July 2, 2010
Loza on Entrepreneurship
Emile Loza has posted An Empirical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Usages of 'Entrepreneur' Informed by Economics, Multidisciplinary Studies, and Innovation Practice: Meaning and Characterization Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurship Law on SSRN with the following abstract:
other academies have studied entrepreneurship for some thirty years,
legal scholarship on the subject is zygotic. Few subjects, however, are
more compellingly needed to illuminate domestic efforts directed toward
economic recovery and growth, innovation acceleration, equal
opportunities for women and minorities, and national security and toward
international efforts to foster and sustain rule of law,
security, gender equality, economic transition and recovery, and
climate change-related innovation initiatives.
To-date, legal scholars have ignored entrepreneurship or treated it as a mere context for small business practice or skills training. No unified theory exists as to what or who an entrepreneur is, rendering comparative and empirical analyses impossible. Rather, uses of the term “entrepreneur” are everywhere subject to great variability. This definitional dissonance undermines the efficiency and effectiveness of economic initiatives, institutional innovation programs, and law and policy developments.
Toward a proposed theory of entrepreneurship law, the author presents an empirical study of U.S. Supreme Court’s usages of “entrepreneur” throughout its history. After applying a series of relevance filters, the study critically examines the Court’s ascription of neutral, favorable, and unfavorable values to the characteristics and activities of entrepreneurs.
French economist Jean-Baptiste Say coined the term “entrepreneur” in 1803, and the analyses incorporate resonant themes from Say’s famous TREATISE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, from innovation and economics theory by Joseph Schumpeter, and from innovation and management writings of Peter Drucker. Understandings from an extensive innovation practice further enrich the analyses, as do multidisciplinary examinations of research in economics, entrepreneurship and business, education, psychology, sociology, communications, gender equality, and minority studies.
From this study, the author compiles a series of some twenty attributes of entrepreneurs and a range of activities in which they engage. Among these are risk-taking, market vision, competitiveness, innovation, passionate drive, opportunism, and other attributes, along with intellectual property, formation, employment, investment, and financing, along with activities to gain and leverage multiple forms of capital and other activities.
From this informed compilation, Loza advances a comprehensive definition of “entrepreneur.” With this step toward a theory of entrepreneurship law, the proposed definition will help to begin to resolve important problems of definitional dissonance. Upon arriving at a more unified understanding of entrepreneurs, a more informed focus on their roles and needs will benefit the innovation acceleration, economic development, and the law and policy initiatives needed to eliminate barriers to and to incentivize their successes and sustainability.
July 2, 2010 | Permalink