The Phenomenon of Entrepreneurial Epigonism and Economic Imitation

Aim. The aim of this paper is to examine the importance of the entrepreneurial epigonism for the development of entrepreneurial activity, as well as to substantiate the fundamental difference between it and the economic imitation.

Tasks. The main objectives of this paper are to conceptualize the phenomenon of entrepreneurial epigonism for economic growth and development, to justify its importance for the development of entrepreneurial competencies, and to substantiate that imitation serves as a constraint for the development of innovation.

Methods. The methodological basis of the paper is a transdisciplinary approach that combines achievements in the field of cognitive sciences, ethics, linguistics, organizational theory, and economic disciplines.

Results. This article analyzes the meaning of the imitation phenomenon, contrasted with the entrepreneurial epigonism. Having some similar features (e.g. the lack of the unique idea), these types of activities are based on the opposite motives. Imitation is the copying/borrowing of other people’s ideas; it pursues exclusively economic goals and hinders the development of innovations, thereby economic development itself. While the entrepreneurial epigonism, which is driven by the need of initiators (epigones) for self-realization, on the contrary, stimulates the process of the economic development, since it implies the disclosure of the creative potential of economic agents, having as its goal the development and dissemination of an innovative idea. The article proposes a new concept of the “entrepreneurial epigonism”, which is understood as an activity, which is aimed at obtaining economic benefits, and as a result of which the process of development of the creative component of an innovative idea or its improvement occurs. That is, the epigone, not being an independent creator of an innovative idea, acts as its successor, thereby contributing to its further improvement and development.

Conclusions. Imitation is an impersonal phenomenon that has become so widespread due to the development of “the mass” as a product of globalization, which can be called a sign of modern civilization.

That is why imitation has become a macroeconomic concept, while epigonism as a concept refers to the instrumental apparatus of the theory of entrepreneurship. Further studies of the phenomenon of entrepreneurial epigonism should focus on the creative element in the process of implementing an economic activity. It is a promising direction for the development of entrepreneurial competencies.

1. Mansfield E., Schwartz M., Wagner S. Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. The Economic Journal. 1981;91(364):907-918. DOI: 10.2307/2232499

2. Bessen J., Maskin E.S. Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation. The RAND Journal of Economics. 2009;40(4):611-635. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-2171.2009.00081.x

3. Shenkar O. Copycats: How smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press; 2010. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Shenkar O. Imitatory: kak kompanii zaimstvuyut i pererabatyvayut chuzhie idei. Moscow: Alpina Publisher; 2017. 208 p.).

4. Kozikov A.A., Yudanov A.Yu. Imitation as a competitive strategy. Sovremennaya konkurentsiya = Journal of Modern Competition. 2011;(5):3-19. (In Russ.).

5. Kirzner I.M. Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Kirtzner I. Konkurentsiya i predprinimatel’stvo. Chelyabinsk: Sotsium; 2010. 268 p.).

6. Fraser L.M. Economic thought and language: A critique of some fundamental economic concepts. London: A. & C. Black Ltd.; 1937. 411 p.

7. Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge; 1976. 437 p. (Russ. ed.: Schumpeter J. Kapitalizm, sotsializm i demokratiya. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1995. 539 p.).

8. Shushkin M.A., Aleksandrovskiy S.V., Fomenkov D.A. Study of imitation practices in Russian startups. Innovatsii = Innovations. 2017;(9):67-76. (In Russ.).

9. Lowe A. The basic social process of entrepreneurial innovation. International Journal of Entre preneurial Behavior and Research. 1995;1(2):54-76. DOI: 10.1108/13552559510090622

10. Bill F., Bjerke B., Johansson A.W., eds. (De)Mobilizing the entrepreneurship discourse: Exploring entrepreneurial thinking and action. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010. 264 p.

11. Van de Ven A.Н. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science. 1986;32(5):590-607. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590

12. Sahlin-Andersson K., Sevon G. Imitation and identification as performance. In: Czarniawska B., Sevón G., eds. The Northern Lights: Organization theory in Scandinavia. Malmö: Liber; Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Pres; 2003:249-265.

13. Prokhorov M.M. Theories of creativity: Fundamental abstractions. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul’tury = International Journal of Cultural Research. 2014;(4):31-42. (In Russ.).

14. Litau E.Ya. Anti-ideology of entrepreneurship activity as an attribute of entrepreneurial projects. Ekonomika i upravlenie = Economics and Management. 2020;26(8):830-839. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.35854/1998-1627-2020-8-830-839