Phenomenon of entrepreneurship in historical
comprehension
Such notions as “initiative”, “businessman”, “entrepreneurship” don’t
have the same meaning in Russian either science or social life. Speaking about
businessmen one thinks about representatives of small and medium business; one
thinks about top-managers; one means Mafia; one unites all these groups
together. There are a lot of definitions in modern science. T.Veblen,
J.Chumpter, V.Zombard, M.Veber, F.Hiek, L.Mises, A.Ageev, A.Bezgodov, G.Gins,
T.Zaslavskaja, O.Krishtanovskaja, V.Radaev, M.Chkartan and other European and
Russian scientists have studied this problem.
Scientific analysis of entrepreneurship, forms
and way of its development in
The researches in the sphere of entrepreneurship have been stimulated
last decade. It deals with the necessity of interdisciplinary analysis of the
phenomenon to value it historically, socio-psychologically, and economically.
Shortage of theoretic-methodological base has become evident nowadays. But the
term “entrepreneurship” is polysemantic and there are a lot of points of view
on it.
The most popular ones are capital possession
(A.Smith), joining and combining of production factors (M.Veber), direction on
making profit and income capitalization, using market and other opportunities,
independence, taking risks (R.Cantilion), initiative and creative work, ability
to resist the surroundings, special management of production (J.Chumpeter).
Western science divides entrepreneurial function into resource, organizing, and
creative and systematizes all signs of the socio-cultural phenomenon. The main
elements of “entrepreneurship” are from “idle class” [2, 345] to “major
phenomenon of economical development” [4, 235] and its motive force.
Entrepreneurship has been studied since the
ancient time. It is considered to be an occupation of minor importance, not for
high class. This evaluation was due to rudimentary market relations where
entrepreneurship was in the sphere of trade. Plato and Aristotle characterized
merchant’s activity like unworthy. Plato said that trade made people bad [3,
382]. Aristotle was against thought of money and believed that this kind of thought
destroys natural social structure. He considered aspiration for money to be
worse than fornication [1, 392-393]; and said that merchants’, doctors’, and
other entrepreneurs’ main motives were desire for money and immoderate
enjoyment.
In the beginning of our era Christian ideologists
developed this point of view. They believed that merchants couldn’t live
without sins. Foma Aquinskij wrote that this profession was of moral and ethics
defectiveness [5, 83]. At the same time, in 13th century Catholic
ethics discovered good sides of entrepreneurial activity as a source of common
good of an economical system.
Everything had changed since the new time. Market relations and trade development, spreading industrial production lead to re-thinking of the phenomenon and shifting to a positive evaluation.
All these approaches were not of system
character. The change to a system analysis (in the framework of sociological
and economical theories) happened in 18th century due to social thought development and a significant
growth of entrepreneurship role in the economy systems of
R.Cantilion was the first who looked at an
entrepreneur as a key figure of socio-economical system. It was the beginning
of scientific researches of the phenomenon and the base for further theoretical
researches. Cantilion offered an idea that an entrepreneur was the individual
who could predict and take risks, thought about the future, expected getting
income, and was ready for loss [6, 20-21].
A. Smith wrote of another idea about the nature
of entrepreneurship and showed that there was correlation between social
distinctions and sources of income. Entrepreneur‘s (capitalist’s) income is
profit on invested capital. Other two classes (workers and landowners) get
income from the labour process and ownership of land. Entrepreneur is the
engine of socio-economical system progress. A. Smith said that any state or
government intervention in economical process to limit free competition would
not result in a good effect.
Conclusion:
1. The notion “entrepreneur” is not monosemantic
in neither Russian nor foreign science and social life;
2. The phenomenon of entrepreneurship has
attracted scientists’ attention since the Ancient time. In the beginning of our
era Christian ideologists developed this point of view. Transition from a
negative to a positive evaluation happened in the beginning of the new time.
System analysis has been used since 18th.
3. Proponents and opponents of the entrepreneurs’
socio-economical role as founders of economical liberalism considered
entrepreneur’s function to get income by means of capital enterprise
organizing. They didn’t show differences between investment and organizing
aspects of business. It led to opposite points of view. According to A.Smith,
an entrepreneur is always right strategically; according to K.Marx, he is a
representative of a parasitic class living at the expense work force
exploitation.
Literature:
1.
Aristotle. Politics. V. 4. Aristotle – Ì., 1983. –
674p.
2.
Veblen T. Theory of idle class / Ò. Veblen. – Ì., 1984. –
776 p.
3.
Plato. Laws. / V. 4. – Ì., 1994. –
382 p.
4.
Chumpeter J. Theory of economical
development. Researches of profit, capital, credit, interest, and state of the
circle. / J.Chumpeter. – Ì.,
1997. – 537 p.
5.
Verhan P.H. Entrepreneur: his
economical function and socio-political responsibility / P.H. Verhan. –
6. Entrepreneurship
at the end of 20th century / - Ì., 1992. – 731 p.