Since 2014
Entrepreneurship Policy in Lithuania: Productive, Unproductive and Destructive Entrepreneurship
Public Policy and Administration
View Archive Info| Field | Value | |
| Title |
Entrepreneurship Policy in Lithuania: Productive, Unproductive and Destructive Entrepreneurship
Verslumo skatinimo politika Lietuvoje: produktyvi, neproduktyvi ir destruktyvi antreprenerystė |
|
| Creator |
Židonis, Žilvinas
|
|
| Subject |
entrepreneurship; public policy; public administration; economic sociology
antreprenerystė; viešoji politika; viešasis administravimas; ekonominė sociologija |
|
| Description |
The entrepreneurship policy to promote economic growth and competitiveness is heavily focused on the supply of entrepreneurs. However, as it was stressed by Baumol (1990), the neglected factor is allocation between productive and unproductive entrepreneurial activities. While some EU countries, such as Czech Republic, Poland, and Portugal demonstrate high rates of entrepreneurial activities, they rank low in terms of competitiveness. This paper argues that in order to explain such phenomenon, we have to rethink the existing approaches from the perspective of economic sociology. Coming back to Baumol (1990), we should acknowledge a rather trivial but often neglected fact that entrepreneurs are persons who primarily seek to enhance their own wealth. The case study of Land Use Administration in Lithuania shows how entrepreneurial activities are embedded in the informal network of public officers and land dealers. The paper also argues that “land use” entrepreneurship activities are path-dependent. It is implicitly assumed that entrepreneurship is an exogenous variable, that entrepreneurs should be “bred” at universities and business schools. However, entrepreneurial activities, such as blat and unofficial economy, also existed in planned economy. Moreover, the legacy of Soviet entrepreneurship affects the current situation in Lithuania. In the case of “land use business” the entrepreneur does not collaborate with public sector, but in contrary – they view the state as a postile country, like it was in Soviet times.
Straipsnyje nagrinėjami Lietuvos antreprenerystės plėtros politikos aspektai ekonominės sociologijos požiūriu. Iš pradžių antreprenerystė aptariama kaip ekonominis, socialinis ir visuomeninis reiškinys. Diskutuojama, kaip ir kokiomis sąlygomis antreprenerystė didina šalies konkurencingumą. Remiantis Baumolio (2007) tipologija straipsnyje yra analizuojami skirtingi kapitalizmo tipai ir jų santykis su antrepreneryste bei aptariami produktyvios, neproduktyvios ir destruktyvios antreprenerystės požiūriai. Taikant atvejo analizės metodą nagrinėjamas „žemės paskirties keitimo“ verslo atvejis ir parodoma, kaip neproduktyvi antreprenerystė yra įsigalėjusi (angl. embedded) šalies viešojo administravimo sistemoje bei kokia yra „žemės antreprenerių“ veiklos modelio priklausomybė nuo nueito kelio (angl. path-dependency). |
|
| Publisher |
Mykolas Romeris University
|
|
| Contributor |
—
— |
|
| Date |
2014-04-09
|
|
| Type |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion — — |
|
| Format |
application/pdf
|
|
| Identifier |
https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/public-policy-and-administration/article/view/1970
|
|
| Source |
Public Policy and Administration; Vol 1, No 26 (2008): Public Policy and Administration; 9-16
Viešoji politika ir administravimas; Vol 1, No 26 (2008): Public Policy and Administration; 9-16 2029-2872 1648-2603 |
|
| Language |
ltu
|
|
| Relation |
https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/public-policy-and-administration/article/view/1970/1780
|
|
| Rights |
Copyright (c) 2014 Public Policy and Administration
|
|