This paper examines how pragmatism can serve as a foundational paradigm for entrepreneurship policy. Drawing on Kraaijenbrink (2008) and OECD (2011) frameworks, it traces the evolution of entrepreneurship models from a linear, rational process to a more integrated, circular model that accounts for the interplay between entrepreneurs, their environment, and the broader community. The paper identifies three key dimensions of pragmatic entrepreneurship — individual abilities, physical environment, and social context — and argues that effective policy must integrate all three. It concludes that public deliberation, consensus building, and clearly defined partner roles are essential to creating conditions in which entrepreneurship can thrive.
Entrepreneurship is one of the most important drivers of business and prosperity today. Communities where entrepreneurship thrives are strong. Hence, entrepreneurship policies need to be in place to encourage communities to become self-sustaining and business oriented. In this, Anderson's view of pragmatism can be used as a starting point: being neither a technique of neutral problem solving nor mere compromise, pragmatism actively considers the most important elements that can promote entrepreneurship in a specific community, and seeks the best ways to implement these. It is therefore an important paradigm in terms of creating effective entrepreneurial policy. In other words, policy makers need a pragmatic paradigm upon which to base policies that would promote entrepreneurship in communities.
According to Kraaijenbrink (2008, p. 2), the current pragmatic model of entrepreneurship has undergone considerable evolution over the last 20 years. In the past, pragmatism was assumed to focus on the rationally planned, risk-taking, and linear process of opportunity recognition and exploitation. This process begins with the entrepreneur first recognizing the opportunity to create a profitable business, then creating a business plan, investigating the market, developing a marketing campaign, and ultimately launching the business. Profitability is furthermore reliant upon the ability of the entrepreneur to create innovative and derivative products according to the revealed needs of the community.
Kraaijenbrink (2008, p. 2), however, notes that scholars have begun to question this model in favor of a more complex interaction model — one that accounts for the dynamic relationships occurring between the entrepreneur, the public, and the product as catalyst. This is a circular process, which the author refers to as a "means-driven and risk-aversive" process. Pragmatism, according to the author, provides an alternative to the overly rational model that operates on a strictly linear basis.
In the pragmatist model, human beings perceive the world in terms of possibilities and the possible actions that they can take (Kraaijenbrink, 2008, p. 7). There are a set of alternative opportunities that provide both abilities and constraints for business people to pursue certain ventures. The business plan is therefore dependent upon these abilities and constraints. The abilities and constraints that the environment provides are furthermore tempered by the inherent abilities of the business person him- or herself. The third dimension of pragmatism is the constraints and abilities provided by the surrounding society. Hence, entrepreneurship is dependent upon the external physical and social environment, as well as internal factors such as inherent abilities and resources.
When applying this framework to entrepreneurship policy, all three factors need to be integrated to provide the best possible opportunities for entrepreneurs. According to the OECD (2011), one of the first important focal points should be the local community, where an entrepreneurship development strategy should be implemented. To ensure that all pragmatic factors are integrated, key partners should mutually agree on a clear strategy for entrepreneurship aims. These aims should focus specifically upon the needs and capabilities of the community in question.
To accomplish this, public debate, deliberation, and consensus building among local institutions should lead the process, while relevant communities are also integrated throughout. An action plan should then define the specific roles of each active partner. At bottom, the central recognition is the integrated nature of the process. Entrepreneurship affects the community on a very wide scale, both directly and indirectly. All these connections should be investigated and optimized for the process to be successful, and for entrepreneurs to achieve the purpose of their ventures.
"OECD-based policy recommendations for communities"
In conclusion, pragmatism today recognizes the integrated nature of human relationships and endeavors. These can be used to create the best environment for entrepreneurship to thrive.
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.