- This event has passed.
Research Paper Presentations – Session 2
October 4, 2019 @ 3:30 pm - 4:30 pmFree
The Need to Increase Entrepreneurial Activity Through Innovative Public Policies to Spur Economic Growth
- Robert P. Singh, Morgan State University, USA
The U.S. economy is currently in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history (Coy, 2019; Patton, 2019). However, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data shows that the 10-year expansion has remained muted with annual GDP growing at just under 2.3 percent (BEA, 2019). By comparison, the second-longest expansion that took place from 1991 to 2001 saw annual GDP grow at nearly double the current rate (Coy, 2019), and in fact, U.S. GDP has grown by an average of 3.22 percent per year since 1947 (BEA, 2019).
Coming out of the Great Recession – the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression – is likely a factor for the tepid growth over the last decade. However, we are now 10 years removed from the end of the Great Recession and growth remains slow. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has argued that the country remains in a period of “secular stagnation” (Coy, 2019). The term was first coined by Hansen (1939) to explain the slow recovery following the Great Depression. Hansen (1939) argued that slowing population growth and a declining rate of technological innovations were a drag on employee wages and the rate of economic expansion in the period following the Great Depression.
There is strong empirical evidence that new venture creation and entrepreneurship have stagnated (Hathaway and Litan, 2014; Lockhart, 2013; Ozimek, 2013; Pethokoukis, 2014; Singh and Ogbolu, 2015). Hathaway and Litan (2014) explain that “Business dynamism is the process by which firms continually are born, fail, expand, and contract, as some jobs are created, others are destroyed, and others still are turned over.” The problem is that the number of new firms in the economy is declining. In 1978, startup ventures made up almost 15 percent of all firms but had fallen to just over 8 percent by 2011 (Hathaway and Litan, 2014). Over the same period of time, Hathaway and Litan (2014) found that annual firm exits had stayed relatively consistent at around 9 percent. In a March 2016 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report, it was reported that 10.1 percent of the U.S. workforce was self-employed in the U.S. in 2015; down from 16.5 percent in 1994 (Hipple and Hammond, 2016). Even with the continued economic expansion, the September 6, 2019, BLS job report showed that self-employment had dipped even further to 10.0 percent as of August 2019 (BLS, 2019).
The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the impacts of stagnating entrepreneurial activity in the U.S. is having on the broader economy. After discussing the role entrepreneurship plays in advancing economies, government statistics are cited and discussed with shows that entrepreneurship and new venture creation have been muted over the last two decades. The implications of these results are discussed and future research directions and several broad policy recommendations are proposed. These can help entrepreneurship scholars assist government officials and public policy decision-makers improve the conditions for new venture creation and promote new technological advancements that can lead to increased economic development.
Effectiveness of Industrial Policy on Small Scale Sector (SSI) in Tamil Nadu state, India
- G. Barani, Ph.D., Associate Professor, BSMED, Bharathiar University, TN, India.
- S. N. Geetha, Ph.D., Professor, Management, Anna University, TN, India.
- Sushmaa. M, Research Scholar, BSMED, Bharathiar University, TN, India.
The State Government of Tamil Nadu, India, Micro Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Department has announced a separate policy for Small Scale Industries (SSI’s). It aims at promoting employment, providing incentives and offering concessions to the development of SSI in the state. The current industrial policy 2011-12 offers support in five areas namely: Infrastructure, Incentive, Technology, Marketing, and Procedural assistance.
Though, Tamil Nadu has remarkable industrial development, there is a gap between policy, aim and its utility. So, measuring the level of awareness and perception of, the utility of the policy by SSI entrepreneurs becomes imperative to measure the effectiveness of the industrial policy. With this as the preamble, the paper focuses on the following objectives:
- To measure the current level of awareness of SSI industrial policy (2011-12).
- To identify and assess the utility of the current industrial policy.
Population Control via Capitalism
- Julia Puaschunder, Columbia University, Princeton University, The New School Department of Economics, USA
Capitalism is negatively related to fertility rates insofar as there is a negative relation between access to markets and the fertility rate of a population.
The Inverse Relationship of Franchising to Entrepreneurship
- Martin McDermott, DBA, Purdue University Global, USA
Franchising is a popular method for organizations to expand in new markets both domestically and internationally. On the surface, franchising might seem like an attractive means of distributing a product. An entrepreneur, typically referred to as a franchisee, invests in all of the upfront costs, and in exchange is permitted to use the franchisor’s brand name and business system. In addition, the franchisor typically receives a royalty based on revenue generated by the franchisee. The word “franchise” has somewhat become a brand. Many organizations might look at the success of McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, and Subway and share the same vision for their organization. However, organizations looking to grow their business via franchising are typically faced with several obstacles. Previous studies have suggested that a franchisee might be quite different from an entrepreneur. This paper will discuss how franchising is significantly different from other entrepreneurial models and why it is important for organizations to reconsider the franchise model as a method of growth and distribution.
Knowledge Generators and Knowledge Disseminators: An Examination of Credentials
- Joowon Lee, Ph.D. student, George Washington University, USA
One of the purposes of a university is to create knowledge and disseminate it to various constituents such as scholars, practitioners, and students. Universities worldwide are being increasingly forced to become more responsive to the needs of industry, with economics now being seen as a major driver in education policy (Jackson, 2009). Management education is no exception: universities are pressured to align education outcomes with evolving industry needs in the light of globalization, rapid technological advancement, and social change (Jackson, 2009). Knowledge generation is the responsibility of the professors who conduct research in their given fields. Professors transfer the knowledge that they create to other scholars in the field through different media such as journals and conferences, thereby participating in internal knowledge transfer. These professors also transfer their knowledge to external audiences such as practitioners and students through teaching and writing textbooks, thereby engaging in external knowledge transfer. While the relationship between knowledge generation and internal knowledge transfer is well-known, the relationship between knowledge generation and external knowledge transfer is less clear. Therefore, an important question that we must ask is whether a scholar needs to be an active knowledge generator to become a successful knowledge disseminator. For this study, we use the data gathered by Aguinis and colleagues (2019). By extracting all endnotes and references, the authors (Aguinis et al., 2019) created a database including 7,445 sources, 33,719 articles and book chapters, and 32,981 authors cited at least once in the sample of 38 textbooks. We gathered additional data indicating prestige of 76 textbook authors and prestige of their previously affiliated universities. Results show that knowledge disseminators do not necessarily graduate from or reside in top-universities. However, they need to generate knowledge in order to become a successful knowledge disseminators.