For a less dramatic creative destruction

D’Andrea, Fernando Antonio Monteiro Christoph; Mazzoni, João Fernando Rossi

doi:10.30800/mises.2019.v7.1245

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This also ignores the necessity of both innovative and imitative endeavors to a healthy functioning of the market process (e.g. D’Andrea and Mazzoni, 2019; Kim and Kim, 2021; Packard and Bylund, 2018). More than this, these policies potentialize problems in case of industry-wide downturn as in the Dot Com bubble and the housing market crash.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty

D’Andrea

2022

JEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe study aims to demonstrate how different arrangements and characteristics of institutions can generate or mitigate uncertainty thereby facilitating or hampering the possibilities of entrepreneurial action.Design/methodology/approachThis is a conceptual paper that advances the theoretical understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial uncertainty and the different institutional levels, their characteristics and their interplay.FindingsEntrepreneurial uncertainty also comes from the institutional environment and this has direct impact on the propensity to take action. The characteristics of the different institutional levels, in specific, their quality, stability, alignment and the burden imposed by L2 impact in the emergence of entrepreneurial uncertainty.Research limitations/implicationsThis is a conceptual paper that makes a number of theoretical suggestions which need to be further analyzed by empirical work.Practical implicationsThe findings suggest that different institutional levels need to be dealt with differently by research studies and institutional agents, including policy makers. Among others, the findings also suggest that stability is key to entrepreneurship and that the benefits of high quality regulation can be undermined by its excessive burden, reducing entrepreneurial action and harming development.Social implicationsInstitutional actors should provide stability and allow for the improvement of the environment overall. Specifically, policy makers should aim at good quality regulation that is valid across the board, that provides stability and gives room for improvement of the institutions. Policy makers should refrain from trying to foster specific industries; they should instead provide a leveled playing field without trying to direct the entrepreneurial efforts towards an industry or geographic region and without being overly demeaning.Originality/valueThis research breaks new ground. It unites ideas from entrepreneurship and institutions suggesting a novel, much more nuanced approach to their interplay. The results can be used by scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship, institutions and economic development. They also have the potential to help to educate policy makers in their quest to improve the context for entrepreneurs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty

D’Andrea

2022

JEPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Entrepreneurial judgment and especially action (Foss & Klein, 2012 are what will give rise to innovation. In a broad sense, entrepreneurs are innovators (Bylund, 2016) who may copy existing solutions, spreading their adoption to previously untouched areas of the market, or mainly that commercialize market breakthroughs (Bylund, 2020;D' Andrea & Mazzoni, 2019;Elias et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems?

D'Andrea,

Santos,

Costa

et al. 2023

REGEPE Entrep. and Small Bus. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Entrepreneurs are responsible for innovation, but they do not act in the vacuum, the greater the support for their action, the improve the chances of success. Startups - technology-based companies with high potential for growth and impact - are associated with the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems that facilitate entrepreneurial action. This paper goal is to provide evidence that help to explain why startups fail in an emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem. Method: We perform exploratory research in which entrepreneurs whose startups failed in the emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem of Porto Alegre, Brazil, were interviewed. We complement the analysis with the collection of secondary data. Results: Building on Isenberg’s (2011) six domains, we generate ideas on how each of them in emergent entrepreneurial ecosystem may influence startup mortality. Our results indicate that emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem could be much better in avoiding the premature failure of startups. Policy and Finance are the most problematic domains, while culture, support, and markets are the three middle-ground dimensions. These last three need improvement, but they are not as critical as the first two. Contributions: This paper contributes to the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature by exploring how emergent ecosystems contribute for discontinuity of promising startups. Originality: Besides entrepreneurial mistakes, problems that are out of the entrepreneur control can also cause a venture's death (Cardon et al., 2011). Building on this, we use Isenberg's (2010; 2011) model for understanding the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on the circumstances that entrepreneurs faced that determined their startup failure (Jenkins & McKelvie, 2016). Social Contributions: by better understanding why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems, we support policymakers in their focus on possible improvements of the features that seem most relevant to entrepreneurs. The public agents can then work to provide a better environment for future entrepreneurial endeavors.

show abstract

Man of Action: Murray N. Rothbard’s Contributions to the Theory of Entrepreneurship

D'Andrea

2024

Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though entrepreneurship underlies Rothbard’s economic theorizing, his contributions to this topic are spread among many writings. This paper traces a comprehensive idea of Rothbard’s “Man of Action,” the capitalist-entrepreneur in the causal-realist tradition of the Austrian School, organizing his thinking. Rothbard defines the entrepreneur as the economic agent who judges at the present about the future and directs production processes by controlling and allocating productive resources in search for profit. By organizing his ideas, I demonstrate how they differ from arguably similar approaches—notably Kirzner’s and Schumpeter’s—and argue that his strand of theorizing is the one in line with praxeology in the lineage of Menger, Böhm-Bawerk and Mises. I show that his contributions influenced others and are reflected in contemporaneous developments in both causal-realist and mainstream discussions. To close, I suggest how to use his ideas to continue to advance the theoretical understanding of the engine of the market process.

show abstract

For a less dramatic creative destruction

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty

Entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty

Why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems?

Man of Action: Murray N. Rothbard’s Contributions to the Theory of Entrepreneurship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About