Evasive entrepreneurship

Elert, Niklas; Henrekson, Magnus

doi:10.1007/s11187-016-9725-x

Cited by 79 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 88 publications

(92 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Antony et al (2017) have presented a model of endogenous growth, driven by productive entrepreneurs with an endogenous degree of rent-seeking (unproductive entrepreneurship). Another recent study is Elert and Henrekson (2016), who introduce the concept of Bevasive entrepreneurship^-a profit-driven business activity aimed at circumventing the existing institutional framework by using innovations to exploit contradictions in that very framework (inconsistencies in regulation, lack of judicial precedence, lack of judicial resources).…”

Section: Destructive Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Entrepreneurship will not always productive: Baumol (1990Baumol ( , 1993 distinguishes between productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurial activities, and in the last two cases, new values are not created. Setting of from the notion of destructive entrepreneurship and the bankruptcy institute as framework for the empirical analysis, we use long aggregate series on bankruptcies and bankruptcy frauds in Sweden, 1830-2010. We operationalize destructive entrepreneurship with bankruptcy frauds. The bankruptcy institute is not a pure cleansing mechanism; assets can be redistributed by criminal procedure. Thus, a form of destructive entrepreneurship can be conducted within this system. We link bankruptcy frauds to the selection mechanism-the aggregate bankruptcy volume-over time. We cannot establish any direct linkages between the bankruptcy volume and institutional changes. However, and in line with research on bankruptcy diffusion and diffusion of economic crimes, we find that bankruptcy frauds have significant, positive impacts on the bankruptcy volume. Therefore, our results indicate that increases in bankruptcy frauds, destructive entrepreneurship, would affect the economic system.

show abstract

Section: Destructive Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitigating destructive change (Elert and Henrekson, 2016;Martin, 2012) Recovery Regaining initial or more positive state Regaining (Huggins and Thompson, 2015;Martin, 2012) Re-orientation Defining direction and nature of positive change Directing (Martin, 2012;Pike et al, 2010) Renewal Creating a new path for positive change Revitalizing (Bettinelli et al, 2017;Martin, 2012) Table 2 The key elements underlying agility.…”

Section: Elementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilient agility in volatile economies: institutional and organizational antecedents

Gölgeci

Arslan

Dikova

et al. 2019

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to scrutinize the interplay between resilience and agility in explicating the concept of resilient agility and discuss institutional and organizational antecedents of resilient agility in volatile economies. Design/methodology/approach The authors develop a conceptual framework that offers an original account of underlying means of ambidextrous capabilities for organizational change and behaviors in volatile economies and how firms stay both resilient and agile in such contexts. Findings The authors suggest that resilient agility, an ambidextrous capability of sensing and acting on environmental changes nimbly while withstanding unfavorable disruptions, can explain entrepreneurial firms’ survival and prosperity. The authors then address institutional (instability and estrangement) and organizational (entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and bricolage) antecedents of resilient agility in volatile economies. Originality/value The authors highlight that unfavorable conditions in volatile economies might have bright sides for firms that can leverage them as entrepreneurial opportunities and propose that firms can achieve increased resilient agility when high levels of institutional instability and estrangement are matched with high levels of EO and bricolage.

show abstract

“…The examples of Uber and Airbnb suggest that these CBIs can be understood as institutional entrepreneurs (Battilana, Leca, and Boxenbaum 2009;Frenken 2017), where the CBI is actively searching for institutional voids as to develop a new market. Evasive entrepreneurs, although seen as an important source of innovation (Elert and Henrekson 2016) may exploit contradictions in the institutional framework to advance their CBIs. The fact that platforms generally depict themselves as technology platforms for instance shows how this framing allows them to ignore regulations (e.g.…”

Section: An Interdisciplinary Research Agenda For Governance Of Crowdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing crowd-based innovations: an interdisciplinary research agenda

Cuppen

Klievink

Doorn

2019

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crowd increasingly plays a key role in facilitating innovations in a variety of sectors, spurred on by IT-developments and the concomitant increase in connectivity. Initiatives in this direction, captured under the umbrella-term 'crowd-based innovations' (CBI), offer novel opportunities in all domains of society by increasing the access, reach and speed of services and goods. At the same time, they signify important challenges because these innovations occur in a context of traditional, well-established institutional arrangements. CBI create an 'institutional void': existing rules, standards and practices are challenged and renegotiated. This raises questions about the safeguarding of public values such as quality, legitimacy, efficiency and governance of crowd-based innovations. The objective of this perspective piece is to present an interdisciplinary research agenda to address normative challenges for governing CBI. We will argue that such an agenda needs an integrated empirical-normative approach. We will detail three lines of empirical-normative research that together build up towards an interdisciplinary agenda.

show abstract

Evasive entrepreneurship

Cited by 79 publications

References 88 publications

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

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

Resilient agility in volatile economies: institutional and organizational antecedents

Governing crowd-based innovations: an interdisciplinary research agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About