Posts filed under ‘Entrepreneurship’
The Symbolic Uses of Politics
| Dick Langlois |
One of the most interesting law-and-economics scholars out there is Amitai Aviram at the University of Illinois, whom I met at a conference a few years ago. I only just discovered his recent work on what he calls bias arbitrage, “the extraction of private benefits through actions that identify and mitigate discrepancies between objective risks and the public’s perception of the same risks.” The idea is that people often misperceive the risks of various events. This creates an entrepreneurial opportunity for someone who can benefit from manipulating those misperceptions.
In some ways, this is an elaboration of Murray Jacob Edelman’s The Symbolic Uses of Politics (1964). In Edelman’s story, the citizenry are worried about various large issues about which they have no control: the Russians, global warming, swine flu, or — Edelman’s example, as I recall — the threat of business monopolies. In most cases, these fears are exaggerated or have no basis at all in fact — like the fear of spontaneous monopolies. But politicians can advance themselves by taking symbolic steps to allay these fears — like passing the Sherman Antitrust Act. (As Tom DiLorenzo, Jack High, Tom Hazlett, and others have suggested, the Sherman Act was also about diverting attention away from the McKinley tariffs, which would indeed transfer income from consumers to producers.)
Aviram’s spin is that there can be a welfare-improving effect to this process, to the extent that, by changing people’s perceptions of the underlying risks, entrepreneurs can bring people’s assessments in line with the actual underlying risks and thus get people to behave more efficiently. One example he uses is security measures at airports. After 9/11, people overestimated the probability of highjackings and shifted away in droves from air travel and toward automobile travel, which is actually a less-safe alternative. By instituting the ceremony of airline security, the government might have persuaded people that the probability of highjackings went down — even though it probably didn’t go down and was already low anyway — and therefore got them to return to (safer) air travel, an efficient outcome even taking into account the costs of the ceremony. (If you don’t believe that the ceremonies of the Transportation Security Administration are purely symbolic — or even if you do — check out this interesting piece in the Atlantic Monthly a while back.) Aviram understands perfectly well that this process can also lead to bad outcomes: the much-discussed case of seatbelt laws making car travel less safe might be an example. Whether the placebo effect (as Aviram calls it) has good or bad effects is a case-by-case question. One might well wonder whether today, eight years almost since 9/11, it isn’t the case that airport security ceremonies actually serve to remind people of terrorist threats and therefore to raise their assessments of the probabilities (?)
I thought of all of this recently in my own local context. Because of the recession, the State government has imposed on the University a variety of purely symbolic measures to demonstrate our frugality to the voting public. At least in principle, faculty can’t travel out of state even on money that came from grants or awards. And the library and museums were recently instructed to shorten their opening hours, even though those shorter hours don’t in fact save any money.
Opportunity Discovery Measurement Scale Bleg
| Nicolai Foss |
Opportunity discovery is a key construct in large parts of the recent management literature on entrepreneurship (e.g., this important paper). We have often blogged on opportunity discovery here on O&M, for example, noting the problematic relation of the management construct of opportunity discovery to Kirzner’s original notion, and suggesting that new projects may be superior units of analysis for certain purposes.
Still, the sensing, perception, discovery of, etc. opportunities is surely relevant in entrepreneurship studies and should not be bypassed. Which brings us to the issue of, How is it measured? Given that dozens of articles have been written now with “opportunity discovery” in the title, I am struck by the paucity of empirical work that actually makes a stab at measuring opportunity discovery. Most articles on opportunity discovery are theoretical. And most consider the antecedents of opportunity discovery (e.g., personal knowledge, psychological attributes, search costs) rather than the discovery itself. (more…)
SecondMarket
| Peter Klein |
Props to Molly Burress for pointing me to this article in today’s NYT on SecondMarket, a website that acts as a market-maker for illiquid assets. According to the Times SecondMarket is developing secondary markets for restricted public equities, bankruptcy claims, mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and other non-marketed financial claims. As the Times points out, the weak IPO market of the last few years has made VCs reluctant to invest in early-stage ventures; by giving VCs an additional exit option, SecondMarket may increase the flow of venture funding.
Not addressed in the article: If SecondMarket succeeds, and grows, and begins to impose disclosure requirements on the companies whose (now-liquid) assets are traded, will private equity lose its purported advantrages over public equity, in the Jensen (1989) sense?
More Economic Institutions of Strategy
| Nicolai Foss |
In his post of yesterday, Peter failed to mention that among the O&M bloggers not just Klein and Lien but also yours truly contributed to the Nickerson and Silverman 2009 edition of Advances in Strategic Management. Specifically, with Stieglitz (Nils — and with an “e”) I have written “Opportunities and New Business Models: Transaction Costs and Property Rights Perspectives on Entrepreneurship.” The paper can be downloaded from SSRN.
Information Encountering
| Peter Klein |
I recently attended an interesting workshop by my colleague Sanda Erdelez from the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies (what used to be called library science, back when we had libraries). Sanda has developed the concept of information encountering, defined as
a memorable experience of an unexpected discovery of useful or interesting information. Information encountering occurs when one is looking for information relating to one topic and finds information relating to another one. However, it also occurs upon bumping into information while carrying on a routine activity.
During the workshop we discussed the parallels between information encountering and Kirzner’s notion of entrepreneurial discovery. Both are different from systematic search, yet more than pure accident. (As Sanda reminded us, “serendipity,” often used today as a synonym for luck, originally meant the discovery of one thing while searching systematically for another.) More generally, we agreed that the entrepreneurship and information-science literatures can learn from each other. We also discussed Nicholas Carr’s recent Atlantic Monthly piece, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which argues, in part, that the ability to find specific information quickly makes us less likely to discover useful information accidentally.
Here is more of Sanda’s research. The terms “accidental discovery of information” and “incidental information acquisition” are also used in the information-science literature.
Law and Economics of Innovation
| Peter Klein |
I’m speaking at this year’s edition of the Law and Economics of Innovation, organized by Geoff Manne and Josh Wright and co-sponsored by GMU Law and Microsoft. It’s May 7 in Arlington. Check out the slick conference website (and Geoff’s post at ToTM). If you don’t want to hear me, at least come for Susan Athey’s keynote. Tom Hazlett has the best paper subtitle: “Of Newtons, Blackberries, iPhones & G-Phones.” How many of you youngsters have heard of the Newton?
Program for Searle Center Conference, “The Economics and Law of the Entrepreneur”
| Peter Klein |
Here. I participated in last year’s conference and thought it was terrific. Old friend Henry Butler is doing a fine job making the Searle Center a major player in the entrepreneurship field.
Kahneman on Judgment and Intuition
| Peter Klein |
Still confused about the differences between judgment and intuition? This lecture by Daniel Kaheman, “Judgment and Intuition,” might help. It’s one of several posted on Kahneman’s website.
Value Creation in Middle-Market Buyouts
| Peter Klein |
Here’s a paper by John Chapman and me, “Value Creation in Middle-Market Buyouts: A Transaction-Level Analysis,” forthcoming in Douglas J. Cumming, ed., Companion to Private Equity (New York: Wiley, 2009). Get your copy today, while they’re hot. Abstract:
Is private equity an effective governance structure, or simply a means of transferring wealth from “Main Street” to “Wall Street”? How do buyouts affect target-company organization and strategy? How do deal characteristics such as size, industry, transaction complexity, buyer characteristics, holding period, and the like affect the performance of private-equity transactions? Are revenue improvements driven primarily by changes in employment and capital expenditures, or by changes in organization and strategy? Despite a healthy literature on buyouts, little is known about the details of private equity transactions, as most studies rely on publicly available data or confidential data from a single buyout firm. This paper uses a unique sample of 288 exited transactions over a 20-year period across 19 industries from 13 buyout firm firms, based on confidential data from detailed interviews with the general partners of several leading private-equity partnerships. While prior studies have focused on whole-company, going-private buyouts, our sample includes transactions with minority stakes, syndicate deals, and consolidating roll-up or add-on strategies, and we have detailed information on internal rates of return, leverage, equity stakes, and other deal characteristics. We find that the pursuit of ancillary consolidating acquisitions is the biggest driver of post-buyout revenue and profit growth, that solo deals and deals with controlling stakes outperform syndicated or “club” deals, that rates of return have declined over time as buyout markets have become more competitive, that mitigation of agency costs is critical for deal success, and more generally, that private equity can improve the performance even of sound businesses by providing access to resources, industry-specific expertise, capital for recombining assets (most often, consolidation in a fragmented industry), or recapitalization and ownership transition. Finally, our findings suggest the potential for further research of private equity at the transaction level.
Public Entrepreneurship
| Peter Klein |
A surprising aspect of the recent growth in the entrepreneurship literature is the number of papers, projects, courses, centers, etc. studying entrepreneurship in non-market settings: “social entrepreneurship,” “cultural entrepreneurship,” “environmental entrepreneurship,” and so on. At my own university students can take entrepreneurship courses not only in the Colleges of Business or Engineering but in the College of Agriculture, the School of Natural Resources, the College of Journalism, and even the School of Social Work. (One of my colleagues organized a conference last year aimed at cattle ranchers seeking to market their, um, byproducts as fertilizer, with the classic title: “Manure Entrepreneurship: Turning Brown into Green.”
Translating concepts, theories, and research methods from the entrepreneurship literature to non-market settings raises challenging issue, however. How is entrepreneurship defined? What corresponds to entrepreneurial profit and loss? What is the entrepreneur’s objective function? Are there competitive processes that select for the better entrepreneurs? None of the classic writers on entrepreneurship — Cantillon, Say, Schumpeter, Knight, Mises, Kirzner — wrote explicitly on entrepreneurship in non-market settings, as far as I am aware. Mises, in fact, distinguishes sharply between “profit management” (or entrepreneurial management) and “bureaucratic management,” identifying the former with initiative, responsibility, creativity, and novelty and the latter with rule-following within strict guidelines (see Bureaucracy, 1944, and chapter 15, section 10 of Human Action, 1949). (more…)
Sarasvathy Slides
| Peter Klein |
Saras Sarasvathy has kindly agreed to share the slides from her recent presentation on effectuation.
New McKinsey Videos
| Peter Klein |
Acumen Fund founder and CEO Jacqueline Novogratz shares stories of social-sector entrepreneurship in an excerpt from her new book, The Blue Sweater. A video interview with the author takes you behind the book.
Google’s chief economist says executives in wired organizations need a sharper understanding of how technology empowers innovation.
Tarun Khanna says their common optimistic entrepreneurialism makes them a formidable force.
Sarasvathy at Missouri
| Peter Klein |
Saras Sarasvathy comes to our campus this Thursday, 5 March, for a seminar on the effectuation approach to entrepreneurship. Details are at the McQuinn Center site. Those of you within driving distance to Columbia should consider coming over. Friday she’s keynoting the Gateway Entrepreneurship Research Conference at St. Louis University.
Saras presented this material last summer at SMG, before Nicolai; here’s another opportunity to brainwash her into adopting the Foss-Klein perspective. Kool-Aid for lunch!
Update: Can she build on the excitement generated by Jimmy John?
Computable Entrepreneurship
| Dick Langlois |
I just returned from New York, where I was a discussant at a session on entrepreneurship. (Peter was supposed to have been part of the session — too bad he couldn’t make it.) I discussed a presentation by my old friend Roger Koppl. I have written before about Roger’s work on forensic science administration. This presentation, which drew on a couple of Roger’s recent papers (see here and here), was called “Who Needs Entrepreneurs?” Here is the abstract:
The mathematics of “computable economics” proves that entrepreneurship policy is unlikely to succeed if it presumes policy makers can replace the unplanned results of the entrepreneurial market process with ex ante judgments about which enterprises are best. It is mathematically impossible for policy makers or their assignees to make the required computations of opportunity costs. Some business professors dream of finding a grand algorithm that will allow them to guide entrepreneurial decisions and to judge in advance which decisions are good and which bad. The logic of computable economics, however, reveals this dream to be a form of magical thinking.
This is fascinating stuff that should be of considerable interest to O&M readers.
Slides on “Putting Entrepreneurship into Strategy and Organization”
| Peter Klein |
You’ve read the book. You’ve seen the movie. You attended the seminar. Now download the slides. Or something like that. Anyway, Lasse begged me to post the slides from this morning’s talk at NHH — or maybe he begged me not to post them, I forget which — so here they are. Some of the slides may not make much sense without the animation (and accompanying patter), but sadly the event was not captured on video, where it could have won next year’s Oscar in the “Best Obscure Academic Talk” category.
Klein Seminar at NHH
| Lasse Lien |
Monday will be a big day at the Norwegian School of Ecomics and Business Administation. P. G. Klein will give a seminar under the title “Putting Entreprenurship Into Organization and Strategy Research.” Not only will he give a seminar, but we shall have the pleasure of his company from Sunday until Wednesday. If Peter’s blogging frequency goes down early next week it will be because he’s having such a good time here, and if it goes up, it will be because he is so inspired by being here.
Kirzner on Kirzner
| Peter Klein |
In a recent paper I wrote that much of the contemporary entrepreneurship literature on opportunity identification
misses . . . the point of Kirzner’s metaphor of entrepreneurial alertness: namely that it is only a metaphor. Kirzner’s aim is not to characterize entrepreneurship per se, but to explain the tendency for markets to clear. In the Kirznerian system, opportunities are (exogenous) arbitrage opportunities and nothing more. Entrepreneurship itself serves a purely instrumental function; it is the means by which Kirzner explains market clearing.
Some readers have challenged me on this point. In my defense, I call upon none other than Israel Kirzner, whose newest paper, “The Alert and Creative Entrepreneur: A Clarification,” appears in the February 2009 issue of Small Business Economics (working-paper version here). Kirzner seeks to clarify the nature of his classic contribution, concerned that he has been misinterpreted by friend and foe alike. Writes Kirzner:
[M]y own work has nothing to say about the secrets of successful entrepreneurship. My work has explored, not the nature of the talents needed for entrepreneurial success, not any guidelines to be followed by would-be successful entrepreneurs, but, instead, the nature of the market process set in motion by the entrepreneurial decisions (both successful and unsuccessful ones!). . . . This paper seeks (a) to identify more carefully the sense in which my work on entrepreneurial theory does not throw light on the substantive sources of successful entrepreneurship, (b) to argue that a number of (sympathetic) reviewers of my work have somehow failed to recognize this limitation in the scope of my work (and that these scholars have therefore misunderstood certain aspects of my theoretical system), (c) to show that, despite all of the above, my understanding of the market process (as set in motion by entrepreneurial decisions) can, in a significant sense, provide a theoretical underpinning for public policy in regard to entrepreneurship.
Kirzner devotes the bulk of his attention to the contrast between Kirznerian and Schumpeterian entrerpreneurship, while my paper focuses on the differences between Kirzner and Knight. Still, I’m gratified that Kirzner appears to view today’s applied entrepreneurship literature, in relation to his own work, the same way I do.
Pomo Alert: New Management Journal Special Issues
| Peter Klein |
We haven’t raised the pomo periscope for a while, but two recent management journal special issues call for its return. The June 2008 issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management contains a symposium on “Recreating/Recontextualising Entrepreneurship,” which includes such articles as “Accidental Ventures — A Materialist Reading of Opportunity and Entrepreneurial Potential” and “Transduction and Entrepreneurship: A Biophilosophical Image of the Entrepreneur.” Then there’s the new issue of ephemera, with the theme “University, Failed” and articles like “Institutionalizing Critique: A Problem of Critical Management Studies,” “Epistemic Convenience,” “I Wanted to Be an Academic, Not a ‘Creative’: Notes on Universities and the New Capitalism, and “We Are All Workers: A Class Analysis of University Labour Strikes.” Hoo-boy.
Indigenous Entrepreneurship in Rural China
| Peter Klein |
A very interesting article in the McKinsey Quarterly by MIT’s Yasheng Huang: “Private Ownership: The Real Source of China’s Economic Miracle.” The key to China’s recent economic is not state-led capitalism (call it “Bush-Bernanke-Paulson capitalism”) but private property and financial-market liberalization, leading to a burst of indigenous rural entrepreneurship. Writes Huang:
Big cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen are routinely extolled in the Western press as vibrant growth centers. China’s rural areas, if mentioned at all, typically figure as impoverished backwaters. But a close analysis of the economic data reveals that these breathless descriptions of China’s modern city skylines have it exactly backward: in fact, the economy was most dynamic in rural China, while heavy-handed government intervention has stifled entrepreneurialism and ownership in the urban centers.
Particularly interesting is Huang’s account of why so many Western economists fail to understand this. (more…)
Bygrave on the State of Entrepreneurship Research
| Peter Klein |
William Bygrave surveys the field and concludes that it’s “dominated by quantitative research driven almost exclusively by statistical analysis with SPSS and that qualitative research is seldom published in the leading entrepreneurship journals. He regrets that it is almost impossible to get purely empirical paper published in the leading journal. He pleads with journal editors and their review boards to become less narrow minded and much more pluralistic.”
Bygrave’s assessment is valuable but I think limited by its focus on the “traditional” entrepreneurship journals (e.g., JBV, ETP, SBE). Newer journals such as the SEJ and, more important, the entrepreneurship research that increasingly appears in the top mainstream strategy, organization, and economics journals tends to have a different, and more varied, character.
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments