Suchergebnisse

The paper seeks to introduce the definition and to specify the characteristic features of "non-routine entrepreneurs". Using the notion of entrepreneurship by Shane and Venkataraman (2000), it explains "non-routine entrepreneurs" as persons driven primarily by the idea of exploring entrepreneurial opportunities, but less interested in being formally engaged in owing/managing a business or to claim additional incomes from it. The empirical base of the papers is two cases, labelled as a "patriot" and a "big tipster", from a panel of entrepreneurs, self-employees and start-ups the author surveyed in Moscow in three annual waves (2013–2015, N = 13). The paper shows the differences between the "non-routine entrepreneurs" and already well investigated groups (latent entrepreneurs, informal entrepreneurs, hybrid entrepreneurs, freelancers) and examines the personal (human capital) and social (transitional shock) context of the evolution of entrepreneurial intentions and their motivation. The "non-routine-entrepreneurs" fill in the lack of evidence about entrepreneurially minded persons with non-monetary goals, or non-economic meaning of results from such activities. Thus, the paper contributes to the literature on the reason and the intentionality of entrepreneurship. It concludes that "non-routine entrepreneurship" might become the choice of many people in contemporary societies where the boundaries between different kinds of economic activities are blurred.

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to deal with informal entrepreneurial activity of micro and small family businesses in the specific transitional environment.


Design/methodology/approach
The paper uses two cases – an informal micro business ("marginal" family business), and a formal retail small firm ("simpleton" family firm), respectively, of a panel conducted in 2013–2015 in Moscow.


Findings
First, the real distribution of responsibilities between family members is informal; it relies more on interpersonal trust and "common law." Second, exactly the ease of governing such trust-based businesses for the founders' generation sets limits of succession of small-scale family businesses. Third, as trust in the state is very low, the policy of Russian authorities to quickly force informal entrepreneurs to become legalized is substantially wrong; the results would be either a transformation of "simpleton" into "marginal" businesses or quitting business.


Research limitations/implications
Research limitations of the study are the number of observations and the localization of the panel only in the capital of Russia.


Practical implications
The fundamental failure of Russian State policy toward small-scale family businesses is its attempt to convince "marginal" to formalize and to oppress "simpleton" family businesses pushing them into informality. In fact, it should be designed vice versa: tolerate "marginal" businesses and let them to "live and die" while shaping a friendly environment for "simpleton" family firms.


Originality/value
The paper argues that the most important facet of informality in small family entrepreneurship is the informal property rights and governance duties' distribution among the family members.

Der Aufsatz behandelt die wesentlichen Stadien der Entwicklung von Kleinunternehmen und Gründungsaktivitäten in Russland im Zuge des Transformationsprozesses. Ein besonderer Schwerpunkt der Betrachtung liegt auf den Auswirkungen der Krise der Jahre 2008-2009. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Politik gegenüber Kleinunternehmen (KMU) und Unternehmensgründungen in Russland bisher eher reaktiv als pro-aktiv gewesen ist. Das Ziel der staatlichen KMU-Politik in Russland sollte darin bestehen, produktives Unternehmertum zu fördern und die Möglichkeiten für unproduktives und parasitäres Unternehmertum zu beschränken. Ein solche Strategiewechsel der Politik würde fundamentale Änderungen im System der Verfügungsrechte sowie in der allgemeinen Struktur sozialer Beziehungen umfassen, da die stark ausgeprägte Rolle von unproduktivem und destruktivem Unternehmertum in Russland untrennbar mit dem gegenwärtig dominierenden 'Macht-Eigentum'-System verknüpft ist. ; The paper deals with the main stages of private (small) entrepreneurship development and changing approaches to the SME policy in Russia under the systemic transition. The author argues that the entrepreneurship and SME policy in Russia remains rather reactive that pro-active. A special attention is paid to the crisis (2008-2009) impact both on the entrepreneurial activity of population based on GEM data as well as on the State inconsistent policy to promote SME under slowdown. In Russia, the strategic objective of government policies must be to support productive entrepreneurship and limit the options for rent-oriented or even parasitic growth of the two other types. But this task involves fundamental changes in the system of ownership rights and the entire structure of social relations, for the domination of unproductive and 'destructive' entrepreneurship is inseparable from the system of 'power-ownership' dominating in Russia.

"Der Aufsatz behandelt die wesentlichen Stadien der Entwicklung von Kleinunternehmen und Gründungsaktivitäten in Russland im Zuge des Transformationsprozesses. Ein besonderer Schwerpunkt der Betrachtung liegt auf den Auswirkungen der Krise der Jahre 2008-2009. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Politik gegenüber Kleinunternehmen (KMU) und Unternehmensgründungen in Russland bisher eher reaktiv als pro-aktiv gewesen ist. Das Ziel der staatlichen KMU-Politik in Russland sollte darin bestehen, produktives Unternehmertum zu fördern und die Möglichkeiten für unproduktives und parasitäres Unternehmertum zu beschränken. Ein solche Strategiewechsel der Politik würde fundamentale Änderungen im System der Verfügungsrechte sowie in der allgemeinen Struktur sozialer Beziehungen umfassen, da die stark ausgeprägte Rolle von unproduktivem und destruktivem Unternehmertum in Russland untrennbar mit dem gegenwärtig dominierenden 'Macht-Eigentum'-System verknüpft ist." (Autorenreferat)

The paper deals with the problems of diverging developmental trajectories of former Socialist economies of the Central and South-Eastern European countries as well as of the former USSR republics. The purpose is exploring the developmental trends of three groups of economies - ECE, Balkans and some of the CIS - which started from seemingly same initial base, but later showed some specifics both regarding the socio-economic orders and the dynamics of internal developments. The paper argues that over the 30 years of post-Socialist development, these countries moved over certain periods of adaptation and mimicry (mostly importing or imitating institutions of the established market economies and democracies), the later stage of evaluating of the experience and developing of some hybrid socio-economic models, and the contemporary stage of what is called "dependent", or "periphery" capitalisms in ECE and Balkan countries vs. "backslide transition" in Russia and some other CIS countries. Thus, the outcomes of the systemic transition are shown as problematic, fragile and different. The paper refers these divergences to a set of differing preconditions as well as institutional traps which occurred during the systemic change itself, and shows both commonalities as well as specifics of post-Socialist socio-economic development also within each of the three sub-groups of countries. The paper bases on the desk research of the relevant literature and own investigations.

Using the data of two waves of the longitudinal project started by the 'Public opinion' Foundation (July - November 2021, initial N = 750 people), the dynamics of strategies and factors of Russian small business' adaptation to the shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are examined. It is shown that: (1) assessment of the situation in the economy and in their own business correlates with the respondents' business strategy - entrepreneurs with the growth strategy are more often positive about the general economic situation than those who are focused on stability or surviving. (2) The motivation to do business affects the assessment of the situation and the response to it. Those who conduct business for the purpose of self-fulfillment more often than others assess the state of their business affairs positively, while those who conduct business out of necessity more often evaluate it negatively. (3) Depending on the change of the current income, small entrepreneurs can quickly change the strategy, whereas the reduction in current income affects the change in strategy more strongly than their increase: entrepreneurs with decreasing business income are more likely to change the strategy to a more conservative one ("stability" or "survival"), while income growth to a lesser extent leads to a change in strategy to a more active one ("development").

This paper explores the role of different trust environments in West and East Europe on the behavior of entrepreneurs. In a stable institutional environment (e.g., Germany, core regions in Russia) personal trust mainly plays a complementary role for entrepreneurial behavior, while in more fragile environments (e.g., peripheral regions in Russia) it can substitute for institutional deficiencies. The exploratory empirical data analyzed in this study comprise three countries (Estonia, Germany and Russia), and they stem from an international research project, which was supported by the Volkswagen Foundation. The empirical discussion focuses in particular on interfirm relations of small businesses as well as on the sources of assistance used by entrepreneurs in solving business problems. The preliminary results indicate that the forms of trust depend on the respective regional and sectoral environments, which draws attention to the difficulties of classifying whole countries as "high-trust" versus "low-trust". Limitations of the analysis refer to the cross-sectional nature of the survey data.

PurposeThis paper deals with types and actors of entrepreneurship in and around academia in Russia, as well as with institutional settings of the entrepreneurial activity of academic faculty.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on a series of semi-structured interviews using the purposive snowball method (2022–2023). The respondents are either engaged in different kinds of entrepreneurship in and outside universities in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod or experts in entrepreneurship in and around academia.FindingsA double mixed embeddedness driven approach to the typology of diverse forms of entrepreneurship in and around academia are shown in the context of the temporality as well as of the micro-, meso- and macro-level institutions, such as the low demand in innovations in the economy; uncertainty of property rights; limited interest of university administration in academic entrepreneurs or its focus solely on students' entrepreneurship; and necessity entrepreneurship motives on the micro-level. The research limitations of the study are the small number of observations and the localisation of the panel in only one country.Research limitations/implicationsThe research limitations of the study are the small number of observations and the localisation of the panel in only one country.Practical implicationsThe "Special Military Operation" and its consequences would hinder bottom-up academic entrepreneurship in the country, while pushing universities to launch R&D with the big industry, and forcing many faculties to non-academic entrepreneurship.Originality/valueFor the first time, the broad variety of entrepreneurial activities of academic staff including the specifics of non-classical forms of entrepreneurship in and around academia and their embeddedness into different contexts are discussed.

Bei der wirtschaftlichen Transformation von Plan- in Marktwirtschaften gewinnen externe Rahmenbedingungen unternehmerischen Handelns und das mit ihnen verbundene systemische Vertrauen mehr Bedeutung, als sie es zuvor hatten. Ziel des internationalen Projekts Unternehmerisches Handeln und Vertrauen - Struktur und Genese wirtschaftlicher Transaktionsmuster in Low trust- und High trust-Milieus Ost- und Westeuropas war es deshalb zu untersuchen, wie sich unternehmerisches Handeln in den jeweiligen sozio-kulturellen und institutionellen Milieus der Länder im östlichen Europa entfaltet, welche Unterschiede dabei zu den entwickelten Marktwirtschaften Westeuropas bestehen und welche Rolle Vertrauen spielt. Präsenz oder Absenz von Vertrauen wird vielfach ein entscheidender Einfluss auf unternehmerisches Handeln zugeschrieben: Low trust-Milieus, die in Russland nach dem Zusammenbruch der Zentralverwaltungswirtschaft aufgrund seiner historischen und wirtschaftsstrukturellen Prägungen stärker prägend gewirkt haben dürften als in eher westlich orientierten Ländern Ostmitteleuropas und in Westeuropa, üben danach einen ungünstigen Einfluss auf Markteintritte und das interne Wachstum der Unternehmen aus, hemmen den Wettbewerb und schaffen Spielräume für destruktive Formen unternehmerischen Tuns. High trust-Milieus hingegen führen zu dynamischen Wettbewerbsstrukturen. Um diese Zusammenhänge näher zu beleuchten, wurde auf die Neue Institutionenökonomik als theoretischen Rahmen zurückgegriffen, insbesondere den Ansatz von North. Formelle Institutionen umfassen politische, ökonomische und gesetzliche Regeln und Organisationen, informelle beziehen sich auf Werte, Normen und Verhaltensregeln. Institutionen können unternehmerisches Handeln ermöglichen, aber auch einschränken. Beispielsweise beeinflussen sowohl formelle, z.B. ordnungspolitische Rahmensetzungen oder Vermögensrechte, als auch informelle Institutionen, etwa die kulturellen Traditionen einer Gesellschaft, Art und Umfang unternehmerischer Aktivitäten. Während formelle Institutionen relativ leicht zu modifizieren sind, ändern sich informelle nur langsam. Ferner sind beide voneinander abhängig. Daher garantiert eine erfolgreiche Umgestaltung des formellen institutionellen Rahmens allein noch keinen erfolgreichen Transformationsprozess.