If You Could Provide More Information or Specify

Introduction

This paper discusses four major questions numbered as 1 to 4 and which provide a well-encapsulated view of the study of entrepreneurship. Prior to anything else, it is critical to first define the entrepreneur. Scholars over history have carried out multiple studies and attempted to define the entrepreneur. Basically, entrepreneurship is the establishment of new business units where none existed previously (Gartner, 1988). Nonetheless, many definitions have been posited with no generally adopted definition of the entrepreneur. It is for this reason that William Garter says that it is futile and cyclic to ask who an entrepreneur is (Gartner, 1989). Indeed, this is the wrong question in the pursuit to understand entrepreneurship and its practitioners. Gartner (1988) indicates that an entrepreneur is defined by behavioral studies as a set of activities that pertain creation of organizations; while trait approaches perceive an entrepreneur as a set of characteristics identifiable in a person. However, the following definitions stand out as critical to this study.

Firstly, Collins and Moore (1970) define entrepreneurship as the intentional activity of a person or a group of people, that is undertaken so as to begin, maintain or to aggrandize a profit-oriented unit of business with the purpose of production or distribution of economic goods and services (Baum, 2014). Secondly, Cole (1946) defines an entrepreneur in agreement with Palmer (1971) as an individual (who is an economic agent) or group that embraces the responsibility of combining the factors of production into a new business and finds in the products the reestablishment of the whole capital he invests, and the values of wages, interest, other costs and the profit that belongs to himself. Rubin (1969) defines an entrepreneur as the man who organizes the business unit and increases its capacity to produce. Schumpeter also defines an entrepreneur as an owner and director of an independent organization which has major goals of profits and growth and who pursue and exploit opportunities.

Examine Different Types of Entrepreneurial Ventures and how They Relate to the Typology of Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurs act to establish new entrepreneurial ventures (Morris, 2018), which vary majorly by their size. Each entrepreneurial venture interacts with a typology of entrepreneurship in a direct manner. For instance, consider a small proprietorship business begun and controlled by one person. The entrepreneurial venture, in this case, implements strategies of a craftsman, growth-oriented owner-entrepreneur or some applicable other entrepreneurial typology and strategy (DeTienne, 2015). A Schumpeterian entrepreneur would, therefore, for instance, implement a growth-oriented owner-entrepreneur "typology" and thus stand at a chance of transiting to some other typology later as the business grows and expands (Gartner, 1989). Medium sized business owners may focus on a defender strategy and they then move to better service to their current markets rather than expanding operations. In this case, the strategy implemented is oriented towards concentrating on protecting its current markets, keeping a modest and steady growth rate, and committing to better service for the current customers; rather than pursuing new growth opportunities or innovation. Highly diversified ventures interact with multiple entrepreneurial typologies in their mixed course of business. In these ventures, businesses actively interact with the visionary, innovator, reactor, and several other typologies to increase their volume of operations as well as to better serve their current markets. The entrepreneur in these cases is not bound to the need to self-employ themselves as in the case of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship, but are rather scaled up and are majorly managerial business owners intended to expand all they do. Regardless of

size, the various sizes of ventures, whether micro (by Schumpeterian owners), medium-sized or large ventures (controlled by managerial owners): all take a form of administrative entrepreneur typology. This is a basic feature that helps the business units run as efficient organizations.

The similarities and differences between entrepreneurial ventures

An entrepreneurial venture is an undertaking for which there is a risk associated, uncertainty, inevitable operation costs, and has the potential of earning profits once the entrepreneur is engaged. Ventures could be small scale business units or medium or large companies oriented towards growth. The basic similarity among all entrepreneurial ventures (Morris, 2018) is their constant pursuit of sustainable profits. This is the basic and distinguishing feature for a business from a non-business. Whether an entrepreneur is a defender, a prospector, an analyzer or reactor (DeTienne, 2015), they all strive to keep a decent profit for themselves as they run the business. However, there are clear distinguishing features among all ventures. The various differences including in regard to growth strategy. By growth strategy, ventures could be growth oriented or non-growth oriented. Growth-oriented ventures focus on innovation and the emergence of new opportunities to create additional means of earning a profit. These focus on new markets and new products and have constant pursuit to expand their operations, shifting along the various categorizations of business by size, i.e. from micro to large companies. The entrepreneur then transits from being a Schumpeter entrepreneur (Acs, 2016) to a managerial entrepreneur who directs large firms. Non-growth oriented entrepreneurial ventures are aimed at other objectives rather than expansion

of their units. They could focus on such aspects as increasing efficiency and adding to their customer satisfaction. These strategize to preserve their market and serve it better. A common feature among entrepreneurial ventures is that regardless of the size of the venture, the entrepreneur always takes the form of a managerial business owner and thus performs the role of a formal administrator who is interested with how well the business runs and offers managerial duty to the company they own or lead.

Interpret and assess relevant data and statistics to illustrate how micro and small businesses impact on the economy

Micro and small business have far-reaching impacts on a country’s economy. To illustrate this, consider the statistical release of the UK Department for Business, energy, and Industrial Strategy 2017 (Commons, 2017). For instance, the UK had 5.7 million private sector businesses as 2017 begun, featuring a growth of 41000 of employing businesses from the previous year (Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017). This implies an increase in the total amount of goods produced and an increase in the employment opportunities and consequently higher employment income in the country's economy. The final effect of these small businesses in the economy is observable through an increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Bekhet, 2011)which implies growth in the economy. According to the said publication, the total SME turnover in the year was £1.9 trillion, marking 51% of the entire UK private sector yearly turnover. Micro and small business are therefore an important contributor to a country’s overall economic production. In regard to employment, these businesses contributed a total employment income value of 16.1 million, making up 60% of all private sector employment in the economy. Consider the following figure showing the contribution of various sized firms in the UK economy 2017 towards the aggregate employment and turnover.

As shown above, the small-sized firms have the highest median contribution to the UK economy's turnover and employment (Commons, 2017). Elimination of the small-sized firms in the country would substantially diminish the economy's output, hence they are critical constituents in the UK economic output. According to the House of Commons Business Statistics Dec 2017 (see the following figure), small and micro businesses contributed the highest input to the overall private sector’s aggregate turnover and employment for the year 2017. Indeed, micro-sized businesses led with an astounding 33% of the whole private sector production (Commons, 2017). They also form the largest part of the number of private sector businesses whereby over 96% of all private businesses are micro or small businesses.

This table shows a summary of the associated ratios of employment, number of businesses and turnover as at the start of 2017 per size of businesses. The total number of businesses featured are 5,694,515 and in which only 7,285 were large businesses with over 250 employees and the rest as small, micro or medium-sized firms. The table indicates that at a glance, the small to medium-sized firms dominate the private sector as they are the most populous business units. Nevertheless, the economic contribution of these firms in terms of employment was higher, having over 16 million employments out of a total of 26 million employments of the private sector. Nonetheless, the table shows that the economy had recorded an overall turnover of 3,739,171,000 Sterling Pounds distributed among the various business size categories as follows. Large companies had a total turnover of 1,834,259,000 Sterling Pounds, a 49% ratio of the overall production of the sector. The small, micro and medium-sized businesses, therefore, controlled over 51% of all the reported production (BUSINESS POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE UK AND REGIONS 2017, 2017). This means that if an unfavorable policy or an adverse factor affects the small business units so that their output drastically drops, the entire economy will be shaken. Being the most populous units, micro, small and medium-sized businesses are more frequent in the jurisdiction where the data was obtained, and these firms feed more people in form of goods and services as well as employment income. Small units in the economy reported are also slightly above the large units in terms of production, and thus owe more contribution to the economy’s per capita income and improvements of standards of living.

Explain the importance of small businesses and business start-ups to the growth of the social economy

A recent International Labour Organization (ILO) report (Fonteneau et al., 2011, p. vi) described the social and solidarity economy as “a concept that refers to enterprises and organisations, in particular co-operatives, mutual benefit societies, associations, foundations and social enterprises, which specifically produce goods, services and knowledge while pursuing economic and social aims and fostering solidarity.” A normative definition of the social economy that has been widely adopted in academic and policy spheres is that offered by Defourny and Delveterre (1999, p. 16; see also CIRIEC, 2000, p. 11) who posit that the social economy: “includes all economic activities conducted by enterprises, primarily co-operatives, associations and mutual benefit societies, whose ethics convey the following principles: Placing services to its members or to the community ahead of profit Autonomous management A democratic decision-making process The primacy of people and work over the capital in the distribution of revenues." The social economy has received increasing policy attention in recent decades, particularly with regard to its contribution to employment. Much has been written about the potential role of the social economy as a solution to unemployment. It has been estimated that social economy organizations (SEO) broadly defined as co-operatives, mutuals, associations, and foundations, together account for 6.5% of aggregate employment in the European Union (Monzon and Chavez, 2012). However recent policy attention has more narrowly focused on the

role of SEOs in work integration for vulnerable groups (such as the long term unemployed, or those with physical or mental health issues). Some authors suggest that work integration initiatives may only prepare individuals for low skill and low wage jobs.

Activities of social economy organizations

As was alluded to above, SEOs are identified as such primarily because of their principles and modes of operation, or by their legal form. However, the activities in which they are engaged to vary considerably. Defourny and Nyssens (2008) suggest that work integration social enterprises (WISEs), which help low-qualified unemployed people who may otherwise be excluded from the labor markets, are one dominant type of social enterprise in some European countries. Indeed, they argue that in some contexts this type of activity has become systematically associated with the social enterprise. As they point out, work integration activities are often associated with or funded by public programmes relating to active labour market policies. It is important to emphasize, however, that work integration is not the objective of all SEOs, and there has been an expansion of social enterprise activity in other areas such as the provision of social and personal services in fields such as mental health, housing, health care and training (Defourny and Nyssens, 2008). Such activities are likely to generate employment, but this is not necessarily the main purpose of the organizations undertaking them. The composition of SEO's income sources varies considerably both between and within countries. Nevertheless, international research on non-profit organizations identifies three main revenue sources: income generating activities (including fees for services, sales, membership fees, rents, investments, business ventures, etc.); government funding; and philanthropy including financial donations and in-kind support (Salamon, Sokolowski and List, 2003).

Conclusion

In brief, entrepreneurship is the creation of new companies from none other. Various forms of entrepreneurial ventures directly interact with a certain entrepreneurship typology such as by implementing particular business strategies. The private sector consists of micro, small and medium-sized businesses; and all these add up to the sector's turnover and employment. Micro and small units are not only the most populous but also the highest contributor of these to variables. Small business units are thus critical in any economy's wellbeing.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Identify two different multilingual communities and compare how different.

References

• Acs, Z. J. (2016). "National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 527-35. Baum, J. R. (2014). Entrepreneurship as an area of psychology study: An introduction. The psychology of entrepreneurship., 33-50.
• Bekhet, H. A. (2011). Causality analysis among electricity consumption, consumer expenditure, gross domestic product (GDP) and foreign direct investment (FDI: )Case study of Malaysia. Journal of economics and international finance, 3(4), 228-235.
• Commons, H. o. (2017). Business Statistics. LONDON: House of Commons. Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy, D. (2017). BUSINESS POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE UK AND REGIONS 2017. London: BUSINESS POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR THE UK AND REGIONS 2017.
• DeTienne, D. R. (2015). Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 255-272. Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27-38.
• Morris, M. H. (2018). Distinguishing Types of Entrepreneurial Ventures: An Identity‐Based Perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(3), 453-74. Welter, F. B. (2017). Everyday entrepreneurship—a call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity.
• Fonteneau, B., Neamtan, N., Wanyama, F., Morais, L. P., & de Poorter, M. (2010). Social and solidarity economy: building a common understanding. Turin: International Training Centre of the International Labour Organization.
• Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: recent trends and developments. Social enterprise journal, 4(3), 202-228. Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential. California management review, 13(3), 32-38.