The Development of Entrepreneurship Research: Index

Liuc Papers n.
146, Serie Economia aziendale 19, aprile 2004
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH
Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita
Index
1. Introduction
2. The origins in economics
3. The contribution of Schumpeter
3.1 Schumpeter Mark I
3.2 Schumpeter Mark II
4. Post-Schumpeterian studies in economics
4.1 The contribution of Kirzner
4.2 Studies on innovation
10
5. Non economic studies on entrepreneurship
11
6. Management studies on entrepreneurship
14
6.1 Entrepreneurship and organization
14
6.2 Entrepreneurship and management
17
6.3 The Italian studies
20
7. Towards a legitimated field of inquiry
23
7.1 Building a framework for entrepreneurship studies
23
7.2 Entrepreneurship and the disciplines
26
7.3 Main issues in future research
27
References
30
The present paper is the result of the combined reflections of the two authors. Nevertheless 1, 2, 3 and
7 can be attributed to Salvatore Sciascia, while 4, 5 and 6 to Riccardo De Vita.
Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is a multi-faced phenomenon, which comprehends both the start-up of new
companies (start-up entrepreneurship) as well as the carrying out of new strategic initiatives
within existing business (corporate entrepreneurship).
Complexity in studying the topic arises not only from this factor, but also from the
uncertainty related to what entrepreneurship is about (Davidsson, Low and Wright, 2001). This
confusion could be ascribed to the presence in the literature of definitions of entrepreneurship
that focus on different aspects of the phenomenon (Davidsson, 2003) and that come from
different disciplines. In spite of the attempt made by Low and MacMillan (1988) to make clarity
in the field of research and to define possible directions for the future, more than ten years later
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) used the word hodgepodge to describe the situation of the
current studies on entrepreneurship. Among the reasons that could explain the impossibility to
address the studies in a clear path it is possible to identify the different beliefs held by the
scholars on the nature of entrepreneurship: this creates a fear that research based on these
different views would result in a cacophony of results and ideas (Gartner, 2001). Another
factor at the heart of the problem is that the word entrepreneurship has different meaning and
therefore it is necessary to distinguish between its use to define a social phenomenon, rather
than a scholarly domain or a teaching subject (Davidsson, 2003).
The need of clarity about the concept of entrepreneurship is however growing, in fact
nowadays there seems to be a crescent interest in entrepreneurship as is evidenced by the
proliferation of journals, professional associations, conferences and academic appointments
about it (Kuratko, 2003). There is a widespread recognition that entrepreneurship is the engine
that moves the economy and society of most of the nations (Brock and Evans, 1989; Acs, 1992;
Carree and Thurik, 2000). Despite entrepreneurship is not a new concept, it has gained
increased interest and research attention during the past 15 years: nowadays it is considered as
the essential lever to cope with the new competitive landscape (Hitt and Reed, 2000).
Companies today must operate in an environment characterized by increased risk, decreased
ability to forecast, fluid firm and industry boundaries; the new competitive landscape is ruled by
the forces of change, complexity, chaos, and contradiction (Hitt and Reed 2000).
The rhythm of change is continuously increasing for the effects of phenomena such as
globalization, technological revolution and deregulation processes. These factors, operating
simultaneously, create a climate that could be defined hypercompetitive (DAveni and
Gunther, 1994), where companies are forced to compete at the same time on price, quality and
Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research
know-how availability and where getting the first mover advantage is crucial. Growing in an
environment with these characteristics is a challenge that is more difficult to face considering
the maturity of the developed countries economies (Zook and Allen, 2001).
It is recognized that entrepreneurship, focusing on the pursuing of new opportunities, is the
research domain able to offer methods and instruments to cope with this new kind of
environment. In order to make other disciplines benefit from entrepreneurial studies, it is
anyway necessary that entrepreneurship develops itself a distinguishing conceptual framework
(Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
Up to the most recent years, the field of entrepreneurship has shown a disjointed growth due
to the strong presence in the publications of article written by transitory contributors
(Landstrm, 2001): this tendency cant be sustained anymore. Leaving entrepreneurship to other
disciplines would mean avoiding the creation of a community of scholars able to understand
effectively entrepreneurial phenomena and would also imply the creation of some blanks, where
aspects of interests to entrepreneurship scholars would not be investigated by other researchers
(Davidsson, 2003).
Calling for the recognition of entrepreneurship as a distinctive field of inquiry does not mean
erecting barriers and isolating the researchers in a self-referring community: entrepreneurial
phenomena are so broad (Low, 2001) that they need to be studied with multidisciplinary
approaches; therefore dialogue and confrontations with other disciplines are indispensable way
to enrich the studies.
Given this perspective, a literature review of the field could be the starting point in defining
the relations between entrepreneurship and the other disciplines, understanding where is
possible to establish an interdisciplinary communication which can lead to cross-fertilization
processes.
2. The origins in economics

For many years entrepreneurship studies have been conducted within the context of
economics: entrepreneurship has been considered as the heart of economic development and the
unit of analysis of studies on it has basically been the individual.
The first definition of Entrepreneur has been given by Cantillon in 1755 in his Essai sur la
nature du commerce en general and even Smith dealt with the issue in 1776 in his An inquiry
into the wealth of nations.
What firstly appeared as a link between the economic activity and the role of the
entrepreneur was his inclination to risk and his ability to manage situations of uncertainty.
According to Cantillon, in fact, the entrepreneur is a speculator in search for profit from
arbitrage, from buying at a certain price and selling at an uncertain price. Therefore the
entrepreneur is different from the rentier, the other subject of the economic system identified by
Cantillon, as his income cannot be predicted. On the base of this seminal work, almost two
centuries later, Knight (1921) has differentiated risk from uncertainty, considering that the first
can be reduced through the creation of pools of risks that are not perfectly correlated, while
uncertainty is never measurable, since not based on rational choice but on opinion.
The association between the entrepreneur and the opportunity of arbitrage is also clear in the
descriptions of Baudeau (17301792). The French economist offers an image of the
entrepreneur as an innovator, who is able to reduce his costs and consequently raises his profits
implementing different innovations.
A more formal model that could fit with the ideas of Cantillon and Knight was realized by
Kihlstrom and Laffont (1979). According to the work of the two scholars the income
distribution among entrepreneurs is influenced by different dimensions such as aversion to risk.
Also Say (1971) introduced the concept of entrepreneur in his Traite dconomie politique,
in early 1800s. In his representation of the economic system, Say identifies the entrepreneurial
activity in the art of superintendence and administration. According to Baumol (1993) in
Says theory the entrepreneur could also be seen as a speculator trying to resell different
products. What differentiate this contribution from the previous ones is that it is no longer the
risk the central aspect of the entrepreneurial function, but managerial skills and other moral
qualities such as judgment and perseverance (Say, 1971).
While much developments have been done by French scholars, not much as been done in
Britain in the 18th century. In his seminal work of 1776, The Wealth of Nations, Smith depicts
the entrepreneur as:
adventurer, since he is in search of hazard;
projector, given that he is able to project and make plans anticipating the future;
undertaker, since he takes wise risks, available for investments if properly

remunerated.
The function of the entrepreneur was conflated with that of the capitalist and profit was
basically regarded as a reward for risking capital. The role of entrepreneur as innovator was
almost ignored in the following work of Ricardo and neoclassical models, because the market
was considered permanently close to the equilibrium and therefore, in case of exogenous
changes, the entrepreneur is called to make new calculations for maximizing his profit.
Nevertheless, after the Industrial Revolution Mill (1848) identified the role of the
entrepreneur in a supervisory activity. To direct an enterprise some qualities are needed:
persons of a degree of acquirement and cultivated intelligenceTheir greater perspicuity
enables them [] to see probabilities of advantage which never occur to the ordinary run of
men by the continued exertion of the whole of theirs [] (Mill, 1848). Among these qualities
the economist underlines superior knowledge and habitual rectitude of perception and
judgment.
Other British economists contribute to the development of a theory of entrepreneurship:
Marshall, Pigou and Edgeworth, differently from the other later neoclassical economists, studied
the entrepreneurial phenomenon. In 1890, Marshall (1930) defined the entrepreneurial function
in providing innovations and consequently progress. It is important to underline how already in
Marshalls formulation not all the business men can be considered entrepreneur in the sense just
expressed. There are in fact business owner who cannot avoid taking risks and other who
follow beaten tracks (Lynskey, 2002). In order to belong to the first group, superintendence is
not enough, but forecasting and leadership are also required (Marshall, 1930). Anyway,
Marshalls entrepreneur is innovative in operative terms, meaning that he innovates for
efficiency more than efficacy, leaving to Schumpeter the possibility to develop his ideas in a
fuller sense.
A contribution that encompasses both the vision of entrepreneur as innovator and as risk
taker has been given by Von Thnen (17831850): he distinguishes the entrepreneur from the
manager underlining that the first take a risk that is unavoidable. Starting from the work of Von
Thnen, Von Mangdolt presented a more specific model to describe the risk taken by the
entrepreneur, making a distinction between production to order and production for the market,
where prices and periods for the economic transaction are uncertain: entrepreneurship is more
related to the latter.
At the end of the 19th century, important developments in the research on these topics came
also from the Austrian School, thanks to the work of relevant authors such as Menger, Von
Mises and Von Wieser. The tradition of the Austrian School was then revitalized by Von Hayek
and Kirzner in the 1930s. It is of great significance to compare these studies to the neo-classical
ones, as they start from an opposite point of view. According to the Austrian perspective, in
fact, the market is far from equilibrium for the effect of ignorance and asymmetric information,
factors never taken into consideration by classical and neoclassical research.
Following this path, Menger (1950), whose theories have been deepened by Von Hayek
(1937), identified the entrepreneurial function in obtaining new information about the economic
situations, especially about the value given to resources in the market. Market exchange occurs
since individuals have different subjective valuations of the same products. Given that, the
entrepreneur must have awareness and a superior ability to understand different phenomena,
rather than an inclination to risk bearing. Von Mises (1949) instead, reinforced the
convincement that the entrepreneur is always a speculator, and put emphasis on the fact that
the entrepreneurial activity consists in taking decisions. Moreover, since every action is
embedded in the flux of time and therefore involves in speculation, he considered every man as
an entrepreneur.
On the other side of the ocean, Knight (1921) was the first American contributor in
entrepreneurship theory. His entrepreneur is one who bears all uncertainty and makes decisions
for which he takes responsibility. His task is in turn rewarded by a wage or rent for his abilities
and payment for bearing uncertainty
All the above-presented contributions convey an idea of the entrepreneur as the first person
in the market able to catch an opportunity of arbitrage. Nothing is said about the relation
between this asymmetry and the role of the entrepreneur. It was Schumpeter (1883 1950) the
first author that identified the role of the entrepreneur in creating these changes and
disequilibrium in the market, through innovation and proactiveness.
3. The contribution of Schumpeter

Schumpeter (1934) saw the entrepreneur as the major agent of economic development,
defined by the "carrying out of new combinations, which in turn means the competitive
elimination of the old. The concept of economic development covers the following five cases:
a) the introduction of a new good or of a new quality of a good;

b) the introduction of a new method of production;
c) the opening of a new market;
d) the conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods;
e) the carrying out of the new organization of any industry.
In his work, Schumpeter conceives the market as a system in equilibrium and

entrepreneurship as the process of disrupting such equilibrium, a way of moving market away
from it.
In order to understand the contribution of Schumpeter to the research in the field it is
important to underline that this kind of innovation comes from resources that already exist in the
market and are already under the control of the entrepreneur. In this sense innovation is not the
consequence of an invention. Invention operates in fact as an exogenous factor as regards to the

economic dynamics. Of course inventions could change the perceived value of some resources,
but this could happen only after their implementation in the ordinary activity of the firms.
Entrepreneurs may be inventors, but the birth of an innovation does not require any invention.
The entrepreneur is not therefore an inventor, but he is not a general capitalist neither: []
we call entrepreneurs not only those 'independent' businessmen in an exchange economy who
are usually so designated, but all who actually fulfil the function by which we define the
concept, even if they are, as is becoming the rule, 'dependent' employees of a company, like
managers, members of boards of directors, and so forth [] (Schumpeter, 1934). Even if this
statement could represent a way to broaden the classical concept of entrepreneur, the definition
of entrepreneurial activity as the carrying out of new combinations implies excluding many
managers from the entrepreneurial category: our concept [] does not include all heads of
firms or managers or industrialists who merely operate in an established business, but only those
who actually perform that function (Schumpeter, 1934).
At this point arises the need to make clarity about the reasons that justify the fact that
entrepreneurs are only a small fraction of the population (Schumpeter, 1942). Why do just a
small group of people pursue these opportunities of profit if all the resources needed are
available in the market? The cause of this paucity of entrepreneurs in the economic system lies
in the effects of innovation: disturbing the status quo requires the overcoming of social and
institutional barriers rooted in the economic systems. The entrepreneur must consequently have
a mental freedom [] that is peculiar and by nature rare (Schumpeter, 1934).
As the work of Schumpeter is wide and covers a long period of studies, those scholars that
have studied it tend to identify two main stages in his theories. These periods are labelled
Schumpeter Mark I and Schumpeter Mark II. This distinction is also maintained in this
paper, as it offers the opportunity to develop interesting considerations on the evolution of the
scholars view.
3.1. Schumpeter Mark I

In the early ideas of Schumpeter two different worlds emerge. The first is the stationary
equilibrium of the market, characterized by symmetric information, economic rationality and no
uncertainty. In such a system, routines and experience play a fundamental role in orienting the
behaviours of different actors. The second world is the one created by the entrepreneur, where
changes are introduced in the circular flow of economy. These changes are the way identified
by the entrepreneur to seek opportunity for profit.
Considering the fact that changing the status quo would mean altering the existing relations
in the market and destroying the pre-existing sources of advantages of incumbent firms (here
emerges the idea of creative destruction), innovations are generally carried out by new firms.
It is of great significance to report Schumpeter on this issue: [] new combinations are, as a
rule, embodied, as it were, in new firms which generally do not arise out of the old ones but
start producing beside them [] (Schumpeter, 1934). However, as mentioned above, resources
needed for the emergence of new firms already exists: [] the new combinations must draw
the necessary means of production from some old combinations []. The carrying out of new
combinations means, therefore, simply the different employment of the economic system's
existing supplies of productive means [] (Schumpeter 1934).
Entrepreneurs appear therefore as new agents using old resources; they are deviant, people
never satisfied by results obtained within the existing, but continuously looking for new
opportunities of growth (Elster, 1983; Santarelli and Pesciarelli, 1990).
Focusing on a longitudinal analysis of the entrepreneurs and the evolution of the general
economic system, it emerges the fact that the status of entrepreneur is temporary. Once the
function of carrying out new combinations has completed, the role of entrepreneur will not last
longer. But the process of creative destruction is incessantly operating and shaping the
economic environment, forcing the different firms to face a competition from the new
commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization [],
competition which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms
but at their foundations and their very lives (Schumpeter, 1942).
In this sense, the creative destruction processes are identified as the driving forces of the
market and in general of the economic development.
3.2. Schumpeter Mark II

Later contributions of Schumpeter reduced the role of the entrepreneur as the agent of
economic development. With the raising importance of large companies, the roots of innovation
were identified in this kind of integrated firms. They could in fact benefit from a larger amount
of financial resources and shared knowledge, key inputs for the processes of innovation.
Areas of uncertainty and potential discovery diminished for the increasing commitment of
big companies toward research. This social function [entrepreneurship] is already losing
importance and is bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in the future even if the economic
process itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went on unabated. For, on the one
hand, it is much easier now than it has been in the past to do things that lie outside familiar
routine - innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Technological progress is increasingly
becoming the business of teams of trained specialists who turn out what is required and make it
work in predictable ways. The romance of earlier commercial adventure is rapidly wearing
away, because so many more things can be strictly calculated that had of old to be visualized in
a flash of genius (Schumpeter, 1942).
The changed position of the scholar is not at all a sign of incongruence, since it reflected the
changes that the economic scenario faced in the 20th century. Combining together the different
views of Schumpeter it is possible to underline some peculiar characteristics of the entrepreneur:
he is who transform inventions in innovations, without any particular reference to any position
in certain organizations or in general in the social context, and independently of social values or
beliefs. His representation as a deviant is only due to a strong need of achievement.
Entrepreneurship is not a profession, nor a lasting condition. The entrepreneur is not just a risk
taker or a capital provider: he is the agent of economic development.
4. Post-Schumpeterian studies in economics

4.1. The contribution of Kirzner
Other relevant studies on entrepreneurship have been carried out by Kirzner (1973). The
Austrian economist suggests that entrepreneurship is the consequence of innovations designed
to exploit the opportunities afforded by economic disequilibrium. He therefore turns upsidedown the Schumpeterian view, conceiving the entrepreneur as an equilibrator agent taking
advantage of disequilibrium.
The work of Kirzner was strongly influenced by the theories of Von Mises. The core concept
underpinning Kirzners dissertation is alertness. This characteristic is the only one that can
capture the essence of entrepreneurship. It consists in a specific type of knowledge: the kind of
'knowledge' required for entrepreneurship is 'knowledge where to look for knowledge'. The
word which captures most closely this kind of 'knowledge' seems to be alertness. [...].
Entrepreneurial knowledge may be described as the 'highest order of knowledge', the ultimate
knowledge needed to harness available information already possessed (or capable of being
discovered) (Kirzner 1973).
The role of the entrepreneur becomes, according to Kirzner, the identification of potential
opportunities that are unexploited. The social function of this individual is also crucial:
exploiting unseen opportunities means reallocating in a more efficient way the resources
available on the market. In this sense the entrepreneur reduces the social waste.
However, the perspectives of Schumpeter and Kirzner can be both accepted if considering
that there are different kind of entrepreneurial processes: the first one, Kirznerian, is oriented to
incremental-continuous innovations, while the second one, Schumpeterian, results in any kind
of innovation, even radical-discontinuous innovation.
The Kirznerian view of the entrepreneurs is on the contrary incompatible with the ones of
those scholars considering the entrepreneur as an arbitrageur. Alertness is in fact a kind of
creative knowledge and does not involve the accumulation of information through experience.
The entrepreneurial knowledge implies creativeness. This factor shapes the nature of
entrepreneurial opportunities that, even if existing objectively in the market, cannot be object of
systematic search (Kirzner, 1997; Salvato, 2003). It is not correct to use the expression
successful search for the entrepreneurial opportunities, while it seems more appropriate to use
the word discovery, a phenomenon that generates a sense of surprise (Kirzner, 1997).
Without the possibility to identify correctly what to search, the entrepreneur is at all time
scanning the horizon, as it were, ready to make discoveries (Kirzner, 1997). This could be the
essence of alertness that does not consist merely in 'seeing' the unfolding of the tapestry of
the future in the sense of seeing a preordained flow of events. Alertness must, importantly,
embrace the awareness of the ways in which the human agent can, by imaginative, bold leaps of
faith, and determination, in fact create the future for which his present acts are designed.
(Kirzner 1982).
Kirzner went beyond these considerations in his studies, giving a particular definition of the
firm, and separating it from the entrepreneur: The firm, then, is not at all the same thing as the
pure entrepreneur. It is that which results after the entrepreneur has completed some
entrepreneurial decision making, specifically the purchase of certain resources (Kirzner, 1973).
4.2. Studies on innovation

Important contributions to the general understanding of entrepreneurial processes have been
given by studies on innovation. Abernathy and Clark (1985) offer a classification of different
types of entrepreneur according to the kind of innovation they introduce. They distinguish
among architectural, revolutionary, niche creation and regular innovations, which are
carried on by entrepreneurial, technologist, marketer and administrator entrepreneurs.
Studies arising from the neo-Schumpeterian tradition offer important concepts to investigate
the entrance of new firm in the market, as the one of dominant design, which relates
innovation to the product life cycle.
One of the most important contributions in this perspective comes from Nelson and Winter
(1982), that in An evolutionary theory of economic change introduced the notion of
technological regime as the main determinant of the intensity of market competition.
Technological regimes are defined by three main characteristics: opportunities, accessibility and
10
cumulativeness. Innovation is therefore presented as the occasion for new firms to enter the
market and to compete with incumbent firms, but these opportunities for growth are structured
by the dominant technology in the market. This idea is also accepted in recent contributions of
Sutton (1998) within the industrial organization field.
Nelson and Winter (1982) focus on the role of technological opportunities and not on profit
opportunities, distinguishing the entrepreneurial regime, which facilitates innovative entry on
the market, from the routinized regime where innovation is generally carried out by
incumbents (Winter, 1984). They viewed firms as stores of knowledge, whose storage is
instilled via organizational routines, defined as regular and predictable behavior patterns.
Innovation occurs when the search activity change routines: if routines are metaphorically
considered as genes, search activities are procedures for mutations.
More recent contributions identify the crucial role played by knowledge in enhancing or
hampering opportunities for entrepreneurship. Malerba and Orsenigo (2002) emphasize the need
to go beyond the important but simple distinction between tacit and codified knowledge. Beside
the concept of technological regimes, the scholars address their research to clarify the domains
of knowledge and knowledge complementarities to understand innovation phenomena. Marsili
(2002) discusses how different types of knowledge can be a source or an obstacle to
entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial process under this perspective is not influenced by the
traits of the individuals or by the presence of imperfections in the market system, but from the
technological scenario and the complexity of the knowledge needed to cope with it. The extent
to which technologies creates opportunities for entrepreneurship as opposed to strengthening
opportunities for incumbents growth depends on the nature of the underlying knowledge
(Marsili, 2002).
5. Non economic studies on entrepreneurship

Beside the contributions from economic history and anthropology, which will not be object
of analysis in this paper, much research on entrepreneurship has been carried on within the
fields of sociology and psychology, all of them looking for the main traits of the entrepreneur.
Within the former, we remember the studies of Weber (1947), Gerschenkron (1965) and
Granovetter (1995); within the latter we mention McClelland (1961), Hornaday and Aboud
(1971), Timmons (1978) and Sexton (1980).
The thought of Weber on entrepreneurship is very complex (Swedberg, 2000). The first
important concept in his studies is the idea of charismatic authority, that is seen as the engine
11
of evolutionary processes for its tendency to overcome routines and standards. Charismatic
authority is [...] outside the realm of everyday routine and the profane sphere. In this respect it is
sharply opposed both to rational and particularly bureaucratic, authority, and to traditional
authority, whether in its patriarchal, patrimonial, or any other form. Both rational and traditional
authority are specifically forms of everyday routine control of action; while the charismatic type
is the direct antithesis of this. Bureaucratic authority is specifically rational in the sense of being
bound to intellectually analyzable rules; while charismatic authority is specifically irrational in
the sense of being foreign to all rules. Traditional authority is bound to the precedents handed
down from the past and to this extent is also oriented to rules. Within the sphere of its claims,
charismatic authority repudiates the past, and is in this sense a specifically revolutionary force
(Weber 1947). From these sentences it clearly appears how the entrepreneur described in the
economic literature is close to this actor, especially in the Schumpeterian view.
This first assumption started losing its importance with the emergence of the capitalist
economy, where economic change is mainly due to enterprises being geared to profit
opportunities in the market (Swedberg, 2000). Later contributions by Weber highlighted how
this orientation toward profit could be rooted in the social values of a society. He has especially
referred to religion, considering the changes of attitude towards business and industry carried by
Calvinism and some sects of Christians. Webers idea was that the impact of religious beliefs
was stronger on the believer at the beginning, and then extended at the whole community. Once
absorbed by the whole society, the link between religion and economy loses its intensity. This
vision could be criticized: how do we explain the fact that between the same community not
everyone is an entrepreneur? Probably social and religious beliefs can influence the orientation
to entrepreneurship, but explaining economic development only with these dimensions could be
reductive.
Similarly, the work of Hofstede (1980, 1991), Trompenaars (1994), and Whitley (1992,
1999), has helped to better understand socio-culturally based comparisons of business behavior
and different business systems in contemporary settings.
Gerschenkron (1965) described industrialization phenomena as historical processes that
represent the ground of contemporary entrepreneurship. Under this perspective it is clear how
relevant is the role of the social evolution to determine the development of entrepreneurship.
If this view seems to present the entrepreneurial phenomenon as belonging to the culture and
the tradition of certain communities, there are also scholars who focus on considering the
entrepreneurs as deviants in anti-entrepreneurial cultures. Different studies evidenced the fact
that in countries where the prevalent values are not supportive of entrepreneurial activity,
someone who is relatively outside of the social system may have a particular advantage in
12
entering an entrepreneurial activity. The restraints upon entrepreneurial activity imposed by the
network would be less effective against such a person. Thus, an immigrant may be outside of
many of the networks of the nation and freer to engage in entrepreneurial activity (Kriesberg,
stated in Lipset, 1988).
Different empirical studies confirm the considerations just presented. Studying Mexicos
development, Vernon (1963) found that out of 109 major executives, 26 have foreign paternal
grandfathers, while among the 32 outstanding leaders, 14 reported a foreign paternal
grandfather. Moreover, the half of prestigious entrepreneur in Argentina was foreign born.
Briones (1963) studied 46 out of the 113 establishment in Santiago (Chile), finding that at the
highest levels of these factories there were immigrants or sons of immigrants. Similar patterns
were found in other less developed areas, such as sub-Saharian Africa and India.
Such a creative role of the so-called deviant constitute the premise for the birth of the
concept of marginal men, individuals that are not so committed to the established values of
larger order. Hence men of this sort are more likely to be receptive to possibilities for change
(Lipset, 1988).
Another important area of great interest for sociological studies on entrepreneurship is the
role of networks. Granovetter (1995) argues that an environment that affords profits is not a
sufficient condition for firm survival, but it is more important to consider the social structure
within which individuals and groups try to construct it. More specifically, he assumes that social
phenomena as trust and solidarity are unavoidable conditions for the birth of small scale
enterprises. Burt (1992) identified a nexus between networks and entrepreneurship,
conceptualizing the entrepreneurial process as a way of connecting two networks. Waldingers
perspective could be considered as a link between the role of deviants and the concept of
networks. In his Theory of immigrant enterprise (1986), he identifies an important
entrepreneurial resource for minority groups in the strong and close social ties.
Between the studies of sociology and psychology it is possible to position the work of
McClelland (1961). The well known scholar tried to understand why a greater number of
entrepreneurs seem to emerge from specific societies. Trying to answer to this question he
focused on childhood experiences that could reinforce the need of achievement in the
individual. Hagan (1962) concluded that entrepreneurs tend to come from groups that suffer
from status withdrawal, similarly for certain aspects to the interpretation of the marginal man.
Many are also the attempts made to conceptualize entrepreneurship through psychological
models. Sutton (1954) identified the desire for responsibility as the key characteristic for the
entrepreneur; Davids (1963) focused on ambition, desire for independence, responsibility and
self confidence; Palmer (1971) used the expression risk measurement; Hornaday and Aboud
13
(1971) underlined need of achievement, autonomy, aggression, power, recognition and

innovation as core aspects to define an entrepreneurial profile; Winter (1973) highlighted the
need for power of the entrepreneurs, while Borland (1974) used the words internal locus of
control; Gasse (1977) indicates personal value orientation; Timmons (1978) defines the
entrepreneur as 1) self confident, 2) goal oriented, 3) moderated risk taker, 4) creative and
innovator and 5) with internal locus of control; Sexton (1980) used the adjectives energetic,
ambitious and underlined the positive reaction to setbacks that distinguish the entrepreneur;
Welsh and White (1981) identified need to control, responsibilities seeking and challenge
taking; Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982) see the entrepreneur as oriented to growth and
independence.
6. Management studies on entrepreneurship

6.1. Entrepreneurship and organization
The entrepreneurship field as conceived nowadays was born when Vesper organized a
special entrepreneurship interest group of the Academy of Management's Business Policy
Division in 1974. Entrepreneurship research progressively moved from the study of the
individual traits to the features of the entrepreneurial organization, conceiving entrepreneurship
as a managerial style (Morris & Kuratko, 2002).
For many years entrepreneurship and organizations seemed to have no contacts with
reference to their area of research: organizations are typically slow to change and tend to be
risk averse (Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985), while entrepreneurship is about change and could
arises from situation of uncertainties. Until recent years the relationship between the
entrepreneur and the firm has never been clear: entrepreneurial theories has in fact failed for a
long time in distinguishing the two concepts (Casson, 1982).
Austrian economists, in fact, entirely fudged this issue, while those scholars who indicate
supervision as the entrepreneurial function implicitly conceive the firm as an organization that
could be governed just by one individual. Another problem in the literature was the tendency to
suppose the presence of just one entrepreneur for each firm (Casson, 1982). All these visions
seem to be incomplete looking at the emergence of large scale integrated companies and
multinationals, where operations become complex and not controllable by just one individual.
However, recent literature starts offering possible integrative conceptualization in order to
entail both entrepreneurship and organization. There is a dichotomy in the literature within this
issue: entrepreneurship is seen alternatively as a behavioral aspect of individuals or as a quality
of the organization (Lynskey, 2002).
14
In the first case it is possible to identify the birth of entrepreneurial processes in established
firms for the action carried out by managers to seize new opportunities. In this sense it possible
to accept the idea of corporate entrepreneurship (Burgelman, 1983) that some years ago could
have sound like an oxymoron (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990). Other definitions taken from the
literature that confirm the possible integration between managerial aspects and entrepreneurship
are: intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985), entrepreneurial management (Stevenson, Jarillo,
1990; Micheal, Storey, Thomas, 2002), entrepreneurial strategy (Murray, 1984) and strategic
entrepreneurship (Hitt, Ireland, Camp and Sexton, 2002).
When trying to define entrepreneurship as a characteristic of the organization, instead, it
emerges that the entrepreneurial organization is far from the bureaucratic and mechanistic firm,
as it is flexible and adaptable (Birch, 1987).
We agree with Lynskey (2002) when he states that the positions mentioned above are not
mutually exclusive. It is reasonable to think that each one of the dimensions presented can
influence the other. Entrepreneurship at a firm level cannot leave individual characteristics
apart, as it is evident that certain aspects of the organization can enlarge or revitalize
individuals orientation to innovation and growth. At the same time cross cultural studies
(McGrath and MacMillan, 1992) underline the existence of a common set of beliefs that
characterize entrepreneurs perceptions about others in the society even in culturally different
countries: this personal viewpoints can be at the base of entrepreneurial activity, confirming the
importance of individual characteristic.
Instead, a more relevant issue is the optimum size of the firm for inducing entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial firms are often depicted as small sized, leading to the so-called entrepreneurial
paradox: entrepreneurship leads small firms to growth and high performance, and once grown,
their management systems choke entrepreneurship affecting performance.
However literature has always highlighted the existence of a trade-off between the
dimensions of the firm and its entrepreneurial orientation. Already the evolution of
Schumpeterian thoughts underlines the tendency to depersonalization and bureaucratization in
economies. The development of large companies squeezed the role of the entrepreneur at the
margin of the economic activities, reducing the opportunities to carry on change in the market.
Weber (1930) as well identified bureaucratization as major agent of the flattening of economy,
while Chandler (1962) underscored that clearly wherever entrepreneurs act like managers,
wherever they concentrate on short term activities to the exclusion or to the detriment of long
range planning, appraisal, and coordination, they have failed to carry out effectively their role in
the economy as well as in their enterprise (Chandler, 1962). This clear distinction between
entrepreneurs and managers is also evident in the words of McGrath and MacMillan (2000):
15
What distinguishes [entrepreneurial] leaders who are capable of sustained and significant
business revitalization from other managers is their personal practices on the job. These
practices fall into three broad categories: [1] practices that set the work climate, [2] practices
that orchestrate the process of seeking and realizing opportunities to grow the business and, and
[3] hands-on practices that involve problem solving with the people at work on a particular
venture.
In most of the literature the decline of the entrepreneurial function along the process of firm
growth was understood. Here stands the reason why entrepreneurship is often considered as a
phenomenon that takes place just in start-up businesses. Objectives along the evolutionary
process of firms are different: leaders of dawning enterprises need to focus their activity on
opportunity seeking (Drucker, 1985) and must therefore represent the Weberian charismatic
leader, while managerial role in established companies is oriented to the maintenance of the
existing situations (Smith et al, 1985). Kanter (1983) draws attention to defined structures,
that do not exist for innovative organization.
Anyway recently the entrepreneurial phenomenon has been studied not only in relation to
emerging ventures (Ucbasaran, Westhead and Wright, 2001), but also to corporate ventures
(McGrath, Venkataraman and MacMillan, 1994), franchising (Shane, 1996) and the growth of
family firms (Church, 1993). Therefore many scholars have better investigated the nexus
between organizational characteristics and firm-level entrepreneurship (Covin and Slevin, 1991;
Zahra, 1993).
Many studies confirm the idea of a strong relationship between the type of organization and
its orientation toward entrepreneurship. Structural and contextual aspects that can influence
entrepreneurial processes in established firms were distinguished by Daft (1992). Within the
first group he identifies all aspects that can indicate the mechanistic functioning of the
organization, such as centralization, specialization, formalization and hierarchy. Among
relevant contextual dimensions he mentions culture, strategy, technology and environment.
If specialization seems to be positively correlated to entrepreneurial processes (Thompson,
1965; Hage and Aiken, 1970) as it implies expertise shared in the organization (Daft, 1992;
Hall, 1996), other structural factors influence entrepreneurship in a different way. A minimum
level of formalization, hierarchy and centralization is a need to stimulate entrepreneurial
processes, but if these characteristics start playing a pervasive role, they can discourage
creativity and free thought.
Among contextual factors that influence entrepreneurship at a firm-level much attention has
been given to the environment. Scholars tend to agree on the fact that environmental hostility is
positively correlated to the search for innovation. Dess and Beard (1984) define environmental
16
hostility as the sum of four aspects: 1) high competitive intensity; 2) paucity of readily
exploitable market opportunities; 3) strong uncertainty; 4) vulnerability to exogenous factors
not under the control of the firm. Stopford and Baden-Fuller (1994) link the birth of a new
opportunity to environmental threats; Covin and Slevin (1989) identify a correlation between
firm performance in hostile environment and entrepreneurial orientation. Miller and Friesen
(1983) indicate also market heterogeneity as determinant of market opportunities; and Zahra and
Covin (1995) found how entrepreneurship is crucial in this kind of environments. Another
important factor that is essential in promoting entrepreneurial processes is organizational
culture, as there are some of its components that influence innovation. Among them we mention
mission (Drucker, 1985; Hall, 1996), ethics (Daft, 1992) and social capital (Coleman, 1988).
Eminent studies (Shane, Venkataraman, MacMillan, 1995) focused instead on how the national
culture can influence the national preference for innovation championing strategies, determining
the intensity and power of routines and norms.
According to the above mentioned studies, entrepreneurship cannot be seen as exclusively
related to individual characteristics, but organization can play a crucial role in the process of
discovery of new opportunities, as confirmed by Stevenson and Jarillo (1990):
Entrepreneurship is a process by which individuals either on their own or inside
organizations pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control
(Stevenson and Jarillo 1990).
If this definition does not consider firm size as crucial to the topic, also the definition
commonly recognized as the best for entrepreneurship does the same: The scholarly
examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and
services are discovered, evaluated and exploited. Consequently, the field involves the study of
sources of opportunities and the process of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of
opportunities. It also includes the set of individuals who discover, evaluate and exploit them
(Shane and Venkatamaran, 2000). The removal of what has been presented in the literature
under the label entrepreneurial paradox could help in creating the space for communication
between entrepreneurship and management. Accepting the idea that entrepreneurship is a
phenomenon that goes beyond the individual level, producing outcome at the organizational
level and even in the wider social context, reveals the fact that studies of the two disciplines
share several dimensions of interest.
6.2. Entrepreneurship and management

Since the work of Schumpeter, managers were described as individuals different form
entrepreneurs. We have seen that, normally, the modern businessman, whether entrepreneur or
17
mere managing administrator, is of the executive type. From the logic of his position he
acquires something of the psychology of the salaried employee working in a bureaucratic
organization (Schumpeter, 1942). Chandler made as well a clear distinction between the two
roles: The executives who actually allocate available resources are then the key men in any
enterprise. Because of their critical role in the modern economy, they will be defined in this
study as entrepreneurs. In contrast, those who coordinate, appraise, and plan within the means
allocated to them will be termed managers. So entrepreneurial decisions and actions will refer to
those which affect the allocation or reallocation of resources for the enterprise as a whole, and
operating decisions and actions will refer to those which are carried out by using the resources
already allocated (Chandler, 1962).
On the bases of these differences, many studies have been carried out with the aim of
clarifying the psychological aspects that distinguish the two categories. Beside a different level
of risk aversion (McGrath et al, 1992; Amilhud and Lev, 1981), social behavioural aspects have
been taken into considerations (Pettigrew, 1973; Shapero, 1975; Ginsberg and Buchholtz,
1989). After all these analysis, however, psychological differences are nowadays considered
minor or nonexistent (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986; Low and MacMillan, 1988).
Notwithstanding these evidences risk-taking propensity is still considered fundamental in
understanding entrepreneurial processes (Lynskey, 2002).
Anyway failures of these researches have generated the need to explain the entrepreneurial
phenomena under alternative perspectives and reinforced the process of overcoming the
separation between management and entrepreneurship. One of the fields that seems more likely
to generate cross-fertilization processes in understanding entrepreneurship is strategic
management. The growth in the connection between the two disciplines is witnessed by the
increasing presence of entrepreneurship studies in Strategy journal and among management
researchers (Meyer and Heppard, 2000; Zahra and Dess, 2001).
Of course, we must take into consideration that theories taken by strategic managements
studies are unlikely to offer a complete theory of entrepreneurship. At the same time, the
domain of strategic management does not comprise all topics that interest entrepreneurship
scholars (Sandberg, 1992).
Classifying the entrepreneurial phenomena on the base of the role played by an existing
organization highlights how the relationship with the strategic management field could show
different intensity. New venture creation belongs to independent entrepreneurship, while within
the field of corporate entrepreneurship (the domain of research that is in common between the
discipline) it is possible to distinguish venturing (internal and external) and strategic
renewal (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). Schendel and Hofer (1979) strengthened the link
18
between the two fields, defining strategic management as a process that deals with the
entrepreneurial work of the organization.
Comparing the definitions of entrepreneurship gathered by Gartners (1990) panel with
Mintzbergs taxonomy (1998) of strategic managements main contributions, Sandberg (1992)
identifies areas where entrepreneurship could benefit from strategic management studies. These
are: 1) new business creation; 2) innovation; 3) opportunity seeking; 4) risk assumption; 5) top
management teams; 6) group processes in strategic decision.
The idea of Strategic Entrepreneurship (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, Sexton, 2002) also offers an
important starting point in establishing links between the two subjects. Surviving in the long
term for a firm implies two actions: the strategic action, that is focused in developing the
current competitive advantage, and an entrepreneurial action oriented to the continuous
research of new opportunities (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, Sexton, 2001).
The independence of entrepreneurship from specific kinds of organization and context is also
evident in the thought of Drucker (1985). The author identifies seven sources of business
innovation, which are: unexpected occurrences, incongruities, process needs, industry and
market changes, demographic changes, changes in perception and new knowledge. It clearly
appears how entrepreneurship could spring at different levels, from individual to the social
contest in the widest sense.
Davidsson (2003) identifies three areas where management research can contribute to
entrepreneurship scholarly domain: 1) the organizational characteristics and managerial
practices that foster opportunity discovery end exploitation; 2) the management of innovation,
that present overlapping areas with entrepreneurship (Van de Ven et al, 1989; Van de Ven,
Polley, Garud and Venkataraman, 1999); 3) the relation between venturing and firm
performance. The scholar also points out which could be the obstacles in such a crossfertilization, due to differences with the perspective of managements studies: organization are
assumed as existing and not emerging; there is less attention to social level outcome; possible
bias against failure.
Other important perceived links between entrepreneurship and strategic management could
be understood reading the different definition of entrepreneurship at a firm level present in the
literature, as reviewed by Sharma and Chrisman (1999). The theme of organizational learning,
that is acquiring increasing relevance to strategic management, seems to lay just between the
two fields of research. Chung & Gibbons (1997) define corporate entrepreneurship as an
organizational process for transforming individual ideas into collective actions through the
management of uncertainties. Covin & Slevin (1991) state that Corporate entrepreneurship
involves extending the firms domain of competence and corresponding opportunity set through
19
internally generated new resource combinations. Zahra (1995, 1996) states that it also means
building or acquiring new capabilities and then creatively leveraging them to add value for
shareholders; moreover he writes that renewal has many facets, including the redefinition of
the business concept, reorganization and the introduction of system-wide changes for
innovation.
The last issue that emerges as crucial link between entrepreneurship and strategic
management is culture. In this sense, it is significant the work made by Stevenson and Gumpert
(1985), which consider corporate entrepreneurship as something beyond both individuals and
organizations, rooted in the culture of firms. Therefore the scholars distinguish the
administrative culture from the entrepreneurial one, on the basis of the following aspects:
strategic orientation; commitment to seize opportunities; commitment of resources; control of
resources; management structure.
As stated above, even if strategic management could offer relevant contributes to the field of
entrepreneurship, it cannot satisfy all the need of the research. The same consideration is valid
with reference to the other disciplines that have put interest in the topic. Therefore it is crucial
for the development of the research that entrepreneurship become a legitimated field of inquiry.
6.3. The Italian studies

After having presented the main steps that characterized the evolution of the field of
entrepreneurship, we present the Italian studies on the phenomenon emerged within the
management and organization discipline. Even if not clearly defined, entrepreneurship seems in
fact to be a crucial field of study in many eminent contributions.
Entrepreneurship has not been developed as an independent field of research in the Italian
literature. Although this situation could be interpreted as a lack of interests in the subject,
reasons that could explain it bring to the opposite conclusion. Entrepreneurial function in Italian
studies, in fact, is conceived as a multi-functional process. It does not entail only the carrying
out of innovation in the market or risk-taking, but the whole management of the firm. Under this
perspective the Italian view of entrepreneurship is consistent with the ideas of Cole (1959).
As resulting from a complex nexus of decisions, the entrepreneurial function is not embodied
in only one person. Zappa (1957) states that the entrepreneur results from different individuals:
he is not a specific individual, but an abstract set of roles. Zappa conceives the entrepreneur as
an entity that is difficult to identify for the emergence of large and articulated companies.
The same conceptual background is shown by other eminent Italian scholars. Masini (1979)
considers entrepreneurship as distributed among all the subjects involved in the economic
direction and management of the firm. Amaduzzi (1969) and Onida (1975) highlight that only in
20
small firms entrepreneurship can be identified in just one person, confirming the point of view
of Zappa.
These considerations share the need to move away from perspectives that link
entrepreneurship to individual characteristics. Entrepreneurship is in fact more connected to the
general strategy of the firm and its development, and it is in this direction that new theories have
been developed (Corno, 1989).
One of the most relevant contributions comes from Coda (1984, 1988). The scholar
differentiates the entrepreneurial success from the wider spectrum of occasions for profit. The
essence of entrepreneurship is building and reinforcing the vitality of the firm for its economical
functionality in the long run. In order to satisfy this need it is crucial the meeting of all the
stakeholders needs, both in the economic and in the social environment. Given such a
perspective according to which the firm is oriented to the long run, a successful entrepreneurial
formula is a cyclical model, where current success can reinforce future performance in an autogenerating schema. The scholar also points out that the key resource in developing this attitude
is made up of the people that compose the organization.
As a consequence of this research evolution, the most important contributions in Italian
literature on entrepreneurship belong to management studies and focus on corporate
entrepreneurship more than on independent entrepreneurship. Invernizzi, Molteni and Sinatra
(1988) focus their analysis on the concept of internal entrepreneurship. This idea is rooted in
definitions already existing in the literature, as the one of Vesper (1980) and Roberts (1968), but
is also referred to the meaning of Intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985) and Internal corporate
ventures strategies (Berry and Roberts, 1985). The three Italian scholars consider internal
entrepreneurship as the crucial determinant of success in the current competitive landscape,
where instabilities force the firms to continuously introduce innovations. As a matter of facts,
internal entrepreneurship is a path of development that tends to generate new activities bringing
out the value of competencies of the firm (Invernizzi, Molteni and Sinatra, 1988). The main
dimensions identified as determinant of entrepreneurial processes within existing organization
are both contextual and processual. Contextual variables are connected to the environmental
context (under the technological and competitive perspective) and to some aspect of the firm
and its strategy. Among other factors are especially relevant the choices about where, why
and how the company should build its strategy, the strength of its orientation toward change,
the organizational strategy and the hierarchical structure.
Brugnoli (1990) focuses his work on the identification of a set of possible matrixes that
could determine the birth of new entrepreneurial opportunity, within both corporate and
independent entrepreneurship processes. In his analysis he identifies three perspectives that have
21
studied the phenomenon: a) psychological, that separates the entrepreneur from the
entrepreneurial opportunity; b) cultural, where the determinant of entrepreneurial processes is
the presence of a certain set of beliefs in the culture of the individuals; c) relational, based on
theory of the population ecology. Sources of entrepreneurial activities are therefore the
individuals with their characteristics and experiences, but also firms, the local network,
universities, centres of research and the family.
Invernizzi, Molteni and Corbetta (1990) distinguish the entrepreneurial function from the
managerial one: the former concerns the research of a new strategic paradigm, while the latter is
about efficiency and effectiveness. The main idea of their study is that it is possible to join these
two functions toward an entrepreneurial management, where all the managerial resources are
addressed to the promotion of vitality and durability in the long term of the firm. Strategies that
emphasize the adoption of entrepreneurial management are: 1) internal development; 2) internal
ventures; 3) joint venture; 4) new style joint ventures or alliances; 5) acquisition; 6) venture
capital; 7) educational acquisition; 8) other strategies as licensing, franchising and spin-off
(Invernizzi, Molteni and Corbetta 1990).
Invernizzi (1993) explicitly focuses his attention on corporate entrepreneurship, where
entrepreneurship is considered as the ability of conceiving, elaborating and realizing an
innovative entrepreneurial synthesis. Such a synthesis must entails three aspects coherently
linked between each other:
1. the perceived needs of potential customers;

2. the product/service system offered to satisfy these needs;
3. the resources and competencies that need to be organized and developed to sustain
the idea.
The scholar, consistently with other contributors, identifies contextual factors that stimulate
entrepreneurial processes. Beside a cultural and social context, Invernizzi considers strategic
and organizational context, especially focusing on the systems of resource allocation, reward
and accounting. Common characteristics for all these three areas are orientation to new
activities, tolerance for errors and focus on long term objectives.
Another contribution of great significance is represented by the analysis of Sorrentino
(1996), who suggests internal entrepreneurship as the best way to foster innovation within
existing organization. The scholar demonstrates how internal entrepreneurship can overcome all
the obstacles that characterize the relations ruled by a contract of agency and therefore it is
suitable in stimulating innovation in the firm. Sorrentino also emphasizes the circular nature of
22
entrepreneurial processes, highlighting how every effort for change enforces the innovative
capacity of the company.
More recently, Salvato (2003) has presented a deep analysis of the processes through which
entrepreneurial opportunities come to existence, are identified and spotted within organizations.
Given the objective existence of opportunities and their relevance, the entrepreneurial processes
are analyzed at both individual and organizational level, underlining the organizational factors
and capabilities that enhance companies to pursuing continuous innovation.
7. Towards a legitimated field of inquiry

7.1. Building a framework for entrepreneurship studies
Despite a strong common attention in entrepreneurship, the academic legitimacy of the field
is still modest (Low, 2001). This could be due first of all to a lack of a clear and unique
definition of the term entrepreneurship itself. Several analyses of the entrepreneurship literature
reveal that researchers have too often developed their own definition of the concept without
building on the work of the others, so that entrepreneurship became a wide label under which
broad array o research efforts are housed (Shane and Venkatamaran, 2000). The term has been
used for more than two centuries, but scholars continue to extend, reinterpret and revise the
definition. (Bull and Willard, 1993; 1995). Such a variety of definitions is due on one hand to
the complex nature of the phenomenon, and on the other hand to the fact that they have been
provided by researchers operating in heterogeneous fields (economics, sociology, finance,
history, psychology, anthropology) with divergent terms of reference and purposes. Here you
find some of the most contributing definitions arisen in the last 2 decades:
"An act of innovation that involves endowing existing resources with new wealth producing
capacity" (Drucker, 1985)
The emergence of new organizations (Gartner, 1988)
A process by which individuals pursue opportunities without regard to the resource they
currently control (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990)
"The process through which individuals and teams create value by bringing together unique
packages of resource inputs to exploit opportunities in the environment" (Morris, 1998)
"Acts of organizational creation, renewal, or innovation that occur within or outside an
existing organization" (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999)
23
As you can see even in such a short list, they differ in many respects. Divergences in focus
are evident along dimensions as: individuals vs. organization; process vs. content. All this
conflicting definitions have been resolved by Shane and Venkatamarans definition, recognized
as the best attempt to define entrepreneurship as scholarly domain: The scholarly examination
of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are
discovered, evaluated and exploited. Consequently, the field involves the study of sources of
opportunities and the process of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities. It also
includes the set of individuals who discover, evaluate and exploit them (Shane and
Venkatamaran, 2000). The research focus has shifted from the entrepreneur to the
entrepreneurial process, and many efforts have been done in studying how organizations can be
organized for enhancing the entrepreneurial spirit.
Within such a perspective, the centrality of knowledge in the entrepreneurship process seems
to be commonly accepted.
New knowledge is one of the main sources of entrepreneurial opportunities, beside

unexpected occurrences, incongruities, process needs, industry and market changes,
demographic changes and changes in perception (Drucker, 1985).
Entrepreneurial opportunities are seen as existing because different economic agents

have different beliefs about the relative value of resources, given the potential to
transform them into a different state. In turn, these different beliefs depend on
asymmetries of knowledge available to economic agents, and on their different abilities
to recognize the value of new knowledge, assimilate it and apply it to processes of
innovation (Shane and Venkatamaran, 2000). Knowledge is therefore at the core of the
opportunity recognition process.
Opportunity exploitation consists in combining existing and new resources and

competencies. Knowledge is then a component of the recombination activity.
Moreover, the exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities requires knowledge not
only as object of the recombination process, but also as engine of it, as capability to run
the recombination process itself.
This knowledge-based perspective seems to be the most adequate one for the development of
a theory of entrepreneurship, no matter the subject of the entrepreneurial activity (individuals or
organization). It represents the ideal way to let strategic management cross-fertilize
entrepreneurship studies: the knowledge-based perspective of the firm, conceiving companies as
24
bundles of information and competencies (Grant, 1996), derives from the well established
dynamic capabilities approach which has been prevailing in the study of strategy formulation.
After a debate that has seen the participation of several well known scholars (Zahra and
Dess, 2001; Singh, 2001; Erikson, 2001; Shane and Venkataraman, 2001) Shane and
Venkataraman (2001) affirmed the need for explicitly including outcome within the core issues
in entrepreneurship research. We have no qualms about adding outcomes of exploiting
opportunities to the domain of the field. However [] we suggest that not only should
outcomes for entrepreneurs or firms be included [] but that outcomes for industries and
societies should be considered as well. [] We argue that individuals and opportunities are the
first order forces explaining entrepreneurship and that environmental forces are second order.
While environmental forces might moderate the effects of individuals and opportunities, they
alone cannot explain it (Shane and Venkataraman, 2001).
The issue of outcomes is at the core of the quest for a clear definition of the entrepreneurship
research boundaries. As already mentioned, Davidsson (2003) proposes a three-level definition
of entrepreneurship, which distinguishes the field of inquiry from the social phenomenon and
the teaching subject. What distinguishes the three definitions is just the level of outcome taken
into consideration.
Given that Shane and Venkatamarans definition is considered the best attempt to define
entrepreneurship as scholarly domain, Davidsson (2003) gives two definitions for
entrepreneurship as social phenomenon and teaching subjects, considering a narrower level of
outcome.
Considering entrepreneurship as a social phenomenon means focusing on the social impact
of entrepreneurial processes, therefore including all the re-combinations of resources that drive
the market to equilibrium, and so to improved use of resources in the economic system as a
whole (Davidsson, 2003). In order to be defined as entrepreneurial, the new economic activity
must bring positive outcomes on the societal level, no matter the positive or negative
performances at venture level. This definition is consistent with Kirzners one, according to
which entrepreneurship is the competitive behaviour that drive the market process (Kirzner,
1973), with Gartners (1988) emergence of new organization and the new entry of Lumpkin
& Dess (1996).
Finally entrepreneurship as teaching subject can be defined as the study of how opportunity
to create future goods and services can be successfully discovered and exploited (Davidsson,
2003). Therefore in this perspective is natural to focus only on successful outcomes on the
micro level. In this case purpose and motivation, skill or expertise expectations of gain for self
are of central interest, even if not necessary ingredients of entrepreneurship as societal
25
phenomenon or scholarly domain (Bull & Willard, 1993; Cole 1949; Fiet 2002; Gartner, 1990;
Hisrisch & Peters, 1989).
7.2. Entrepreneurship and the disciplines

We believe that making clarity about the definition of entrepreneurship is the first step to
address the research in the field to legitimization. Once defined a concept of entrepreneurship
that all scholars could share and having stated that entrepreneurship can be a distinct domain of
research, it is necessary to clear the position of the discipline among the others.
Low (2001) identifies four different strategies for future entrepreneurship research. The first
relegates entrepreneurship research to the role of facilitating the functions of new enterprises
through teaching support, without trying to explain the phenomenon. It would mean aiming at
just integrating the results of research in other fields and transfer them to the community,
abandoning the goal of an academic legitimating.
The second way that entrepreneurship researchers can take is to consider the subject as a
potpourri, that means leaving the situation as it is. Even if this situation could attract many
contributors, it will imply reducing the legitimization of the research that will still not get its
clear direction. A third solution would be letting entrepreneurship research belonging in the
disciplines. According to this view, there is no need for a theory of entrepreneurship, as it
should be investigated from multiple perspectives, but the need for theory in economics,
marketing, strategic management to address the various aspects of entrepreneurship. Even if
interesting and coherent with the multidisciplinary nature of the entrepreneurial phenomenon,
this idea cannot be completely accepted. It is possible that such a research method would create
some blank areas in the entrepreneurial processes that are not explained by any discipline as of
interest of none of them. Adopting such a strategy will create a lack of community, avoiding
dialogues to foster the development of the research. The last strategy consists in creating
entrepreneurship as a distinctive field of research.
Even if in this paper we have identified this last methodological choice as the most suitable
to the needs of scholars, we agree with Low (2001) and Davidsson (2003) when state that this is
not a solution viable in isolation. Entrepreneurship can and should search contacts with other
disciplines which, in turn, should encourage research on entrepreneurial phenomena. Following
this agenda would bring entrepreneurship to legitimacy and the other disciplines to benefit from
clear definition of entrepreneurship main dimensions
As already stressed, many contributions could be offered by research on strategic
management, which shares with entrepreneurship the interest in the micro-level and the
familiarity with the heterogeneity. It can contribute to entrepreneurship in several ways: the
26
investigation of the organizational characteristics and management practices to foster discovery

and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities; the management of innovation; the study the
relation between firms quantity/quality of new venturing and firm performance.
Economists can explain why opportunities come into existence and how entrepreneurial
efforts are influenced by reward structures (Baumol, 1990, 1993); an economic approach suits
the investigation of the environmental aspects of entrepreneurship and the micro-to-macro
linkages about entrepreneurial outcomes. (Acs, Carlsson and Karlsson, 1999; Vennekers, Thurik
and Buis, 1997). Moreover entrepreneurship can learn from economics its theory-driveness,
deduction of hypothesis, stringency of concepts, demand on internal consistency and clarity of
exposition.
Psychology (especially the fast growing cognitive branch of the discipline) could explain
why certain individuals pursue opportunities and not others, describing crucial dimensions both
in the phases of opportunity discovery and evaluation. Of course psychological analysis will
focus on the entrepreneur, while less could be explained under this perspective about other
aspects of the process.
Sociology can offer important instruments to understand entrepreneurship, as it focus on
macro level aggregated aspects, and can be the best perspective to study ethnic and cultural
aspects of the phenomena. Geography can enrich entrepreneurial research too, for reasons
similar to the ones stated for sociology.
History could help in marking out opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2001), but
retrospective analysis often used in historical method does not fit to entrepreneurship research
needs.
All the considerations emerged so far constitute the premises of future research. Only after a
clear conceptualization of a common perspective of study for entrepreneurial phenomena it is
possible to identify topics of interests and to address research efforts in a coherent way.
7.3. Main issues in future research

The evolution of the field is very complex. It was shown how entrepreneurship was
conceived in many different ways and under many perspectives. Nowadays, while the discipline
is moving toward academic legitimization, it is time to check the advancements of the studies.
After having removed the entrepreneurial paradox and found a clear definition, it has been
possible to identify all the themes relevant to the field. Are therefore important the analysis
made by Ucbasaran, Westhead and Wright (2001). The scholars identify the main issues in
entrepreneurship and call for research on the definition of the processes occurring between
them. Important issues emphasized are (figure 2):
27
1. theoretical antecedents;
2. types of entrepreneurs;
3. the entrepreneurial process;
4. types of organizations;
5. external environment for entrepreneurship;
6. outcomes.
Regarding entrepreneurship theory, the three scholars underline that studies have moved
coherently to what described in the present paper from focusing on entrepreneurial personality
to behavioral and cognitive aspects. Up to now, studies on types of entrepreneurs have
identified four categories of individuals: nascent, novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs, but
entrepreneurial teams and entrepreneurs involved in more than one venture are becoming
interesting topics of discussion. The entrepreneurial process entails two important dimensions:
the first is the recognition of opportunity, while the second is the acquisition of resources and
the formulation of a business strategy. Regarding organizational forms the scholars put
emphasis on four main alternatives: Corporate Venturing, Management Buy-Outs and Buy-Ins,
Franchising and Family Firms. According to Ucbasarans model the environmental forces that
influence entrepreneurial behavior are still not explored, and therefore more studies are called.
Outcomes, as already stated, can be considered under many perspectives and different levels;
the prevailing studies present in the literature are objective, while there is still space for
subjective evaluations, considering expectations, aspirations and skills of the individual
entrepreneur.
28
Figure 1. The focus of entrepreneurship research (source: Ucbasaran, Westhead, Wright, 2001).
Learning
Type of
entrepreneur
Theoretical
antecedents
Process
Outcomes
Type of
organization
External environment
The scope of research is becoming wider, since within the identified issues different relevant
entities of studying are emerging. As a matter of fact, different types of entrepreneurs and of
entrepreneurial organizations have been identified, while the use of cognitive method and
heuristic-based model could help understanding new aspects of entrepreneurship.
It is interesting to highlight the fact that only one relationship between the different topics is
clearly identified. Learning is the feedback mechanism that links outcomes of the
entrepreneurial actions to individuals, but what explains connections between the other issues
has not conceptualized yet. Therefore, as the model emphasizes, future studies should focus on
more precisely defined entities, contexts and relationships.
29
References
Abernathy, W. F. and Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative
Destruction, Research Policy, 14/1: 3-22.
Acs, Z. I. (1992). Small business economics: A global perspective. Challenge, 35, Iss. 6; p. 38.
Acs, Z. I and Carlsson, B. and Karlsson, K. (1999, eds.). Entrepreneurship, Small and Mediumsized firms and the Macroeconomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aldrich, H. E. and Austen, E. R. (1986). Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Age and Size
and their Strategic Implications, Research in Organizational Behavior, 8: 165-98.
Amaduzzi, A. (1969). Lazienda, Torino, UTET.
Amihud, Y. and Lev, B. (1981). Risk Reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate
Mergers, Bell Journal of Economics, 12: 605-17.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive, Journal of
Political Economy, 98 /5: 893-921.
Baumol, W. J (1993). Formal Entrepreneurship Theory in Economics: Existence and Bounds,
Journal of Business Venturing, 8: 197-210.
Berry, C. A. and Roberts, E. B. (1985). Entering new business. Selecting strategies for success,
Sloan Management Review, Spring.
Birch, D. L. (1987). Job Creation in America: How our Smallest Companies put the Most
People to Work. New York: Free Press.
Borland C. (1974). Locus of Control, Need for Achievement and Entrepreneurship. Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Briones, G. (1963). El empresario industrial en America Latina: Chile, Mar del Plata,
Argentina. Naciones Unidas Comision Economica para America Latina.
Brock, W.A. and Evans, D.S. (1989). Small business economics. Small Business Economics,
1(1), 7-20.
Brockhaus, R. H. and Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The Psychology of the Entrepreneur. In D. L.
Sexton and Smilor R. W. (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge,
Mass.: Ballinger Publishing.
Brugnoli, C. (1990). Limprenditorialit per lo sviluppo di nuove aziende, Milano, EGEA.
Bull, I., and Willard, G. E. (1993). Towards a theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8: 183-195.
Bull, I., and Willard, G. (1995). Towards a theory of entrepreneurship. In I. Bull, and Willard.
G. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship. Perspectives on theory building (pp.1-16). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from
a process study. Management Science, 29(12), 1349-1364.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Cantillon, R. (1931). Essai sur la nature du commerce en general. [Essay on the nature of
general commerce] (Translated by Henry Higgs.) London: MacMillan.
30
Carland, J. W., Hoy F., Boulton W. R., Carland J. C. (1984). Differentiating Entrepreneurs from
Small Business Owners: a Conceptualization, The Academy of Management Review, 9, 2,
354-359.
Carree, M. A. and Thurik A. R. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In
D. B. Audretsch and Acs Z. J. (eds.) Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur. An economic theory. Oxford, UK: Martin Robertson.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial
Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chung, L. H. and Gibbons, P. T. (1997).The roles of ideology and social capital, Group and
Organization Management, 22, 1, 10-30.
Church, R. (1993). The family firm in industrial capitalism: International perspectives on
hypothesis and history. Business History, 35(4), 17-43.
Coda, V. (1984). Sentieri di apprendimento dellimpresa innovativa. In F. Magrino (ed.), I nuovi
imprenditori, Milano, Edizioni del Sole 24 Ore.
Coda, V. (1988). Lorientamento strategico dellimpresa. Torino, UTET.
Cole, A.H. (1949). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial history. Change and the Entrepreneur,
88-107.
Cole, A.H. (1959), Business Enterprise in its Social Setting. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988), Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of
Sociology, 94: 95-120.
Corno, F. (1989). Lo sviluppo del sapere imprenditoriale nel governo dellimpresa, Milano,
Egea.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and
benign environment, Strategic Management Journal, 10, 1, 75-87.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, pp.7-25.
DAveni, R. A., Gunther R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic
Maneuvering, Free Press.
Daft, R. L. (1992). Organization Theory and Design. New York: West.
Davids L. E. (1963). Characteristics of Small Business Founders in Texas and Georgia. Athens,
Ga: Bureau of Business Research, University of Georgia.
Davidsson, P. (2003). The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some suggestions. In Katz, J.
and Shepherd, S. (Eds.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol.6,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., and Wright, M. (2001). Editor's Introduction: Low and MacMillan
Ten Years On: Achievements and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4, Summer), 5-15.
Dess, G. G. and Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environment,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 1, 52-73.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. London:
Heinemann.
31
Dunkelberg, W.C and Cooper, A. C. (1982). Entrepreneurial Typoogies. In K. H. Vesper,

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Mass: Babson Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies, 1-15.
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, T. (2001). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Study: A Few Comments and
Some Suggested Extensions. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 12-13.
Fiet, J. O. (2002). The search for Entrepreneurial Discoveries. Westport, CT.: Quorum Books.
Finkle, T., Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-1998,
Journal of Business Venturing, 16.
Floyd, S. W., and Lane P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is the Entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of
Small Business, 12/4: 11-32
Gartner, W, B. (1990). What are we talking about when we are talking about entrepreneurship?
Journal of Business venturing, 5, 15-28.
Gartner, W. B. (2001). Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship research? Blind assumptions in
theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25 (4, Summer), 27-39.
Gasse, Y. (1977). Entrepreneurial Characteristics and practices: a study of the dynamics of
small business organizations and their effectiveness in the different environments.
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Rene Prince.
Gerschenlkron, A. (1965). Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ginsberg, A., and Buchholtz, A. (1989). Are Entrepreneurs a Breed Apart? A Look at the
Evidence, Journal of General Management, 15/2: 32-40.
Granovetter, M., (1995). The Economic Sociology of Firms and Entrepreneurs. In Alejandro
Portes (ed.) The Economic Sociology of Immigration, Russel Sage Foundation.
Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17:109-122.
Hagan, E. (1962). On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins.
Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.
Hage, J., and Aiken, M. (1970). Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random
House.
Hall, R. H. (1996). Organizations, Structures, Processes, and Outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hayek, F. A. Von. (1937). Economics and knowledge, Economica, New Series, 4, 33-54,
reprinted. In F.A. Von Hayek (1948), Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F. A. Von. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hisrisch, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1989). Entrepreneurship. Starting, Developing and Managing
a New Enterprise. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, D. R., Camp, M. S. and Sexton, L. D. (2001). Integrating Entrepreneurship
and Strategic Management Actions to Create Firm Wealth, The Academy of Management
Executive, v15 i1 p49(15).
32
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, D. R., Camp, M. S. and Sexton, L. D. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship
Creating a new mindset, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Hitt, M. A., Reed, T. S. (2000). Entrepreneurship in the new competitive landscape. In Meyer
G.D. and Heppard, K.A. Entrepreneurship as strategy: competing on the entrepreneurial
edge. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organization. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hornaday, J. A. and Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Personnel
Psychology, 24, 141-53.
Invernizzi G. (1993, ed.). Imprenditorialit interna per lo sviluppo delle imprese e del sistema
economico. Milano: Egea.
Invernizzi G., Molteni, M. and Corbetta, G. (1990). Management Imprenditoriale. Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Invernizzi G., Molteni, M. and Sinatra, A. (1988). Imprenditorialit interna. Lo sviluppo di
nuove attivit nelle imprese. Etas.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kihlstrom, R. E., Laffont, J. J. (1979). A general equilibrium Entrepreneurial theory of firm
formation based on risk aversion, Journal of Political Economy, 87, 719-48.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Kirzner, I. M. (1982). Uncertainty, Discovery, and Human Action: A Study of the
Entrepreneurial Profile in the Misesian System. In I. M. Kirzner (ed.), Method, Process and
Austrian Economics: Essays in Honour of Ludwig von Mises. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An
Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature 35: 60-85.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Harper & Row.
Kuratko, D.F. (2003). Entrepreneurship Education: emerging trends and challenges for the 21st
century. Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the USASBE.
Landstrom, H. (2001). Who loves entrepreneurship research? Knowledge accumulation within a
transient field of research. Paper presented at the RENT XV Conference, Turku, Finland,
Nov. 22-23, 2001.
Lipset, S. M. (1988). Revolution and Counterrevolution, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction
Books.
Low, M. and MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges.
Journal of Management (14), 139-161.
Low, M. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 25(4, Summer), 17-26.
Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Lynskey, M. J. and Yonekura, S. (2002). Entrepreneurship and Organization - The Role of the
Entrepreneur in Organizational Innovation. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
33
Malerba, F., Orsenigo, L. (2000). Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution,
Industrial and Corporate Change; 9, 2, 289-314.
Marshall, A. (1930). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan. First published 1890.
Marsili, O. (2002). Technological regimes and sources of entrepreneurship, Small Business
Economics; 19, 3, 217-231.
Masini, C. (1979). Lavoro e risparmio, Torino, UTET.
McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McGrath, R.G. and McMillan I.C. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
McGrath, R. G., MacMillan, I. C., and Scheinberg, S. (1992). Elitists, Risk-Takers, and Rugged
Individualists? An Exploratory Analysis of Cultural Differences between Entrepreneurs and
Non-Entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 7:115-35.
McGrath, R. G., and MacMillan, I.C. (1992). More like each other than anyone else? A crosscultural study of entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 419.
McGrath, R. G., Venkataraman S., and MacMillan, I. C. (1994). The advantage chain:
Antecedents to rents from internal corporate ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5),
351-369.
Menger, C. (1950). Principles of Economics, trans. and ed. by J. Dingwall and B. F. Hoselitz.
Glencoe, M.: Free Press.
Meyer G. D. and Heppard K. A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy: competing on the
entrepreneurial edge. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Micheal S., Storey D. and Thomas H. (2002). Discovery and coordination in strategic
management and entrepreneurship, In Hitt A. M., Ireland, D. R., Camp, M. S., Sexton, L. D.,
Strategic entrepreneurship: creating a new mindset, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy, Variorurn edition, ed. J. M. Robson.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link, Strategic
Management Journal, 4, 3, 221-235.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: a guided tour through the
wilds of strategic management, London: Prentice Hall.
Mises, L. von (1949). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press.
Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial intensity: sustainable advantages for individuals,
organizations and societies. Westport, Conn: Quorum, 1998.
Morris, M. H. and Kuratko, D.F. (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship. Fort Worth, Tex.:
Harcourt College Publishers.
Murray, J. A. (1981). Marketing is Home for the Entrepreneurial Process, Industrial Marketing
Management, 10/2: 93-9.
Murray, J. A. (1984). A concept of entrepreneurial strategy, Strategic Management Journal, 5,
1, 1-13.
Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34
Onida, P. (1975). Economia dazienda, Torino, UTET.

Palmer M. (1971). The Application of Psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential.
California Management Review, 13(3), 38.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The Politics of Organizational Decision-Making. London: Tavistock.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become
an Entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row.
Roberts, E. B. (1968). Entrepreneurship and technology: a basic study of innovators, how to
keep and capitalize on their talents, Research Management, 4.
Salvato, C. (2003). Le opportunit imprenditoriali. Come nascono, come si individuano, come
si concretizzano. Milano: Guerini.
Sandberg, W. R. (1992). Strategic Management's Potential Contributions to a Theory of
Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Spring), 73-90.
Santarelli, E., and Pesciarelli, E. (1990). The Emergence of a Vision: The Development of
Schumpeter's Theory of Entrepreneurship, History of Political Economy, 22: 677-96.
Say, J.-B. (1971). A Treatise on Political Economy or the Production, Distribution and
Consumption of Wealth. New York: Augustus M. Kelley. Ist edn., 1803.
Schendel, D. E. and Hofer, C. W. (1979). Strategic Management: A new view of business Policy
and Planning. Boston, Little Brown &Co.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press. Originally published in 1912 as Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen
Entwicklung, Leipzig: Dencker & Humblot.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Scott, S., Venkataraman, S. and MacMillan I. C. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation
championing strategies. Journal of Management. New York, Vol 21, Iss. 5.
Sexton, D. L. (1980). Characteristics and role demands of successful entrepreneurs, Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit.
Shane, S. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangements and their implications for firm growth
and survival: a study of new franchisors. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 216
234.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a response to
Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-16.
Shapero, A. (1975). The Displaced, Uncomfortable Entrepreneur, Psychology Today, 9/6: 83-8.
Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the
field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11-27.
Shrivastava P. (1995). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage, Strategic
Management Journal Summer v16 n. SPEISS p183(18).
Singh, R. P. (2001). A Comment on Developing the Field of Entrepreneurship Through the
Study of Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 26(1),
10-12.
35
Smith, A. (1937). The Wealth of Nations. New York: The Modern Library. Published originally
in 1776.
Smith, K. G., Mitchell, T. R., and Summer, C. E. (1985). Top Level Management Priorities in
Different Stages of the Organizational Life Cycle, Academy of Management Journal, 28/4:
799-820.
Sorrentino, M. (1996). Limprenditorialit interna per linnovazione, Padova, CEDAM.
Stevenson, H. H., and Gumpert, D.E. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business
Review: 85-94.
Stevenson, H. H. and Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 11, pp.17-27.
Stopford, J. M., and Baden-Fuller, C. W. F. (1994). Creating corporate entrepreneurship.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 521-536.
Sutton F. X. (1954). Achievement norms and the motivation of entrepreneurs, In Entrepreneurs
and Economic Growth. Cambirdge, Mass: Social Science Research Council and Harvard
University Research Center in Entrepreneurial History.
Sutton, J. (1998). Technology and Market Structure, Theory and History, Cambridge, Mass,
MIT Press.
Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship The Social Science View, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Thompson, V. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 10: 1-20.
Timmons, J. A. (1978). Characteristics and role demand of Entrepreneurship, American Journal
of Small Business, 3, 5-17.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicolas Brealey.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2001). The Focus of Entrepreneurship Research:
Contextual and Process Issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4, Summer), 5780.
Van de Ven, A., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. (1989). Research on the management of
innovation: the Minnesota Studies. New York, Harper & Row.
Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey,
Oxford University Press.
Vennekers, S., Thurik, R. and Buis, F. (1997). Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and what
links them together. Zoetormer: EIM Small Business Research and Consultancy.
Vernon R. (1963). The dilemma of Mexicos development, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press.
Vesper, K. H. (1980). New venture strategies. Prentice Hall.
Waldinger, R. D. (1986). A theory of immigrant enterprise. In Through the Eye of the Needle:
Immigrants and Enterprise in New Yorks Garment Trades, New York, New York
University Press, 19-47, 214-17.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. T. Parsons. New
York: Charles Scribner.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
36
Welsh, J. A., and White, J. F. (1981). Converging on characteristics of Entrepreneurs. In K. H.

Vesper, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Mass: Babson Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies, 504-515.
Whitley, R. (1992). Societies, Firms and Markets: The Social Structuring of Business Systems.
In R. Whitley (ed.), European Business Systems. London: Sage.
Whitley, R. (1999). Divergent Capitalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winter D. G. (1973). The Power motive, New York, Free Press.
Winter, S. G. (1984). Schumpeterian Competition in Alternative Technological Regimes,
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 5, 287-320.
Zahra, S. A. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior: A critique and
extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer, 5-21.
Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of
management leveraged buyouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(3), 225-247.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating
impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6),
1713-1735.
Zahra, S. A. and Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurshipperformance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43-58.
Zahra, S. A. and Dess, G. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research: Encouraging
Dialogue and Debate. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 8-10.
Zappa, G. (1957). Le produzioni nelleconomia delle imprese, Milano, Giuffr, 1957.
Zook, C., Allen, J. (2001). Profit From the Core: Growth Strategy in an Era of Turbulence,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University School Press.
37

The Development of Entrepreneurship Research: Index

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Entrepreneurship Research: Index

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Entrepreneurship Research: Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liuc Papers n.

146, Serie Economia aziendale 19, aprile 2004

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita

2. The origins in economics

3. The contribution of Schumpeter

3.1 Schumpeter Mark I

3.2 Schumpeter Mark II

4. Post-Schumpeterian studies in economics

4.1 The contribution of Kirzner

4.2 Studies on innovation

5. Non economic studies on entrepreneurship

6. Management studies on entrepreneurship

6.1 Entrepreneurship and organization

6.2 Entrepreneurship and management

6.3 The Italian studies

7. Towards a legitimated field of inquiry

7.1 Building a framework for entrepreneurship studies

7.2 Entrepreneurship and the disciplines

7.3 Main issues in future research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

2. The origins in economics

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

adventurer, since he is in search of hazard;

undertaker, since he takes wise risks, available for investments if properly

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

3. The contribution of Schumpeter

a) the introduction of a new good or of a new quality of a good;

In his work, Schumpeter conceives the market as a system in equilibrium and

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

consequence of an invention. Invention operates in fact as an exogenous factor as regards to the

3.1. Schumpeter Mark I

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

3.2. Schumpeter Mark II

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

4. Post-Schumpeterian studies in economics

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

4.2. Studies on innovation

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

5. Non economic studies on entrepreneurship

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

(1971) underlined need of achievement, autonomy, aggression, power, recognition and

6. Management studies on entrepreneurship

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

6.2. Entrepreneurship and management

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

6.3. The Italian studies

Salvatore Sciascia, Riccardo De Vita, The development of entrepreneurship research

Liuc Papers n. 146, aprile 2004

1. the perceived needs of potential customers;