Theories Of Entrepreneurship

A consistent universal theory does not present in entrepreneurship, but rather it contains of several approaches such as economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, regional science. All theories has explored the rationality with the emergence of new entrepreneurs and theirs contribution in socio-economic development of a country (Young and Sexton, 1997). The following section some of theories explained and finding the literature gap and selecting the appropriate theory for this study.
In classical economist, Adam smith agreed the “enterpriser” in his 1776 Wealth of Nations as an individual who undertook the formation of an organization for commercial purpose, In smith’s view, entrepreneurs reacted to economic change, thereby becoming the

Drucker (1985) explored entrepreneurs are exclusive individuals with pre-determined features. He strongly supports the behavioral approach by ignoring the psychological approach to entrepreneurship. He argued that entrepreneurship is a behavioral pattern rather than a personality trait and something that an individual can be learned so that they can, indeed, learn how to behave entrepreneurially. Entrepreneurs are taking risk through decision making. Barkam, (1989); Henry, et al. (2003) also agreed views of Drucker and Schultz of behavioral approach. Gartner (1989) also criticized the traits approach to entrepreneurship and claimed that entrepreneurs creates an organization where as non-entrepreneur does not. Entrepreneurship is still all about the creation of an organization, they performing series of actions which ultimately result in the set up a new venture. He also noted that researcher should observe managerial behaviors (mintzberg, 1973) and entrepreneurs in the process of creating organization and specific roles which are performed during the actions. Entrepreneurs should have good managerial skills when they suggest that root cause of small business failure is poor managerial competence. He further argued that management in a small business or venture is strongly influenced by personality, experience and competence of the entrepreneur (Beaver&

Hagen (1962) postulated that societal disruptions which affect family life may influence in choosing of non-traditional career. Mueller and Thomas (2001) argued that some cultures are more conducive to entrepreneurship than others. Supportive national culture accelerates the entrepreneurial potential of a country because it foster internal locus of control. Morrison (2000) observed that there is a significant relationship between entrepreneurship and cultural specificity and combined with an intuitive response by individuals in a society. Particularly, the cultural context in which persons are rooted and socially developed plays an influencing role in shaping and making entrepreneurs and the degree to which they consider entrepreneurial behavior to be desirable. Tayeb (1988) explained that not all individual members of a particular society need necessarily be assumed to follow all dimensions of either culture in every aspect of their lives. People are not a slave of the culture where they live. Individual has basic ability to deviate from the cultural norm and to react in many ways such as new, creative, destructive or unexpected which produces entrepreneurial behavior (Hofsted,