Official Misconduct – An Entrepreneurial Explanation
-
Stefan Kirkegaard Sløk-Madsen
,
Cecilie Barner Jensen
Abstract
This article takes a unique perspective on official misconduct, viewing official misconduct as an entrepreneurial manifestation. We propose a typology of misconduct based on discovery and creation, structured around three dimensions that represent entrepreneurial choices to explore or exploit. We empirically apply this typology through an analysis of 11 official misconduct cases in Danish municipalities, a robust institutional context. This research enhances understanding of the relationship between strong institutions and unproductive entrepreneurial behavior, offering practical insights for policymakers and public administrators.
-
Competing interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All co-authors have seen and agree with the manuscript’s contents, and there is no financial interest to report.
Appendix A: On Data Request Rejections
The 13 municipalities that rejected the application to access documents included Aalborg, Roskilde, Næstved, Svendborg, Haderslev, Hvidovre, Tønder, Syddjurs, Greve, Glostrup, Lejre, Struer, and Randers. The provided reasons for rejecting the application can be divided into four main categories: 1) no registration or list of official misconduct existed, 2) a disproportionate use of resources was required to process the application, 3) inability to retrieve potential cases without an overly laborious process, and 4) personnel matter/criminal prosecution (which are excluded from the Access of Public Administration Files Act). The column to the right in Table 1 in this appendix shows the paragraphs from the Access to Public Administration Files Act which the municipalities referred to in their rejections. The 13 municipalities that rejected the application of the right to access documentation resulted in incomplete findings because it is not known whether official misconduct occurred in these 13 municipalities. However, a general media search resulted in identifying two cases of official misconduct in Greve Municipality and Struer Municipality that took place in 2021 and 2020, respectively. Both cases involved the former municipal chief executives who used the municipal credit card to make private purchases.
Overview of incomplete findings.
| Municipalities | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No registration or lists exist | Disproportionate use of resources | Inability to retrieve information without an overly laborious process | Personnel matter/criminal prosecution | Paragraph cited from the Access to Public Administration Files Act | |
| Aalborg | X | – | |||
| Glostrup | X | X | §21 | ||
| Greve | X | §92 [2], no. 1 | |||
| Haderslev | X | Passed to criminal prosecution §19 | |||
| Hvidovre | X | X | § 11 in bill no. 144 § 9 [2], no. 1 |
||
| Lejre | X | X | § 9 [2], no. 1 | ||
| Næstved | X | – | |||
| Roskilde | X | § 19 § 21 |
|||
| Svendborg | X | X | X | – | |
| Syddjurs | X | – | |||
| Tønder | X | § 33 [1] § 14 |
|||
| Struer | X | – | |||
| Randers | X | – | |||
What might be the implications of the 13 rejections is a relevant question. Notably, 10 out of 13 municipalities rejected our application based on the first three categorizations in the above table: no registration or lists exist, disproportionate use of resources, and inability to retrieve information with a few or simple commands; this indicates that the technologies for public sector information that should be accessible to citizens are insufficient (Henninger 2013). This insufficiency is further supported by the challenges of accessing documents from the Copenhagen Municipality. A civil servant from the Copenhagen Municipality who processed our application informed us that cases of official misconduct are registered as administrative cases in the internal system. Thus, he would have to go through all administrative cases to identify those related to official misconduct. He also informed us that he could search for all legal bills in the internal system, but since Copenhagen uses external legal assistance regularly, this would also yield a high number of results that he would have to go through manually to identify legal bills related to official misconduct. Thus, our application could be rejected based on the disproportionate use of resources that it would take to find the requested documents. The civil servant informed us that the only way to obtain access to the requested documents was if the application stated very specific cases of official misconduct since this made it possible for him to extract the documents connected with these specific cases. Thus, the empirical study of official misconduct is challenging. Perpetrators of crimes such as official misconduct will try to hide their involvement and are generally unwilling to provide information since discovery can result in a legal penalty (Thachuk 2005). In our data collection, we encountered a systematic barrier to accessing the information that we applied for access to (legal bills and legal reports). This barrier decreases transparency and hinders the public from holding public officials accountable for their actions (Bauhr, Grimes, and Harring 2010). It is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate whether information systems intentionally prevent access to public documents that could have a detrimental effect on the municipality and public officials.
Before initiating data collection, the expectation was to have an exhaustive data sample because of the demarcation of the research field (administrative corruption at the municipal level). However, the 13 incomplete findings show that the data collection method did not capture all instances of official misconduct in the Danish municipalities within the five-year time period. Nevertheless, the data collection method of systematically applying for access to documents that are available to the public and thus exist independently of this study increases the reliability and validity of the findings by enabling other researchers to replicate the study (Gibbert el al. 2008; Yin 2018).
References
Aguilera, R. V., and A. K. Vadera. 2008. “The Dark Side of Authority: Antecedents, Mechanisms, and Outcomes of Organizational Corruption.” Journal of Business Ethics 77 (4): 431–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9358-8.Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney. 2005. “How Do Entrepreneurs Organize Firms under Conditions of Uncertainty?” Journal of Management 31 (5): 776–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279486.Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney. 2007. “Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1‐2): 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4.Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A., J. B. Barney, and P. Anderson. 2013. “Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research.” Organization science 24 (1): 301–17. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0727.Search in Google Scholar
Andreasson, U. 2017. Tillid–Det nordiske guld. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.10.6027/ANP2017-744Search in Google Scholar
Anokhin, S., and W. S. Schulze. 2009. “Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Corruption.” Journal of Business Venturing 24 (5): 465–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.06.001.Search in Google Scholar
Bauhr, M., M. Grimes, and N. Harring. 2010. “Seeing the State: The Implications of Transparency for Societal Accountability”. QoG Working Paper Series 2010 15.Search in Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. 1996. “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive.” Journal of Business Venturing 11 (1): 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00014-x.Search in Google Scholar
Bellante, D., and A. N. Link. 1981. “Are Public Sector Workers More Risk Averse Than Private Sector Workers?” ILR Review 34 (3): 408–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2522787.Search in Google Scholar
Bellone, C. J., and G. F. Goerl. 1992. “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy.” Public Administration Review: 130–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/976466.Search in Google Scholar
Bergh, A., G. Fink, and R. Öhrvall. 2017. “More Politicians, More Corruption: Evidence from Swedish Municipalities.” Public Choice 172: 483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0458-4.Search in Google Scholar
Bonderup, Thomas Nørtoft. 2012. Kap. 7: Læring og Evaluering i og af Projekter. I: Andersen.Search in Google Scholar
Bosma, N., S. Hill, A. Ionescu-Somers, D. Kelley, J. Levie, and A. Tarnawa, the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. 2020. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2019-2020. London: London Business School.Search in Google Scholar
Boudreaux, C. J., B. N. Nikolaev, and P. Klein. 2019. “Socio-cognitive Traits and Entrepreneurship: The Moderating Role of Economic Institutions.” Journal of Business Venturing 34 (1): 178–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.08.003.Search in Google Scholar
Bowen, G. A. 2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027.Search in Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. 1975. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M., and G. Tullock. 1965. The Calculus of Consent. Michigan: University of Michigan press.Search in Google Scholar
Burke, P. J. 2004. “Identities and Social Structure: The 2003 Cooley-Mead Award Address.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67: 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700103.Search in Google Scholar
Bylund, P. L., and M. McCaffrey. 2017. “A Theory of Entrepreneurship and Institutional Uncertainty.” Journal of Business Venturing 32 (5): 461–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.006.Search in Google Scholar
Camerer, C. 1999. “Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96 (19): 10575–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.19.10575.Search in Google Scholar
Cespedes, F. V. 2014. Aligning Strategy and Sales: The Choices, Systems, and Behaviors that Drive Effective Selling. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Search in Google Scholar
Choi, Y. R., and D. A. Shepherd. 2004. “Entrepreneurs’ Decisions to Exploit Opportunities.” Journal of Management 30 (3): 377–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.04.002.Search in Google Scholar
Companys, Y. E., and J. S. McMullen. 2007. “Strategic Entrepreneurs at Work: The Nature, Discovery, and Exploitation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.” Small Business Economics 28 (4): 301–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9034-x.Search in Google Scholar
Conlisk, J. 1996. “Why Bounded Rationality?” Journal of Economic Literature 34: 669–700.Search in Google Scholar
Cornelissen, J. 2017. “Editor’s Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate.” Academy of Management Review 42 (1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196.Search in Google Scholar
Czakon, W., P. Klimas, V. Tiberius, J. Ferreira, P. M. Veiga, and S. Kraus. 2024. “Entrepreneurial Failure: Structuring a Widely Overlooked Field of Research.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 14 (3): 951–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2021-0328.Search in Google Scholar
Darmer, P., B. Jordansen, J. A. Madsen and J. Thomsen (Red.). 2015. Paradigmer I Praksis: Anvendelse af Metoder Til Studier af Organiserings- og Ledelsesprocesser. København: Handelshøjskolens Forlag.Search in Google Scholar
Duffy, M., A. Drencheva, K. Hildenbrand, and A. Topakas. 2021. “Looking behind the Mask: A Framework of Entrepreneurs’ Vulnerability.” The Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 41: 15.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review.” Academy of Management Review 14 (1): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191.Search in Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.Search in Google Scholar
Erlingsson, G. Ó., A. Bergh, and M. Sjölin. 2008. “Public Corruption in Swedish Municipalities–Trouble Looming on the Horizon?” Local Government Studies 34 (5): 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930802413780.Search in Google Scholar
Fauchart, E., and M. Gruber. 2011. “Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries: The Role of Founder Identity in Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Journal 54: 935–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0211.Search in Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.Search in Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., and L. Weber. 2016. “Moving Opportunism to the Back Seat: Bounded Rationality, Costly Conflict, and Hierarchical Forms.” Academy of Management Review 41 (1): 61–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0105.Search in Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., and P. G. Klein. 2020. “Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Who Needs Them?” Academy of Management Perspectives 34 (3): 366–77.10.5465/amp.2017.0181Search in Google Scholar
Foss, N. J., P. G. Klein, and C. Bjørnskov. 2018. “The Context of Entrepreneurial Judgment: Organizations, Markets, and Institutions.” Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12428.Search in Google Scholar
Funko, I. S., B. Vlačić, and M. Dabić. 2023. “Corporate Entrepreneurship in Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of innovation & knowledge 8 (2): 100343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100343.Search in Google Scholar
George, B., S. K. Pandey, B. Steijn, A. Decramer, and M. Audenaert. 2021. “Red Tape, Organizational Performance, and Employee Outcomes: Meta‐analysis, Meta‐regression, and Research Agenda.” Public Administration Review 81 (4): 638–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13327.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbert, M., W. Ruigrok, and B. Wicki. 2008. “What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?” Strategic Management Journal 29 (13): 1465–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722.Search in Google Scholar
Gorsira, M., A. Denkers, and W. Huisman. 2016. “Both Sides of the Coin: Motives for Corruption Among Public Officials and Business Employees.” Journal of Business Ethics 151 (1): 179–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3219-2.Search in Google Scholar
Greve, H. R. 2013. “Microfoundations of Management: Behavioral Strategies and Levels of Rationality in Organizational Action.” Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (2): 103–19. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0091.Search in Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A., and R. Hamowy. 1960/2020. The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition, 17. Oxford: Routledge.10.4324/9781138400047Search in Google Scholar
Henninger, M. 2013. “The Value and Challenges of Public Sector Information.” Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5 (3): 75–95. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v5i3.3429.Search in Google Scholar
Hiatt, S., W. Sine, and P. S. Tolbert. 2009. “From Pabst to Pepsi: The Deinstitutionalization of Social Practices and the Creation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.” Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 635–67. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.4.635.Search in Google Scholar
Hoang, H., and J. Gimeno. 2010. “Becoming a Founder: How Founder Role Identity Affects Entrepreneurial Transitions and Persistence in Founding.” Journal of Business Venturing 25: 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Hubner, S., M. Baum, and M. Frese. 2020. “Contagion of Entrepreneurial Passion: Effects on Employee Outcomes.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44 (6): 1112–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719883995.Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, M. F. 2013. Korruption og Embedsetik: Danske Embedsmænds Korruption i Perioden 1800 Til 1866, 13–56. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Search in Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Hart, Schaffner and Marx.Search in Google Scholar
Kyriakopoulos, K., and C. Moorman. 2004. “Tradeoffs in Marketing Exploitation and Exploration Strategies: The Overlooked Role of Market Orientation.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (3): 219–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.01.001.Search in Google Scholar
Lavie, D., U. Stettner, and M. L. Tushman. 2010. “Exploration and Exploitation within and across Organizations.” The Academy of Management Annals 4 (1): 109–55. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416521003691287.Search in Google Scholar
Leeson, P. T., and J. R. Subrick. 2006. “Robust Political Economy.” The Review of Austrian Economics 19 (2): 107–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-7342-7.Search in Google Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and M. A. Glynn. 2001. “Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources.” Strategic Management Journal 22: 545–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.188.Search in Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.Search in Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Chicago: Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, D. 2015. “A Downside to the Entrepreneurial Personality?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 39 (1): 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12130.Search in Google Scholar
Munger, M. C. 2019. “Tullock and the Welfare Costs of Corruption: There Is a “Political Coase Theoremb.” Public Choice 181 (1-2): 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0610-9.Search in Google Scholar
Murnieks, C. Y., E. Mosakowski, and M. S. Cardon. 2014. “Pathways of Passion: Identity Centrality, Passion, and Behavior Among Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Management 40: 1586–606, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311433855.Search in Google Scholar
Murnieks, C. Y., Y. Song, and A. B. Hamrick. 2021. “The Passionate Intrepreneur: The Influence of Different Passions on Employee Entrepreneurial Behavior and Performance.” In The Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. https://digitalcollections.babson.edu/digital/collection/ferpapers/id/3822/rec/8.Search in Google Scholar
Navis, C., and M. A. Glynn. 2011. “Legitimate Distinctiveness and the Entrepreneurial Identity: Influence on Investor Judgments of New Venture Plausibility.” Academy of Management Review 36: 479–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.0361.Search in Google Scholar
Nielsen, P. A., and M. Baekgaard. 2015. “Performance Information, Blame Avoidance, and Politicians’ Attitudes to Spending and Reform: Evidence from an Experiment.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25 (2): 545–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut051.Search in Google Scholar
Niskanen, J. 2017. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Oxford: Routledge.10.4324/9781315081878Search in Google Scholar
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808678Search in Google Scholar
O’Reilly III, C. A., and M. L. Tushman. 2011. “Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit.” California Management Review 53 (4): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5.Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, D. 1993. “Reinventing Government.” Public Productivity and Management Review: 349–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381012.Search in Google Scholar
Pennington, Mark. 2011. Robust Political Economy: Classical Liberalism and the Future of Public Policy. Northampton: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781849809054Search in Google Scholar
Powell, E. E., and T. Baker. 2014. “‘It’s what You Make of it: Founder Identity and Enacting Strategic Responses to Adversity.” Academy of Management Journal 57: 1406–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0454.Search in Google Scholar
Powell, T. C., D. Lovallo, and C. R. Fox. 2011. “Behavioral Strategy.” Strategic Management Journal 32 (13): 1369–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.968.Search in Google Scholar
Rowley, J. 2002. “Using Case Studies in Research.” Management Research News 25 (1): 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990.Search in Google Scholar
Shafique, I., M. N. Kalyar, and N. Mehwish. 2021. “Organizational Ambidexterity, Green Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Environmental Performance in SMEs Context: Examining the Moderating Role of Perceived CSR.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 28 (1): 446–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2060.Search in Google Scholar
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 217–26. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1991. “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 125–34, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed., 72–122. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sløk-Madsen, S. K. 2022. Danish Capitalism in the 20th Century: A Business History of an Innovistic Mixed Economy. London: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-031-04267-6Search in Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1759/2010. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edinburgh: Penguin.10.1093/oseo/instance.00042831Search in Google Scholar
Smith, V. L., and B. J. Wilson. 2019. Humanomics: Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108185561Search in Google Scholar
Sobel, R. S. 2008. “Testing Baumol: Institutional Quality and the Productivity of Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Business Venturing 23 (6): 641–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.004.Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, J. 2010. “Policemen Behaving Badly – the Abuse of Misconduct in Office.” The Cambridge Law Journal 69 (3): 423–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197310000590.Search in Google Scholar
Stets, J. E., and P. J. Burke. 2000. “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 224–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870.Search in Google Scholar
Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park: Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Stryker, S., and P. J. Burke. 2000. “The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63: 284–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695840.Search in Google Scholar
Suri, H. 2011. “Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis.” Qualitative Research Journal 11 (2): 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj1102063.Search in Google Scholar
Tanzi, V. 1998. “Corruption Around the World – Causes, Consequences, Scope and Cures.” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 45 (4): 559–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/3867585.Search in Google Scholar
Terry, L. D. 1993. “Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship with Democracy: A Response to Bellone and Goerl’s Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy.” Public Administration Review 53 (4): 393–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/977153.Search in Google Scholar
Terry, L. D. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.” Public Administration Review: 194–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/976559.Search in Google Scholar
Thachuk, K. 2005. “Corruption and International Security.” The SAIS Review of International Affairs 25 (1): 143–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2005.0020.Search in Google Scholar
Tracey, P., N. Phillips, and O. Jarvis. 2011. “Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model.” Organization science 22 (1): 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522.Search in Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. 1989. “New Product Ideas from ‘lead Users.” Research-Technology Management 32 (3): 24–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1989.11670596.Search in Google Scholar
Webb, J. W., T. A. Khoury, and M. A. Hitt. 2020. “The Influence of Formal and Informal Institutional Voids on Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 44 (3): 504–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719830310.Search in Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1993. “Opportunism and its Critics.” Managerial and Decision Economics 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4090140203.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. 2020. The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind. USA: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190936785.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, R. C., A. Geana, J. M. White, E. A. Ludvig, and J. D. Cohen. 2014. “Humans Use Directed and Random Exploration to Solve the Explore–Exploit Dilemma.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (6): 2074–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038199.Search in Google Scholar
Wry, T., and J. G. York. 2017. “An Identity-Based Approach to Social Enterprise.” Academy of Management Review 42: 437–60. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0506.Search in Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. 1981. “The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers.” Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (1): 58–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392599.Search in Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. T. D. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Competitive Research Articles
- When do Entrepreneur Sellers Have to Earn Their Exit?
- Official Misconduct – An Entrepreneurial Explanation
- Gender Gap in Business Angel Financing
- The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Opportunity: The Case of a Finnish Start-up in the Telecom Industry
- Effectuation, Causation and Bricolage; Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Face of Crisis, a Perspective from Developing Countries
- What is the Effect of Digital Platform Capabilities on the Opportunity Set? The Moderating Role of Governance Mechanisms
- The Strategic Evolution of Institutional Logics Across Social Entrepreneurial Process: A Multiple Case Study
- Toward a Context and Feasibility Driven Entrepreneurial Education: Evidence from Entrepreneurial Intention Determinants of Malaysian Students
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Competitive Research Articles
- When do Entrepreneur Sellers Have to Earn Their Exit?
- Official Misconduct – An Entrepreneurial Explanation
- Gender Gap in Business Angel Financing
- The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Opportunity: The Case of a Finnish Start-up in the Telecom Industry
- Effectuation, Causation and Bricolage; Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Face of Crisis, a Perspective from Developing Countries
- What is the Effect of Digital Platform Capabilities on the Opportunity Set? The Moderating Role of Governance Mechanisms
- The Strategic Evolution of Institutional Logics Across Social Entrepreneurial Process: A Multiple Case Study
- Toward a Context and Feasibility Driven Entrepreneurial Education: Evidence from Entrepreneurial Intention Determinants of Malaysian Students
