It strikes me that the definition of entreprenuership being used here
> is too narrow. This definition focuses on the individual who starts a
> company by themselves. This is a definition based more on myth than
> reality. As Drucker pointed out in his 1985 book, Innovation and
> Entreprenuership, large corporations also engage in entreprenuership.
> He was especially admiring of the Korean firms for taking large risks
> and placing big bets, and carrying through on those bets with focus
> and discipline. Large European firms have also, in recent times, shown
> a thirst for risk. Europe would not be wealthy region if this were otherwise.
>
> Drucker's book has had a large influence on modern dicussions of
> entreprenuership, but some of his key points seem to get forgotten by
> both his supporters and his critics. In particular, his broad
> definition of entreprenuership seems to be largely ignored by the main
> business magazines. I assume this is because journalists find it
> easier to create dramatic stories by focusing in on the heroic individual business leader.
> We, as a civilization, are still struggling to find the right way to
> tell dramatic stories about large organizations. But there are
> dramatic stories to be told.
>
> But even if we look only at individuals, and accept, for the moment,
> the idea that only individuals can be entreprenuers, the current
> statistics are tranistory and their rapid variance should be recalled
> as a moderating factor against their importance. I recall reading in
> the late 1980s that Germany had more self-employed people than
> America. Of course, since then, both Germany and America have changed
> greatly. Germany reunified with East Germany, which automatically
> lowered the percent of people self-employed in Germany, and meanwhile,
> in the 90s, America fell in love with the idea of entreprenuership.
> But these are recent developments, and a social fact that comes into
> existence over the course of 15 years can also pass out of existence
> in 15 years. My point being that we are looking at a situation that is
> fairly fluid, and we should not conclude that America has some kind of
> natural, permanent, unsurpassable inclination towards entreprenuerialism.
>
> As an American who is starting my own company, I'm pleased to live in
> a country that gives a high social standing to people who start companies.
> However, I'm also aware that the old attitude (created by the Great
> Depression) that entreprenuership is too risky and it is better (more
> stable) to work for a Fortune 500 company, is still there, just under
> the surface.

Lawrence,

Thanks for your comment.

I see your point. Indeed entrepreneurship is not only an individual starting up a company. So the definition focuses too strongly on SMEs. But we should ask, where entrepreneurship starts. It is the individual who starts thinking about opportunities to be exploited and educates himself about products, markets, demand and innovation. Such persons often get lost in bigger organizations.

But sure bigger organizations are much more difficult to cover for journalists and bloggers. It's very difficult i.e. to see what certain units of Siemens do and how they achieve success.

But startups are just incredibly fast. Once entrepreneurs discover an opportunity it takes very little time to enter the market (before competition arrives). This is an extremely flexible (no reporting standards, no risk adjustments, no unions etc.) model for an economy and is good advantage considering shorter and faster global economic cycles. I feel it's better to pay attention (and support) to these small risky startups.