What’s in a Name? On Language, Concept Formation, and the Definition Disputes in the Entrepreneurship Literature

Abstract

When it comes to entrepreneurship, the conceptual framework of economics is disjointed: On the one hand almost everyone agrees that entrepreneurial initiative and creativity are critical for economic progress. On the other hand neither initiative, nor creativity, plays any role in formal models of choice and economic behavior. This creates a blind spot on the behavioral aspects of entrepreneurship. It has also spawned a dichotomy between the functional and behavioral aspects of entrepreneurial actions in the economics literature. Most importantly, it prevents economists from developing a coherent unifying theoretical framework for making sense of entrepreneurs. The problem is reinforced by the language and semiotics of economics and is reflected by the lack of behavioral research on entrepreneurs in the literature. As suggested by Baumol (1968 and 2010) initiative and creativity are the obvious defining traits of entrepreneurship. Even so, the literature has spawned a variety of different and occasionally nonsensical definitions of entrepreneurship that obscure and divert our attention away from these defining characteristics. The divergent definitions in the literature are further exacerbated by discordant conceptual structures and ideas that cannot easily be translated from one field to another. In the absence of a unifying framework, different fields have focused narrowly on entrepreneurship from dissimilar angles. The bottom line is that researchers in different fields sometimes rely on such incompatible definitions of what constitutes entrepreneurship that interdisciplinary dialogue is impossible. The end result is akin to the problem of radical translation between different languages. The paper concludes that the definition debates will not be resolved without a unifying structure that focuses on initiative and creativity as the defining attributes of entrepreneurship. This calls for some new tools and behavioral models that can explicitly account for initiative and creativity as integral aspects of human choices and actions. JEL Classifications: B41, L26, Y90, Z1 1 The author would like to thank John Hartley and an anonymous referee for Cultural Science for insightful comments that helped improve this article. Of course, all the usual disclaimers still apply.

On the Term “Entrepreneur” and the Conceptualization of Entrepreneurship in the Literature of Classical Economics

“…As outlined by Jonsson (2014) the contemporary scholarly literature on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship is not built on a unified theoretical framework. Instead, this literature is produced by different schools of thought, which not only ignore the work produced by each other, but which offer dissimilar definitions that are derived from mutually irreconcilable conceptual frameworks.…”

“…The resulting definition debates are beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that, as explained in some detail by Jonsson (2014), some of the most widely cited definitions of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship do not stand up to much logical scrutiny. Moreover, the introduction of the term entrepreneur from French into English seems to have imbued the underlying concept with a certain mystique.…”

“…This view also suggests that entrepreneurship had to be named, outlined, and explained in a particular way before we could perceive the role it plays in the economy. Jonsson (2014) suggests that this perspective is largely derived from the fact that entrepreneurial creativity is a square peg in a round hole in the conceptual framework of modern economics. In the limiting context of formal choice theory, initiative and creativity seem exotic and outlandish.…”

“…In the limiting context of formal choice theory, initiative and creativity seem exotic and outlandish. Thus economists who try to get a handle on entrepreneurial creativity tend to adopt a quasi-mystical and almost "Orientalist" perspective: seeing creative entrepreneurship as unique and exceptional rather than ubiquitous (see Jonsson, 2014). And, from that perspective, perhaps the notion that the concept of the entrepreneur was not discovered until the mid-eighteenth century may not seem all that peculiar.…”

“…The writers of earlier times knew in their bones that survival depended on initiative, creativity, stewardship and risk-taking. Besides, they were not constrained by an analytical context, such as our modern day general equilibrium framework, that downplays the very possibility of creative actions (see Barreto, 1989;Jonsson, 2014).…”