Abstract
This essay recounts the circumstances that provoked and influenced earlier research and publications on entrepreneurship by Hebert and Link (1982, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 2006a, 2006b, 2009). Once a dark corner of economics, the study of entrepreneurship has enjoyed some light as the scholarship has matured, and the boundaries of entrepreneurship research have expanded. Challenges remain, however. The field still suffers from conjecture and confusion, and even the definition of entrepreneur has escaped consensus. Whatever direction future research takes, entrepreneurship must be recognized as an inherently decentralized activity: disruptive, contrarian, and incompatible with central planning.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Reference25 articles.
1. Batthini, G., A. Chaudhary, and S. Chaudhari. 2015. “Scholarly Journals in Entrepreneurship.” University News 52, no. 48 (December): 74–83.
2. Baumol, William J. 1968. “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 58, no. 2 (May): 64–71. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1831798.
3. Brenner, Reuven. 1983. Review of The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques, by Robert F. Hébert and Albert N. Link. History of Political Economy 15, no. 4 (Winter): 623–24. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-15-4-623.
4. Cantillon, Richard. 2020. Essay on the Nature of Trade in General. Carmel, Ind.: Liberty Fund.
5. Casson, Mark. 1987. “Entrepreneur.” In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, edited by John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, 2:151. London: Macmillan.