Defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new organisations,this paper explores,from a literature review standpoint,the moderating effect of clusters on the impact of entrepreneurship on development. To identify potential causes of this moderating effect, the paper focuses on three different impacts: entrepreneurship on development, clusters on development,and clusters on entrepreneurship. The findings of the paper are threefold.First,entrepreneurship is positively associated with economic growth.Given the importance of entrepreneurship in changing the economic and social structure of the economy,more research on the impact of entrepreneurship on development - i.e. focus on capabilities rather than on output - is needed. Second,it is difficult to reach empirical generalisations on the impact of clusters on development and entrepreneurship given conceptual and methodological constraints. Both positive results and caveats are found at different levels of analysis and at different stages of development of a cluster. Finally, given the previous finding, it is difficult to generalise on the impact of clusters on the association between entrepreneurship and development. Consensus on and validity between conceptual and operational definitions of clusters; consideration of context as well as process and, therefore, quantitative and qualitative methods; and differentiation between levels of analysis controlling for cluster stage and strength are the main criteria for future studies to consider to disentangle the impact of clusters on entrepreneurship, development and the association between entrepreneurship and development. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

This paper is about the impact of clusters on entrepreneurship at the regional level. Defining entrepreneurship as the creation of new organisations and clusters as a geographically proximate group of interconnected firms and associated institutions in related industries, this paper aims to answer three research questions : first, do clusters matter to entrepreneurship at the regional level? Second, if clusters are associated with different levels of entrepreneurship, what explains those differences? Third, what do the answers to the previous questions imply for academics and policy makers? To answer these questions, this paper distinguishes between clusters and industrial agglomerations and advances a theoretical model and empirical research to explain the impact of clusters on entrepreneurship at the regional level. This paper uses the 97 German planning regions as units of analysis to test the hypotheses. Using hypotheses testing and OLS fixed-effects model, this paper finds that clusters do have an impact on entrepreneurship at the regional level, but industrial agglomerations do not. Implications for academics and policy makers and suggestions for future research are given in the concluding section. Copyright Springer 2005entrepreneurship, clusters, industrial agglomerations, socioeconomics, neoclassical economics, Germany,

We revisit the self-interest view on human behaviour and its critique, and propose a framework, called self-love view, that integrates self-interest and unselfishness and provides different explanations of the relationship between preferences, behaviour, and outcomes. Proponents of self-interest as the only valid behavioural assumption argue for simplified assumptions and clear models in order to propose precise prescriptions, while critics to this self-interest view argue for realistic assumptions and rich descriptions in order to reach better explanations. This debate inhibits theoretical development because it faces the problem of incommensurability of standards for choosing among paradigms. We propose the concept of self-love, or the inclination of human beings to strive for their own good and perfection, to remove the assumption self-interest vs. unselfishness. Self-love distinguishes between the object and the subject of motivation and therefore creates a bi-dimensional motivational space. This framework replaces the unidimensional continuum self-interest-unselfishness, specifies eight interrelated motives, and provides different expected relationships between preferences, behaviour, and outcomes. We show that a better understanding of motivational assumptions, their embodiment in theories, and their influence on the very behaviours these theories assume provides managers and policymakers more alternatives for the designing of motivational contexts than in the case of assuming either self-interest or a permanent conflict between self-interest and unselfishness.

We believe that structural changes in a knowledge economy mean that managers will increasingly seek to make cooperative relationships the norm in their organisations. However, they are hampered in their attempts to do so by organisation designs that institutionalise the dominant assumption about human intentionality, which sees people and their relationships as motivated by self‐interest. We argue that the self‐interest assumption runs counter to the types of cooperation required to leverage fully the potential of the knowledge‐based firm since it provides for relatively restricted forms of social exchange. We propose that the assumption of excellence, as set out by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, provides a valuable alternative. We discuss four tenets of this assumption and find that they suggest important differences in organisation design that are more likely to encourage and institutionalise cooperative relationships. We explore these differences, considering their implications for practice and research.

collaboration, assumptions, self-interest, economics, inter-organizational networks, innovation, entrepreneurship, Aristotle, excellence, Latin America, human nature, human motivation, human rationality, business ethics,