Search

We construct a discrete choice experiment to study opportunity evaluation by entrepreneurs. This new method in entrepreneurship studies allows us to measure entrepreneurs' utility functions and thereby their perceptions of opportunity. Consequently, we produce empirical evidence for how entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities beyond the objective facts and find two types of entrepreneurs with different evaluative behavior that cannot be explained by situational or demographic differences. We contribute to the opportunity evaluation literature by measuring perceptions, provide theoretical argument and present empirical evidence for heterogeneity among entrepreneurs, and introduce new methods that allow for more nuanced empirical analyses of entrepreneurial decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This monograph surveys the rich history of entrepreneurship research within and inspired by the "Austrian" school of economics. Unlike most schools of the past 150 years or so, the Austrian tradition places entrepreneurship at the heart of economic theory and practice. Understanding the entrepreneurial "function" in society is vital for explaining the real-world market process, but also for a proper understanding of the fundamental concepts and theories of economics. These include action, choice, exchange, prices, supply and demand, money, capital, competition, economic development, and business cycles, to name only a few. In this monograph we survey the development of Austrian theories of entrepreneurship, examining the contributions of leading members of the tradition in addition to those of some lesser-known writers, adjacent scholars, and fellow-travelers. We then explore some ways in which Austrian work contributes to modern entrepreneurship research, especially through the Judgment-Based Approach. We conclude with a discussion of the professional roles now played by Austrians in the contemporary entrepreneurship discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alexander Linsbichler's book, "Was Ludwig von Mises a Conventionalist?", analyzes the epistemology of the Austrian economist and sheds light on the understanding of praxeology. Linsbichler argues that Mises's epistemological position should be classified as a form of conventionalism, rather than synthetic apriorism as often claimed. The book also addresses the classification of praxeology within the Neo-Austrian School of Economics and challenges the views of certain Austrian economists, including Rothbard. While the book raises important questions and offers a new perspective, there are gaps in the argument that may require further elaboration. Overall, it is a valuable contribution to the literature on epistemology and Austrian economic thought. [Extracted from the article]

How can cryptocurrency gain legitimacy in the eyes of users? Drawing upon the theories of institutional uncertainty and legitimacy, we propose a process model in which legitimacy for cryptocurrencies acquired at the market level via rhetorical strategies (i.e. evasive action) will reduce uncertainty in the formal institutional environment. This reduction in institutional uncertainty will beget additional legitimacy, and thus higher performance for individual crypto firms, on average. This study (1) advances institutional entrepreneurship research by investigating the legitimation process of cryptocurrency; (2) extends our understanding of the evolution of an innovation and its diffusion under institutional uncertainty; (3) contributes to the development of institutional theory by elucidating how cryptocurrencies can change existing institutions, and even create new ones, through evasive entrepreneurship; and (4) provides an overall theoretical rationale for how cryptocurrency can become more widely accepted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We comment on a recent article by Lopes (2021) , whose argument regarding the writing of the history of the socialist calculation debate is unfortunately burdened by a misconception of both the substance and nature of the argument that ignited the debate. Bringing additional sources from this time to scholars' attention, we show that there is much more to the Austrian interpretation than standard interpretations of the debate admit. In fact, our findings indicate that Lange's famous response to Mises's challenge constitutes a rebuttal of a straw man. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]