Reflections on the McQuinn Entrepreneurship Conference

24 October 2007 at 11:49 am 1 comment

| Peter Klein |

Last week’s McQuinn Center conference on entrepreneurship in Kansas City was a great success, with some 75 participants from places like Nepal, Norway, the UK, and Peru as well as the US and Canada. Keynoters Cornelia Flora, Pierre DesrochersSandy Kemper, and Randy Westgren challenged and inspired the group and the papers and discussions highlighted a variety of innovative entrepreneurship research topics, theories, and methods. Papers and presentations are now available on the conference website.

I had the pleasure of offering introductory and closing remarks, and I’ll share here some reflections about the state of the field and suggestions for moving forward.

1. Variety. To start with the obvious, there is tremendous variety within the academic entrepreneurship literature. The papers and presentations covered a broad range of theories (mainstream development and labor economics, Austrian and evolutionary economics, social-capital and social-network theory, complexity theory, etc.), academic disciplines (economics, sociology, geography), concepts of the entrepreneur (innovator, adaptor, discoverer, uncertainty bearer), research approaches (conceptual theory, econometric analysis of secondary data, quantitative work with survey data, qualitative case studies), and policy questions. Classic contributions from Cantillon, Schumpeter, Knight, Mises, Kirzner, Schultz, and others were considered and compared. The entrepreneur appeared not only as a proprietor, an inventor, or creative thinker (the most common conceptualizations in the entrepreneurship literature) but also as an investor (a venture capitalist, an angel, or even shareholder), a participant in a collective entrepreneurial venture (such as a patron of a new-generation cooperative), and a producer facing potential adoption of new technologies and organizational structures.

This variety captures nicely the range of perspectives and approaches in the research literature on entrepreneurship. Is this good for the field? Most participants seemed to welcome the diversity, but others expressed concern that the field is too fragmented to have serious impact on research and practice.

2. The entrepreneurship enterprise. I opened my introduction by asking, like Admiral Stockdale, “Who are we? Why are we here?” In other words, what is the point of the rapidly expanding portfolio of entrepreneurship-related activities on university campuses? Do we really believe that startups, venture funding, intellectual property, innovation, technology, etc. are more important for economic and social development than they were before? Are we driven by the increasing emphasis (at US universities, particularly land-grant institutions) on economic development as a fourth mission of the university (joining research, teaching, and outreach)? Are we dissatisfied with standard, non-entrepreneurial approaches in industrial economics, strategy, organization theory? Or are we simply following the herd, investing in an entrepreneurship-studies bubble that will burst as surely as the tech bubble of the 1990s?

3. Food and agriculture. The McQuinn conference focused specifically on entrepreneurship research in food, agriculture, natural resources, and rural development. What is unique about these sectors or areas? Do they demand particular research strategies, or can they be studied with the same tools as other sectors or areas? Food and agriculture is characterized by a biological production function, unique uncertainties associated with weather and seasonality, and a distinct regulatory environment, among other characteristics. Do these have implications for the study of entrepreneurship?

4. Problems and issues. What does entrepreneurship research need move forward? Consistency in definition and measurement seems an obvious requirement. More fundamentally, there is little consensus on the explananda of entrepreneurship research. What phenomena are we trying to explain? For Schumpeter, the entrepreneur is an instrumental construct needed to explain economic change. For Knight and Kirzner, the entrepreneur is a functional category, the economic agent whose return is profit, rather than wages or interest. Other entrepreneurship researchers seek to explain the personal characteristics of proprietors, the sources of sustained (firm-level) competitive advantages, differences in industry or regional organization and behavior, and the like. With so many questions on the table, how do we proceed? And what do we gain from invoking entrepreneurship in our explanations — knowledge about previously unexplained phenomena, or simply a new language for describing well-known, mundane phenomena? Inquiring minds want to know!

_______________________________

We hope to sponsor a follow-up conference next year; watch this space for details. Comments are welcome below, as always. . . .

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Entrepreneurship, Food and Agriculture, Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science, Theory of the Firm. Tags: .

Tribute to Bob Higgs Why the Resistance to Prices?

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Jonathan Frye  |  24 October 2007 at 5:06 pm

    I heard about a statistic from a study complete by Intuit that 72 percent of the American workforce wants to leave their job and work for themselves and 67 percent regularly think about quitting their job. It seems to me that academia is aligned with the rest of society in meeting the desires of the general population. Will the general population quickly return to enjoy the work for someone else? I don’t think so. I think it’s embedded in to the fabric of the society built on the concept of the American dream – I just think the dream for this generation is to work for oneself.

    Regards,
    Jonathan Frye
    Blog: Entrepreneurship

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Authors

Nicolai J. Foss | home | posts
Peter G. Klein | home | posts
Richard Langlois | home | posts
Lasse B. Lien | home | posts

Guests

Former Guests | posts

Networking

Recent Posts

Categories

Feeds

Our Recent Books

Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Nicolai J. Foss and Volker Mahnke, eds., Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research (Oxford, 2000).
Nicolai J. Foss and Paul L. Robertson, eds., Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-based Perspective (Routledge, 2000).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers