An Analysis of Entrepreneurial Perspective of Public Sector; A systematic literature review from 1990 to 2016.
Entrepreneurship has been focused field of research among researchers and practitioners since 1980s (Doherty, Thompson, & Spear, 2006). Its significance has been well established due to its pivotal role in venture creation by exploiting opportunities, bringing innovation, creativity and promoting sustainable economic development by creating new jobs in every economy (Wagner & Schaltegger, 2010). Generally the word "entrepreneurship" is associated with private sector (Salazar, 1997), for creating new firms by those individuals who have unique cognitive characteristics, they are called entrepreneurs but this perspective of entrepreneurship has been considered too narrow and various significant attempts has been made by the scholars and practitioners to stretch its scope into public sector for efficient and effective delivery of public services (Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005). Eventually, the phenomenon of entrepreneurship entered into the discourse of public management literature across a number of public sector organizations in different countries (Edwards, Jones, Lawton, & Llewellyn, 2002) but it's role into public sector has remained controversial (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003) due to the nature and structure of public sector organizations.
Interestingly, the concept of entrepreneurship in the public sector has prompted a discussion and debate in the public management literature especially with the movement of new public management (NPM). NPM was initiated to improve the performance of public sector organizations and to let public managers manage entrepreneurially and to make it possible for public managers to work like private sector entrepreneurs (Bernier & Hafsi, 2007). In the public sector, to work entrepreneurially by the public managers and politicians is very difficult due to the democratic and bureaucratic values (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003; Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005). Public sector organizations are managed by strong and well rooted democratic norms, culture, and values whereas entrepreneurship promotes risk taking, aggressiveness, autonomy, innovation and disrespect for certain culturally embedded traditions. This difference has hindered the adaptation of entrepreneurial models into public sector organizations (Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005).
Public sector organizations have experienced various reforms in all over the world due to the escalated pressures upon governments for improved effectiveness through efficiency and to cater citizens' needs in a responsive manner (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007b). Moreover, it was the hallmark of NPM movement to bring innovation in the public sector and to transform public organizations into more responsive agencies towards the efficient and effective provision of public service delivery (Mack, Green, & Vedlitz, 2008).
This substantial development envisioned by NPM movement in delivering public services has considered entrepreneurial mindset of public managers and politicians as an important characteristic. Which enables the public managers to be entrepreneurial in their approach by exploiting opportunities irrespective of resources they own, doing innovative and new things and be willing to escape themselves from old routines to pursue opportunities (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2010). Traditional approaches to fulfill the complex and emerging demands of 21st century are not sufficient to meet the evolving challenges of governments for public administration which has forced the public managers to portray and devise new public management tools (Moghaddam, Khorakian, & Maharati, 2015). To bring efficiency and effectiveness into public sector has been a key challenge for public policy makers and civil servants. Since 1970, various initiatives and reforms have been taken and implemented around the world in which government structures have been transformed to adapt changes efficiently and effectively (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007a).
Moreover, scholars like Seo and Chung (2012) argues that entrepreneurial orientation of public sector managers for managing public services, agencies, and enterprises is considered as a vital tool for upgrading and developing public organizations' efficiency and effectiveness which satisfy citizens' demands. It is challenging to bring entrepreneurial approach into public sector due to the difference in orientation of public and private sector. Entrepreneurial development has become a significant determinant to ensure economically rational and market based practice for the design and implementation of public policy and services (Vecchi, Brusoni, & Borgonovi, 2014). Thus, the importance of incorporating entrepreneurial methods into public sector has been widely acclaimed and acknowledged. Political agents are becoming more concerned to foster entrepreneurial methods into public sector agencies to improve their performance (Luke & Verreynne, 2006; Moon, 1999). Researchers claimed that practices of private sector entrepreneurship could be applied to public sector due to its emergence as leading force in public management literature (Sadler, 2000).
Insofar, entrepreneurial spirit and its application into public sector for improved performance of state enterprises have been discussed with its various implications. However, what is public entrepreneurship or how entrepreneurship is defined with particular reference to public sector?, What are the emerging models/methods of entrepreneurship in public sector?, Are the practices of public entrepreneurship are different from private sector entrepreneurship?, these are the few conceptual and theoretical contemporary issues being discussed into entrepreneurship literature by the scholars?
To get answers to these conceptual and theoretical issues, this study was conducted to investigate the phenomenon of entrepreneurship with reference to public sector by adopting the methodology of systematic literature review. Methodology of this systematic literature review of public entrepreneurship is adopted with the review of (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016) which was conducted on innovation in public sector. This study endeavored to explore the concept of public entrepreneurship, its current practices, goals, limitations and possibilities, major research streams, their emergence, convergence, and divergence points, antecedents and its outcomes in public sector. To pursue these objectives, following pertinent research questions were posed;
1. What definitions of public sector entrepreneurship are being used?
2. What are the goals of public sector entrepreneurship?
3. What are the limitations and possibilities of entrepreneurship in the public sector?
4. What are the main streams/types of public sector entrepreneurship?
5. What are the main antecedents which influence the public sector entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurship is a multidimensional concept and its applicability into public management literature has broad breath and scope. Its practices are considered to be innovative and productive both in public and private sectors (Mack et al., 2008; Seo & Chung, 2012).
This study has significant contribution to literature as it was conducted by systematic review of literature on public entrepreneurship. Systematic review are different from general literature review as they are guided and govern by rigorous and objective methods and structure of this systematic review is adopted from (De Vries et al., 2016) that systematic literature review is conducted on innovation in public sector.
The next section presents the detailed methodology followed to complete this systematic literature review on public entrepreneurship. Followed by results section which presents comprehensive findings revealed by this study about public entrepreneurship phenomenon.
2. Study Methodology
2.1. Searching of literature on public entrepreneurship
Literature on public entrepreneurship was explored rigorously by using the following systematic steps and procedures to ensure maximum objectivity. Period from 1990 to May 24, 2016 was selected for literature search published on public entrepreneurship to include various seminal contributions like Bellone and Goerl (1992) paper on reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy and various other significant studies conducted by (Perlmutter & Cnaan, 1995; Sadler, 2000; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Terry, 1993; Teske & Schneider, 1994) and emergence of NPM movement which refers to apply entrepreneurial methods in public administration and management (Mark, 2015).
A search into six electronic databases was carried out namely; ISI web of knowledge; Emerald; J-Store; Taylor & Francis; Wiley; and Elsevier (Science Direct) in order to include extensive literature on public entrepreneurship. In all the databases, the key term "public entrepreneurship" with inverted commas' was searched with a filter of time duration from 1990 to 2016 and the last search was conducted on May 24, 2016. The search results with the term "public entrepreneurship" revealed 572 articles in total from all six databases. Detailed literature search criteria are mentioned in the following table;
Hence, the above-mentioned criteria were used to search the literature on public entrepreneurship, a potential limitation by the part of researchers is acknowledged as only databases which were accessible to researchers as mentioned and were searched with the key word "public entrepreneurship" there is possibility of missing some significant contributions.
2.2. Eligibility criteria for studies selection
After conducting the initial search on the six databases mentioned in table 1; following eligibility criteria was used to include research studies into consideration for systematic review on public entrepreneurship.
2.3. Selection of studies
After applying the search criteria on all the six electronic databases, search results 572 results were appeared. Based on the eligibility criteria 90 research articles were selected after removing repetitions and book reviews. Figure 1; depicts the selection process used to select the articles. All the articles were carefully screened by the researchers, their titles and abstracts were studied and selected articles were studied thoroughly and meticulous analysis was carried out, an excel spread sheet was maintained to ensure maximum quality. Data about articles publication year, title, journal, study objective, research questions/hypothesis, variables, main research findings, contribution were derived from 90 selected articles. Moreover, data about the main research questions, like definition of entrepreneurship in the public sector, goals of entrepreneurship in public sector, research streams, limitations and possibilities, influencing factors and outcomes were derived to get answers to posed by this systematic review.
Articles searching on mentioned online databases, initial screening, downloading, and reading was rigorously performed. Although maximum efforts were made to ensure objectivity but limitation of subjectivity (De Vries et al., 2016) could never be ignored because of certain limitations. All the 90 selected articles were thoroughly reviewed and studied by the researchers and comprehensive analysis was performed on excel spreadsheet deriving relevant themes about public entrepreneurship definitions, goals, it's limitations and possibilities into government sector in the presence of strong democratic values and bureaucratic system, it's antecedents and major influencing factors and outcomes.
3. Results of Systematic Literature Review
In this section, complete results of this systematic literature review are presented.
Chart 1 depicts year wise number of articles included in systematic literature review of public entrepreneurship. It reveals that majority articles on public entrepreneurship were published between the periods of 2011 to 2016 as 40 (44.44%) articles were published during this period. Moreover, 34(37.78%) articles were published in 2001 to 2010, and 16(17.78%) articles were published during 1990 to 2000. Hence, it could be concluded that majority articles 74 (82.22%) included in this systematic literature review on public entrepreneurship were published during 2001 to 2016.
Continent wise analysis showed majority of the articles 37(41.11%) were published in North American countries, and 36(40%) were published in European countries. Hence, it could be concluded that 73(81.11%) articles were published in European and North American countries.
Table 4 depicts country wise number of published articles which were finally got eligible for this systematic literature review. Overall, articles from 23 countries are got selected for this review. Analysis reveals that majority of the research studies 33(36.67%) were conducted in USA, followed by 12(13.33%) were conducted in UK. Thus, 45 (50%) studies were conducted in USA and UK only. It means researchers from USA and UK are more concerned about the phenomenon of public entrepreneurship as compared to other countries.
Furthermore, Australia 4(4.44%), Sweden 4(4.44%), Canada4 (4.44%), China 3 (3.33%), Denmark 3 (3.33%), Greece 3 (3.33%), Spain 3 (3.33%), Iran 2(2.22%), Pakistan 2(2.22%), New Zealand 2(2.22%), Belgium 2(2.22%), France 2(2.22%), Germany 2(2.22%), and Italy 2(2.22%) studies were conducted. Rest of the countries had only 1 research articles included in this review.
Table 5 depicts total number of journals in which 90 selected articles were published. Articles selected for review on public entrepreneurship were published in 56 different journals. Majority of the articles 11 (12.22%) were published in Public Administration review followed by same frequency published in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development journal. In Public Management Review 4(4.44%), 3 (3.33%) were in Public Administration, and 3(3.33%) Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences journal. On the basis journals analysis, 65 (72.22%) articles were published in public administration and public policy, and public management journals.
Table 6 reveals that 54(60%) articles included in the review were empirical studies conducted on various perspectives of public entrepreneurship. Moreover, 27(30%) papers were conceptual in nature, and 9 (10%) articles were theoretically written. Majority articles were 60% were empirical and 30% were conceptual.
Table 7 presents strategy wise number of articles. It reveals that out of 54 empirical papers 28(51.85%) were qualitative research papers, 23 (42.59%) used quantitative research strategy, and 3(5.56%) used mixed method research strategy. Hence, it could be concluded that majority articles used qualitative and quantitative research strategy. Further, categories of various research designs used in qualitative and quantitative research strategy are presented in next tables.
Table 7.1 depicts the various designs used in qualitative research papers included in this review. It reveals that 14(50%) articles used case study design. Followed by 3(10.71%) exploratory design, 2(7.14%) used interviews and secondary data analysis and 2(7.14) used triangulation approach as research design. It could be concluded that majority used case study design while analyzing phenomenon of public entrepreneurship.
Table 7.2 presents different types of quantitative research design used in the articles. It reveals that out of total 23 articles which used quantitative design, 15(65.22%) used survey approach, 2(8.70%) used secondary data analysis, and 2(8.70%) used secondary data published by GEMs (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor). Majority 65.22% articles used survey design.
3.1 Definitions of entrepreneurship in public sector
This section presents the various definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur as an individual used in the selected research studies. The most interesting finding is that only 21 (23.33%) out of 90 selected articles used the definition of entrepreneurship and an entrepreneur in their research articles. In the literature, there is very little agreement on exactly how to define entrepreneurship (Harper-Anderson & Gooden, 2016) and the concept of public entrepreneurship recently appeared into the mainstream literature of entrepreneurship (Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005).
Mostly, definitions focused personal characteristics of entrepreneurs and their approaches towards innovation, creativity, and opportunity exploitation (Harper-Anderson & Gooden, 2016). While exploring the definition of public entrepreneurship it is seen as having the market based features of entrepreneurship with an addition of creating social capital for social benefits (Edwards et al., 2002). While analyzing various aspects of definition used in the articles it was revealed that entrepreneurship was defined in multiple perspectives. Following table depicts the various perspectives of definition along with their frequency and percentage.
Moreover, analysis of these perspectives revealed numerous key factors discussed in definitions of entrepreneurship in public sector which are presented in the following table along with description and references.
3.2. Goals of entrepreneurship in public sector
This section presents the analysis of selected article regarding goals of entrepreneurship in public sector. It was revealed that 14 (15.56%) articles mentioned goals of entrepreneurship in public sector organizations. Baez and Abolafia (2002) mentioned that entrepreneurs are recognized as change agents, innovators, creative and opportunity seeker. Hence, new values could be created into public sector organization for various stakeholders by applying entrepreneurial approach into public sector (Moghaddam et al., 2015). Moreover, the field of entrepreneurship has broaden its horizon into international, policy, social, and not-for profit entrepreneurship which signifies its importance into public sector (Kearney & Meynhardt, 2016). Following table summarizes the various goals of entrepreneurship that could be achieved by applying entrepreneurial practices, methods, approaches, and mind-set into public sector organizations.
3.3. Issues and limitations of entrepreneurship in public sector
This part analyses the various issues and limitations of entrepreneurship discussed in the selected articles regarding its application into public sector organizations. Analyses revealed that 11 (12.22%) out of 90 selected articles discussed the numerous issues and limitations of entrepreneurship caused by distinct nature, rigid rules and regulations, and culture of public sector organizations. Therefore management models of entrepreneurship into public sector organization presents significant challenges (Emmendoerfer & Valadares, 2014). Three categories of issues and limitations are identified from selected articles named issues regarding behaviors of entrepreneurs, issues of conflict, and entrepreneurial activity. Following table presents the categories of issues and limitations along with frequency and percentage.
Moreover, following table summarizes the issues and limitation of public entrepreneurship.
3.4. Factors Influencing Entrepreneurship in Public Sector
This section presents numerous factors which influence entrepreneurship in the public sector. Analyses revealed that 11(12.22%) studies included in this systematic literature review discussed various factors which influence the entrepreneurial practice in public sector organizations. Zampetakis and Moustakis (2010) presents two main categories of factors which stimulate or hinder entrepreneurship in the public sector, these are institutional factors, and individual factors.
However, in this systematic review four categories of influencing factors are identified from the selected articles. Following table depicts these categories of factors along with frequency and percentages which influence the entrepreneurship in the public sector organizations.
Furthermore, following table depicts the categories along with detailed influencing factors identifies from the analysis of selected articles.
3.5. Analysis of main research streams in public entrepreneurship
This section presents the analysis of main research streams identified from selected articles for this systematic review on public entrepreneurship. These research streams are derived from 37(41.11%) articles and categorized into seven distinct dimensions which are individual, task, institutional, innovation, business creation, opportunity exploitation, and entrepreneurship as a field of research. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) made an award-winning contribution into the literature by creating conceptual framework for entrepreneurship as a field of research. Similarly, Moghaddam et al. (2015) made an attempt to articulate the conceptual model of entrepreneurship and studied its importance for bolstering performance of government organizations.
Moreover, Baumgartner et al. (2013) reviewed an extensive literature to identify various comprehensions of entrepreneurship and their role for regional development. Whereas, still there is no agreement of scholars about the unique identity of entrepreneurship as after the analysis of research articles it looks a hodgepodge having no clear direction as a field of research.
Following table depicts the main conceptual and theoretical areas of research about entrepreneurship identified from selected research articles.
As 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented change in the environment of public organization which has created unpredicted challenges for the public administrators. Hence, conventional approaches are not sufficient to cater the complex and elusive challenges of this century (Moghaddam et al., 2015). Therefore, public administrators and political leaders has focused to foster entrepreneurship into public sector organizations in order to improve their performance (Luke & Verreynne, 2006).
Notion of entrepreneurship has been seen as inherently private (Salazar, 1997) but with a widespread application of entrepreneurial practices into public sector organizations. This perspective has been changed after NPM movement which was focused on improving the performance of public sector organizations for efficient and effective delivery of public services (Klein et al., 2010). Moreover, various studies have unleashed the social potential of entrepreneurship along with its market based orientation (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007a). Scholars have acknowledged that entrepreneurship methods must be modified and adjusted according to the demands of public sector. (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007b).
Application of entrepreneurial mind-set into public sector for improved performance of state enterprises has been the key issue of discourse of entrepreneurship literature. Moreover, what is public entrepreneurship? Is it different from private notion of entrepreneurship? Are entrepreneurial methods compatible with democratic structure? Who are public entrepreneurs? And what are their characteristics? How do they improve service delivery of public organizations? These are few basic questions about the concept, nature, applicability and implementation of entrepreneurship into public sector organizations.
This study was conducted to investigate the phenomenon of entrepreneurship with particular reference to public sector by adopting the methodology of systematic literature review. Methodology of this systematic literature review of public entrepreneurship is adopted with the review of (De Vries et al., 2016) which was conducted on innovation in public sector. This study endeavored to explore the concept of public entrepreneurship, its current practices, goals, limitations and possibilities, major research streams, their emergence, convergence, and divergence points, antecedents in public sector. Out of total 572 research articles searched from six databases by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned in detail in methodology section, 90 articles were found eligible for this systematic review on public entrepreneurship.
Analysis revealed that majority of the articles included in this review were published during 2011 to 2016 in North American and European countries. USA, UK and Australia were the top three countries in which mostly studies were conducted. Public Administration Review, Entrepreneurial and Regional Development, and Public Management Review are the top three journals in which majority articles were published. Majority studies were empirical which followed qualitative strategy in their research designs. Further case study design was significantly used in the qualitative studies, followed by exploratory and secondary data analysis. Majority of the quantitative design articles used survey approach.
Moreover, analysis of main research questions about entrepreneurship definitions, its goals in public sector, its issues and limitations, influencing factors and main research streams revealed very interesting and comprehensive results. Analysis of definitions revealed five main dimensions of entrepreneurship in which it was defined. Majority referred it as an individual having certain unique characteristics which distinguish entrepreneurs from other individuals. Main emphasis of studies was on entrepreneurs' key traits like having a vision, exploit opportunities, take risk, and bring innovation into existing processes and practices. Further focused dimensions were task and process in which entrepreneurship was referred as a task and process to exploit opportunities and create new ventures, and innovation into the firms.
Next question about goals of entrepreneurship revealed numerous objectives which could be achieved by applying entrepreneurial practices into public sector firms. Changing institutional routines, introducing innovation for efficient service delivery, and add social value into public services were the main goals which are to be achieved by the entrepreneurship into public sector.
While analyzing issues and limitations of entrepreneurship into public sector it was revealed that management models of entrepreneurship into public organizations presents significant challenges due to the innate capacity of entrepreneurship embedded in private sector organizations. Majority studies discussed issues related to entrepreneurs' behavior which are not compatible to public sector organization due to their democratic and bureaucratic structures. Certain issues of theoretical nature like issues of conflicts i-e entrepreneurial autonomy and democratic accountability, entrepreneurial secrecy versus democratic openness were also found in the discourse of entrepreneurship scholarship.
Four categories of influencing factors were derived from the analysis of selected articles in which majority were individual, institutional, and social and political factors. In individual visions for opportunity exploitation, capacity to innovate, self-confidence, tolerance, and technical expertise were main influencing factors. Institutional venturing, structure, rules, environment, systems of rewards, delegations, and decision making were the main institutional factors. Transparency, social justice, harmony with national objectives, access to services were the main social and political factors.
Similarly, while analyzing major theoretical research areas from the studies it was revealed that focus of majority was entrepreneurship as a field of research rather confining it to some specific individual, process or activity. Entrepreneurship nature, paradigm, method, as a theory, contextual antecedents and implications were the main research streams. Second discussed research area was its institutional dimension in which institutional entrepreneurship, collaborative and collective entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, and strategic entrepreneurship were mainly focused. Third major research stream focus was on individual and behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs. Public entrepreneurs' personality traits, entrepreneurial leaders, entrepreneurial vision, and gender narratives were mainly focused. However, much acknowledged dimensions like venture creation, innovation was less focused in the literature of public entrepreneurship whereas they are leading dimensions of entrepreneurship when it comes to private sector.
Summing it up, this study conducted systematic review of literature on public entrepreneurship. Various facets of entrepreneurship were analyzed with reference to public sector orientation. Entrepreneurship in the public sector has gained enormous currency due to its embedded capacity for innovation, creativity, opportunity exploitation, and solving elusive problems of the 21st century. Public entrepreneurs are widely acknowledged across the globe for their significant contribution in improvement of public services and creating social value for the citizens (Luke & Verreynne, 2006). As far as the field of entrepreneurship is concerned, no unanimous definition exists in the literature; it could be due to its widespread scope and applicability.
Note: All 90 articles references are not mentioned in the bibliography.
Audretsch, D. B. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry & Innovation, 11(3), 167-191. doi: 10.1080/1366271042000265366
Baez, B., & Abolafia, M. Y. (2002). Bureaucratic entrepreneurship and institutional change: a sense-making approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 525-552.
Bartlett, D., & Dibben, P. (2002). Public sector innovation and entrepreneurship: Case studies from local government. Local Government Studies, 28(4), 107-121. doi: 10.1080/714004159
Baumgartner, D., Putz, M., & Seidl, I. (2013). What kind of entrepreneurship drives regional development in european non-core regions? A literature review on empirical entrepreneurship research. European Planning Studies, 21(8), 1095-1127. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722937
Bellone, C. J., & Goerl, G. F. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and democracy. Public Administration Review, 52(2) 130-134.
Bernier, L. (2014). Public enterprises as policy instruments: the importance of public entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 17(3), 253-266. doi: 10.1080/17487870.2014.909312
Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 488-503.
Bjerregaard, T., & Lauring, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship as institutional change: Strategies of bridging institutional contradictions. European Management Review, 9(1), 31-43.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 58(2),109-118.
Cheng, S., Stough, R. R., & Jackson, R. W. (2009). Measuring and building high-quality entrepreneurship: A research prospectus. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22(3), 329-340. doi: 10.1080/13511610903399088
Dahles, H., Verduyn, K., Wakkee, I., Lundqvist, M. A., & Williams Middleton, K. L. (2010). Promises of societal entrepreneurship: Sweden and beyond. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 4(1), 24-36.
De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166. doi: 10.1111/padm.12209
Doherty, B., Thompson, J., & Spear, R. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A different model? International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 399-410.
Edwards, C., Jones, G., Lawton, A., & Llewellyn, N. (2002). Public entrepreneurship: Rhetoric, reality, and context. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12), 1539-1554. doi: 10.1081/pad-120014260
Emmendoerfer, M., & Valadares, J. L. (2014). Analysis of the public entrepreneurship phenomenon in a Brazilian state. Tourism & Management Studies, 10, 43-48.
Fernando, R. L. S. (2005). Entrepreneurship in delivery of service in public sector organization in Sri Lanka: Prospects for administrative and managerial reforms. Paper presented at the Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG) Annual Conference 2005, Beijing, China.
Gonzalez-Pernia, J. L., Jung, A., & Pena, I. (2015). Innovation-driven entrepreneurship in developing economies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(9-10), 555-573. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2015.1075602
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 241-260.
Hafsi, T., Bernier, L., Farashahi, M., & Concordia, J. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurs in the public sector: Towards a contingency theory. Cahier de recherche N, 7, 30-01.
Harper-Anderson, E. L., & Gooden, S. T. (2016). Integrating entrepreneurship services into local workforce development systems: Who is doing it and how. Journal of Poverty, 20(3), 237-260. doi: 10.1080/10875549.2015.1094769
Hartley, J., Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821-830. doi: 10.1111/puar.12136
Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003-1015.
Hjorth, D. (2013). Public entrepreneurship: Desiring social change, creating sociality. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(1-2), 34-51. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2012.746883
Howard, C. (2001). Bureaucrats in the social policy process: Administrative policy entrepreneurs and the case of working nation. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 60(3), 56-65.
Katsikis, I. N., & Kyrgidou, L. P. (2009). Entrepreneurship in teleology: The variety of the forms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(2), 209-231.
Kayasan, O. (2011). The role of regimes to generate a new form of entrepreneurship: Central asian perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 526-537.
Kearney, C., & Meynhardt, T. (2016). Directing corporate entrepreneurship strategy in the public sector to public value: Antecedents, components, and outcomes. International Public Management Journal, 1-30. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2016.1160013
Klein, P. G., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2010). Toward a theory of public entrepreneurship. European Management Review, 7(1), 1-15.
Lewis, K. V. (2014). Public narratives of female entrepreneurship: fairy tale or fact? Labour & Industry: A journal of the social and economic relations of work, 24(4), 331-344. doi: 10.1080/10301763.2014.978967
Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2015.1134678
Liu, S. S., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2000). Institutional entrepreneurship-A panacea for universities-in-transition? European Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 1315-1337.
Llewellyn, N., & Jones, G. (2003). Controversies and conceptual development examining public entrepreneurship. Public Management Review, 5(2), 245-266. doi: 10.1080/1461667032000066426
Llewellyn, N., Lewis, P., & Woods, A. (2007). Public management and the expansion of an entrepreneurial ethos? Public Management Review, 9(2), 253-267. doi: 10.1080/14719030701340424
Luke, B., & Verreynne, M.-L. (2006). Exploring strategic entrepreneurship in the public sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 3(1), 4-26.
Mack, W., Green, D., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Innovation and implementation in the public sector: An examination of public entrepreneurship. Review of policy research, 25(3), 233-252.
Marie, T. T. (2016). Public values as essential criteria for public entrepreneurship: Water management in France. Utilities Policy, 40, 162-169.
Robinson, M. (2015). From old public administration to the new public service: Implications for public sector reform in developing countries. UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence.
Moghaddam, J. Y., Khorakian, A., & Maharati, Y. (2015). Organizational entrepreneurship and its impact on the performance of governmental organizations in the city of Mashhad. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 169, 75-87.
Moon, M. J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Public Administration Review, 31-43.
Nayyar, J., & Sohail H. Naqvi, S. (2013). Proposed model of entrepreneurial mindset for the state government higher education institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 7(2), 167-182.
Perlmutter, F. D., & Cnaan, R. A. (1995). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: The horns of a dilemma. Public Administration Review, 29-36.
Rennie, H. G. (2008). Entrepreneurship as a liberal art. Politics & Policy, 36(2), 197-215.
Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Galindo-Martin, M.-A. (2012). Government policies to support entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 861-864. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2012.742322
Roberts, N. C. (2006). Public entrepreneurship as social creativity. World Futures, 62(8), 595-609. doi: 10.1080/02604020600948909
Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 147-175.
Sadler, R. J. (2000). Corporate entrepreneurship in the public sector: The dance of the chameleon. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(2), 25-43.
Salazar, G. (1997). Public entrepreneurship: A contradiction in terms? Korean Review of Public Administration, 2(1), 125-139.
Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship as method: Open questions for an entrepreneurial future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 113-135. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00425.x
Savaya, R., Packer, P., Stange, D., & Namir, O. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Capacity building among workers in public human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 65-86. doi: 10.1080/03643100802293840
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Transaction publishers.
Seo, J., & Chung, S. (2012). Impact of entrepreneurship in the public sector: Cheonggye stream restoration project in the Seoul metropolitan city. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 34(1), 71-93. doi: 10.1080/23276665.2012.10779388
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Smith, E. (2013). Entrepreneurship at the local government level: Stimulating and restraining forces in the swedish waste management industry. Public Management Review, 16(5), 708-732. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2012.743580
Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(3), 179-196. doi: 10.1080/0898562042000197135
Su, J., Zhai, Q., & Landstrom, H. (2015). Entrepreneurship research in China: internationalization or contextualization? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(1-2), 50-79. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2014.999718
Terry, L. D. (1993). Why we should abandon the misconceived quest to reconcile public entrepreneurship with democracy: A response to Bellone and Goerl's" Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship And Democracy". Public Administration Review, 53(4), 393-395.
Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (1994). The bureaucratic entrepreneur: The case of city managers. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 331-340.
Vecchi, V., Brusoni, M., & Borgonovi, E. (2014). Public authorities for entrepreneurship: A management approach to execute competitiveness policies. Public Management Review, 16(2), 256-273.
Wagner, M., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Classifying entrepreneurship for the public good: Empirical analysis of a conceptual framework. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(3), 431-443. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2010.10593494
Xu, J., & Carey, R. (2015). Post-2015 global governance of official development finance: Harnessing the renaissance of public entrepreneurship. Journal of International Development, 27(6), 856-880. doi: 10.1002/jid.3120
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2007a). Entrepreneurial behaviour in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(1), 19-38.
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. (2007b). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship through internal marketing: Implications for change in the public sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4), 413-433.
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. S. (2010). An exploratory research on the factors stimulating corporate entrepreneurship in the Greek public sector. International Journal of Manpower, 31(8), 871-887.
Zerbinati, S., & Souitaris, V. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the public sector: A framework of analysis in European local governments. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(1), 43-64. doi: 10.1080/0898562042000310723
Zietlow, J. T. (2001). Social entrepreneurship: managerial, finance and marketing aspects. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 9(1-2), 19-43. doi: 10.1300/J054v09n01_03
Asghar Ali (1), Sidra Irfan (2), Yaamina Salman (3)
(1) Lecturer at Department of Management Sciences, Virtual University of Pakistan. email@example.com
(2) Assistant Professor at Institute of Administrative Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
(3) Assistant Professor at Institute of Administrative Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
05 Sep, 2018 Submission Received
12 Mar, 2019 Second Review
30 Aug, 2019 Accepted
29 Oct, 2018 First Review
17 Aug, 2019 Third Review
Table 1: Literature Search Criteria Sr. No. Search Factors Particulars 1 Literature Search Public Entrepreneurship 2 Search Discipline Public Administration Domain 3 Language English 4 Publication Period 1990 - 2016 5 Electronic Databases ISI-Web of Knowledge Emerald J-Store Taylor & Francis Wiley Elsevier (Science Direct) 6 Search Key Word "Public Entrepreneurship" Table 2: Articles Eligibility Criteria Sr. No. Eligibility Factors Particulars 1 Field of Studies Studies dealing with entrepreneurship in the public sector. 2 Topic/Issue of Study Studies core issue should be public entrepreneurship, reflected in their topics, titles, abstracts and objectives were selected for review. Studies having following key words (Public Entrepreneurship, Public Sector Entrepreneurship, Public Entrepreneur, and Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector) were included. 3 Design of Studies Both empirical and conceptual studies were eligible and all research designs like survey, case study, descriptive, exploratory, causal and mixed methods were included. 4 Publication Status Only published research articles were selected for systematic review on public entrepreneurship. Table 3: Continent Wise No. of Articles Sr. Continents No. of Articles Percentage 1 Asia 10 11.11% 2 Australia 6 6.67% 3 Europe 36 40% 4 North America 37 41.11% 5 South America 1 1.11% Total 90 100% Table 4: Country Wise No. of Articles Sr. Country Frequency Percentage 1 Australia 4 4.44 2 Belgium 2 2.22 3 Brazil 1 1.11 4 Canada 4 4.44 5 China 3 3.33 6 Denmark 3 3.33 7 Finland 1 1.11 8 France 2 2.22 9 Germany 2 2.22 10 Greece 3 3.33 11 Iran 2 2.22 12 Ireland 1 1.11 13 Israel 1 1.11 14 Italy 2 2.22 15 New Zealand 2 2.22 16 Pakistan 2 2.22 17 South Korea 1 1.11 18 Spain 3 3.33 19 Sri Lanka 1 1.11 20 Sweden 4 4.44 21 Switzerland 1 1.11 22 UK 12 13.33 23 USA 33 36.67 Total 90 100.00 Table 5: Journal Wise No. of Articles Sr. Journal No. of Article 1 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11 2 Public Administration Review 11 3 Public Management Review 4 4 Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3 5 Public Administration 3 6 Australian Journal of Public Administration 2 7 European Journal of Marketing 2 8 European Management Review 2 9 Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places 2 in the Global Economy 10 Journal of Poverty 2 11 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2 12 Local Government Studies 2 13 Academy of Management Review 1 14 Administration in Social Work 1 15 Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 1 16 Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 1 17 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 1 18 European Journal of Innovation Management 1 19 European Planning Studies 1 20 Financial Accountability & Management 1 21 HEC Montreal 1 22 Industry and Innovation 1 23 Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 1 24 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science 1 Research 25 International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & 1 Research 26 International Journal of Manpower 1 27 International Journal of Public Administration 1 28 International Journal of Social Economics 1 29 International Public Management Journal 1 30 Journal of Business Venturing 1 31 Journal of Economic Education 1 32 Journal of Economic Policy Reform 1 33 Journal of International Development 1 34 Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 1 35 Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 1 36 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 1 37 Journal of the American Planning Association 1 38 Journal of World Business 1 39 Korean Review of Public Administration 1 40 Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and 1 Economic Relations of Work 41 Marketing Communications for Local Nonprofit 1 Organizations 42 Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public 1 Administration and Governance 43 Political Science and Politics 1 44 Politics & Policy 1 45 Public Administration and Development 1 46 Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 1 47 Regional Studies 1 48 Research Policy 1 49 Review of Policy Research 1 50 State & Local Government Review 1 51 Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 52 The Journal of Economic Education 1 53 The Journal of Technology Transfer 1 54 Tourism & Management Studies 1 55 Utilities Policy 1 56 World Futures 1 Total 90 Sr. Journal Percen tage(%) 1 Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12.22 2 Public Administration Review 12.22 3 Public Management Review 4.44 4 Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 3.33 5 Public Administration 3.33 6 Australian Journal of Public Administration 2.22 7 European Journal of Marketing 2.22 8 European Management Review 2.22 9 Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places 2.22 in the Global Economy 10 Journal of Poverty 2.22 11 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2.22 12 Local Government Studies 2.22 13 Academy of Management Review 1.11 14 Administration in Social Work 1.11 15 Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 1.11 16 Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 1.11 17 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 1.11 18 European Journal of Innovation Management 1.11 19 European Planning Studies 1.11 20 Financial Accountability & Management 1.11 21 HEC Montreal 1.11 22 Industry and Innovation 1.11 23 Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 1.11 24 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science 1.11 Research 25 International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & 1.11 Research 26 International Journal of Manpower 1.11 27 International Journal of Public Administration 1.11 28 International Journal of Social Economics 1.11 29 International Public Management Journal 1.11 30 Journal of Business Venturing 1.11 31 Journal of Economic Education 1.11 32 Journal of Economic Policy Reform 1.11 33 Journal of International Development 1.11 34 Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 1.11 35 Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 1.11 36 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 1.11 37 Journal of the American Planning Association 1.11 38 Journal of World Business 1.11 39 Korean Review of Public Administration 1.11 40 Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic 1.11 Relations of Work 41 Marketing Communications for Local Nonprofit 1.11 Organizations 42 Network of Asia-Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public 1.11 Administration and Governance 43 Political Science and Politics 1.11 44 Politics & Policy 1.11 45 Public Administration and Development 1.11 46 Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 1.11 47 Regional Studies 1.11 48 Research Policy 1.11 49 Review of Policy Research 1.11 50 State & Local Government Review 1.11 51 Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1.11 52 The Journal of Economic Education 1.11 53 The Journal of Technology Transfer 1.11 54 Tourism & Management Studies 1.11 55 Utilities Policy 1.11 56 World Futures 1.11 Total 100 Table 6: Nature Wise No. of Articles Sr. Nature of Papers No. of Articles Percentage 1 Empirical 54 60 2 Conceptual 27 30 3 Theoretical 9 10 Total 90 100 Table 7: Strategy Wise No. of Articles Sr. Strategy of Papers No. of Articles Percentage 1 Qualitative 28 51.85 2 Quantitative 23 42.59 3 Mixed Methods 3 5.56 Total 54 100 Table 7.1: Qualitative Paper Categories Sr. Qualitative Paper Categories No. of Articles 1 Case Studies - Grounded Theory 1 Method 2 Discourse Analysis 1 3 Exploratory - Case Study 1 4 Exploratory - Interviews -Discursive 1 pragmatism 5 Qualitative - Case Study 14 6 Qualitative--Ethnography 1 7 Qualitative - Exploratory 3 8 Qualitative - IDIs, Participant Observations, 1 and Archival Material 9 Qualitative - Interviews and secondary 2 data analysis 10 Qualitative - Mix and Match Approach 1 11 Qualitative--Triangulation 2 Total 28 Sr. Percentage 1 3.57 2 3.57 3 3.57 4 3.57 5 50 6 3.57 7 10.71 8 3.57 9 7.14 10 3.57 11 7.14 100 Table 7.2: Quantitative Paper Categories Sr. Quantitative Paper Categories No. of Articles Percentag 1 Bibliometric Analysis 1 4.35 2 Longitudinal 1 4.35 3 Quantitative--Survey 15 65.22 4 Quantitative - Secondary Data Analysis 2 8.70 5 Quantitative--Descriptive 1 4.35 6 Research - Action Approach 1 4.35 7 Secondary Data Analysis--GEMs 2 8.70 Total 23 100 Table 8: Definition Perspectives Definition Perspective N Entrepreneur as an individual 7 (33.33%) Entrepreneurship as a process 5 (23.81%) Entrepreneurship as a task 5 (23.81) Entrepreneurship as a method 3 (14.29) Entrepreneurship as a Field 1 (4.76%) Total 21 (100%) Table 8.1: Definition Perspectives and Key Points Definition Perspectives Description Entrepreneur as an Entrepreneurship is Individual referred to the unique character traits of an individual having a vision, able to take risk, and exploit opportunities which creates new firms. Definition Perspectives Description Entrepreneurship as a Entrepreneurship is process referred to a process by which entrepreneurs pursue opportunities irrespective of resources they own in public enterprises. Definition Perspectives Description Entrepreneurship as Public entrepreneurship a task is referred to a task by which opportunities are created, discovered, and exploited to create social capital and value in public enterprises. Entrepreneurship as a Entrepreneurship method is referred to as a method or practice of bringing efficiency and creativity into public sector organization for effective services delivery. Entrepreneurship as Entrepreneurship is a field referred to as a field which studies the sources of opportunities, the processes of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities and set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them. Definition Perspectives Key Traits of Entrepreneurs Entrepreneur as an *Risk Taking Individual *Autonomy *Create New Firms *Opportunity Exploitation *Innovative Capacity *Vision * Bring Change Definition Perspectives Key points Entrepreneurship as a * Applying strategic process management practices * Leadership principles * Pursue opportunities * Innovativeness * Risk taking * Proactiveness * Idea generation, translation, & implementation Definition Perspectives Key Points Entrepreneurship as * Discover and exploit a task rewarding opportunities. * Create social capital and value in public sector enterprises. * Create organization. * Creating opportunities. Entrepreneurship as a * Efficiency and method creativity. * To transform public organization into flexible units for effective services delivery. * Serves to maintain institutional forms through social redistribution and change. * Undertake activities leading to creation of organizations. Entrepreneurship as * Sources of opportunities. a field * Processes of discovery, evaluation, & exploitation of opportunities. Definition Perspectives References Entrepreneur as an (Baumgartner, Putz, & Individual Seidl, 2013; Bernier, 2014; Bernier & Hafsi, 2007; Gonzalez-Pernia, Jung, & Pena, 2015; Llewellyn, Lewis, & Woods, 2007; Mack et al., 2008; Salazar, 1997) Definition Perspectives References Entrepreneurship as a (Bartlett & Dibben, process 2002; Hafsi, Bernier, Farashahi, & Concordia, 2007; Liu & Dubinsky, 2000; Nancy C Roberts & King, 1991; Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2010) Definition Perspectives References Entrepreneurship as (Edwards et al., 2002; a task Hayter, 2015; Katsikis & Kyrgidou, 2009; Rennie, 2008; Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005) Entrepreneurship as a (Bjerregaard & Lauring, method 2012; Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011; Smith, 2013) Entrepreneurship as (Shane & Venkataraman, a field 2000) Table 9: Goals of Entrepreneurship in Public Sector Description Objectives Goals which could be achieved * Change institutionalized by entrepreneurship in public practices and routines. sector * Introduce innovation for efficiency and better services delivery. * Orientation of risk in public services. * Partnership to add value into public services. * Leveraging of public Resources. * Solving problems and satisfying public needs. * Discover and exploit opportunities. * Conception and implementation of public policies for greater value to citizens. * Support for economic development at local, regional, and national level. * Foster entrepreneurial mind-set for entrepreneurial culture. * Create new values in public sector organizations by adopting an entrepreneurial approach. adopting an entrepreneurial approach. Description References Goals which could be achieved (Baez & Abolafia, 2002; Bartlett by entrepreneurship in public & Dibben, 2002; Edwards sector et al., 2002; Harper-Anderson & Gooden, 2016; Lindh & Thorgren, 2016; Llewellyn & Jones, 2003; Moghaddam et al., 2015; Zerbinati & Souitaris, 2005) Table 10: Issues and Limitation of Entrepreneurship in Public Sector Categories N Issues regarding entrepreneurs behaviors 7 (63.64%) Issues of conflict 2 (18.18%) Issues regarding entrepreneurial activity. 2 (18.18%) Total 11 (100%) Table 10.1: Issues and Limitations of Entrepreneurship in Public Sector Categories Issues and Limitations Issues of conflicts * Entrepreneurial Autonomy versus Democratic Accountability. * Public Entrepreneurial Vision versus Citizen Participation. * Entrepreneurial Secrecy versus Democratic Openness. * Entrepreneurial Risk Taking versus Democratic Stewardship. * Incompatibility of entrepreneurial mind-set with Weberian tradition rules. Issues regarding entrepreneurs * Character behaviour of behavior entrepreneurs is not well-suited for public managers. * Self-interest of public entrepreneurs could be a threat to democratic governance. * Little agreement regarding definition of an entrepreneur. * Risk aversion while dealing with new and unfamiliar challenges. * Lack of interest on the part of political entrepreneurs. Issues regarding * Classification of entrepreneurial entrepreneurial activity. processes and action is complex. * Opportunity cost of opportunity exploitation. Categories References Issues of conflicts (Bellone & Goerl, 1992; Bernier, 2014) Issues regarding entrepreneurs (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; behavior Emmendoerfer & Valadares, 2014; Harper-Anderson & Gooden, 2016; Howard, 2001; Nancy C Roberts & King, 1991; Savaya, Packer, Stange, & Namir, 2008; Terry, 1993) Issues regarding (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003; entrepreneurial activity. Zietlow, 2001) Table 11: Factors Influencing Entrepreneurship in Public Sector Categories N Individual Factors 4 (36.36%) Institutional Factors 3 (27.27%) Social and Political Factors 3 (27.27%) Legal Factors 1 (9.09%) Total Articles 11 (100%) Table 11.1: Categories and Influencing Factors Categories Influencing Factors Individual Factors * Respect for creativity * Enjoyment of challenge * Self-confidence * High tolerance * Personal autonomy * Vision for opportunity * Capacity to innovate * Technical expertise Institutional Factors * External environment * Structure of the organization * Size of the organization * Culture of the organization * Degree of specialization * Centralization of decision-making * Clarity of performance objectives * System of rewards and sanctions * Degree of autonomy * Institutional venturing, renewal and frame-breaking change Social and Political Factors * Transparency * Stakeholders participation in decision-making * Respect for the others * Pertinence and fairness of decisions * Protection of human rights * Harmony with national objectives * Social justice * Equal access to service * Pertinence and coherence of investment choices Legal Factors * Policies and Rules regarding economic development, monetary policy, taxation, health, education, legislation, industry, employment, and technology. Categories References Individual Factors (Baumgartner et al., 2013; Lewis, 2014; Salazar, 1997; Teske & Schneider, 1994) Institutional Factors (Baumgartner et al., 2013; Liu & Dubinsky, 2000; Sadler, 2000) Social and Political Factors (Baumgartner et al., 2013; Bernier, 2014; Marie, 2016) Legal Factors (Ribeiro-Soriano & Galin-do-Martin, 2012) Table 11.1: Categories and Influencing Factors Dimensions Research Areas Individual as an * Public entrepreneur personality traits. entrepreneur * Leadership skills of public entrepreneurs. * Managerial autonomy. * Personal and situational attributes. * Entrepreneurial behaviour. * Gender dimension of entrepreneurial narratives. * Entrepreneurial vision for entrepreneurial action. * Needs of entrepreneurs in public sector. Task Dimension * What do public entrepreneurs do? * Entrepreneurial activities. * Product and process based entrepreneurship. Institutional * Institutional entrepreneurship Dimension * Institutional change process through sense making. * Collective and collaborative entrepreneurship. * Corporate entrepreneurship. * Motivation for entrepreneurship services. * Components of corporate entrepreneurship strategy in public sector. * Suitability of market-driven entrepreneurial practices into public sector; similarities, constraints, and prospects. * Strategic entrepreneurship. Innovation Di- * Innovation in service delivery mension Creating New * New ventures and SMEs. Business Opportunity * Generating and scanning new ideas for Exploitation viable proposals. Entrepreneurship * Nature, constraints, and boundaries of as field entrepreneurship in public sector. * Social value creation. * Characteristics of entrepreneurship. * Applying Market mechanism into public management problems. * Paradigm of public entrepreneurships. * Culture influence on entrepreneurship. * Academic entrepreneurship. * Knowledge spill over theory of entrepreneurship. * Entrepreneurship for economic development. * Entrepreneurial stakeholders in public sector. * Entrepreneurship theory. * Creating social and societal values through entrepreneurship. * Contextual antecedents of entrepreneurship. Dimensions References Individual as an (Fernando, 2005; Gupta, Mac-Millan, entrepreneur & Surie, 2004; Kayasan, 2011; Lewis, 2014; Llewellyn et al., 2007; Mack et al., 2008; Salazar, 1997; Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2010) Task Dimension (Bernier & Hafsi, 2007; Hafsi et al., 2007; Moon, 1999; Schumpeter, 1934) Institutional (Baez & Abolafia, 2002; Harper-Anderson Dimension & Gooden, 2016; Hartley, Sorensen, & Torfing, 2013; Kearney & Meynhardt, 2016; Liu & Dubinsky, 2000; Luke & Verreynne, 2006; Nancy C. Roberts, 2006; Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2007b) Innovation Di- (Llewellyn & Jones, 2003) mension Creating New (Cheng, Stough, & Jackson, Business 2009) Opportunity (Nancy C Roberts & King, Exploitation 1991) Entrepreneurship (Audretsch, 2004; Dahles, as field Verduyn, Wakkee, Lundqvist, & Williams Middleton, 2010; Doherty et al., 2006; Gonzalez-Pernia et al., 2015; Hayter, 2015; Hjorth, 2013; Katsikis & Kyrgidou, 2009; Klein, Mahoney, McGahan, & Pitelis, 2010; Lindh & Thorgren, 2016; Nayyar & Sohail H. Naqvi, 2013; Schumpeter, 1934; Seo & Chung, 2012; Steyaert & Katz, 2004; Su, Zhai, & Landstrom, 2015; Xu & Carey, 2015)