Magnus Henrekson (), Anders Kärnä () and Tino Sanandaji ()
Magnus Henrekson: Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Postal: Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden
Anders Kärnä: Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Postal: Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden
Tino Sanandaji: Institute for Economic and Business History Research, Postal: Stockholm School of Economics
Abstract: Differentiating various types of entrepreneurs provides clues to the puzzle of why top-down policies often fail to create Schumpeterian entrepreneurship and the ecosystems where it thrives. Schumpeterian entrepreneurship is intrinsically contrarian, whereas public policy has a bias toward incremental innovation and replication of past success. If central planners knew what the next radical innovation would be, there would be no need for Schumpeterian entrepreneurs. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs create not only companies but also institutions in the entrepreneurial support system. These ever-evolving structures are too complex to design, and central planning instead reduces the space for organic institutional innovation.
31 pages, First version: June 24, 2021. Revised: January 31, 2022.
Full text files
wp1395.pdf Full text
Questions (including download problems) about the papers in this series should be directed to Elisabeth Gustafsson ()
Report other problems with accessing this service to Sune Karlsson ().
This page generated on 2022-01-31 10:41:59.