Distributive justice, corruption, and entrepreneurial behavior

Abstract

This article introduces equity theory to the economic growth literature to examine whether a relationship exists between perceptions of distributive justice and the productivity of entrepreneurial behavior. Using survey responses from 317 entrepreneurs in India, we find that productive entrepreneurship is positively related to distributive justice perceptions but negatively related to perceptions that corruption is pervasive. In contrast, nonproductive forms of entrepreneurship are negatively related to distributive justice but positively related to corruption. Unexpectedly, the findings also show that corruption mediates the relationship between distributive justice and legal entrepreneurial behavior while distributive justice mediates the relationship between corruption and illegal entrepreneurial behavior. We conclude with a discussion of the study's findings and their implications for entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Destructive entrepreneurship in the small business sector: bankruptcy fraud in Sweden, 1830–2010

“…Since there is no consensus on what activities that exactly can be classified as unproductive and destructive entrepreneurship, the boundary between these two categories is unclear (see for example Antony et al 2017). However, according to scholars, examples of destructive entrepreneurship are found in the field of economic crime and organized crime (Collins et al 2016;Douhan and Henrekson 2010). The phenomenon of organized crime is mostly associated with activities such as the production and distribution of illegal drugs, racketeering, and blackmail.…”

“…They admit that this captures only fragments of the allocation concept; furthermore, it does not inform of the degree to which entrepreneurship is productive, unproductive, or destructive. Earlier efforts to operationalize the Baumolian framework include both micro-oriented studies that utilize either experimental, interview, or survey data (Collins et al 2016;Sauka 2008;Sauka and Welter 2007;Urbig et al 2012) and macro-oriented research using aggregate and/or cross-country data (Ashby 2015;Bjørnskov and Foss 2008;Sobel 2008). Albeit using different data, methodologies, approaches, and different spatial and temporal dimensions, past empirical work therefore commonly empirically operationalizes fragments of the Baumolian framework.…”

“…In sum, earlier efforts show that universal measurements are difficult, if not impossible, to generate (e.g., Bjørnskov and Foss 2008): some studies focus on how the institutional framework affects the allocation of entrepreneurship, focusing on unproductive entrepreneurship and its effects (but leaves out destructive entrepreneurship; e.g., Sobel 2008); others focus on the allocation of entrepreneurship, but not on the effects (e.g., Collins et al 2016). Empirical operationalizations of the different concepts of entrepreneurship are therefore moderately few, and Desai et al (2013) identify a number of key areas for further research on destructive entrepreneurship: while the literature on the allocation and determinants of entrepreneurship is expanding, the specific dynamics, causes, and effects of destructive entrepreneurship remain ignored.…”

“…In the literature, destructive entrepreneurship has been defined as illegal entrepreneurial activities such as organized crime and economic crime (e.g., Collins et al 2016). In the present article, we explicitly attend to the notion of destructive entrepreneurship and operationalize it by using comprehensive, aggregate series on bankruptcy fraud in Sweden.…”

Smes Development and Corruption: Case of Kazakhstan

“…At the same time, nonproductive firms believe that there is no justice due to corruption (e.g. Collins et al 2016).…”