Academic freedom and innovation.

Academic freedom is a critical norm of science. Despite the widely postulated importance of academic freedom, the literature attests to a dearth of research on the topic. Specifically, we know little about how academic freedom relates to indicators of societal progress, such as innovation. We address this research gap by empirically assessing the impact of academic freedom on the quantity (patent applications) and quality (patent citations) of innovation output using a comprehensive sample of 157 countries over the 1900-2015 period. We find that improving academic freedom by one standard deviation increases patent applications by 41% and forward citations by 29%. The results are robust across a range of different specifications. Our findings constitute an alarming plea to policymakers: global academic freedom has declined over the past decade for the first time in the last century and our estimates suggest that this decline poses a substantial threat to the innovation output of countries in terms of both quantity and quality.

The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields.

The remarkable ascent of entrepreneurship witnessed as a scientific field over the last 4 decades has been made possible by entrepreneurship's ability to absorb theories, paradigms, and methods from other fields such as economics, psychology, sociology, geography, and even biology. The respectability of entrepreneurship as an academic discipline is now evidenced by many other fields starting to borrow from the entrepreneurship view. In the present paper, seven examples are given from this "pay back" development. These examples were first presented during a seminar at the Erasmus Entrepreneurship Event called what has the entrepreneurship view to offer to other academic fields? This article elaborates on the core ideas of these presentations and focuses on the overarching question of how entrepreneurship research impacts the development of other academic fields. We found that entrepreneurship research questions the core assumptions of other academic fields and provides new insights into the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of their respective core phenomena. Moreover, entrepreneurship research helps to legitimize other academic fields both practically and academically.

Entrepreneurship research questions the core assumptions of other academic fields and legitimizes them both practically and academically. Since the 1980s, entrepreneurship research has seen tremendous growth and development, establishing itself as an academic field. Entrepreneurship is also taught extensively in leading business schools around the world. Indeed, few business schools do not address entrepreneurship in their curriculum. This represents a sea change: although entrepreneurs and new ventures had a remarkable impact on society, academia barely noticed it in the 1980s. Simply put: economics and business students rarely, if ever, encountered any mention of entrepreneurship during their studies. While entrepreneurship research has now developed its own methodological toolbox, it has extensively borrowed perspectives, theories, and methods from other fields. In the 2020s, we now find that entrepreneurship scholars are sharing its toolbox with other academic fields, questioning the core assumptions of other academic fields and providing new insights into the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of their respective core phenomena. Moreover, entrepreneurship research helps to legitimize other academic fields both practically and academically. Hence, entrepreneurship research now plays not just an important role in entrepreneurship education, practice, and policy but also throughout many other research fields.

Power and entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship research has benefited from embracing three economic sociology lenses-networks, cognition, and institutions-but has treated power mainly implicitly. This paper pioneers how the concept of power can advance research into entrepreneurship. We illustrate how state actors, legacy firms, and entrepreneurs variously exert coercive, persuasive, and authoritative forms of power over entrepreneurial opportunities or exercise power to pursue them as free actors. We explicitly link context and opportunity-development processes through a power lens and show how power's interaction-focused and episodic nature that can transcend geographical and institutional boundaries might enrich entrepreneurship research.

The Vietnamese entrepreneurship paradox: how can entrepreneurs thrive without political and economic freedom?

Entrepreneurship and democracy are often considered complementary, but recent evidence points to a paradox that entrepreneurial activities have increased in undemocratic contexts. Exploring economic and political freedoms, this paper investigates the development of entrepreneurship in Vietnam, an economy characterised by low economic and very low political freedoms. It suggests changes in economic freedom over time influence opportunity perceptions and activities more than absolute levels. We identify key aspects of how culture and institutions have changed, which have been conducive to entrepreneurship. Overall, we show how even small increases in economic freedom stimulate entrepreneurship, even in the absence of political freedom.

Overcoming the liability of poorness: disadvantage, fragility, and the poverty entrepreneur.

All entrepreneurs must overcome the liabilities of newness and smallness as they attempt to launch and grow a new venture. However, those in poverty face an even greater challenge due to a concept we introduce, known as the liability of poorness, which centers on literacy gaps, a scarcity mindset, intense non-business pressures, and the lack of a safety net. Each of these components of the liability of poorness contributes to the disadvantage and fragility of the enterprises confronting the poor. Implications of this fragility for venture dynamics as well as how some poverty entrepreneurs overcome this liability are explored. Research priorities are discussed for ongoing work on the liability of poorness.

The future of entrepreneurship: the few or the many?

Gazelles (high-growth), unicorns (ventures valued at $1 billion), and decacorns (ventures valued at $10 billion) appear to be dominating the landscape of entrepreneurship. In 2021, there were more than 700 ventures that have been valued at $1 billion or more by venture capitalists, and there seems to be a continued trend in more arising. However, the facts show that small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) account for over 90% of businesses and 50% of employment of the worldwide population, contributing up to 55% of GDP in developed economies. Thus, it is clear that in developed countries, small firms are the economy. However, the entire realm of entrepreneurship appears to drifting slowly away from the importance of smaller firms and focusing the entire emphasis on the relatively few tech giants. These giant corporations are now viewed through the prism of entrepreneurship. Thus, we ask quo vadis - where will the focus of entrepreneurship be post-COVID-19 - centralization or democratization? For researchers and policy makers, shedding some light on this question may help in the formulation of research agendas and policy directions.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts.

Despite the overwhelming use of the metaphor 'ecosystem' in academia, industry, policy, and management, exact definitions of what 'ecosystems' really comprise are scarce and often inconsistent. Existing vague descriptions in the literature do not consider the boundaries of respective agglomerations, hence, they impede the evaluation of performance and outcome measures of respective ecosystems. This special issue is a first attempt to trace the 'ecosystem' discussion back to its roots-the ancient oikos, coined by the Greek philosopher Hesiod (700 BC), and aims to critically reflect on the usage of the term 'ecosystem', briefly summarize the extant literature and grasp the main features of entrepreneurial ecosystems, namely the economic, technological, and societal dimensions of entrepreneurial ecosystems. We intend to focus on the key elements that characterize an ecosystem, and hence, untangle under what conditions entrepreneurial firms shape and influence economic, technological, and societal thinking within their ecosystem.

Entrepreneurial Regions: Do Macro-Psychological Cultural Characteristics of Regions Help Solve the "Knowledge Paradox" of Economics?

In recent years, modern economies have shifted away from being based on physical capital and towards being based on new knowledge (e.g., new ideas and inventions). Consequently, contemporary economic theorizing and key public policies have been based on the assumption that resources for generating knowledge (e.g., education, diversity of industries) are essential for regional economic vitality. However, policy makers and scholars have discovered that, contrary to expectations, the mere presence of, and investments in, new knowledge does not guarantee a high level of regional economic performance (e.g., high entrepreneurship rates). To date, this "knowledge paradox" has resisted resolution. We take an interdisciplinary perspective to offer a new explanation, hypothesizing that "hidden" regional culture differences serve as a crucial factor that is missing from conventional economic analyses and public policy strategies. Focusing on entrepreneurial activity, we hypothesize that the statistical relation between knowledge resources and entrepreneurial vitality (i.e., high entrepreneurship rates) in a region will depend on "hidden" regional differences in entrepreneurial culture. To capture such "hidden" regional differences, we derive measures of entrepreneurship-prone culture from two large personality datasets from the United States (N = 935,858) and Great Britain (N = 417,217). In both countries, the findings were consistent with the knowledge-culture-interaction hypothesis. A series of nine additional robustness checks underscored the robustness of these results. Naturally, these purely correlational findings cannot provide direct evidence for causal processes, but the results nonetheless yield a remarkably consistent and robust picture in the two countries. In doing so, the findings raise the idea of regional culture serving as a new causal candidate, potentially driving the knowledge paradox; such an explanation would be consistent with research on the psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs.