IER-08-04-01-pp007--2131-Wach,Glodowska 2022, Vol. 8, No. 4 10.15678/IER.2022.0804.01 Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding the term and research trends Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska A B S T R A C T Objective: The article aims to discuss the most important aspects and areas of entrepreneurship in the newest research and to identify research trends present in the literature. Research Design & Methods: The article is a literature review of narrative type. The research method we em- ployed is content analysis and synthesis by causal assessment. We used the newest publications, primarily articles from renowned journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Findings: Entrepreneurship is a multi-thread, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary area of research. We may analyse entrepreneurship as a function of: personality, managerial activities, the individual entrepreneur, the market, the SME sector in the economy, self-employment, economic production factor. Many types and cat- egories of entrepreneurship described in the literature have developed over the years, which resulted in a broad diversity of subjects in the field. The evolution of entrepreneurship studies highlights the changing con- ditions for entrepreneurship and provides new perspectives. Implications & Recommendations: This article responds to the fragmentation and dispersion of research efforts, summarizing achievements in the field of entrepreneurship studies at the intersection of two dis- ciplines: economics and management. We discuss the most important questions of entrepreneurship syn- thetically and exhaustively, which allows us to delineate up-to-date and more understandable themes for both researchers and practitioners. Contribution & Value Added: The article’s added value consists in the updated and synthetic presentation of entrepreneurship’s most important aspects and areas. The overview presents the current state of the art on entrepreneurship, its functions, classifications, and research directions. Article type: literature review Keywords: Entrepreneurship; entrepreneur; production factors; small and medium-sized enter- prises; self-employment JEL codes: L22, L25, L26, H32 Received: 15 June 2022 Revised: 1 September 2022 Accepted: 30 September 2022 Suggested citation: Wach, K., & Głodowska, A . (2022 ). Entrepreneur shi p resear ch in econo mic s and managem ent: Understanding the term and the research trends. International Entrepreneurship Review, 8(4), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.15678/IER.2022.0804.01 INTRODUCTION As a sub-discipline or academic specialization, entrepreneurship remains a relatively new field of ex- ploration (Głodowska & Wach, 2022; Wach, 2022). However, as Landström (2010) indicates, the field has a rich tradition in the history of economic thought. Entrepreneurship is genetically and immanently inscribed in human activity and has existed virtually since the very emergence of humankind (Heil- broner, 1993). Entrepreneurship is a multi-thread, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary area of re- search. Broadly speaking, we may assume that the literature scrutinizes entrepreneurship in at least two main categories (Davidsson, 2008), namely entrepreneurship as a social phenomenon and as a research discipline. Undoubtedly, entrepreneurship remains an ambiguous term in both casual and academic language. As a research field, entrepreneurship is characterized by its multidisciplinarity International Entrepreneurship Review RI E 8 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska (studies conducted separately across multiple scientific disciplines) and interdisciplinarity (studies con- ducted at an intersection of at least two different scientific disciplines). Let us note that most studies on entrepreneurship stem from economics and management. Researchers try to explain different as- pects of entrepreneurship by employing a heterogeneous spectrum of perspectives and research methods. Over the years, different types and dimensions of entrepreneurship have crystallized and found their way into scientific research (González-Tejero et al., 2022). The most recent theoretical studies include articles on the following types of entrepreneurship: sustainable (Yakubu et al., 2022; Holzmann & Gregori, 2023), digital (Fernandes et al., 2022; Sabatini et al., 2022), social (Manjon, et al., 2022), female (Ojong et al., 2021), migrant (Sinkovics, 2021), and international (Głodowska, 2022). However, the literature has recently largely omitted an integrating view of the basic entrepreneurial concepts that would present current research nomenclature and trends. This article fills this gap in response to the fragmentation and dispersion of research efforts by summarizing the achievements of entrepreneurship research at the intersection of two disciplines: economics and management. Thus, this article discusses the most important aspects and areas of entrepreneurship in the newest re- search, identifying the newest trends by providing two key contributions. Firstly, we demonstrate the current state of the art, hence systematizing the rich body of work in the field and making it more accessible to researchers and practitioners. To that end, we organize concepts and functions of entre- preneurship along with reflecting on its different classifications. Secondly, we discuss and consolidate the research threads that have emerged over the years in the field of entrepreneurship, suggesting possible future research avenues. The research method this study employed was content analysis and synthesis by causal assess- ment. For this purpose, we used publications from renowned journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The article is divided into sections. After the introduction, we overview the newest literature in the field of entrepreneurship, its understanding, and its functions. Next, we present and discuss the study results. Finally, we conclude. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The article is based on a narrative literature review. Comprehensive understanding and insights into the content of previous research is an essential step in all research disciplines and academic projects. Referencing to the relevant literature is a crucial contribution to research development. Researchers usually begin their investigation with a description of prior research studies to map and evaluate the research area and to justify the aim of the study and formulate research hypotheses. In our approach, we implement a narrative review, which aims to summarize and synthesize what has been written on a selected topic, but we do not seek generalization or cumulative knowledge from what is reviewed (Wach, 2020). Our review focuses on essential aspects and areas of entrepreneurship, especially from the perspectives of both economics and management. The research methods applied in the study came down to the content analysis and synthesis by a casual assessment. Our narration uses thematic analysis related to entrepreneurship, its functions, and various classifications. The chronological thread was also taken into account in the context of the con- ceptualization of the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship terms and the systematization of previous research in this area. Finally, over 70 publications were selected for our study. On their basis, a con- ceptual analysis of entrepreneurship was made in a retrospective perspective. Then, the functions of entrepreneurship were identified and characterized. Research on entrepreneurship over the years has been systematized (according to different research schools) in chronological terms, and contemporary dimensions and types of entrepreneurship have been discussed. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT A great number and variety of entrepreneurship definitions preclude its consensual explanation. Shane and Venkataraman (2007) claim that the biggest obstacle in creating a theoretical framework for the Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 9 study of entrepreneurship is its definition. The first to officially introduce entrepreneurship to scientific literature was Cantilon in 1755, who positioned entrepreneurship in the field of economics and defined the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth. Cantilon described the discrepancy between supply and demand as a chance to buy low and sell high, branding those capable of identifying such chance ‘entrepreneurs’ (Carlsson et al., 2013). Thus, Cantilon created a framework for the later development of classical equilibrium models by promoting economic prosperity and coping in uncertain conditions (Murphy et al., 2006). To diachronically order attempts at the conceptual definition of entrepreneur- ship should be associated with the following names: Cantillon (1755), Knight (1921), Schumpeter (1934), Penrose (1959), Kirzner (1973), Drucker (1985), Shane and Venkataraman, (2000), and Reyn- olds (2005). The results of the diachronic conceptual analysis are available in Table 1. Table 1. Diachronic overview of entrepreneurship definitions Authors Definition Cantillon (1755) Entrepreneurship entails bearing the risk of buying at a certain price and selling at uncertain prices. Say (1803) An entrepreneur is a person who shifts resources from an area of low productivity to high productivity. Entrepreneurship is about changing resources from a lower productive to a higher productive use. Knight (1921) Entrepreneurship means generating profit for bearing the uncertainty and risk of market dy- namics. Schumpeter ([1911] 1934) Entrepreneurship is any kind of innovative function that could have a bearing on the welfare of an entrepreneur. … Entrepreneurship is based on purposeful and systematic innovation. It includes not only the independent businessman but also company directors and managers who actually carry out innovative functions. Cole (1959) Entrepreneurship is the purposeful activity of an individual or a group of associated individu- als, undertaken to initiate, maintain or aggrandize profit by the production or distribution of economic goods and services. Penrose (1959) Entrepreneurial activity involves identifying opportunities within the economic system. Kirzner (1973) The entrepreneur implements planned goals, recognizes and acts upon profit opportunities, and allocates supply to satisfy demand. Drucker (1985) Entrepreneurship is the act of innovation involving endowing existing resources with new wealth-producing capacity. Timmons (1989, p. 48) Entrepreneurship is a human, creative act that builds something of value from practically nothing. It is the pursuit of opportunity regardless of the resources, or lack of resources, at hand. It requires a vision and the passion and commitment to lead others in the pursuit of that vision. It also requires a willingness to take calculated risks. Baumol (1990, p. 897) [Entrepreneurs are] persons who are ingenious and creative in finding ways to augment their own wealth, power, and prestige. Hisrich & Peters (1998) Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the neces- sary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and social risks and re- ceiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence. Shane & Venka- taraman (2000) The field of entrepreneurship involves the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who … ex- ploit them. Low (2001) As an academic field, entrepreneurship is a catch-all. Reynolds (2005) Entrepreneurship is a process of discovering opportunities and creating new businesses, of- ten by creating new organizations. Source: own elaboration and extension of Ahmad and Seymour (2008, p. 7). As a research thread in economic sciences, entrepreneurship naturally first emerged as part of economics. Only later was it introduced to and still remains dominated by management studies. Stevenson and Jarillo (1990, p. 18) distinguish three main questions in entrepreneurship studies: Why, how, and what happens? Van Ness and Seifert (2016) associate the first of those questions with human characteristics, the second with the process, and the third with the managerial outcome 10 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska or corollary of the economy. Based on the traditional approach to entrepreneurship rooted in man- agement sciences, these authors perceive entrepreneurship as a trichotomous construct of an en- trepreneur’s traits, ‘doing’ entrepreneurship, and the initiative and enterprise as results of attitude and action (Figure 1). By providing entrepreneurship with a complex definition, Shane and Venkata- raman (2000, p. 218) combine these three dimensions of entrepreneurship to conclude that – from a scientific perspective – entrepreneurship deals with the study of who, how, and with what effect uses opportunities to manufacture goods and services. Entrepreneurship Entrepreneuring (Entrepreneurship as a process) Entrepreneur (Entrepreneurship as a trait) Enterprise (Entrepreneurship as a result) Figure 1. Entrepreneurship as a trichotomous construct Source: adapted from Van Ness and Seifert (2016, p. 90). Today, entrepreneurship as a research subject mainly appears in studies prepared from the per- spective of management sciences, although its origins lie in economics, so we should apply a holistic approach to entrepreneurship should combine the achievements of these two disciplines. Therefore, elaborating on the above trichotomous classification, we may assume that literature in the field of economics provides (Figure 2) four basic functions of entrepreneurship – namely functions of person- ality, managerial process, individual entrepreneur, and the market – along with three derivative func- tions, understood as functions of the SME sector in the economy, self-employment, and economic production factor (Wach, 2022). Despite their prominence, the literature has not sufficiently distin- guished these functions against the background of the adopted classification criteria; albeit they do occur at the level of entrepreneurship operationalization in economic models. Entrepreneurship as the function of personality Research on entrepreneurship at the level of individuals focuses on human action characteristics and most often concerns the entrepreneur, but also employee teams (Sarwoko & Nurfarida, 2021; Zbierowski & Gony-Zbierowska, 2022). This vein of research interprets entrepreneurship as the first of the three key questions: “Why do entrepreneurs work?” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p. 18), thus the search for the causes of entrepreneurship. Among the six schools of entrepreneurship, Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) distinguish as many as two that focus on personality: the Great Person school and the psychological characteristics school (Table 2). According to the former, an entrepreneur possesses an intuition or a sixth sense, along with other innate special characteristics and instincts. Thus, an entrepreneur is identified as an extraordi- nary, successful person. By contrast, according to the psychological characteristics school, entrepre- neurs have unique values, attitudes, and needs that drive them. An entrepreneur is identified as the founder in control of the means of production. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 11 as a function of personality (a trait) E n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p as a function of a managerial process as a function of an individual entrepreneur as a function of the market as an economic production factor as a function of SMEs (self-employment) in the economny Figure 2. Understanding entrepreneurship in economics and business studies Source: own study based on Wach (2015a, p. 26). Table 2. Schools of entrepreneurship according to Cunningham and Lischeron School Central focus or purpose Assumption Defining the entrepreneur Behaviours and skills “Great Person” school The entrepreneur has an in- tuitive ability – a sixth sense – and traits and instincts he/she is born with. Without this “inborn” intuition the individual would be like the rest of us mortals who “lack what it takes”. “Extraordinary achiev- ers” Intuition, vigor, energy, persistence, self-esteem Psychological characteristics school Entrepreneurs have unique values, attitudes, and needs which drive them. People behave in ac- cordance with their val- ues; behaviour results from attempts to satisfy needs. Founders who control over the means of pro- duction Personal val- ues, risk-tak- ing, need for achievement Classical (inno- vation) school The central characteristics of entrepreneurial behav- iour is innovation. The critical aspect of entrepreneurship is the process of doing rather than owning. People who make in- novations bearing risk and uncertainty (crea- tive destruction) Innovation, creativity, dis- covery Management school Entrepreneurs are organiz- ers of an economic venture; they are people who organ- ize, own, manage, and as- sume the risk. Entrepreneurs can be developed or trained in the technical functions of management. People creating value though the recognition of business opportuni- ties, the management of risk-taking. Production planning, peo- ple organizing, capitalization and budgeting Leadership school Entrepreneurs are leaders of people; they have the ability to adapt their style to the needs of people. An entrepreneur can- not accomplish his/her goals alone, but de- pends on others. “Social architects” who promote and protect values. Motivating, di- recting, lead- ing Intrapreneurship school Entrepreneurial skills can be useful in complex organiza- tions; intrapreneurship is the development of inde- pendent units to create market and expand services. Organizations need to adapt to survive; entre- preneurial activity leads to organizational build- ing and entrepreneurs becoming managers. People who pull to- gether to promote in- novation. Alertness to opportunities, maximizing decisions Source: adaption from Cunningham and Lischeron (1991, p. 47 & 56). 12 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska Studies on entrepreneurial personalities utilize three main methodological trends rooted in behav- ioural sciences: (i) personality instrumentalization, (ii) personality ontology, (iii) theoretical pragmat- ics. Behavioural studies on entrepreneurial personalities distinguish eight key approaches called ‘schools of thinking on personality’ (Wickham, 2006, pp. 53-59): − psychodynamic approaches identify the entrepreneurial personality with internal psychological pro- cesses that determine human behaviour as per the Freudian concept of three processes: Id – un- conscious, Superego – conscious and unconscious, Ego – conscious; − dispositional approaches follow the trait approach to personality, or trait theory, which are the so- called classical theories of personality in psychology, as individual psychological theories in this ap- proach most often focus on extraversion and introversion because entrepreneurs differ in this respect just like the whole population, so one cannot easily attribute to these theories great importance in explaining the phenomenon of entrepreneurship; scholars developed the qualifying approach in lead- ership theory based on the dispositional approach in management, among other sources; − biological approaches postulate that entrepreneurial personality is a biological process shaped by genes, and some studies even speak of the gene of entrepreneurship; one of the most famous genetic studies on twins at King’s College London confirmed that entrepreneurs are born thanks to specific genes, as the research (Nicolaou, 2011) shows that 37-48% entrepreneurship-related aspects are ge- netically determined, with other research teams arriving at similar results (van der Loos et al., 2013); − evolutionary psychological approaches argue that human cognitive skills were shaped in the Palae- olithic and that the sources of the entire human species’ entrepreneurial personality – not just that of the individuals – should be sought in the Stone Age; − phenomenological approaches assume that every person is different and that their entrepreneurial personality is shaped by unique historical and introvert factors related to their own experience; the- ories built following this approach assume that one has free will to make own choices and that one is a self-perfecting entity in terms of health, well-being, and psychological maturity; − behavioural approaches posit the entrepreneurial personality as determined only by external envi- ronmental factors that can only be explained by observing human behaviour; this approach is heav- ily criticized in the literature; − social-cognitive learning approaches are based on learning and explain entrepreneurship as a fea- ture of human action, not through the prism of an inherited or shaped personality but through indi- vidual social experience and interactions; entrepreneurship is transferred to someone by other ac- tors in social life, while the socio-cognitive learning approach in itself is very diverse in its multiple concepts and theories; empirical research conducted in this trend focuses on whether entrepre- neurs as a group differ significantly from other groups in terms of acquiring, storing, and processing knowledge in the decision-making process; − attribution-based approaches assume that an entrepreneurial personality is attributed to an indi- vidual by others. Entrepreneurship as the function of managerial processes Entrepreneurship as a function of managerial processes is an analysis performed from the perspec- tive of the second key question “How do entrepreneurs work?” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p. 18), meaning an exploration and explanation of managerial behaviours. This research thread was pio- neered by Gartner (1988), who proclaimed that from a managerial viewpoint, what bears the most importance is the study of the entrepreneurial process. Bygrave and Hofer (1991, p. 14) elaborate on this by stating that “the entrepreneurial process involves all the functions, activities, and actions associated with the perceiving of opportunities and the creation of organizations to pursue them.” Based on a detailed analysis of the rapidly developing literature on the subject, we should distinguish two main research branches (Landström, 2010, pp. 18-19): − entrepreneurship as the process of creating new ventures, − entrepreneurship as the process of discovering and utilizing opportunities. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 13 Theories of entrepreneurship pay special attention to Schumpeter’s concept of the entrepreneur- innovator, for whom economic reality means creative destruction by the introduction of new combi- nations through repeated tearing down and realignment of products and services. Schumpeter distin- guishes five new economic combinations identified with innovation: introducing new production tech- nologies; introducing a new product or a product of new quality; introducing a new organization to the sector; entering new markets; use of new raw material sources. Today, these new combinations have an entirely different scope. In the classical sense, they have remained relevant to traditional enter- prises, albeit the age of turbulence has enforced the adoption of a different outlook on business pro- cesses and the introduction of innovation (Kotler & Casoline, 2009). The entrepreneurial process founds each entrepreneurial action, which results in growth and de- velopment. In the classical view, the process consists of several successive sequences that vary de- pending on the author. Bygrave’s proposition (2004, p. 3) seems to be the most universal one in appli- cation. In the entrepreneurial process, Bygrave distinguishes four different stages: − idea or conceptualization whose attribute is innovation; − an event initiates operations; − implementation; − growth and development. Each stage shows different determinants and witnesses different entrepreneurial behaviours. An- other very interesting approach grounded in strategic entrepreneurship is introduced by Wickham (2006, pp. 224-228), who views the entrepreneurial process dynamically, establishing four contingen- cies, clearly referring to the contingentism theory in philosophy: entrepreneur, market opportunity, enterprise organization, resources. Between these variables happen interactions based not on neces- sity but subjectivism, which characterizes the entrepreneur. These interactions are essential to the entrepreneurial process, between which appear mechanisms coordinated by the entrepreneur: entre- preneurial configuration, entrepreneurial fit, and entrepreneurial focus. Entrepreneurial fit consists in adapting the organization to market requirements, which can sometimes be identified with the previ- ously discussed concept of creating individual value for the customer in the era of “new” innovations (Prahalad & Krishnan, 2008, p. 11). For the organization to adapt to market opportunities, it must con- figure – and often reconfigure – its resources accordingly. Entrepreneurship as the function of individual entrepreneur Economic studies most often analyse the entrepreneur’s role. Etymologically, the term stems from the French entreprendre, already in use in the fifteenth century, popularized in theoretical writings much later by French economists such as Richard Cantillon (1680-1734) or Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832), but also François Quesnel (1542-1619), Nicolas Baudeau (1730-1792), and Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781). At that time, English literature on the subject used such terms as “adventurer,” “projec- tor,” “undertaker” (Hébert & Link, 2010, p. 24). German literature used its own notion, closest to the French equivalent – der Unternehmer – initially promoted by von Thünen (1785-1850) and von Man- goldt (1824-1858). This is term that was used by Schumpeter (1883-1950) in 1912, who in the transla- tion of his breakthrough work into English in 1934 used the term “an entrepreneur.” From the viewpoint of economics, entrepreneurship as the function of individual entrepreneur is most often identified with the function of the market. Thus, we could try to separate these two functions of entrepreneurship and treat the entrepreneur’s function at the microeconomic level, while the market function at the level of macroanalysis, with elements of meso- and microeconomic theory. At this point, let us mentione Von Mises (1998), who writes that “[e]conomics, in speaking of entrepreneurs, has in view not men, but a definite function.” The literature most often distinguishes five basic functions of the entrepreneur, referred to as market entrepreneurial functions (Hébert & Link, 1989; Landström, 2010): − risk-taking (Cantillon, Say, Knight), − creating opportunities and introducing innovations (Schumpeter), − organizing and coordinating limited economic resources (Say), − seeking profitable opportunities (von Mises, Kirzner), 14 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska − accumulating and allocating capital (Smith, Ricardo, Marshal). Entrepreneurship as the function of the market In traditional economics, market theory in terms of supply-demand analysis as well as the theory of price or the theory of the firm explain the market mechanism based on certain idealistic assumptions (homo economicus), ignoring in their models that which is elusive, including the role of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs (Baumol, 1968, p. 72; Kirzner, 1973). An important element of theory is therefore Mises’s notion of human action: “built into the propensity for alertness toward fresh goals and the discovery of hitherto unknown resources with which homo agens is endowed” (Kirzner, 1973, p. 34). Hébert and Link (2009, p. 4) emphasize that the level of entrepreneurship in the economy and society depends on three key conditions: − free market and open economy guarantee equal access to entrepreneurial opportunities; − guaranteed private ownership; − stability of institutions reinforcing the above two conditions. As a function of the market, entrepreneurship is analysed from the perspective of the third ques- tion “What happens when entrepreneurs work?” (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990, p. 18), meaning the search for effects of entrepreneurship. In this case, entrepreneurship is most often reduced to the functions of the sector of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, but only for empirical research operation- alization. Such research attempts to analyse the influence of the SME sector on growth, both in terms of GDP and the growth of employment in the economy. Entrepreneurship as the production factor In classic economics, especially in the theory of production and cost, there are three factors of pro- duction, namely (i), (ii) labour, and (iii) capital. Alfred Marshall in 1890 was the first to formally rec- ognize the need to consider entrepreneurship for production. In his seminal work The Principles of Economics, Marshall states that there are four factors of production: (i) land, (ii) labour, (iii) capital, and (iv) organization. For him, the organization is the coordinating factor that connects other factors. Entrepreneurship and especially the entrepreneur is a key element here that benefits from a com- bination of three classic factors. Moreover, Marshall believed that entrepreneurship was the driving force of an organization. By organizing themselves creatively, entrepreneurs create new goods or improve “the plan of producing an old commodity” (Marshall, 1994). Drucker (1985) is considered the promotor of the entrepreneurial economy paradigm. He saw the coming changes of the entrepreneurial revolution in his visionary article in the late 1970s, and then in the mid-1980s he developed his concept in the seminal book Innovation and Entrepreneur- ship (Drucker, 1985). The term was popularized by Audretsch and Thurik in the early 2000s (2000, 2001, 2004) when a fundamental shift towards an entrepreneurial economy was noticed. The tran- sition from the domination of large enterprises in the economy, and thus the emergence of the eco- nomic phenomenon of small and medium-sized enterprises, resulted in changes in the processes of internationalization of enterprises and globalization of the world economy. The loss of the compar- ative advantage of large developed economies in favour of developing countries – due to their cost advantage in mass production – caused a strategic reorientation based on knowledge, information and innovation, as a result of which the knowledge-based economy paradigm became popular in the literature and in business practice. As noted by Audretsch and Thurik (2000), an economy whose comparative advantage is new knowledge requires a completely different industrial structure as well as economic values, hence the key role in the reorganization of economies was played by small and medium-sized enterprises and all entrepreneurial activities, and the basis for growth has become – according to Audretsch (2009) – an entrepreneurial society. In the knowledge-based entrepreneurial economy, the policy-making reformulate their question from ‘How can governments encourage businesses to exploit market potential?’ to ‘How can governments co-create an environment that supports business success and viability?’ (Audretsch & Thurik, 2001, pp. 31-32). Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 15 Entrepreneurship as the function of SMEs (self-employment) in the economy Undoubtedly, entrepreneurship is difficult to measure, in fact it is impossible to quantify entrepre- neurship in its entire scope, especially its creative and innovative aspects of human and business ac- tivities. Hence, in numerous economic models it is simplified to the function of small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) or to the function of self-employment. The literature assumes specific attributes to the SME sector, proving that entrepreneurship in this sense stimulates economic growth by activating innovative processes and generating new jobs (Brich, 1987). A dynamic approach to the environment characterizes the SME sector. These compa- nies can react the fastest to consumers’ changing needs and preferences (Okyere, 2017). Under- standing this entrepreneurial function relates to the classification of firms according to their size (usually regulated by country-specific law). Table 3. Definition of small and medium-sized enterprises according to EU criteria Firm size Staff headcount Turnover (EUR) Balance sheet total (EUR) Self-employment 0 ≤ 2 million ≤ 2 million Micro < 10 Small < 50 ≤ 10 million ≤ 10 million Medium-sized < 250 ≤ 50 million ≤ 43 million Source: Adapted from European Commission (2003). Alternative definitions of SMEs are also adopted depending on the country (Wach, 2015b). The crite- rion of the number of employees or financial thresholds may then differ from the EU ones. Considering the size of the company, it is SMEs that attract the greatest attention of entrepreneurship researchers. Entrepreneurship of individuals and its effects can be formalized in the form of self-employment. Self-employment can be understood as the economic activity of an individual or professional practice, whereby one of the conditions is required: these people work for profit, run their own business, or conduct activities aimed at setting up their own business (European Commission, 2010). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Directions and evolution of research on entrepreneurship As we highlighted above, science scrutinizes entrepreneurship since long (Chandra, 2018), albeit few consider it a separate, independent scientific discipline. Suffice it to consider the current classification of scientific disciplines in Poland, which treats entrepreneurship as a subdiscipline of management, which in turn, is a component of two scientific fields: economics and humanities (Gorynia, 2018). Nev- ertheless, we should keep in mind that entrepreneurship was recognized by economic sciences for a long time. The notion of entrepreneurship was introduced and developed by economists. The subject appeared much later in management sciences, most probably in the mid-twentieth century. Considering the current expansion of entrepreneurship in economic life, the dynamic development of research resulted in the appearance of numerous publications, journals, and study programs dedi- cated to the matter, we may posit entrepreneurship meets all the criteria to be considered an inde- pendent scientific discipline. Thus, we may regard entrepreneurship as a relatively young field that continues to develop its identity. The emergence of entrepreneurship as a science dates back to the 1950s. However, the real intensification of research in the field began only 30 years later (Low & Mac- Millan, 1988), which is related to the dynamic growth of related publications and thematic journals. Orthodox researchers continue to undermine the independence of entrepreneurship as a scientific discipline. Low (2001) believes that entrepreneurship receives a lot of attention but little respect. The main objections to the scientific maturity of entrepreneurship concern the lack of universal theoretical foundations and paradigms. Leitch et al. (2010) add that researchers of entrepreneurship focus their methodological considerations on the analytical unit and research design, rather than on the basic 16 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska ontological and epistemological aspects that determine the choice of research projects and shape the perception of a phenomenon. Therefore, the lack of scientific legitimacy of entrepreneurship results from the lack of an explicit, original canon that would be strictly assigned to entrepreneurship and used not by another special- ization. We cannot fully agree with this view, considering the interdisciplinarity desired by virtually all modern disciplines. As a counterargument, Veciana (2007) states that such an irrefutable core of entrepreneurship may be the issue of entrepreneurial functions and the creation of new companies – small and medium-sized enterprises – and family businesses. Of course, this does not exhaust the catalogue of issues considered by entrepreneurship studies – as we demonstrated in the sections above that showed the dimensions, types, and kinds of entrepreneurship – but scholars indicate these elements as the specific elements of entrepreneurship studies, not appropriated by other sci- entific fields. Veciana (2007) distinguishes four successive stages that led to the formation of entre- preneurship as a scientific discipline: 1. stage one (the eighteenth to the nineteenth century): defining the entrepreneur and entrepre- neurship; 2. stage two (first half of the twentieth century): perceptions of entrepreneurship through the lens of the history of economic thought; 3. stage three (second half of the twentieth century): the beginning of entrepreneurship studies; 4. stage four (from the 1980s to date): consolidation and flourishing of entrepreneurship studies. An essential part of current entrepreneurship studies is interdisciplinarity (Branco et al., 2021). The first studies on entrepreneurship emerged in economics, which considered entrepreneurship in com- parison with uncertainty, risk, innovation, and economic growth (Khalilov, 2021). Among the non-eco- nomic approaches to entrepreneurship research, we should mention the psychological and sociologi- cal approaches, which focus on behavioural factors and individual traits as predictors of entrepreneur- ship (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971). With the development of entrepreneurship as an autonomous disci- pline, there occurred a behavioural reorientation that emphasized what entrepreneurs do in terms of recognizing, assessing, and exploiting opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Gradually, entre- preneurship studies became more fragmented, which some researchers use as an argument against considering entrepreneurship as a science (Gartner, 2001). Cherukara and Manalel (2011) note that after the initial appearance of entrepreneurship in economics, it was absent from economic models. Neoclassical economics, which support the idea of perfect competition and symmetrical information, has never held much respect for entrepreneurship characterized by risk factors and innovations. In Table 3 we present a chronology of theoretical definitions of entrepreneurship. Table 4. Chronology of theoretical definitions of entrepreneurship Period School name 1700-1800 French Classical school 1750-1850 British Classical school 1800-1900 Austrian Classical school 1850-1900 Neoclassical school 1900-1980 Neoclassical Austrian school 1920-1940 Schumpeterian approach 1950-1980 Psychological and sociological approaches 1980- to date Modern approach Source: own elaboration based on Pittaway and Freeman (2011, pp. 3-33). Chandra (2018) argues that the contribution of entrepreneurship studies to date is undeniable. It is crucial for entrepreneurs, policymakers, and various global institutions as it helps to understand the ra- tionales, factors, obstacles, and principles that influence value creation, economic growth, resource allo- cation, and political agendas, with all of this consequently shaping social well-being. We should regard the 1980s a special period of entrepreneurship studies expansion, manifested not only in the increased number of studies but also in the diversification of research approaches, dimensions, and fields. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 17 The circumstances that intensified entrepreneurship studies related to the reorientation of busi- ness in many developed economies – which began as early as in the 1970s – when large corporations ceased to be perceived as economic engines, and attention shifted to smaller companies. Moreover, state authorities paid greater attention to entrepreneurship, its authorization, support, and promo- tion, especially in developed economies. Furthermore, scholars noticed cultural changes in popular approach towards entrepreneurs and enterprises, while a positive image of the entrepreneur was popularized in the media (Pittaway & Freeman, 2011). Significant changes in the global economy re- lated to increased global competition and technological progress have contributed to increased un- certainty and risk, and greater fragmentation of the market. All this contributed to the weakening of the position of large companies in favour of smaller businesses (Carlsson, 1992). Thus, we may assume this reorientation became a turning point for the contemporary concept of entrepreneurship, simul- taneously initiating the growth in relevant studies. Notably, the intensification of entrepreneurship studies in the last three decades has gone far beyond the perspective of small businesses, which is why the literature often emphasizes a dissonance between the issue of small business and entrepre- neurship (Carland et al., 1984). Small business researchers primarily focus on the business experience of companies and small business operations (Onwe et al., 2020). Entrepreneurship researchers con- sider the broader context of running a business, not limited to start-ups but including the creation of new ventures, high-growth ventures, and corporate entrepreneurship (Kim, 2022). The 1980s witnessed a significant revival in the field of entrepreneurship studies. Resulting mainly from exogenous factors, this orientation caused an increase in the number of journals focused on entre- preneurship, thus increasing the number of related publication, policymakers’ decisions, academic courses, and conferences (Vesper, 1982). Most of all, this period showed a particularly dynamic growth of economic activity (Gartner & Shane, 1995). Scientific studies from the period presented entrepreneur- ship, new companies, and small enterprises as the key driving forces of economic growth: flexible, reac- tive, innovative, easily adapting to external changes, and generating jobs (Ács, 1984). Gartner (1990) identifies several research themes that emerged in that period: the entrepreneur, establishing an organ- ization, innovation, value creation, profit versus non-profit activity, uniqueness, and owner-manager re- lations. According to Carlsson et al. (2013), research from the period focused on the entrepreneur and their personal characteristics, also the successes and failures of individual entrepreneurs and companies. These studies were dominated by psychological and sociological approaches. The focus on individuals and teams was firmly rooted in behavioural sciences, primarily referring to the intra-personal processes of individual entrepreneurs. Mainstream studies in economics from the 1980s reveal attempts to delimit the boundaries of entrepreneurship (Carlsson et al., 2013). In turn, the 1990s revisited the problem of defining the identity and foundations of entrepreneur- ship studies, which remained informal. During this period, representatives of management and eco- nomics dominated the field. Three lines of entrepreneurship studies originated from that period, and scholars recognize the following related themes (Casson, 1990; Carlsson et al., 2013): 1. Economic-theoretical approach: risk and uncertainty, market process, innovation, entrepreneur and enterprise; 2. Empirical studies of firms and industries: establishing new firms, firm multiplicity, market entry, innovation, employment, regional development. 3. Culture and economic development: personality, immigrants’ motivation, social mobility and cul- ture, development and regression. We may view the 2000s as a particularly prolific period in the development of entrepreneurship studies. One may say that after the entrepreneurial inclinations ignited in the 1980s, the process con- tinues to escalate as we observe extensive and intensive research development in this area. Westhead and Wright (2000) predicted that after the year 2000, studies would focus on the following issues – which indeed was mostly the case – theories of entrepreneurship, methodology, corporate finance, processes of identifying business opportunities, types of entrepreneurs, environment for initiating and developing ventures, corporate entrepreneurship, family businesses, knowledge-based entrepreneur- 18 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska ship, innovative entrepreneurship, and internationalization. At that time, some attempts to systema- tize and summarize the previous achievements in the field of entrepreneurship are also visible. Schol- ars assume that two concepts of research had crystallized by this period: explorational and exploita- tional (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Ács & Audretsch, 2003). The former studies entrepreneurship as seeking entrepreneurial opportunities, involved individuals and actions, and utilizing opportunities. The latter recommends studying entrepreneurship as creating new companies and its importance for the economy. The literature on the subject differently assesses these two perspectives. Authors rec- ognize that these dimensions are not complementary, so they consider other levels of reference. On the other hand, both concepts ultimately refer to the creation of new economic activities, which are desirable and provide useful and functional knowledge about entrepreneurship (Davidsson, 2003). Table 5. Typology of different types of entrepreneurship Criterium Types Scope of the activity − domestic entrepreneurship o local entrepreneurship o regional entrepreneurship − international entrepreneurship o cross-border entrepreneurship o global entrepreneurship Area of the activity – business entrepreneurship – social entrepreneurship – public entrepreneurship Nature of the activity – innovative entrepreneurship – technological entrepreneurship – ecological entrepreneurship – academic entrepreneurship – intellectual entrepreneurship The person of the entrepreneur – female entrepreneurship − family entrepreneurship o copreneurship – senior entrepreneurship – immigrant entrepreneurship – entrepreneurship of ethnic groups – entrepreneurship of the unemployed – entrepreneurship of the disabled – youth entrepreneurship Pattern of behaviour – spontaneous entrepreneurship – evolutionary entrepreneurship – ethical entrepreneurship – systemic entrepreneurship Research level unit – individual entrepreneurship – team entrepreneurship – corporate entrepreneurship Source: own study. Chandra (2018) exemplifies one of the latest reviews of literature in the field of entrepreneur- ship, presenting achievements in this field from 1990-2013 with the use of sociometric techniques. Chandra selected several dozen issues from the 24-year history of entrepreneurship studies, which allowed the author to identify five themes undertaken throughout the research period: (i) institu- tional entrepreneurship, (ii) innovation and technology, (iii) development and policy, (iv) entrepre- neurial process and opportunities, (v) new ventures creation. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 19 Today, entrepreneurship studies are blooming and exist in each economic and business life seg- ment, which we seek to capture in the typology of entrepreneurship. Systematization of entrepreneur- ship dimensions may provide us with a more transparent and orderly picture of the essence of entre- preneurship in the face of considerable chaos in its understanding (Table 5). CONCLUSIONS As a multidimensional, dynamic, and complex construct, entrepreneurship constantly contributes to the implementation of new projects and forms of development. The various dimensions of research on entrepreneurship presented above confirm that we may associate and analyse entrepreneurship in various contexts such as people, behaviours, business entities, or processes. Over the years, this has led to the development of various forms and types of entrepreneurship. Most often, entrepreneurship is associated with running a business and categorizing business entities by their size or ownership and legal structure. The multi-aspect and multi-thread nature of entrepreneurship requires a more precise delineation, one that exceeds the boundaries of definitional inquiries. In classical economics, entrepreneurship was treated rather superficially. Only Smith recognized the role of entrepreneurs who, as he claimed, could multiply wealth through savings while remaining aware of the involved risks (Smith, 2007). One of the most widespread concepts of entrepreneurship refers to creative destruction and innovation, which was introduced by Schumpeter (1934). Schumpeter at- tempted to create an economic theory based on change, which opposed contemporary definitions. In his seminal text, he distinguishes the category of steady-state economic growth from economic develop- ment, while defining the entrepreneur as an entity that breaks the balance by introducing innovation. Schumpeter argues that this creative destruction is the foundation of capitalism, while the entrepreneur is to be the elementary agent of economic change. Initially, Schumpeter understood entrepreneurship to be an individual’s attribute, yet later, influenced by the development of large enterprises, he extended this understanding to the domain of organizations (Schumpeter, 1964). Schumpeter’s thought was con- tinued by Drucker (1985), according to whom innovations are a specific entrepreneurial tool that imbues unproductive resources with new opportunities. In this approach, innovation is to be an undoubted at- tribute of the entrepreneur, as entrepreneurship is to be the ability to take advantage of change, along with noticing possibilities and opportunities in change through creative problem-solving. Today, we witness a growing interest in the study of entrepreneurship as a market function. Works in this vein show the impact of entrepreneurship – or its selected elements – on economic growth or various spheres of economic activity (Gomes & Ferreira, 2022). On the other hand, what seems to remain an im- portant issue is the ability to correctly identify what determines entrepreneurship in the economy. Understanding the essence of entrepreneurship and all its attributes is important both for polit- ical decision-makers and entrepreneurs themselves, who directly or indirectly create this entrepre- neurship or create conditions for its development. This study is not without limitations. First, entrepreneurship is an extensive issue, which is why a more advanced study based on a bibliometric analysis should beapplied. Our findings are descriptive and can be considered as the basis for further investigations. Therefore, the next research stage should be conducted including much broader spectrum in the subject approach. We recommend to conduct more structured research based on a bibliometric analysis, network identification, and mapping in the future. Identifying the most influential entrepreneurship researchers, productive organizations, and countries would also be worth recognizing. REFERENCES Ahmad, N., & Saymour, R.G. (2008). Defining Entrepreneurial Activity: Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection. OECD Statistics Working Paper STD/DOC(2008)1. Paris: OECD. Audretsch, D.B., & Thurik, A.R. (2000). Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 10, 17- 34. 20 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska Audretsch, D.B., & Thurik, A.R. (2001). What is new about the new economy: sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19, 795-821. Audretsch, D. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(3), 245-254. Ács, Z.J. (1984). The Changing Structure of the U.S. Economy: Lessons from the Steel Industry. New York: Praeger. Ács, Z.J., & Audretsch, D.B. (2003). Introduction to the Handbook of Entrepreneurshp Research. In: Z.J. Acs, D.B. Audretsch (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introduction (pp. 3-20). Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Baumol, W.J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory. American Economic Review, 58(2), 64-71. Baumol, W.J. (1990). Entrepreneurship – productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 893-921. Branco, L., Ferreira, J., & Jayantilal, S. (2021). Conceptual foundations of entrepreneurial strategy: A systematic literature review. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(3), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090307 Brich, D.L. (1987). Job Generation in America: How our Smallest Companies Put the Most People to Work. New York, NY: Free Press. Bygrave, J.E. & Hofer, C.W. (1991). Theorizing about Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13-23. Bygrave, W.D. (2004). The Entrepreneurial Process. In: W.D. Bygrave, A. Zacharakis (eds.), The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship. (pp. 1-28). Heboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Cantillon, R. (1755). Essay on the Nature of Trade in General. London: Henry Higgs. Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R., & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359. Carlsson, B. (1992). The rise of small business: Causes and consequences. In: W. J. Adams (ed.), Singular Europe: Economy and polity of the European community after 1992 (pp. 145-169). Ann Arbor, MI: Uni- versity of Michigan Press. Carlsson B., Braunerhjelm P., McKelvey M., Olofsson C., Persson L., & Ylinenpää H. (2013). The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 913-930. Casson, M. (1990). Internalisation Theory and Beyond. Science, Technology & Competitiveness. STl Review, 1, 85-129. Chandra, Y. (2018). Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990±2013): A scientomet- ric analysis. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. Cherukara, J.M., & Manalel, J. (2011). Evolution of Entrepreneurship theories through different schools of thought. Paper presented on: The Ninth Biennial Conference on Entrepreneurship at EDI. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/19719199/Evolution_of_Entrepreneurship_theories_through_differ- ent_schools_of_thought_2011_ on January 2022. Cole, A.H. (1959). Business Enterprise in Its Social Setting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cunningham, J., Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1): 45-61. Davidsson, P. (2003). The Domain on Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions. In: J.A. Katz, D.A. Shephard (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Entrepreneurship Research (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 6)(pp. 315-372). Binglay: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Davidsson, P. (2008). The Entrepreneurship Research Challenge. Chetenham – Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship. Practice and Principles. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. European Commission (2003). Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Document 32003H0361. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/le- gal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361 on November 2022. European Commision (2010). Self-employment in Europe 2010. European Employment Observatory Review. Re- trieved from https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=12088&langId=en on 30 November 2022. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 21 Fernandes, C., Ferreira, J.J., Veiga, P.M., Kraus, S., & Dabić, M. (2022). Digital entrepreneurship platforms: Map- ping the field and looking towards a holistic approach. Technology in Society, 70, 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101979. Gartner, W.B., & Shane, S.A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 283-301. Gartner, W.B. (1988). „Who is an Entrepreneur?” is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. Gartner, W.B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28. Gartner, W.B. (2001). Is there an elephant in the entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 27-39. Głodowska, A. (2022). International entrepreneurship. In: W. Pasierbek & K. Wach (eds), Entrepreneurship, series „Social Dictionaries”. Kraków: Ignatianum University Press. Głodowska, A., & Wach, K. (2022). Entrepreneurship research in Central and Eastern Europe: A systematic liter- ature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of International Studies, 15(3), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2022/15-3/14 Gomes, S. & Ferreira, P. (2022). Entrepreneurial activity and economic growth: A dynamic data panel analysis of European countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(2), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100201 González-Tejero, C.B., Ulrich, K., & Carrilero, A. (2022). The entrepreneurial motivation, Covid-19, and the new normal. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(2), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100212 Gorynia, M. (2018). Współczesne nauki ekonomiczne: tożsamość, ewolucja, klasyfikacje. Ekonomista, 5, 497-522. Hébert, R.F., Link, A.N. (1989). A History of Entrepreneurship. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Heilbroner, R.L. (1993). Wielcy ekonomiści. Czasy. Życie. Idee. Warszawa: PWE. Hisrich, R.D., & Peters, M.P. (1998). Entrepreneurship. Irwin: McGraw-Hill Holzmann, P., & Gregori, P. (2023). The promise of digital technologies for sustainable entrepreneurship: A sys- tematic literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102593. Hornaday, J.A., & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology. 24(2), 141-153. Khalilov, L., & Yi, Ch.D. (2021). Institutions and entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for OECD countries. Entre- preneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.0 Kim, H.M. (2022). How corporate entrepreneurship affects the performance of small and medium-sized enter- prises in Korea: The mediating and moderating role of vision, strategy, and employee compensation. Entre- preneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100208 Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Com- pany. Kotler, Ph., & Caslione, J.A. (2009). Chaotics. The Business of Managing and Marketing in the Age of Turbulence. New York, NY: Amacom. Landström, H. (2010). Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research. Heidelberg: Springer. Leitch, C. M., Hill, F. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2010). The Philosophy and Practice of Interpretivist Research in Entre- preneurship. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 67-84. Low, M.B., & MacMillan, I.C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Manage- ment, 35, 139-161. Low, M. B. (2001). The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 17-25. Manjon, M-J., Merino, A., & Cairns, I. (2022). Business as not usual: A systematic literature review of social en- trepreneurship, social innovation, and energy poverty to accelerate the just energy transition, Energy Re- search & Social Science, 90, 102624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102624. Marshall, A. (1994). Principles of Economics. Philadelphia: Porcupine Press. 22 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska Murphy, P. J., Liao, J., Welsch, H. P. (2006). A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought. Journal of Manage- ment History, 12(1), 12-35. Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Adi, G., Mangino, M., & Harris, J. (2011). A Polymorphism Associated with Entrepreneur- ship: Evidence from Dopamine Receptor Candidate Genes. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9308-1. Ojong, N., Simba, N.,& Dana, L-P.(2021). Female entrepreneurship in Africa: A review, trends, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 132, 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.032. Okyere, F. (2017). Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs): A Literature Review. The International Journal Of Business & Management, 5(9), 159-163. Onwe, C.C., Ogbo, A., & Ameh, A.A. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation and small firm performance: The moder- ating role of environmental hostility. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(4), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080404 Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley. Pittaway, L., & Freeman, W.A. (2011). The Evolution of Entrepreneurship Theory (Working Paper no 01). Rer- trieved from: https://nanopdf.com/download/the-evolution-of-entrepreneurship-theory-working-paper- 012011_pdf on September 2022. Prahalad, C.H., & Krishnan, M.S. (2008). The New Age of Innovation. Driving Cocreated Value through Global Networks. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Reynolds, P.D. (2005). Entrepreneurship Research Innovator, Coordinator, and Disseminator. Small Business Economics, 24(4), 351-358. Sabatini, A., Cucculelli, A., & Gregori, G.L. (2022). Business model innovation and digital technology: The perspec- tive of Italian incumbent small and medium-sized firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(3), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100302 Sarwoko, E., & Nurfarida, I.N. (2021). Entrepreneurial marketing: Between entrepreneurial personality traits and business performance. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(2), 105-118. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090207 Say, J.B. (1803). A Treatise on Political Economy (Traité D’économie Politique). Osnobruck: Otto Zeller. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Man- agement Review, 25(1), 217-226. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2007). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. In: Á. Cuervo, D. Ribeiro, S. Roig (eds.), Entrepreneurship. Concepts, Theory and Perspectives (171-184). Berlin: Springer. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Economic Studies. Schumpeter, J.A. (1964). Business Cycles. A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw Hill. Sinkovics, N, & Reuber, A.R. (2021). Beyond disciplinary silos: A systematic analysis of the migrant entrepreneur- ship literature. Journal of World Business, 56(4), 101223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101223. Stevenson, H.H., & Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27. Timmons, J.A. (1989). The entrepreneurial mind. Baltimore: Brick House Publishing Company. Van der Loos, M. M., Rietveld, C. A., Eklund, N., Koellinger, P. D., Rivadeneira, F., Abecasis, G. R., & Eriksson, J. (2013). The Molecular Genetic Architecture of Self-Employment. Plos ONE, 8(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060542. Van Ness, R.K., & Seifert, C.F. (2016). A theoretical Analysis of the Role of Characteristics in Entrepreneurial Pro- pensity. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(1), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1205. Veciana, J.M. (2007). Entrepreneurship as a scientific research programme. In: A. Cuervo et al. (eds.), Entrepre- neurship, Concepts, Theory and Perspective, (s. 23-71). Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Vesper, K.H. (1982). Research on Education for. Entrepreneurship. In: C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, K.H. Vesper (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 321-240). New Jersey: Prentice-Ball. von Mises, L. (1998). Human action: A treatise on economics. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Wach, K. (2015a). Przedsiębiorczość jako czynnik rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego: przegląd literatury. Przed- siębiorczość – Edukacja, 11, 24-36. Entrepreneurship research in economics and management: Understanding… | 23 Wach, K. (2015b). Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Modern Economy (chapter 7). In: M.R. Contreras Loera & A. Marjański (Eds.), The Challenges of Management in Turbulent Times. Global Issues from Local Perspective (pp. 77-101). Occidente (México): Universidad de Occidente. Wach, K. (2020). A Typology of Small Business Growth Modelling: A Critical Literature Review. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(1), 159-184. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080109 Wach, K. (2022). Entrepreneurship – delineation of the concept and the areas of research. In: W. Pasierbek & K. Wach (eds), Entrepreneurship, series „Social Dictionaries”. Kraków: Ignatianum University Press. Westhead, P., & M. Wright (2000). Introduction. In: P. Westhead, M. Wright (eds.): Advances in Entrepreneurship (pp. XI-XCVI). Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Wickham, P.A. (2006). Strategic Entrepreneurship, 4. Edition. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Yakubu, B.N., Salamzadeh, A., Bouzari, P., Ebrahimi, P., Fekete-Farkas, M. (2022). Identifying key factors of sus- tainable entrepreneurship in Nigeria food industry: The role of media availability. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100209 Zbierowski, P., & Gojny-Zbierowska, M. (2022). Talented enough to be a business leader? An alternative approach to entrepreneurs’ traits. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(1), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100112 24 | Krzysztof Wach, Agnieszka Głodowska Authors The contribution share of authors is equal and amounted to 50% for each of them. KW – conceptualisation, literature writing, results and discussion. AG – methodology, literature writing, results and discussion. Krzysztof Wach Full Professor at Cracow University of Economics (Poland). Professor of social sciences (2020), Post-Doc Degree of Habilitated Doctor in economics (2013), PhD in management (2006). His research interests include entre- preneurship, international business, innovation, and family firms. Correspondence to: prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Wach, Head of the Centre for Strategic and International Entrepre- neurship, Cracow University of Economics, Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Kraków, Poland, e-mail: wachk@uek.kra- kow.pl ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-2863 Agnieszka Głodowska Associate Professor at Cracow University of Economics (Poland). Post-Doc Degree of Habilitated Doctor in economics and finance (2020), PhD in economics (2009). Her research interests include entrepreneurship, international business, international economics. Correspondence to: Prof. UEK, dr hab. Agnieszka Głodowska, Department of International Trade, Cracow Uni- versity of Economics, Rakowicka 27, 31-510 Kraków, Poland, e-mail: glodowsa@uek.krakow.pl ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5317-8625 Acknowledgements and Financial Disclosure This project has been financed by the Minister of Education and Science within the “Regional Initiative of Excellence” Programme for 2019-2022. Project no.: 021/RID/2018/19. Total financing: 11 897 131,40 PLN. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments, which allowed to in- crease the value of this article. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relation- ships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Copyright and License This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NoDerivs (CC BY-ND 4.0) License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Published by Cracow University of Economics – Krakow, Poland The journal is co-financed in the years 2022-2024 by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Poland in the framework of the ministerial programme “Development of Scientific Journals” (RCN) on the basis of contract no. RCN/SP/0251/2021/1 concluded on 13 October 2022 and being in force until 13 October 2024.