Elsevier

Technovation

Volume 33, Issues 8–9, August–September 2013, Pages 302-310
Technovation

The rise of the entrepreneurial economy and the future of dynamic capitalism

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.07.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Technological change is a fundamental catalyst underlying the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy.

  • Other key factors are the demise of the communist system, increased globalization, corporate reorganization, increased knowledge production and higher levels of prosperity.

  • Recognition of the causes of the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy implies a shift in public policy directions.

Abstract

A major shift in the organization of developed economies has been taking place: away from what has been characterized as the managed economy towards the entrepreneurial economy, or what Kirchhoff (1994) has called dynamic capitalism. However, the factors underlying this observed shift have not been identified in a systematic manner. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the main factors leading to this shift and implications for public policy. In particular, we find that technological change is a fundamental catalyst underlying the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. However, it was not just technological change but rather involved a multitude of factors, ranging from the demise of the communist system, increased globalization, corporate reorganization, increased knowledge production and higher levels of prosperity. Recognition of the causes of the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy implies a shift in public policy directions. Rather than to focus directly and exclusively on promoting new firms and small firms, it may be that the current approach to entrepreneurship policy is misguided. The priority should not be on entrepreneurship policy but rather a more pervasive and encompassing approach, policy consistent with an entrepreneurial economy, in order to foster dynamic capitalism.

Introduction

It has been nearly a quarter of a century since Bruce Kirchhoff's (1989, p. 161) prescient analysis of the shift towards an entrepreneurial economy: “There is growing interest in dynamic modeling of capitalism as recent experience has demonstrated the importance of innovation in shaping the structure and growth rate of capitalist nations.” As Kirchhoff suggested, for a long time developed economies could be characterized as what Audretsch and Thurik (2001) subsequently termed a managed economy. The inventions of the division of labor, economies of scale and scope, paid labor and the fine-tuned cooperation between man and machine following the industrial revolution led to the rise of the large multinational enterprise. This enterprise was clearly the dominant form of organization until the 1980s. Statistical evidence, gathered from both Europe and North America, points towards the increasing presence and role of large enterprises in the economy in this period (Caves, 1982, Brock and Evans, 1989, Chandler, 1990). This was the era of mass production, when economies of scale and scope seemed to be the decisive factor in dictating efficiency. This was the world described by Galbraith (1956) in his theory of countervailing power, where the power of ‘big business’ was balanced by that of ‘big labor’ and ‘big government’. Stability, continuity and homogeneity were the cornerstones of the managed economy (Audretsch and Thurik, 2001). Rising levels of prosperity absorbed the goods and services created by the typical multinational enterprise in this managed economy.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ensuing wave of globalization, the conventional wisdom predicted that small firms would wither away. In particular, with the rise of mainframe computing, it was predicted that this technology would be something of a final blow for small-scale operations (Audretsch, 2007b). Small firms were viewed as something Western countries needed to ensure decentralized decision making, obtained at the unfortunate cost of efficiency. Studies from the United States in the 1960s and 1970s revealed that small businesses produced at lower levels of efficiency than larger firms (Pratten, 1971, Weiss, 1976). Small firms were also paying lower salaries: empirical evidence from both North America and Europe found a systematic and positive relationship between employee compensation and firm size (Brown and Medoff, 1989). Based on R&D measures, small businesses accounted for only a small amount of innovative activity (Acs and Audretsch, 1990, Chandler, 1990, Scherer, 1991, Audretsch, 1995). The relative importance of small firms and self-employment had been declining over time in both North America and Europe (Scherer, 1991, Wennekers et al., 2010), in a sense fulfilling what Schumpeter (1942) had already predicted in the 1940s.

However, this managed economy has been replaced by the entrepreneurial economy. The managed economy is defined as an economy where economic performance is positively related to firm size, scale economies and routinized production and innovation. By contrast, the entrepreneurial economy is defined as an economy where economic performance is related to distributed innovation and the emergence and growth of innovative ventures (Kirchhoff, 1994, Audretsch and Thurik, 2000, Audretsch and Thurik, 2001). This replacement did not just happen in a few regions, such as Silicon Valley and the Research Triangle in North Carolina, or a single country, such as the United States, but rather in most developed countries (Drucker, 1985, Baumol, 2002, Wennekers et al., 2005, Acs, 2006, Baumol et al., 2007, Audretsch, 2007b, The Economist, 2010a). Whereas the managed economy was characterized by a divergence of institutions and policy approaches to the underlying economic problem of that era, maximizing the efficiency and productivity of large scale production while minimizing any negative externalities from a concentration of economic power, the entrepreneurial economy is characterized by a convergence of institutions and policy approaches designed to facilitate the creation and commercialization of knowledge through entrepreneurial activity.

The recognition of the emergence of the entrepreneurial economy helped to trigger policy debates to promote entrepreneurship through “entrepreneurship policy”. Governments, spanning the local, city, regional, national and even supranational levels, such as the EU, began a vigorous and targeted effort to spur the startup of firms and subsequent growth and survival.

This shift towards an entrepreneurial economy involves a move towards a more dynamic form of capitalism (Kirchhoff, 1994). Although Audretsch and Thurik, 2000, Audretsch and Thurik, 2001 identify how the manifestations and characteristics of the managed economy differ from those characterizing the entrepreneurial economy, the exact reasons triggering the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy remain scattered (Audretsch, 2007b, Baumol et al., 2007). The purpose of the present paper is to explain why the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy has taken place in the framework of a model. Also, some implications for public policy are given. In our model technological change is the crucial element of the explanation. However, as we will emphasize, the impact of technological change in leading to a shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy has been imbedded in a myriad of supporting factors, including increased globalization, corporate reorganization, increased knowledge production and higher levels of prosperity.

Section snippets

A model of the shift to the entrepreneurial economy

The present paper follows the tradition of Kirchhoff (1994) and his focus on the key role that entrepreneurship plays in generating innovation and economic growth by explicitly identifying those factors associated with the rise of information and communication technologies (ICT) influencing the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. While information and communication technologies can have different meanings for various contexts, the definition commonly applied by the OECD is

Information and communication technology

Although Karl Marx, in his analysis of technological determinism, may not have been the first, he certainly was among the most prominent scholars to make a link between technology and institutions, broadly considered. The most prolific technological change over the last decades involves the rise of ICT. Modern information technology begins with the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs in 1947, which was the basis of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956 (Shurkin, 2006). The transistor replaced

ICT and the demise of the communist system

A third factor conducive to entrepreneurship comes from the demise of Soviet communism. This section will demonstrate that this demise is, in part, attributable to the advent of ICT. The early theories about the demise of the Soviet Union (i.e., the generic non-viability of the socialist economic system, the rise of a popular revolution against the system, the existence of foreign pressures, and the betrayal at the very top of the Communist Party) are contested by Kotz and Weir (1997), who show

Globalization

Although the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy is partly attributable to technological change, and in particular the advent of ICT, this is not the sole factor or reason for the shift. A second factor involves the process of globalization. As with all grand concepts, a definition of globalization is elusive and elicits criticism. The term is generally connected to the (rapid increase of) free movement of goods, capital, people and ideas around the globe. That domestic

Corporate reorganization

The pressures of globalization and the ICT revolution led to waves of reorganizations in the world of large corporations that provided the essence of the managed economy. Corporate reorganization involves the changing internal and external organization of corporations, demonstrated by for example increased outsourcing and offshoring, and reorganized value chains. This has led to new business models of large corporations (Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2000), and more quantitatively, to downsizing of

Knowledge production

The policy response to globalization, both in public policy debates and in the economics literature, was to shift the source of competitiveness and growth away from physical capital and towards knowledge and ideas. In the policy debates, this shift was made clear in the Lisbon Mandate, and in the economics literature, it emerged as the critical factor underlying economic growth in the new growth theory or models of endogenous growth (Lucas, 1988, Romer, 1990). Endogenous growth theory assumes

Prosperity and entrepreneurship

In the sections above, we describe how the ICT revolution, together with globalization as the governing principle of economic behavior and spurred on by the demise of the communist system, led to expanded space for entrepreneurship through new organizational structures and a greater emphasis on knowledge as a production factor. Both investments in ICT (Mankiw et al., 1992, Jorgenson and Stiroh, 1999, Jorgenson, 2001) and globalization (Dollar and Kraay, 2004, Crafts, 2004) are found to be

Implications for public policy

Recognizing the ubiquitous nature of the shift from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy leads us to rethink the appropriate policy response. This regime shift helped to trigger an awakening in policy debates to promote entrepreneurship through “entrepreneurship policy”. Governments, spanning the local, city, regional, national and even supranational levels, such as the European Union, began a vigorous and targeted effort to spur the startup and growth of new firms. An important

References (112)

  • Z.J. Acs et al.

    The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

    Small Business Economics

    (2009)
  • S. Agarwal et al.

    Choice of foreign market entry mode: impact of ownership, location and internalization factors

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (1992)
  • D. Archibugi et al.

    The Globalizing Learning Economy

    (2001)
  • D. Audretsch

    Innovation and Industry Evolution

    Cambridge, MA

    (1995)
  • D.B. Audretsch

    Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth

    Oxford Review of Economic Policy

    (2007)
  • D.B. Audretsch

    The Entrepreneurial Society

    (2007)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    The Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy

    (2007)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    Firm survival in the Netherlands

    Review of Industrial Organization

    (2000)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    Innovation, Industry Evolution and Employment

    (1999)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy

    Journal of Evolutionary Economics

    (2000)
  • D.B. Audretsch et al.

    What is new about the new economy: sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies

    Industrial and Corporate Change

    (2001)
  • E. Autio

    High-aspiration entrepreneurship

  • W.J. Baumol

    The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism

    Princeton, NJ

    (2002)
  • W.J. Baumol et al.

    Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure

    (1982)
  • W.J. Baumol et al.

    Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity

    (2007)
  • D.G. Blanchflower et al.

    What makes an entrepreneur?

    Journal of Labor Economics

    (1998)
  • Block, J., Thurik, A.R., Zhou, H., What turns inventions into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and...
  • P. Boettke

    Why Perestroika Failed: The Politics and Economics of Socialist Transformation

    (1993)
  • N. Bosma et al.

    Entrepreneurship in European regions: implications for public policy

  • S. Bridge

    Rethinking Enterprise Policy: Can Failure Trigger New Understanding?

    (2010)
  • W.A. Brock et al.

    Small business economics. Small Business Economics

    (1989)
  • E. Brousseau et al.

    Internet and Digital Economics

    (2006)
  • A. Brown

    The Rise and Fall of Communism

    (2009)
  • C. Brown et al.

    The employer size-wage effect

    Journal of Political Economy

    (1989)
  • E. Brynjolfsson et al.

    Beyond computation: information technology, organizational transformation and business performance

    Journal of Economic Perspectives

    (2000)
  • E. Brynjolfsson et al.

    Race against the Machine

    (2011)
  • J.R. Bryson et al.

    The creation and growth of small business service firms in post-industrial Britain

    Small Business Economics

    (1997)
  • R.J. Burke et al.

    The Organisation in Crisis: Downsizing, Restructuring and Privatisation

    (2000)
  • F. Cairncross

    The Death of Distance

    (1997)
  • M. Castells

    The Rise of the Network Society

    (1996)
  • R. Caves

    Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis

    (1982)
  • A.D. Chandler

    Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism

    (1990)
  • N. Crafts

    Globalisation and economic growth: a historical perspective

    The World Economy

    (2004)
  • D. Dollar et al.

    Trade, growth, and poverty

    Economic Journal

    (2004)
  • D.J. Dougherty et al.

    The effects of organizational downsizing on product innovation

    California Management Review

    (1995)
  • A. Dreher et al.

    Measuring Globalisation: Gauging its Consequences

    (2008)
  • P.F. Drucker

    Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principle

    (1985)
  • EIM

    EU Small firms and Subcontracting

    (2009)
  • D. Foray

    The Economics of Knowledge

    Cambridge, MA

    (2004)
  • M. Fransman

    Telecoms in the Internet Age: From Boom to Bust to…?

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text