The word first appeared in the French dictionary entitled Dictionnaire Universel de Commerce compiled by Jacques des Bruslons and published in Cantillon considered the entrepreneur to be a risk taker who deliberately allocates resources to exploit opportunities in order to maximize the financial return. Both Say and Cantillon belonged to French school of thought and known as the physiocrats. This institution was introduced in after a period of so-called freedom of trade Gewerbefreiheit, introduced in in the German Reich.
The term itself shows up frequently in the mediais referenced by public officials, has become common on university campuses, and informs the strategy of several prominent social sector organizations, including Ashoka and the Schwab and Skoll Foundation foundations.
The reasons behind the popularity of Entrepreneurship review entrepreneurship are many. But interest in social entrepreneurship transcends the phenomenon of popularity and fascination with people. Social entrepreneurship signals the imperative to drive social change, and it is that potential payoff, with its lasting, transformational benefit to society, that sets the field and its practitioners apart.
Although the potential benefits offered by social entrepreneurship are clear to many of those promoting and funding these activities, the actual definition of what social entrepreneurs do to produce this order of magnitude return is less clear. In fact, we would argue that the definition of social entrepreneurship today is anything but clear.
As a result, social entrepreneurship has become so inclusive that it now has an immense tent into which all manner of socially beneficial activities fit. In some respects this inclusiveness could be a good thing.
If plenty of resources are pouring into the Entrepreneurship review sector, and if many causes that otherwise would not get sufficient funding now get support because they are regarded as social entrepreneurship, then it may be fine to have a loose definition.
We are inclined to argue, however, that this is a flawed assumption and a precarious stance. Social entrepreneurship is an appealing construct precisely because it holds such high promise.
If we can achieve a rigorous definition, then those who support social entrepreneurship can focus their resources on building and strengthening a concrete and identifiable field. Absent that discipline, proponents of social entrepreneurship run the risk of giving the skeptics an ever-expanding target to shoot at, and the cynics even more reason to discount social innovation and those who drive it.
The word entrepreneurship is a mixed blessing. On the positive side, it connotes a special, innate ability to sense and act on opportunity, combining out-of-the-box thinking with a unique brand of determination to create or bring about something new to the world.
On the negative side, entrepreneurship is an ex post term, because entrepreneurial activities require a passage of time before their true impact is evident.
The problem with ex post definitions is that they tend to be ill defined.
An entrepreneur can certainly claim to be one, but without at least one notch on the belt, the self-proclaimed will have a tough time persuading investors to place bets.
Those investors, in turn, must be willing to assume greater risk as they assess the credibility of would-be entrepreneurs and the potential impact of formative ventures.
Even with these considerations, we believe that appropriating entrepreneurship for the term social entrepreneurship requires wrestling with what we actually mean by entrepreneurship. Is it simply alertness to opportunity?
Although these and other behavioral characteristics are part of the story and certainly provide important clues for prospective investors, they are not the whole story. Such descriptors are also used to describe inventors, artists, corporate executives, and other societal actors.
Schumpeter identified in the entrepreneur the force required to drive economic progress, absent which economies would become static, structurally immobilized, and subject to decay. Schumpeter sees the entrepreneur as an agent of change within the larger economy.
Peter Drucker, on the other hand, does not see entrepreneurs as necessarily agents of change themselves, but rather as canny and committed exploiters of change.
Entrepreneurs are believed to have an exceptional ability to see and seize upon new opportunities, the commitment and drive required to pursue them, and an unflinching willingness to bear the inherent risks. Building from this theoretical base, we believe that entrepreneurship describes the combination of a context in which an opportunity is situated, a set of personal characteristics required to identify and pursue this opportunity, and the creation of a particular outcome.
To explore and illustrate our definition of entrepreneurship, we will take a close look at a few contemporary American entrepreneurs or pairs thereof: Entrepreneurial Context The starting point for entrepreneurship is what we call an entrepreneurial context.
For Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the entrepreneurial context was a computing system in which users were dependent on mainframe computers controlled by a central IT staff who guarded the mainframe like a shrine.
Users got their computing tasks done, but only after waiting in line and using the software designed by the IT staff. If users wanted a software program to do something out of the ordinary, they were told to wait six months for the programming to be done.
But since the centralized computing model was the only one available, users put up with it and built the delays and inefficiencies into their workflow, resulting in an equilibrium, albeit an unsatisfactory one.2 Abstract In this paper, I review fifty four research papers spanning a 10 year period between and on research questions related to microfinance and entrepreneurship.
The Office of Facility Planning and Control (FPC) is responsible for administration of the state's capital outlay budget process, which includes preparation of a preliminary state construction plan.
The Princeton Review & Entrepreneur Name the Top 25 Undergrad & Grad Schools for Entrepreneurship Studies for NEW YORK, November 14, /—The Princeton Review ® and Entrepreneur magazine today announced the results of The Princeton Review's 12th annual survey naming the 25 undergraduate and 25 graduate schools .
The USF Center for Entrepreneurship is a nationally ranked, campus-wide, interdisciplinary center located in the Muma College of Business. Students To recognize the center and its remarkable work, here are profiles of graduates who have used what they learned and set out on their own to create their own thriving entrepreneurship .
The National Federation of Independent Business said its optimism index remains strong at in October. Although down slightly, that was still close to the index’s high. Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for Entrepreneurship at grupobittia.com Read honest and unbiased product reviews from our users.