business activity changed? How does entrepreneurship affect education today? Past and contemporary literature, witnessing the drivers of entrepreneurialism, are highlighted. Notable definitions of entrepreneurship are displayed to characterise the concept, and how this is depicted in research study. This is in relation to their respective eras in civilisation through the centuries, which shape the practice and resulting taught discipline. Additionally, opposing arguments concerning entrepreneurship and the creation of unique value, for society, are discussed. The concept of capitalism and the effects on entrepreneurship as a micro-economic role within the market, regarding the changing waves of entrepreneurial activity, are also considered. The book’s first case study addresses the enduring born versus made debate, associated with entrepreneurial individuals.

2.2 Economic Theory and the Entrepreneur

Entrepreneurial activity presents an opportunity to introduce novel and viable products and services which are established and delivered within given markets and industries (Baron 2002; Needle 2004; Burns 2011; Volkmann et al. 2009; Fayolle and Klandt 2006; EC 2015). Its continued source of innovation has been important for more than 1000 years, providing much desired and needed services to society (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Acs 2007). It is all about trying to make potentially new business prospects an economic reality (Oakey 2007; Timmons and Spinelli 2008; Deakins and Freel 2012). Entrepreneurship is commonly regarded as a social and economically enriching phenomenon, which can create employment and subsequent wealth in both the public and private sectors (Acs 2007). Wickham (2006) classifies four orders of entrepreneurial activity, including the Cantillon entrepreneur, the person that can ‘make’ the industry, the entrepreneur concerned with the administration of new ideas and solutions, and the owner of a small business. These are discussed further in the following section.

It was during the seventeenth century that this concept of entrepreneurship was first developed. Defoe, in 1697, was considered the first to evaluate the notion and value of the ‘creative entrepreneur’, labelling them as the ‘projector’ (Redlich 1949). In compiling ‘The Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce’ in 1757, Malachy Postlethwayt (d. 1767) is similarly recognised as being one of the first to differentiate between the creative capitalist and the inventor, and subsequently the legitimacy of market creating or market shifting innovation. This built a foundation upon which Schumpeter and others would follow and contribute to (Redlich 1949).

During the eighteenth century, aspects and explanations of entrepreneurialism were witnessed and understood (Kirby 2003; Fayolle et al. 2005). An entrepreneurial or economic undertaking means unternehmung in German and entrepredre in French (Fayolle et al. 2005).

Fact Box 1

The now known term of Entrepreneur is the combination of the words “entre”: between, and also “prendre”: to take.

(Bolton and Thompson 2004)

Deakins and Freel (2012) stated that French-Irish Economist Richard Cantillon (1680s–May 1734) first noted the vitality of entrepreneurialism, and its practice, in terms of economic enrichment and prosperity, which was primarily founded on the ideal of individual property rights (Casson 1982, 2003; Casson et al. 2008). Of the three classes in society recognised by Cantillon, entrepreneurs were the important class and were the central economic actors; the other two being landowners and workers (Carland et al. 1984).

Jean-Baptiste Say defined an entrepreneur as one who considers a particular enterprise, and shifts economic resources from a lower area, into a higher situation, leading to greater productivity and potential success (Casson et al. 2008; Dana et al. 2008).

Entrepreneurial traits and attributes however somewhat differ from that of a capitalist profile. Entrepreneurs attempt to acquire profitable and sometimes scarce, but desired, factors of production to realise new ventures and opportunities (Bruyat and Julien 2000; Casson 2003; Shane 2003).

Joseph Schumpeter’s view of the entrepreneur is that of an innovator, realising new technological processes and/or products. Acs (2007) stressed that entrepreneurship in practice is due to this intertwining of historical and technological considerations and effects, somewhat following the ideology of Schumpeter.

Dominant sub-disciplines of entrepreneurship, whether it be small or larger scale business management, the entrepreneurial process, and appreciating behaviours surrounding entrepreneurial activity are sometimes contextually ill-defined, with sparse agreement concerning appropriate content towards attributable fields (Gibb 2002; Matlay 2006; Anderson and Starnawska 2008). A certain evolution of the meaning of entrepreneurship is witnessed through the various assertions as seen above (Hébert and Link 1982; Hébert and Link 1988; Kirby 2003; Berglann et al. 2011). Amongst the plethora of labels attached to the word, entrepreneurship involves undertaking a business, recognising an opportunity whilst accounting for risk, and constantly innovating goods and services (Henry et al. 2005). Redlich (1949) examined both the terms ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘creative entrepreneur’ over a 250-year period. The term ‘entrepreneur’ began evolving in its meaning from an ‘undertaker’ to ‘adventurer’ and ‘projected’.

The intersection of entrepreneurship with that of financial markets and hopeful economic growth does bring to the fore a case for and a case against entrepreneurship (Audretsch 1999 in Libecap 1999). In an environment, that is post-recessionary, conflicts of interest between certain factions of organisations, industries, and communities are seen and, as mentioned, with a lack of governmental help, the opportunities for some to realise their entrepreneurial abilities can be limited (Klapper 2004; O’Connor 2013).

Theories of entrepreneurship and growth are innermost established explanations for SME (small and medium-sized enterprise) performance (Bryson et al. 1999; Kuratko et al. 2001). The entrepreneurial phenomenon has formed revolutionary markets and social landscapes. The widening of markets and growth of industries in many countries has of course encouraged entrepreneurship (Knight 2000; Stokes et al. 2010). Economic theory has enabled researchers to comprehend and establish an understanding of entrepreneurship as it was, and now is, displayed (Low and MacMillan 1988; Bruyat and Julien 2000; Kirby 2003). Economists regard entrepreneurs as individuals who continually organise a number of production factors and concepts: competition, cost-benefit analysis, economic efficiency, economic freedom, laws of supply and demand, marginal analysis, opportunity costs, short run and long run, and trade-offs. National economies, composed of economic institutions, are societal attempts to organise the way we convert resources into viable goods and services (Acs 2007). Essentially, this economic process and the entrepreneurial process are far from dissimilar (Burke 2006). Entrepreneurs generally hold the main objectives involving economic, social, and human aspects during the realisation of entrepreneurial outcomes; embracing exogenous, expansionary, and endogenous entrepreneurship (O’Connor 2013). Significantly, our understanding of entrepreneurship through time can be the economic backdrop that it existed within at the time. Schools of economic thought, attributed to certain periods of western civilisation, allows us to appreciate and comprehend more so the actions and interactions of entrepreneurs and related individuals and groups (now commonly referred to as stakeholders). Casson (2003) states that during 1990s, entrepreneurship and its educational connotations were neglected in wide scale research. Casson (2003) outlines the four main approaches to entrepreneurship, as identified in economic theory: factor distribution of income, the market process (The Walrasian Concept of Perfect competition), Schumpeterian: the innovator/regulated growth and fluctuation, and the entrepreneur and the firm (‘decision maker’). The entrepreneur provides a catalyst for economic development that unites all the necessary means of production, subsequently moving resources from less to more productive areas (Say 1816).

Fact Box 2

Sources of creative destruction include appreciating changes in technology, politics, regulation, and society.

(Shane 2003)

The evolutionary thinking following neo-classical ideals provided greater opportunity for entrepreneurs to flourish in the widened markets that were envisioned. Neo-classical economics has previously never suitably dealt with the entrepreneur in relation to micro-economic theory (Casson 1982; Kent 1990; Fayolle 2007).

2.2.1 Entrepreneurialism and the Eighteenth Century

Entrepreneurs during the eighteenth century travelled and introduced their ideas and products into new communities (Casson 2003; Shane 2003; Matlay 2006). The Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment brought about new industries and markets where entrepreneurs immersed themselves into new cultures. These influxes of different people and backgrounds brought about a cultural and societal rejuvenation not seen before (Baumol 1968; Casson 1982; Lipsey and Chrystal 2004). Ideas of opportunity, production, and personal autonomy were realised, through people’s aspirations and entrepreneurial behaviour such as those early descriptions outlined by Cantillon (1755).

People during this time, who took advantage of these profitable opportunities, were increasingly regarded as ‘entrepreneurs’ (Casson 2003; Dana et al. 2008). During the eighteenth century, Cantillon recognised the crucial roles attributed to the entrepreneur in economic theory. He outlined various characteristics and situations that an entrepreneur would encounter, which subsequently became of further interest and investigation to economists at this time. Cantillon recognised that these differences between demand and supply in a given market create potential, entrepreneurial opportunities for acquiring materials and products at a low price, then selling at a higher, and therefore profitable price.

2.2.2 The Nineteenth Century: Industry and Innovation

The passing of the enlightenment contributed to the later emerging and settling nature of entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial mind-set, business skills, and economic growth through privately-owned businesses (Dana et al. 2008). This led to a reorganisation and regeneration towards enterprising activity and growing regional prosperity, which were driven by society.

At the closing of the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth, a period of tremendous creativity and innovation was witnessed in the public-service field (Drucker 1985). The history of entrepreneurship development and notoriety, with notable foundations in economic theory and its principles, is relevant to this book. In appreciating past considerations of entrepreneurship, from scholars from centuries ago, we can understand the considerable shift in research from these economic and management disciplines to a currently, wider spectrum of fields which focus on entrepreneurship and its surrounding themes. Literature concerning entrepreneurship’s history is unfortunately subject to conceptual and contextual debate (Matlay 2005b, 2006). However, entrepreneurship has for many centuries, been discussed with critical economic concepts such as industrial and economic growth, job creation, the supplying of produced and marketed goods, and social prosperity (Cantillon 1755; Schumpeter 1934; Casson 1982).

Bruyat and Julien (2000) generalised that the entrepreneurial phenomenon is essentially a concept that, in practice, can be volatile and hard to predict. The concept of entrepreneurship is now viewed in wider, cultural contexts, attributable to many societal and organisational constructs. Fayolle et al. (2005) identified three forms of entrepreneurship: individual, small business, and organisational. These forms have been developed during particular, historical periods, and the interaction between them.

2.2.3 The Twentieth Century: Theorising Entrepreneurship

During this time, the ideals of Knight, Schumpeter, and latterly Drucker for example aimed to crystallise entrepreneurial ideas into theorised concepts and definitions (Bygrave and Hofer 1991). Knight highlighted the balance of risk and reward in entrepreneurial decision making, during the process (Casson 1982). Schumpeter added to the work of Say and Cantillon, speaking of creative destruction and the notion of introducing new and innovative ideas into the market. This differs from the Kirznerian ideology 30 years later, which focussed on the individual’s ability to solve the problem with available information. Drucker expressed the notion of entrepreneurship advancing into organisations, utilising existing resources, and learning from entrepreneurial behaviour (Drucker 1985; Shane 2003).

Since the work of Cantillon, economists including Mill, Say, and Marshall during the nineteenth century, to Schumpeter, Knight, Kirzner throughout the twentieth century, contributed to the benefits of entrepreneurialism and the entrepreneur within an economy, adding to economic practices and theoretical appreciation (Casson 1982).

Frank Knight (1885–1972) acknowledged risk taking as a pivotal and typical feature of entrepreneurship and enterprising behaviour (Casson 1982). This notion has since been called the ‘Risk-Bearing Theory’. Knight adopted the economic thoughts of early economists such as Cantillon and Say, and added a dimension of risk awareness and risk taking. Knightian theory considers uncertainty as a central factor of production. The entrepreneur earns increasing profit as a reward for taking increasing risk (Casson 1982, 2003). Knight prompted a differing view to entrepreneurship to that of Schumpeter during the twentieth century. Knight, strongly inspired by Cantillon, described the distinction between predictability of risk and uncertainty. Knight took the view that entrepreneurship is characterised by behaviour under this uncertainty. Additionally, he argued that this produced real profit. Knight extended the Cantillon philosophy and focussed on entrepreneurial behaviour being in dynamic market economies, amidst uncertainty. He took the view that entrepreneurs were therefore responsible for economic prosperity, by addressing and engaging in unpredictable, economic situations. Whilst the Schumpeterian ideology promoted an entrepreneur as a dynamic innovator, the Knightian entrepreneur was regarded as the bearer of this related risk.

Schumpeter (1928, 1934, 1961) outlined several and surrounding external factors, crucial to opportunity exploitation and, as he defined it, creative destruction. Through the lens of the Schumpeterian model, entrepreneurs assume a large level of risk, assembling an enormous amount of capital, in implementing innovations which look to restructure major industries (Kent 1990; Kirby 2003). Schumpeter (1928), who continued Say’s work on entrepreneurial creativity and emerging innovation in new markets, asserted that realising and taking advantage of emerging or potential opportunities were the initial motivators and main objectives of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter’s (1934) Big Five Elements of Entrepreneurship, initially characterises entrepreneurial behaviour. These five elements are the emergence of novel goods, new approaches to producing such goods, the establishment of original or developed marketplaces, different or novel supply streams, and continuous industrial reorganisation (Kirby 2003)

Israel Kirzner (1979) held the notions of spontaneous learning and alertness as the two fundamental characteristics of entrepreneurialism. Kirznerian economics considers the alertness in recognising opportunities is more characteristic than the process of innovation, in describing what entrepreneurship is. Kirzner’s view compares entrepreneurial behaviour to the actions of Robinson Crusoe (Kirzner 1979). According to Kirzner, the market is driven by entrepreneurs and their alertness. The Austrian School opposes the German, Schumpeter belief that only in the state of disequilibrium are there opportunities for entrepreneurial profit.

Schumpeter referred to the entrepreneurial process as witnessing opportunities and creating entities (organisations) with the means to follow through the idea (Bygrave and Hofer 1991; Kent 1990; Fayolle and Klandt 2006).

Harvey Leibenstein’s (1922–1994) x-efficiency theory considers entrepreneurialism as filling space in the market for new and innovative opportunities. The theory recognises factors such as market trends, and the development of new goods and/or processes into the market (Shane 2003).

Peter Drucker (1909–2005) values innovation, related resources, and notable entrepreneurial behaviours as drivers of entrepreneurship. Optimistically for growing and inclusive entrepreneurialism, Drucker involves the organisation and early notions of intrapreneurship. As Shane (2003) illustrated, Drucker’s characteristics of entrepreneurship, and his viewpoint of entrepreneurialism, is applicable to all through education and can transcend a diverse organisation by different modes of exploitation.

2.3 Evolved Understandings of Entrepreneurship

Advancements were established in the body of knowledge, yet a lack of substantial theoretical foundations was an issue (Gartner 1985; Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Berglann et al. 2011; Aldrich 2012). Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of new information and having the skill set to use this information to your advantage (Kent 1990). These activities demand a control of risk by having both superior knowledge and access (Gray 2006; Bicknell et al. 2010). Entrepreneurialism thrives on the chance of change, which others may find uncomfortable (Krueger 2002; Llewellyn and Wilson 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004).

The Oxford English Dictionary provides another definition: an individual who aims to profit through both assessing and taking risk, and displaying timely resourcefulness (Burns 2011). Definitions such as this encompass a variety of entrepreneurship-related operations, including production innovation, new ventures and start-ups, and multi-level and international analysis (Jennings et al. 2013).

Economically speaking, entrepreneurship is regarded as a much needed, but sometimes scarce resource (Casson et al. 2008). Arguably, entrepreneurship is regarded as a restrictive but accepted lifestyle or career (Bolton and Thompson 2004). It is very much the norm in modern society (Shrader and Simon 1997; Timmons and Spinelli 2008). Innovations from entrepreneurial activity can transform the world in which we live in (Risker 1998; Brockhaus et al. 2001; Needle 2004). It is widely agreed that defining entrepreneurship and establishing the field is complex, usually providing little agreement towards research objectivity and results in heterogeneous outcomes and opposing perspectives (Bruyat and Julien 2000). Nevertheless, many scholars, since early research of entrepreneurship and economic theory began, disagree as to a precise or universal meaning of the term entrepreneur (Kent 1990; Dana et al. 2008; Weber 2012).

Previous perceptions of entrepreneurs have been arguably misguided and negative (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). The considered persona of the individual rather than their actions has labelled the entrepreneur wrongly. Entrepreneurs, especially when amongst elite, affluent societies, are regarded as those who indulge in a selfish form of financial accumulation as aforementioned. Fiscal entrepreneurs have been regarded as simply money-oriented, venture capitalists (Bolton and Thompson 2004).

This depiction of entrepreneurs and associated activities does not always highlight the many benefits of entrepreneurial, philanthropic, and regenerating activities towards local communities, including ethnic minorities and the disadvantaged of society.

2.4 The Nature of the Modern Enterprise

Research related to entrepreneurship has matured greatly since its notable beginnings during the latter half of the twentieth century (Shane 2003). Clearer associations are observed between the realisation of entrepreneurialism, our understanding of the individuals and traits involved, and its ultimate teaching and dissemination, as its related knowledge spills over into education and big business. Fayolle et al. (2005) comment on this ‘state of the art’ of expanding entrepreneurship and small business related research, which has acquired an academic domain in its own right. This includes depictions and descriptions of entrepreneurship which have grown over time, amidst changing economic events and fortunes.

During the mid-1980s, entrepreneurship established itself with a sound foothold as its own academic discipline (Gartner 1985; Birley 1986; Kent 1990). The entrepreneurial spirit is now witnessed globally, giving rise to the proliferation of interest in the researched field in the past 25 years (Peng 2001; McDougall et al. 2003).

During the 1980s, great attention was focused on the entrepreneur. However, they failed to appreciate them within a complex process of economic growth and development (Kent 1990; Acs 2007).

Research on the entrepreneurial process was a key component of initial attempts to conceptualise entrepreneurship (Gilder 1984; Drucker 1985). Constructing purposeful and coherent conceptual frameworks in entrepreneurship research has, accounting for contextual and definitional variances, been successful (Garavan and O’Cinneide 1994; Matlay 2005a). Landström et al. (2012) document that, at first, scholars interested in entrepreneurship simply followed from where the psychologists had researched: attempting to identify specific entrepreneurial traits and personalities. This ideology towards entrepreneurship research has now diverged into considering a number of other contributing factors and variables (Greene and Saridakis 2007; Turker and Selcuk 2009). Similar studies document the strategies used by entrepreneurs that have been identified to display important commonalities, issues, and trade-offs. Various types of entrepreneurs and their motivations and methods have instigated further investigation on the many psychological considerations and factors which can forecast potential success in later years (Kickul and Gundry 2002; Llewellyn and Wilson 2003).

The economic and social aspects of entrepreneurial activity, and the success of active small businesses, have positively aided both job and wealth creation and the regeneration of local and regional economies (Upton et al. 2001; and Chrisman et al. 2003; McDougall et al. 2003). Examples of research in the 1990s included attempts to theorise and conceptualise entrepreneurship (Bygrave and Hofer 1991; Herron et al. 1991; Cooper 1998). Venture financing research emerged in the 1990s, instigating further practices and reporting (Shepherd and Zacharakis 2001; Shepherd et al. 2003). Also, progressive analysis of intrapreneurship and the need for entrepreneurial cultures within organisations and current businesses has increased in literary popularity during the past few years (Zahra et al. 1999; Morris et al. 2001; Kuratko et al. 2001).

Researchers sought to gain a clearer appreciation of the mechanisms adopted by entrepreneurs during such entrepreneurial activity, providing conceptual models on the individual processes of entrepreneurs and their interactions within the market towards future economic development. Also comprehended, has been the issue of addressing the personalities of entrepreneurs through a psychological lens (Krueger 2002; Marcati et al. 2008). The latter had been considered a more stationary approach to entrepreneurship research, given a wide belief that few, instead of many, hold these set of traits to be viewed and analysed in any great number. Academics have contributed countless works in entrepreneurship, which intersect with research areas that directly or indirectly affect the nurture, growth, and maintenance of entrepreneurial behaviour and process. These include areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and law (Kirby 2003). Research indicates failure rates of entrepreneur-led businesses have been reported as of up to 80%, with the losses and/or pitfalls including financial, psychological impacts towards the entrepreneur, family reasons, economic issues, and social problems (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). Other, equally damaging pitfalls and failures of the entrepreneurial practice can include businesses being created in the absence of any sound financial and business advice, monetary investment that can add considerable risk to the lifestyles of themselves and families, and an occasional likelihood of business ideas being ill-prepared in terms of a realistic vision and long-term strategy (Bridge et al. 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004).

A distinct characteristic which displays this emergence is the noticeable shift from necessity to opportunity entrepreneurs (Henderson and Robertson 2000; Bolton and Thompson 2004). Recognising and exploiting profitable opportunities in the form of entrepreneurial ventures may result in new organisations or simply revitalise present organisations; however, this is always subject to these many volatile factors including consumer preference (Oviatt and McDougall 1994; Dean and Meyer 1996; Steier 2007).

Research transcends many disciplines of academia and working life (Myers 2013). As displayed in recent literature, the entrepreneurial field partly rids itself of its restrictive economic and management connotations (Casson 1982; Minniti and Lévesque 2008). The growth of entrepreneurship research, in itself, goes to show the sheer interest in the field, as an academic and/or research area, as a means to provide real solutions to social, economic, and cultural problems.

Attempts have been made to construct a theoretical framework surrounding entrepreneurship since research in the field intensified during the latter part of the twentieth century (McMullan and Long 1987; Matlay 2012). As detailed in the previous section, concerning attempts to achieve a universal definition of entrepreneurship, vast and varied translation of the business activity has become apparent. Unsurprisingly, this does present its problems.

Entrepreneurship is this major area of business activity which has both developed its own technique and unearthed its own particular research (Rae 2007). The study of entrepreneurship is vast and is a continuously expanding field (Anderson and Starnawska 2008; Matlay 2009; Keating and McLoughlin 2010; Meyer et al. 2014). It is therefore necessary to establish theories which endeavour to produce more productive and effective empirical research. Landström et al. (2012) express entrepreneurship as an evolving and ever-changing field of research, which has shifted to a more formal, core knowledge form basing its derivations from older theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Additionally, they call for future studies being knowledge-based which develop both new and established entrepreneurial concepts, incorporating the areas of entrepreneurship and innovation.

The growth in entrepreneurship research has produced valuable synergies with a deeper understanding of more established, core concepts, research methods, and overriding principles (Aldrich 2012). It influences institutional, political, and legal frameworks. However, with these attempts at determining a rooted, conceptual framework, there is debate on whether this research is the result of development in the field or simply that the field is getting bigger (Sexton 1988 in Bruyat and Julien 2000).

Research has displayed certain permeability in the field with an array of paradigmatic positions being adopted by scholars, authors, and researchers. Entrepreneurship research also analyses the many barriers to entry (Kolodko 2000; McElwee and Al-Riyami 2003). These include issues of identifying entrepreneurial capabilities and skills, devising a strong business plan, and attaining the required finance. Entrepreneurship research has encompassed a wide collection of academic disciplines and focussed specialties. These include applied economic development, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship, ethnic entrepreneurship, family business, free enterprise, high-technology business, micro-enterprise development, minority entrepreneurship, new product development, new venture creation, private enterprise, professional practice studies, small business, and female entrepreneurship (Katz 2003). This increase of entrepreneurship research during the twentieth century contributed to a number of subsequent events, including clearer social and business constructs related to entrepreneurship research and practice, the increase in published research, a more inclusive approach to entrepreneurship and its understanding, greater opportunities with regards to funding and support, and the acknowledgement and centralisation of the researched field. All of the above trends have been affected by globalisation (adapted from Aldrich 2012).

Since 2010, entrepreneurship research has continuously grown at exponential rates across the globe (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Brockhaus et al. 2001; Fayolle 2010; Matlay 2012). Shane and Venkataraman (2000) consider two phenomena: enterprising individuals and entrepreneurial opportunities. Researchers must examine the nature of individuals who respond and act upon attractive opportunities, the opportunities in question and the particular nexus, along with its features between these individuals and opportunities. Drucker (1985), for example, takes the view that innovation is a real, work-based process. Innovation requires the knowledge to act on entrepreneurial ideas. Drucker, and others, highlight innovation as an effect on economy and society. The resources used include raw materials, products, processes, marketing, and the evolved organisation (Needle 2004). The result of such innovation leads to new products, services, production techniques, operating practices, ways of delivering such products or services to new or emerging consumers, means of informing consumers and the marketplace, ways of managing relationship within the organisations, and ways of managing relationship between organisations (Wickham 1998; Casson et al. 2008). Within literature, terms such as creativity and innovation have been used to highlight or discuss the same thing (Hisrich and Kearney 2004). However, creativity is a core, cognitive, and integrative building block, needed for subsequent innovation to take place. Hisrich and Kearney (2004) believe that the ability to be creative is inherent in individuals and the capability to solve complex situations and problems is instilled within them. It is simply whether the individual in question is aware of it or not.

2.5 Capitalism and Work

An assumption that is now slowly disappearing in recent research was that entrepreneurialism was a lifestyle predominantly for already wealthy or higher classed individuals (Shane 2003; Casson et al. 2008). Similarly, examples of successful, self-made entrepreneurialism are not solely restricted to connotations and reflections of the American Dream, or the disadvantaged poor-boy-made-good. Entrepreneurial behaviour can reside in all societies, social constructs regardless of race, age, or economic circumstance, and across multi-disciplinary sectors and organisations (Brockhaus et al. 2001; Burns 2011; EC 2012, 2015). The nature of entrepreneurship, in itself, has in the past been associated with purely economically motivated connotations. Confusion has, at times, lay between an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist (Bolton and Thompson 2004; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). Of course, a rebuilding of economies in a free market will bring about interest from small business, public entities, and major multinational organisations. Entrepreneurship now involves a diverse, broad church of people, from all occupations and lifestyles, with a differing purpose for a differing audience.

Significantly, the interconnected nature of modern entrepreneurship, within global organisations regarding local, social, technological, and environmental issues is placed high on the agenda. A firm’s corporate and social responsibility for example intrudes and widens entrepreneurial activities which reach people, communities, and groups.

The entrepreneur co-ordinates production: being the what, how, and for whom of the organisational or entrepreneurial process (Baron 2002; Shane 2003; Bolton and Thompson 2004; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). The systematic steps involved range from idea conception to continuous review of the product or service, in making entrepreneurial ideas, creations, and innovations a viable and useful reality. Whether realised or not, the creative and innovative processes are fundamental during the initial and on-going phases of entrepreneurial activity. Continued attempts by scholars and practitioners to simplify and conceptualise a practical process which can be applied to entrepreneurs regardless of the unique context are desired. Entrepreneurial companies are primarily driven by the growth, ambitions, and desire of owners to create wealth (Pike et al. 2012). Success and failure factors in developing new business products and services are varied, depending on scale and size (De Brentani 1991; Audretsch 2006). Entrepreneurial situations hold opportunities that identify how an entrepreneur recognises or creates opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Eckhardt and Shane 2003).

One of the key areas of entrepreneurship research is that of understanding entrepreneurship within the market, as a micro-economic solution to social, economic, and cultural problems (Dibben et al. 2003; Matlay 2006, 2011). Economic theorists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century predominantly highlighted the creative and stimulating nature of entrepreneurship, when considering it with market conditions and reconstruction (Schumpeter 1934; Casson 1985; Shane 2003). Growth and rejuvenation in the economy can arguably owe considerable debt to members of society who wish to bear a given amount of personal, financial, and business risk (Bolton and Thompson 2004). This is in exchange for the possibility of improving their personal standard of living and increasing their financial and employment statuses, and future prosperity.

Entrepreneurship and opportunity recognition can be a means to addressing current market failures, both locally and nationally. Market shifts from economic highs to lows, or vice-versa, present the option for individuals to display entrepreneurial behaviour or businesses to diversify or innovate their operations. The entrepreneurial and managerial fields, as expressed above, are not mutually exclusive, but overlap. The former is driven by opportunity; with the latter more conversational-driven (Stewart et al. 1999).

In either field, entrepreneurs are greatly needed and wanted in economies (Fletcher 1999; McLarty 2005; Nabi and Holden 2008). Entrepreneurs have the ability to discover and develop opportunities (Ardichvili et al. 2003). This practice of opportunity recognition can involve all occupations and intend to make aware and improve social and political situations (Timmons and Spinelli 2008; Buchanan and Huczynski 2010). It is commonly regarded in research that a business opportunity that may arise for an entrepreneur shall consist of up to four elements (Low and MacMillan 1988; Busenitz et al. 2003). These include a need, in the market, in particular business or society in general; means to meet that given need; a methodical plan to apply the means to fulfil the need; and ways to benefit by implementing this plan, towards introducing a new product or service (Casson 1982; Gibb 2002; Kirby 2003). The concept of the entrepreneurial process, whether it is viewed through the individual or the collective practises undertaken, is a central area of entrepreneurship research and discussion (Birley 1986; Jack and Anderson 1999; Casson et al. 2008).

Entrepreneurship is concerned with individuals within given contexts (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006). Entrepreneurship involves small and detailed incremental changes (Kent 1990; Fayolle and Klandt 2006). It is a complex phenomenon, taking into consideration psychology, social, economic, and organisational aspects (Gartner 1985; Stevenson and Jarillo 1990; Fayolle 2007). This process and expectant entrepreneurial activity stimulates innovation (Cooper 1998; Risker 1998; Romijn and Albaladejo 2002). Guzmán and Liñán (2005) elaborate that entrepreneurship is a cohesive concept which permeates an individual’s business. An important factor within this process is dealing with scarce resources and these volatile contexts (Casson 1982; Shane 2003).

2.5.1 Debating the Entrepreneurial and Capitalist Relationship

Governmental policy is key in encouraging entrepreneurialism. The influence of governmental policy can centralise and amplify the numerous societal benefits of entrepreneurialism, which is inclusive to all. Two basic functions of business involve innovation and marketing (Burns 2011). The mystery, mystique and some may regard magic of entrepreneurial activity can transform local and regional economies, as it realises the capabilities of individuals, organisations, and communities (Matlay 2006, 2008, 2011). Entrepreneurship can allow people involved in the activity to increase their standard of living, by introducing new products and services (Bolton and Thompson 2004).

However, it can be viewed by many as capitalistic, opportunistic, and restrictively self-fulfilling (Burns 2011). Nevertheless, multiple benefits of entrepreneurship include endorsing greater opportunity recognition from individuals and from organisations, for societal benefit (Ardichvili et al. 2003).

Case Study I: Debating Entrepreneurship: Born or Made?

I thoroughly enjoy going to teaching and research conferences. They are a starting point for topical conversation, reasoned debate, and valuable networking. During my time as a PhD student from 2013 to 2016, it was a great opportunity to meet new people and develop research ideas for future writing, at these types of academic or industry themed conferences. One conference, although not research focussed, which I have attended and followed since, is the annual NACUE Student Enterprise Conference. NACUE, the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs, brings students, universities, and enterprising ideas together in a fun-filled weekend of keynotes, presentations, workshops, competitions, and other related events.

I first attended the conference in 2014, at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU). It was an exciting and productive weekend. I was impressed with the quality of ideas and business ventures that have started and since succeeded in the marketplace. Also, the stories told by new entrepreneurs were beneficial to students hoping to embark on a similar path. With this in mind, I was keen to get involved the following year.

Having held numerous discussions leading up to NACUE’s 2015 Conference, hosted at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), I wished to introduce an academic perspective to the proceedings where possible. Of course, enterprise affects many walks of life, and in many different ways. A number of anthropological, sociological, and political themes surrounding enterprise are relevant. However, one area that has always interested me is the longstanding debate: are entrepreneurs born, or are they in fact made?

The hour-long debate and casual conversation surrounding this question involved research students, entrepreneurs, and professors. For me, it was great to have this wider discussion, with a participative audience and within the NACUE conference setting.

Defence of the born argument highlighted the perceived, innate, or natural abilities. These include the ability to respond to opportunities, and the development of ideas into action. With this stance, entrepreneurs have this instinct to think of ideas and provide solutions to problems, whether it be in the form of an innovative product, a valued and sought after service, or overall brand being established. This argument was further entrenched and evidenced by the number of family-run businesses across the country, that make up over 99% of businesses registered in the United Kingdom as a small and medium-sized enterprise. This generational exposure to business engrains an entrepreneurial environment for young entrepreneurs to flourish.

On the other hand, the made argument acknowledged the impact of education: in primary, secondary, and tertiary forms. When introducing enterprise and entrepreneurship, this leaves a lasting impression on pupils, students, and graduates. Also, fluctuating market factors push and pull people towards enterprise. They react and adapt to changing market conditions. This experience of real-world issues and situations heightens the chances of success, as individuals and businesses occasionally fail forward and learn accordingly. In essence, a longer-term engagement with businesses and society aids in the productivity and effectiveness of entrepreneurial activities.

I believe that, in achieving some success, each entrepreneur or enterprising individual consists of ‘30% born characteristics’ and ‘70% made abilities’. Although these are rigid figures here and a fairly abstract assumption in general, I simply argue that it is a mixture of both sides of this debate. It is worthwhile to broach the born and made debate, as it introduces important research in the field. If it stimulates further discussion on inclusive entrepreneurship education and activity, then it can create something of value to individuals, groups, institutions, and society as a whole.

Now, consider the following:

Q1):

The born or made? debate: does it really matter to entrepreneurial universities?

Q2):

What can you do, as an educator or student, to prove that this is now irrelevant?

  • Educator: How can this debate be addressed in the modern classroom?

  • Student: Which skills, that you possess, evidence and reflect worthwhile, entrepreneurial attributes?

2.6 Economic Theory and Entrepreneurship Education

Definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education are now settling within small business environments and contextual, educational boundaries. The objectives, intentions, and wider benefits of entrepreneurialism, whether it is from the individual or the organisation, are more clearly expressed and understood. This includes crystallising the conceptual differences between the activities of an enterprise, the nature of entrepreneurship, and the contextual factors and variables of personality affecting entrepreneurial individuals (Wickham 2006). Wickham, for example, and others conclude that the modern world is characterised by significant change and noticeable shifts in social, political, economic, and technological order. These result in developments in economic relationships and advancements in related technology. A typical, entrepreneurial venture or start-up involves a focus on a product or service, with a strong knowledge base in its given industry (Casson 1982, 2005).

Developing a local, regional, and national enterprising culture was a late twentieth century political initiative promoting increased independence and entrepreneurial activity. However, this movement has its opponents. Developing an enterprising culture, where it is viewed as a restrictive lifestyle, brings about views of entrepreneurialism and its perceived links with capitalism and neo-liberalism.

Students participating within entrepreneurship education programmes must understand the real-world complexities of a volatile, fluctuating, and globalised market (Fayolle and Klandt 2006; Neck and Greene 2011). Worthwhile and valuable entrepreneurship education involves emphasising awareness by students of the economic environment, and the factors which affect an entrepreneurial idea, as well as the highlighting of key entrepreneurial skills and the advancement of business acumen.

2.7 Entrepreneurial Understandings Within Education

As expressed within this chapter, many definitions and descriptions of entrepreneurship have been witnessed. This has resulted in many perspectives discussed within the educational environment. These evolved understandings and perspectives are informed by, and impact, individuals, institutions, and society in general. Figure 2.1 below illustrates such a progression of earlier ideologies and notions of enterprise, towards its embedding within institutions and higher education, globally.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Evolved entrepreneurial understandings: individuals and institutions

Full size image

What Does This Mean?

The first, original concept that this book offers displays the progression of entrepreneurship as a transformative activity towards the realisation of new ideas through innovation and the resultant shifting of markets. As discussed within the introductory chapter of this book, this concept, along with others in this book, introduces economic, societal, and educational connotations of entrepreneurship. This model aims to clarify definitions and descriptions surrounding enterprise and entrepreneurship, as an evolved appreciation, in a practical context.

Schumpeterian, Kirznerian, and Druckerian ideologies of entrepreneurialism and organisational behaviour are displayed within the model, as idea generative, innovative, and transformative activities, respectively. However, this model is also applicable to many other theorists, as it primarily documents this process of the enterprising effect.

The first part of the model acknowledges the initial spark of an idea, which needs to be crafted and reasoned, to create an opportunity and disrupt the market. The second part aligns Kirznerian’s notion of learning and adapting to accessible information, with that of seeking opportunities that are available to all. Lastly, the third and final part immerses entrepreneurialism within the emerging or prosperous organisation or entity. The continual crafting of ideas, with existing information, leads to the reasoned activity and success of businesses and universities. This model illustrates the changing nature of the individual towards the institutional immersion of enterprise and consistent entrepreneurial behaviour.

What Are the Practical Benefits?

This model informs students, and provides a historical appreciation of the evolved, entrepreneurial understanding. Additionally, it encourages discussion concerning the impact of entrepreneurialism on society. With potential scenario playing, the classroom can understand today’s world, concerning market shifts and societal regenerations. In essence, it illustrates and contributes to the economic origins of core entrepreneurship literature through to the twenty-first century. This evolving concept can be primarily attributed to some of the practical worksheets enclosed within the appendix of this book. These include appendices A, B, and C.

2.8 Conclusion

Reflecting on my own philosophical remark at the beginning of this chapter, Chap. 2 appreciates the history and evolution of economic theory, which has influenced entrepreneurship and what we have witnessed and understood from it, in society, today. However, what does it mean for the many forms of enterprise and entrepreneurship education? It means that universities have to undertake some reflection themselves. They must revisit their own objectives, and encourage traits such as question and inquiry, and review and resolve shown by their students. An initial and core motivation of entrepreneurship, which instigates such behaviour and activities, is the need and desire to improve standards of living, towards improving the state of society overall. Thus, with this in mind, a distinct quest for knowledge must be addressed within courses and programmes, which can then be articulated to students. With these courses and programmes carrying a bold, valuable, and stated institutional purpose, along with the personal, professional, economic, and developmental rewards, levels of motivation are expectedly raised. Additionally, raised levels of intention, and increased attractiveness to the university and its programmes, should also be evident. These forms of enterprise and entrepreneurship education are described and categorised in the next chapter.

This chapter has displayed and discussed the evolved economic theory, which has included primitive to advanced ideals of entrepreneurship activity and behaviour. This has been influenced by changing economies, social constructs, and the introduction of advancing technology and communication. Early scholars of entrepreneurship previously confined this commercial practice to a small number of societies who looked to sharply shape economies, through undertaking considerable risk and uncertainty. These scholars have reflected on these changes, as the phenomenon that is entrepreneurialism has since proliferated.

This chapter has also discussed an increasing appreciation of aspects of entrepreneurial activity, such as social entrepreneurship, and its now widely noticeable benefits towards individual autonomy and, more chiefly, societal regeneration or prosperity. Technological advancements in particularly have highlighted numerous benefits of such enterprising activity, bestowing a valued place in society as a career and productive lifestyle. This career and lifestyle is no longer for the select few but is a path for resolving both societal and political problems. The changing nature of entrepreneurialism has had an effect on held beliefs and interpretations of the subject, resulting in notable changes seen in related research activity.

As per Fig. 1.1, this chapter visits the following question:

Q1. :

In being relevant, productive, and valuable, what does entrepreneurship education really mean?

Author’s Response

With our increased understandings of, and the reasonable settling of, entrepreneurship education meaning and practices, the taught discipline and researched field have notably developed. Entrepreneurship education has progressed to encompass skills-based, venture-based, and aspects of regenerative, societal change and sustainability starting from within the university context.

The evolution of enterprising behaviour, and venture creation activities, has allowed it to be an inclusive and inviting prospect for all; if they are willing to seek the available education, advice, and support.

Entrepreneurship education does primarily involve creating something of value, centred on reacting to business opportunities and market situations. However, it is also an opportunity to be a better version of yourself: personally, interpersonally, and professionally. It is an opportunity to improve your live, and the lives of others.

The following chapter, Teaching Entrepreneurship: International Contexts and Progress documents the shaping of perspectives, worldviews of enterprise, progress of this form of education, and its reach globally. This has included the evolved teaching methods, to promote the enterprise agenda to enrich the lives of individuals, communities, and nations.