Chintrepreneurship – The China-way of Entrepreneurship Government Intervention, Seedling Approach – A Network-based Model of Entrepreneurship

Abstract

The development of entrepreneurship in China is coined in this paper as the 'Chintrepreneurship', namely, the China-way of entrepreneurship, which is defined synthetically as an integral result of ideological transformation, industrial institutionalization and privatization, and technological transition from imitation and innovation. From an evolutionary perspective, China-way of entrepreneurship is resulted from the three-staged economic reformation. From a dialectic perspective, government intervention is not only a driver but also an obstacle to the formation of China-way of entrepreneurship, which is outlined as a compounded effect of dual-track policy, financial policy, FDI policy, science, technology, and innovation policy, education and human capital policy. As an exploratory study and relying on an in-depth and extensive literature review, on-site observations and thousands of interviews, this paper endeavors to establish a theoretical framework, to contour the taxonomy and the four constraints, and to distinguish the formational mechanism of China-way of entrepreneurship from the previously defined ones. Theoretically, this paper proposes a need for a paradigm shift from polarized (Washington Consensus) to de-polarized (Beijing Consensus), and argues that, the network-based framework (aka: the neo-classical economics) fits to rationalize the peculiarity and mechanism of China-way of entrepreneurship, uniquely incubated from the politically autocratic, bureaucratic and cronyism oriented social and institutional systems. This paper concludes that entrepreneurship does exist in China, and that, government intervention and seedling approach serve as strategic and exogenous forces, while imitation and low marginal price act as tactical and endogenous factors -together, they constitute the developmental mechanism of CHINTREPRENEURSHIP, in parallel with economic transition, from traditionally the global production networks (GPNs) to presently the global production and trade networks (GPTNs), from manufacturing-based to service and consumption oriented. From the perspective of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest', criticism is definitely needed, in order to legitimize the theory of CHINTREPRENEURSHIP.

The Deviated Mechanisms between Chintrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship– Collectivism or Individualism in Forming the Mechanism of China-way of Entrepreneurship

“…: political, social, institutional and cultural settings) may be more vitally decisive than the traditionally emphasized personal traits for entrepreneurship. This is especially true in those emerging economies like China, wherein, autocratic bureaucracy and cronyism oriented capitalism dominate its economic system (Zhao & Zhang, 2017). Accordingly, how to integrate these generic but non-market type of resources, and convert them into value-adding and competitive advantages for the development of entrepreneurship, becomes a critical research question (Yiu & Lau, 2008).…”

“…Instead, it is strictly disciplined and confined to a spatial-cum of political-social, institutional, cultural and economic conditions, susceptible to various kinds of breakdowns and disruptions (Zhao & Zhang, 2016;. It is argued that, given the autocratic nature of China political system, if without a political reform, whether China is able to transition from Type-II to Type-I entrepreneurship, from a catch-up economy to a knowledge-driven economy, in order to incubate some of its own Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and to jump-start another economic leapfrog, seems to be an interesting question for future research (Zhao & Zhang, 2017). As commented by Charles Zhang, the founder and CEO of China's second largest internet portal, Sohu.com:…”

“…Government intervention (policy and regulation), rather than market competition, is the driving force to propel the development of entrepreneurship in developing countries, especially in a politically autocratic country like China (Zhao & Zhang, 2017). Given the autocratic nature of government in developing countries:…”