Entrepreneurship Trajectories

Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm Performance

Diego Matricano

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780128187371
• Topic: Economia
• Subtopic: Microeconomia

Entrepreneurship Trajectories: Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Business Models, and Firm Performance explores several entrepreneurship trajectories recognized by economists and entrepreneurs. It is not possible to talk about growth paths addressed by entrepreneurial ventures without recalling the business model and the type of entrepreneurial opportunity at their foundations. Diego Matricano assumes that the growth paths addressed by entrepreneurial ventures depend on both effective business models and promising opportunities. This pragmatic guide illuminates the entrepreneurial trajectories linking opportunities, business models, and growth paths, offering complete and nuanced views through its extensive use of case studies.

• Defines both theoretically and empirically the entrepreneurship trajectories that entrepreneurs can address
• Provides cases and data about ongoing startups from official websites such as Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, US Census Bureau, and Eurostat
• Describes a comprehensive view of entrepreneurship trajectories that link entrepreneurial opportunities, business models, and growth paths

1

Framing the entrepreneurship phenomenon

Abstract

Most scholars around the world share the idea that entrepreneurship is a multifaceted phenomenon. As such, it can be studied from different perspectives and defined in a wide variety of ways. For this reason, some scholars argue that entrepreneurship is a label encompassing a hodgepodge (i.e., a mixture) of research.

Hence, entrepreneurship scholars are often invited to propose new frameworks useful for investigating the phenomenon in a proper way and to outline—if possible—the essence of entrepreneurship. An extensive literature review reveals that either a macro level of analysis (referring to the possible approaches that scholars can leverage) or a micro one (considering the variables that scholars can use) can be adopted. However, neither a macro nor a micro level of analysis seems fruitful for properly framing the phenomenon.

At the same time, some main themes (standing for a meso level of analysis) can be recalled and investigated. Through a crosscutting analysis of the main themes, two main areas of research can be disclosed. One refers to what lies at the basis of entrepreneurship, that is, the role of innovation, which (in the shape of entrepreneurial opportunities) affects the rising and the initial development of entrepreneurship. The other refers to achievable and/or achieved results (both economic and social) generated by entrepreneurship, that is, the impact of entrepreneurship. These areas of research can be thought of as two milestones in entrepreneurial studies and thus they are assumed to outline the essence of entrepreneurship.

Keywords

State-of-the-art; hodgepodge; framework; innovation; economic growth

1.1 The state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship studies

Since its origins,¹ and despite a huge number of trials, the field of entrepreneurship has never been defined in a univocal way. Over the years, in fact, many overlapping and fuzzy terms and concepts have been used in order to point out, support, criticize, modify, or deny the essence of entrepreneurship. Not surprisingly, several reviews proposed in reference to entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1990; Shane, 2000; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Westhead and Wright, 2000; Audretsch, 2002, 2003; Acs and Audretsch, 2003; Casson, 2003; Sciascia and De Vita, 2004; Simpeh, 2011; Audretsch et al., 2015; Matricano, 2015; Kuratko and Morris, 2018) reach the same conclusions:

• • Several research paths can be used to approach the study of entrepreneurship;
• • Several theoretical frameworks can be used to investigate entrepreneurship;
• • Several empirical tests can be used to verify the intensity of entrepreneurship; and
• • Scholars mainly do not agree on any of the achieved results and—thus—still debate about them.

In reference to the conclusions presented above, it is appropriate to recall some contributions that can help to clarify and comprehend the origins of entrepreneurial research and its evolution.

Audretsch et al. (2015, p. 703) highlight that “because entrepreneurship is multifaceted, it is studied from many different perspectives, yet, that has fostered a multitude of definitions. Even the scholarly literature is rife with disparities and even contradictions about what is and is not entrepreneurship.” According to them, the most critical aspect that can be ascribed to entrepreneurship seems to relate to the fact that some topics of research are wrongly included in the field of entrepreneurship research. Consequently, the pertinence of a topic to a research area needs to be evaluated in a very accurate way. Even if entrepreneurship scholars largely agree on the above assumption and embrace it, this error is not easy to fix. In other words, assuring that a topic of research falls within the body of entrepreneurship research is not an effortless task.²

Beyond evidence that shows if a topic is related to entrepreneurship studies, there is another critical aspect that might emerge. This aspect deals with the number of research topics that—over time—have been proposed and affirmed in the entrepreneurship field. In reference to this point, it is not possible to forget Shane and Venkataraman’s (2000, p. 217) statement, according to which “entrepreneurship has become a broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is housed.”

Scholars clearly underline that entrepreneurship encompasses several areas of research that might confuse—rather than support—any scholars who approach entrepreneurship studies. The fact that several areas of research coexist in the entrepreneurship field and that—on the other hand—the field itself is highly fragmented might cause some difficulties in properly framing entrepreneurship. In fact, if several lenses can be used to investigate the same phenomenon in practice, then it may be possible that none of them are correctly used, as each might miss some relevant aspects. Thus this point cannot be underestimated when carrying out entrepreneurial studies.

Due to the abovementioned controversial aspects of the discipline and its related uncertain results, it seems appropriate to recall some dedicated contributions at this point in order to try to capture the essence of entrepreneurship.

1.2 Overview of the main research themes in entrepreneurship studies

Needless to say, the following literature review cannot be comprehensive because of the high amount of dedicated contributions proposed over the years. It does not cover all the existing works on entrepreneurship but it does condense selected studies and research. However, this limitation does not prevent the review from being carried out. Its final aim is to reveal the major research themes in entrepreneurship studies in order to attempt to clarify what can or cannot be included in the field of entrepreneurship research and—hopefully—to outline the essence of entrepreneurship.

Starting with Schumpeter’s contribution (1911)—according to which entrepreneurs aim to introduce innovations onto markets³—a conspicuous group of entrepreneurship scholars converges toward the teleological approach and thus investigates the aims/scopes that entrepreneurs try to achieve (Cooper and Dunkelberg, 1981; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Matricano, 2015).

In contrast to Schumpeter (1911), some scholars propose the idea that entrepreneurs aim to foresee the future of markets in order to satisfy the needs of forthcoming consumers (Knight, 1921), governmental or societal requirements (Kilby, 1971), or to improve the social well-being (Baumol, 1990).

More recently, other scholars who embrace the teleological approach have recalled Schumpeter’s view and have again proposed the idea that entrepreneurs aim to introduce new products/technologies into already existing markets or to seek new markets (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Dess et al., 1997; Zahra et al., 1999; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). Among the aims pursued by entrepreneurs, Klyver et al. (2011) recognize that two primary aims have attracted noticeable interest. Respectively, they are the perceiving of entrepreneurial opportunities (Kirzner, 1973, 1997; Leibenstein, 1978, 1979; Drucker, 1985; Bygrave and Hofer, 1991) and the creation of new ventures (Gartner, 1985, 1988, 1990, 2001; Katz and Gartner, 1988; Low and MacMillan, 1988; Gartner and Gatewood, 1992; Larson and Starr, 1993;...