Theories of Entrepreneurship: Evolution and Modern Development Paradigms

The presented study examines the formation and evolution of the theories of entrepreneurship in the context of the global economic thought; analyzes the crisis of these theories following the development of a great variety of economic practices and government regulation tools; explores relevant directions for the transformation of the theories of entrepreneurship in the context of global socio­economic instability and implementation of the import substitution policy in the national economic complex.
Aim. The study aims to substantiate the major directions for the development of the theories of entrepreneurship in the context of the emerging new external threats and internal risks through the systematization of the fundamental provisions of the classical economic theory and new theoretical and methodological aspects that ensure the implementation of a systems approach to the operation of enterprises and managerial decision-making.
Tasks. The authors examine the evolution of the theories of entrepreneurship formulated in the works of R. Cantillon, J. Thünen, F. Knight, J. S. Mill, A. Marshall, J. B. Say, J. Schumpeter, L. Mises, and I. Kirzner; demonstrate the importance of transformation of the theories of entrepreneurship for the systematic theoretical explanation of production and sales issues, prediction of the efficiency of the socioeconomic policy, and development of a decision-making benchmark for managers; substantiate directions for the development of the theories of entrepreneurship in the context of the modern socio-economic realities characterized by the emergence of new strategic risks, development of the innovative and digital economy, enhancement of integration processes, and the growing global socio­economic instability.
Methods. This study uses general scientific methods of cognition, such as analysis, synthesis, and generalization, as well as empirical research methods (description, comparison). The abstract-logical and monographic methods make it possible to trace the transformation of the theories of entrepreneurship and to substantiate the major directions for their development under current conditions.
Results. Directions for the development of the modern theories of entrepreneurship are examined: descriptive theories, which explain the actual economic practice from a theoretical standpoint, and normative theories, which characterize the ways for an enterprise to achieve a more favorable position in the market. The main principles of using the systems paradigm for the descriptive theories of entrepreneurship are identified. It is shown that the typifcation of the theories of entrepreneurship is based on the consideration of enterprise operation and interaction with the dynamic external environment. The major modes of interaction between an enterprise and the external environment are analyzed: holism — particularism, homeostasis — heterostasis, reactivity — proactivity, constitutionalism — environmentalism, rationality — irrationality.
Conclusions. The structure of examination of the theories of entrepreneurship within the framework of content analysis is substantiated based on the exploration of the nature of entrepreneurial activity. The relevance of the systems approach in the theoretical examination of the functioning of the triad “enterprise — theory of the firm — managerial decision-making” for solving the problems of the modern Russian economic practice is shown. The feasibility of developing a single complex theory of the firm is substantiated using J. Kornai’s theory, which combines the modern integration trends in the economic theory with the principles of the systems approach.

1. Valiyeva E. I., Ibragimov U. F. Evolyutsiya teorii predprinimatel’stva v rynochnoy ekonomike [The evolution of the theory of entrepreneurship in a market economy]. Molodoy uchenyy, 2013, no. 6, pp. 287–290.

2. Knight F. H. The meaning of risk and uncertainty. In: Knight F. Risk, uncertainty, and proft. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1921, pp. 210–235. (Russ. ed.: Knight F. Ponyatiye riska i neopredelennosti. Thesis, 1994, no. 5, pp. 12–28.).

3. Say J.­B. Traité d’économie politique ou Simple exposition de la manière dont se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses [A treatise on political economy or Simple exhibition of the way riches are formed, distributed and consumed]. Paris: Chez Antoine­Augustin Renouard, 1803. 393 p. (Russ. ed.: Say J.­B. Traktat politicheskoy ekonomii. Moscow: Delo Publ., 2000. 232 p).

4. Yadgarov Ya. S. Istoriya ekonomicheskikh ucheniy [History of economic thought]. Moscow: Infra­M, 2012. 480 p.

5. Schumpeter J.A. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profts, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publ., 1980. 267 p. (Russ. ed.: Schumpeter J. A. Teoriya ekonomicheskogo razvitiya : Issledovanie predprinimatel’skoy pribyli, kapitala, kredita, protsenta i tsikla kon”yunktury. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1982. 455 p.).

6. Institutsional’naya ekonomika [Institutional economy]. Moscow: Infra­M, 2001. 318 p.

7. Kleyner G. B., Presnyakov V. F., Karpinskaya V. A. Povedeniye predpriyatiya v modelyakh teorii frmy. Ch. 1 [Behavior of the enterprise in the models of the theory of frm. Pt. 1]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii, 2018, no. 2 (81), pp. 7–23.

8. Kleyner G. B., Rybachuk M. A., Nagrudnaya N. B. Mezhdistsiplinarnyy podkhod k postroyeniyu kompleksnoy teorii frmy [Interdisciplinary approach to the construction of a complex theory of the company]. In: Strategicheskoye planirovaniye i razvitiye predpriyatiy. Vseros. simp. (Moskva, 11–12 aprelya 2017 g.) [Strategic planning and development of enterprises. All­Russ. symp. (Moscow, 11–12 Apr., 2017)]. Moscow: Central Economics and Mathematics Institute RAS, 2017, pp. 80–84.

9. Kleyner G. B., Presnyakov V. F., Karpinskaya V. A. Povedeniye predpriyatiya v modelyakh teorii frmy. Ch. 2 [Behavior of the enterprise in the models of the theory of frm. Pt. 2]. Ekonomicheskaya nauka sovremennoy Rossii, 2018, no. 3 (82), pp. 7–21.