Editorial

Citation

Jones, O. (2006), "Editorial", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 12 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr.2006.16012eaa.001

Editorial

Recognition of the role played by small firms and entrepreneurship in economic activity was prompted by the Bolton Report (1971) in the UK and the work of Birch (1979, 1987) in the USA. Over the last 20 years, policy makers and politicians have been keen to promote the “enterprise agenda” as a response to their under-performing economies. The European Union has actively promoted entrepreneurship as a key mechanism for dealing with social exclusion (Commission of the European Communities, 2004). Within the UK there have been a wide range of initiatives designed to promote the role of small firms and entrepreneurship in helping the economically disadvantaged (see Blackburn and Ram, 2006). One of the most successful attempts to use enterprise as a mechanism for dealing with social exclusion has been the New Entrepreneur Scholarship (NES) programme. Early in 2000, Chancellor Gordon Brown used the successful achievements of business schools and entrepreneurs in the USA to encourage delegates at a “brainstorming” event to address the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in developing and sustaining the UK’s enterprise culture. Attendees included ministers and officials from the Treasury, the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), representatives of the Association of Business Schools (ABS), The Prince’s Trust and a number of Enterprise Agencies (Taylor et al., 2004).

In April 2000, the DfEE invited three university business schools, Manchester Metropolitan University (MMUBS), Plymouth and Greenwich, to pilot NES. The pilot programmes were judged successful and NES was then “rolled-out” across the UK (Taylor et al., 2004). A survey of the 3000 NES “scholars” who have participated in the programme since 2000 was conducted by MMUBS in 2004 (Rouse and Boles, 2005). The “Big NES Survey” indicated that the programme had been highly effective in moving participants into business start-up. Of those who completed the six-month programme, 91.5 per cent were actively involved in running or starting a business. A further 3.5 per cent had started and closed a business while only 5 per cent had decided not to proceed with their business ideas. The NES scholars were well-aware of barriers to enterprise but, at the same time, were strongly committed to working for themselves in the future (Rouse and Boles, 2005).

Despite the success of the NES programme, Blackburn and Ram (2006, p. 76) suggest there is a need for caution “to avoid having over-inflated expectations of the role of small firms in promoting social inclusion”. The authors use recent research evidence related to “employment in small firms, inner cities, young people and ethnic minorities in business” to examine the potential of enterprise to promote economic activity. Blackburn and Ram (2006) draw a number of conclusions as result of their analysis of the literature. First, they point out that the term “social exclusion” is a multifaceted and contested concept which needs to be defined and understood more carefully, From a policy perspective, they argue that many excluded groups are actually sceptical of mainstream support agencies; particularly young people and ethnic minorities. Overall, it is suggested that debates related to links between enterprise and social exclusion are actually hindered by the absence of research evidence as well as atheoretical advocacy of enterprise as a solution to social exclusion (Blackburn and Ram, 2006, p. 86).

While, Blackburn and Ram (2006) do raise some very important issues about the value of enterprise as a solution for social exclusion, programmes such as NES suggest that policy makers and politicians can have a positive impact on the lives of significant numbers of people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Rouse and Boles, 2005; Taylor et al., 2004). Nevertheless, as the authors suggest, there is a need for research that is more rigorous and theoretically informed in the area of enterprise. Journals (editors, editorial boards and reviewers) have a key role to play in encouraging improvements in the standard of enterprise-related research. The three papers in this issue of IJBER represent very different approaches to the topic of entrepreneurship. Sanz-Velasco examines an issue which is at the heart of academic interest in entrepreneurship and is currently undergoing increasing attention – due in no small part to the influence of Shane’s (2000) recent work. How and why individual entrepreneurs are able to identify opportunities for new business ventures is central to the study of entrepreneurial activity. It is argued by Sanz-Velasco that “opportunity discovery” and “opportunity development” are two very different concepts. This issue is examined empirically by a study of 20 firms operating in the emerging sector based on the convergence of mobile telephony and data communications. The paper provides considerable insight into the way in which new technology-based firms bring together prior knowledge and opportunity identification and exploitation.

The second paper by Henrik Florén provides a review of what we actually know about the activities of senior managers in small firms. The paper’s title echoes the familiar question proposed by Hales (1986) in his seminal paper first published 20 years ago: “What do managers do?” Florén reviews the evidence provided by five studies which have investigated the work of top managers through direct observation. As the author points out, it is extremely surprising that so few studies have tried to establish exactly what managers in small firms actually do. In contrast, empirical studies of managerial work in large organisations were very common in the post-war period – particularly in the UK and North America. The author suggests a number of implications for future research which are similar to those proposed by Blackburn and Ram (2006). In particular, Florén points to the inadequate conceptualisations of managerial work which clearly restrict any common understanding of the findings. Clearer conceptualisations of what managing a small firm entails could then be used as a basis for more rigorous studies of owner-managers’ day-to-day activities.

In the third paper, Fuller-Love and her colleagues examine a “scenario planning approach” to economic development in rural areas. This paper is the most closely related to the theme of links between enterprise and social exclusion. As mid-Wales is heavily dependent on agriculture, crises related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and foot and mouth disease had a negative impact on the regional economy. Such rural areas also suffer from a number of other disadvantages including limited local demand, poor access to extra-regional markets, low exposure to modern information technologies and limited opportunities for networking. In the case reported by Fuller-Love et al., representatives from local government, economic development and enterprise agencies as well as small business owners participated in the scenario-planning workshop. Participants identified four potential scenarios for economic development of mid-Wales: the lifestyle scenario, the “cool” mid-Wales scenario, the niche scenario and the growth scenario. The value of the approach lies in its ability to engender a sense of partnership among those concerned with the economic regeneration of an area which is facing a number of major economic problems.

Ossie Jones