Entrepreneurship Theories

What is the radical subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship? Ludwig M. Lachmann was a German Economist who proposed a radical subjectivist theory of entrepreneurship as an alternative to existing Austrian School theories of entrepreneurship (e.g., altertness theory or uncertainty-bearing theory or creative destruction theory ). According to Lachmann, entrepreneurs develop plans according to their subjective knowledge and expectations. Expectations form as a result of the creative imagination of entrepreneurs, who may envision many competing futures. Entrepreneurs continually revise their plans as they encounter new bits of market information during exchange experiences. Capital is seen as continually recombining due to the process of capital regrouping. As capital is invested sub-optimally, errors lead to new temporary stocks of capital that need to be redeployed toward new purposes. Institutions are viewed as signposts that provide the rules of the game for millions of individu

The misfit theory suggests that individuals who do not share the dominant cultural values of their society are more likely to attempt entrepreneurial careers as an alternative to traditional employment.    Hofstede et al. (2004) propose that individuals who feel like they do not fit in with the dominant culture may be dissatisfied with their job prospects and may be more inclined to start their own ventures. This theory has been used to explain why immigrants are often more entrepreneurial than native-born populations. Immigrants may face challenges in finding lucrative employment due to a variety of factors, including language and cultural barriers, differences in educational and professional credentials, and discrimination (Kahn et al., 2017). As a result, they may be more likely to pursue entrepreneurship as a means of creating their own economic opportunities and achieving financial success. In addition to the challenges faced by immigrants, the misfit theory of entrepreneurship ca

Founding a new venture is more common among individuals with greater access to financial capital because financial capital makes it easier to acquire the resources needed to start ventures. For instance, Evans and Jovanovic (1989) find that wealthier individuals are more likely to enter into entrepreneurship because they can risk their own capital. There is some evidence that many employees make the leap to entrepreneurship during liquidity events such as initial public offerings and acquisitions of their parent firms which can put significant financial resources into the hands of employees that own shares or options in the company. These employees, now flush with cash, have the financial freedom to spin out new ventures from their parent firms into independent companies (Stuart and Sorenson, 2003). Hurst and Lusardi (2004) find some evidence for liquidity constraints however only at the top of the range, suggesting that only very wealthy individuals are more likely to become e

Among personality theories used by entrepreneurship researchers, locus of control has received considerable attention. The concept was developed in the 1950s by Julian Rotter who is an American psychologist working on social learning theories. Locus of control refers to an individual’s perception about the causes of their life conditions. External locus of control describes an individual that believes that most of their life conditions are determined by forces outside of their control, such as like deities, governments, power structures, institutions, and also fate or luck. Internal locus of control describes an individual that believes that they are their own master and can act to change their own life conditions. They are viewed as a continuum and most individual are situated between the two extremes of complete external control and total internal control orientations. When applied to entrepreneurs, those with an external locus might believe that their survival or success chance

Contingency theory proposes that an organization's success is determined by how well its internal resources, structure, and strategies align with the external environment in which it operates. This external environment includes factors such as political, economic, social, and technological conditions. The concept of fit is central to contingency theory, as it refers to the degree to which the organization's characteristics match those of the environment in which it operates. A good fit between the organization and its environment can lead to greater success, while a poor fit can lead to inefficiencies and even failure. The understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy for organizational design and administration is a major component of contingency theory. Depending on the particular environmental conditions in which they function, various organizations may require various structures, resources, and methods. For instance, a company operating in a highly regulated se