Entrepreneurial Behavior and Learning - Essay Example

Entrepreneurial Behavior and Learning Introduction There are varying definitions of entrepreneurship (e.g., Kirzner, 1973; Schumpter, 1934; Stevenson et al., 1989; Vesper, 1996) which portray the common feature of entrepreneurship as the act of creating a new venture (Gartner, 1985). Entrepreneurship can be regarded as the process of creating value by integrating the resources for exploiting an available opportunity. From this, it can be derived that an entrepreneur is "someone who perceives an opportunity and creates an organization to pursue it" (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991, p 14). Timmons, (1994) has identified three crucial driving forces of entrepreneurship, which include (i) the entrepreneur or founder, (ii) the recognition of opportunity and (iii) the resources needed to found the firm. The process of entrepreneurship is complicated with the existence of various other factors such as risk, chaos, information asymmetries, resource scarcity, uncertainties, paradoxes and confusion. Successful entrepreneurship can be developed only when all the three components are arranged in a proper fit. An entrepreneur has to face the challenge of manipulating and influencing the factors affecting the process of entrepreneurship so that he can improve the chances of success of the venture. Since opportunities seldom wait, right timing of the recognition of the opportunity becomes critically important for any entrepreneur. Literature has identified a number of factors influencing the process of entrepreneurship, which include creativity, optimism, information search, alertness, social networking and prior knowledge. Based upon the presence of some of these personal traits and by adapting to the circumstances, entrepreneurs are able to work their ways to recognizing profitable ventures and convert them into operable business ventures. However, the question remains as to which are the ones out of these factors that affect the learning behavior of entrepreneurs. This report based on the interview with a young entrepreneur who has successfully ventured his business in the information technology sector examines the entrepreneurial behavior and learning in practice. Psychological Base of Entrepreneurial Behavior The first question was a general one asking the entrepreneur to elucidate his personal opinion on the psychological base of entrepreneurial behavior. From the answer given by the interviewee, the following points emerge. The personality characteristics of entrepreneurs will share some common features. There are different such features like the need for achievement risk taking propensity, locus of control and work values which shape the entrepreneurial intentions of individuals. There is another dimension to the psychological base of entrepreneurship behavior, which deals with other psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs such as the problem solving style, innovativeness in approach, following role models, acquiring work experience, educational background and perceptions of individuals (Liang & Dunn, 2004). In this context, it is to be recognized that behavior is influenced by the way the external world is represented in the mind of an individual. It is also influenced by the exercise of different choices by the individual in pursuit of his different occupational intentions. It is important to have a look at the term entrepreneur, which is defined differently from entrepreneurship. Some researchers have defined entrepreneur as one who recognizes an opportunity and gathers the resources necessary for acting on the opportunity identified by him. Another definition brings together the innovative behavior and the strategic management practices of an entrepreneur and it identifies different strategic actions of an entrepreneur. They are: (i) introduction of new products and services, (ii) introduction of new production processes, (iii) exploring new markets or expanding the existing markets, (iv) identifying new supply sources, and (v) reorganization of industrial enterprises (Gartner, 1989; Sexton & Smilor, 1986). Based on the factors an entrepreneur can be defined as one who pursues opportunities with a long-term perspective in view. This definition recognizes the tendencies of pursuing achievement orientation, internal locus of control, risk-taking propensity and work values, which form the basis in the analysis of the psychology of entrepreneurs. Stemming from these tendencies is another important dimension of entrepreneurial behavior, which is the learning process. Learning from experience shapes up the entrepreneurial qualities of an individual to react to situations in an appropriate way and arrive at informed managerial decisions. What is the conceptual base of entrepreneurial behavior in new venture creation and how it is related to the learning behavior of individual entrepreneurs There have several models developed to create a conceptual base covering the entrepreneurial behavior and new venture creation process. During the innovative stage, the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur are combined with the environment and events that trigger the entrepreneurs to identify extraordinary opportunities. New venture creation can be explained conceptually as a coalition between human acts and business outcomes. Therefore new venture creation can be seen as the result of "unique set of cognition, entrepreneurial drive, knowledge, creativity, experience, decision filtration, interactive analysis, iterative results and a refined vision." (Liang & Dunn, 2004) Previous studies on entrepreneurship have focused their attention on the concept of new venture creation as an important component of entrepreneurial behavior; however, studies that emphasize entrepreneurial learning have been a topic of research of recent origin. Many researchers have dealt with the subject of learning experiences and their relationship with new venture creation as well as with other business decisions. Studies have focused on the contributions to business decisions by learning from failure, suggesting that in the long run, failure may enhance the knowledge of the entrepreneur. Minniti & Bygrave, (2001) have developed a model of "entrepreneurial learning as a calibrated algorithm of an iterated choice problem in which entrepreneurs learn by updating a subjective stock of knowledge accumulated on the basis of past experiences." (Liang & Dunn, 2004) What are the theories explaining Entrepreneurial behavior Three different theories can be found explaining the entrepreneurial behavior in individuals. The neoclassical theory of entrepreneurial behavior viewed entrepreneur as a functionary and as a factor of production distinct from the other factors of production like land, capital and labor. Entrepreneurship was considered as a deployable scarce resource like any other production inputs. Some of the neoclassical writers also considered entrepreneurship as a type of human capital naming it as 'business acumen'. Some of the features the neoclassical approach to entrepreneurial behavior are: (i) all entrepreneurs are risk neutral and have equal access to different ideas and technology, (ii) while it is possible to deploy entrepreneurial labor inputs, there are limitations to apply such input, (iii) entrepreneurs are the principal decision makers of the firm. Austrian explanation of entrepreneurship is in sharp contrast to the neoclassical approach. Within the Austrian approach, Kirzner (1997) identifies a prominent role of entrepreneurship in attaining market equilibrium. According to Kirzner (1997) entrepreneurs, who are alert to unnoticed and unexploited gains available in the market from exchange, drive the market process. Kirzner has characterized several profit opportunities, which form the subject matter of problem situations for the entrepreneurs. In Austrian theory of entrepreneurial behavior, alertness is a critical component of entrepreneurial behavior important for maximizing the opportunities. "Austrians adhere to the principle of reducing market aggregates and outcomes to the individual decisions that cause them." (Endres, 2004) There are behavioral theories of entrepreneurial decision making which are of recent origin. According to these theories entrepreneurial behavior, "is preceded and determined by some form of cognitive information processing which serves as an intervening variable between changes in circumstances and behaviour" (Earl, 1990). The behavioural theories postulate that entrepreneurs' profit opportunities are not objectively representable and are generated by boundedly rational individuals using heuristics. The theory also maintain that such opportunities are never available in exhaustive set with some of them remain to be generated or constructed. Entrepreneurial profit opportunities under behavioural theoretical context "are usually exploited (a) in unique environments or (b) in opaque, highly variable environments that render learning (i.e. feedback between situation and response) difficult." (Endres, 2004) What must the entrepreneurs learn to become successful and how do they acquire this knowledge One of the basic conditions for an entrepreneur to become successful in his new venture creation is to garner an ability to acquire, combine and cumulate the resources (including technological resources). He/she must also be able to respond rapidly to business opportunities and threats. This ability to respond to business opportunities and threats rapidly is most likely to emanate from the development of managerial capabilities, which in turn depends on the chances for learning and experience available to the entrepreneur. The business model of the new venture can be viewed to depend on these capabilities to a significant extent. The strategy, structure and governance of the firm are some of the additional factors that have a positive influence on the success of the venture. This provides two basic dimensions along which the entrepreneur has to acquire new knowledge on which the success and growth of the firm depends. They are (i) the business model representing the commercialization strategy and (ii) the technology representing the substantial offering (Nordic Innovation Centre, 2005). A business model can be defined as the script, code or logic by which a business can be made to generate revenue and profits. This is the core component, which the entrepreneur must know in the first place. A business model is the logical explanation of the ways in which a business can serve its customers and the strategies that the business need to adopt to overcome competition so that business can gain a fair and sustainable return in the form of profits. In this context, the entrepreneur is expected to acquire knowledge in nine dimensions of any new business venture, which will guide the entrepreneur to build a successful business. The understanding of these dimensions with respect to the new business is of paramount importance to the entrepreneur. Relating to any new business, they are: (i) Ways of crating utility and value for the customers (customer value) (ii) Ways of selecting, attracting and retaining customers (customer segments) (iii) Ways of differentiating the product offerings (offerings) (iv) Ways of defining, developing, and sourcing product offerings (development and sourcing strategy (v) Ways of entering new markets (promotion and distribution strategy) (vi) Ways of defining the tasks to be performed (value chain and value network position) (vii) Ways of acquiring and configuring the required resources (resource acquisition and organization strategies) (viii) Ways of capturing a fair and sustainable profit by engaging mechanisms and techniques to share the value created for the customers at a higher level than the cost incurred (revenue and cost control model) A quick learning of these dimensions will enable the entrepreneur to create enough value for the various internal and external stakeholders of the new business and to develop and accumulate resources largely (Nordic Innovation Centre, 2005). The second component of learning is the acquisition of technical capabilities, which enhances the knowledge about the possibilities offered by the technology on which the firm is based. It is true that a large number of present day firms have become in one way or other dependent on technology in exploiting new and existing business opportunities. This is particularly true when the new venture is relating to the field of information and communication technology. The evolution of science and technology has generated greater business opportunities on a continuous basis. It is important to recognize that technology may provide chances to the entrepreneurs to remodel their product offering using the existing technologies to enhance the capabilities of the firm. The learning process of the entrepreneur in respect of these two processes - business model and technology - will be able to result in the development of an innovative firm and the way in which the entrepreneur makes use of the knowledge acquired will determine the success of the new business venture (Nordic Innovation Centre, 2005). How do Entrepreneurs learn Literature from organizational research suggests that an entrepreneur can acquire these capabilities through adopting certain learning models. The first one is based on 'experimental learning'. In this method, the entrepreneur goes through a process of trial and error. The second model is one in which the entrepreneur works within a 'framework'. The entrepreneur is able to generate solutions to the business problems when he is working within a definite 'frame'. Experimental and Evolutionary Models The models of learning under this method are based on the processes of opportunistic learning. The entrepreneurs under these models act without much direction and adopt evolutionary learning processes where they retain the successful patterns learnt. Learning under these models is fundamentally experimental in nature involving trial and error activities. This learning process is more likely to present in the early stages of start-up of the firm or during periods of crises. The model takes into account the opportunistic and experimenting characteristics of the entrepreneurs as a component of learning. This model of learning is more akin to Karl Popper's model of scientific growth. Popper identifies the scientific growth as a process of 'conjecture and refutation' of hypotheses to steer toward a development process. In these models of learning, the process of learning starts from the encounter of an issue or problem in order to gain some arbitrage or to capitalize a new scientific result by the application of the general knowledge of the entrepreneur. However, it so happens that managerial decisions in particular circumstances is taken to cover the whole range of subsequent decisions in the entrepreneurship process. This makes entrepreneurs learn within a frame of reference guided by the decisions taken by him. It is possible that the extent of such decisions affecting the future course of events may or may not be known to the entrepreneur. Frame Oriented Models Some other researchers suggest that entrepreneurial learning may take the form of a process of moving from one framework to the other. They do not envisage experimentation to be the basis for such movement but hint on the ability of the entrepreneur to refine and deepen a specific form of understanding of the process of new business venture. In this process, the learners are encouraged to acquire knowledge by involving themselves in a 'way of thinking' or a 'community of practice' rather than by experimenting actions through a trial and error process. The new ways of thinking or community of practice provides the ideas as to what solutions should look like. The model advocated by Thomas Kuhn will be able to explicate the frame-based learning of entrepreneurs. "While Popper would emphasize the 'permanent openness' of knowledge acquisition and rejection, Kuhn, in his now well known book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, took the opposite perspective and argued that scientists worked from within structured frameworks, or paradigms of thought." To summarize, the experimental evolutionary learning model is characterized by Unfamiliarity of the entrepreneur with the causality of the system context where both the entrepreneur and the problem form a part and in which the entrepreneur identifies the necessity to question the fundamental assumptions of the system context itself Unfamiliarity of the entrepreneur with the opportunity and problems involved where the entrepreneur becomes consciously incompetent Unfamiliarity of the entrepreneur of the existence of different techniques and tools that can be engaged to solve the problem to utilize the opportunity profitably This implies that under this model, the unconsciously incompetent entrepreneur will tend to stay within the self-established frames even when such frames are unproductive in solving the problems on hand. This obviously cannot be considered as a good strategy. On the other hand, in the frame-based learning model is characterized by Familiarity of the entrepreneur with the causality of the system context within which the entrepreneur as well as the problem exist and the entrepreneur has the knowledge of the context from which he/she can learn Familiarity of the entrepreneur with the opportunities and problems and that the entrepreneur has the knowledge of what is to be learnt from the system context Familiarity of the entrepreneur with the methods and tools by which the problems can be solved and the entrepreneur possesses the knowledge of learning What is the impact of Role Models in Entrepreneurial Learning The impact of role models in entrepreneurial learning can be explained by looking at Social Learning Theory (SLT). This theory proposes that observing the behaviours of role models can facilitate entrepreneurial learning process. This model suggests that individuals having greater exposure to other entrepreneurs are more likely to involve themselves in more entrepreneurial ventures in their lives later. Family members, employers, teachers or any other person whom an individual has had an opportunity to observe closely may become an entrepreneurial role model. Sexton & Smilor, (1986) point out that most of the entrepreneurs are likely to have been exposed to role models during the initial period of their entrepreneurship. In some cultures, there are more role models available to inspire individuals to adopt entrepreneurial decisions. However, Utsch et al., (1999) argue that entrepreneurship can flourish even in the absence of role models. The author cites the example of East German entrepreneurs who thrived even without any role models available in 1990 when the reunification took place. However, other studies suggest that entrepreneurs form transition countries are most likely to benefit from Western role models, which might have helped the success of the entrepreneurs in East Germany. What is the role of Prior Knowledge in entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition Austrian economics argues that different people will discover different opportunities in a give technological change because they possess different prior knowledge (Venkataraman, 1997). This viewpoint is supported by Shane, (2001) "given that information asymmetry is necessary for entrepreneurial opportunity to exist, everyone in society must not be equally likely to recognise all opportunities" whom goes on to hypothesize that all individuals are not equally likely to recognise a given entrepreneurial opportunity. Shane (2001) proposes that three major dimensions of prior knowledge are important to the process of entrepreneurial opportunity identification: prior knowledge of markets, prior knowledge of ways to serve markets and prior knowledge of customer problems. Past research has shown that prior knowledge increases the likelihood of opportunity identification for two reasons (1) prior knowledge provides an absorptive capacity that facilitates the acquisition of additional information about markets, production processes and technologies (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) , which triggers an entrepreneurial conjecture (Shane 2000, 2003); and (2) people's existing stocks of information also influence their abilities to see solutions when encountering problems that need to be solved (Yu, 2001). According to Shane (2000), people have different stocks of prior information through their life experiences that increase the probability of identifying opportunities. Life experiences can be in the form of job function, variation in experience and special interest (Shane 2003). An exposure to diverse life and work experiences broadens individuals' range of what they perceive as feasible for an opportunity (Krueger & Norris, 2000). However, at any given time, only some people and not others identify certain opportunities. This phenomenon, in particular, exists in accordance with Ronstadt's, (1998) Corridor Principle- once entrepreneurs found their firm, its sets off a journey down a corridor, through which windows of opportunity will open up around them. In other words, entrepreneurs would not see these opportunities if they had not entered the corridor- in the form of founding a firm in any particular industry. Shane (2000) identifies three major dimensions of prior knowledge as important to the process of entrepreneurial opportunity identification: (1) prior knowledge of markets, (2) prior knowledge of the ways to serve markets, and (3) prior knowledge of customer problems. Prior knowledge of markets enables people to understand demand conditions, facilitating opportunity identification (Shane, 2003). Prior knowledge of how to serve markets also helps identify opportunities because people know the rules and operations in the markets (Shane, 2003). In particular, it helps determine the production or marketing gains from introducing a new product or service. Prior knowledge of customer problems or needs increases the likelihood of opportunity identification because such knowledge would help trigger a new product or service to solve the customer problems or to satisfy their unmet needs (Von Hippel, 1988). Several empirical studies have shown support for the argument that prior knowledge increases the likelihood of identifying entrepreneurial opportunities. Christensen & Peterson, (1990) examined the sources of new venture ideas using four structured case studies with fifteen ventures and a survey of 76 firms, and found that specific problems and social encounters were often sources of venture ideas while profound market or technological knowledge was a prerequisite for venture ideas. Young & Francis, (1991) conducted an exploratory study of 123 small firms in New York and found that 82 per cent of the founders had worked in a company producing the same or a similar product to the one produced by their own venture; 40 per cent of the founders even reported that their original product was the same as their former company's product. Having personal experience and knowledge of an industry allows an individual to identify market needs and most importantly, assess the potential benefits and costs of serving those needs. As prior knowledge is idiosyncratic in nature, no two persons share all of the same information at the same time, resulting in information asymmetries, and therefore those who have better access to information are able to identify entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). However, prior knowledge, like social networks, would have become useless if an individual had failed to process the information received from these sources cognitively, without which it is impossible to identify entrepreneurial opportunities. This is the role of cognitive properties of an individual, which comes into play. Entrepreneurial opportunities exist because not all people possess the same information at the same time (Kirzner, 1997). In fact Kirzner, (1997) observed that in case of incomplete information in any market transaction entrepreneurs have to guess each other's expectations about many things. Since these guesses may be incorrect as they are usually based on hunches, intuition, heuristics, and accurate or inaccurate information, errors are made to misallocation of resources (Schumpeter, 1934). Hayek, (1945) argued that people tend to identify opportunities related to information they already have. Therefore, the most valuable information is that which relates to the special circumstances of the time and place of a specific transaction. In addition, people possess different stocks of information because specialised information is preferred over general information. This leads people to invest in the acquisition of specialised information that they do not have. Thus, only a few people know about a particular way to create new products or services, changes in the market, or specific customer problems. Fiet, (1996) observed that previous experiences set the context within which entrepreneurs decide to invest in a particular venture. Thus, it serves as a cue that alerts entrepreneurs to act. A great number of ideas came from previous employment followed by learning from other people. Therefore, to identify an opportunity, an entrepreneur needs to have prior knowledge that is complementary with new information and which triggers an entrepreneurial conjecture (Kaish & Gilad, 1991). Prior knowledge of ways to serve markets can take many forms (Shane 2000). For example, a new system or technology can change production processes, allow for creation of new products, provide a new method to serve markets, permit new materials to be used, generate new sources of supply, or make possible new ways of organising production (Schumpeter, 1934). Aldrich & Wiedenmayer, (1993), who reported that positive relationships exist between forms of new organisations and the products or service lines which an entrepreneurs establish and organisations in which they previously worked. Many entrepreneurs start new ventures that solve customer problems that they identified when working with users in their previous jobs. To summarise, prior knowledge whether acquired through work experience, education, or other ways, influences an entrepreneur's ability to comprehend, extrapolate, interpret, and apply new information in ways that those lacking that prior information cannot replicate (Shane, 2000). Shepherd & DeTienne, (2001) found that in the presence of prior knowledge, a strong intrinsic motivation is aroused and is the primary incentive that "switches on" alertness, with possible financial reward (extrinsic motivation) less motivating. Further, financial reward was having only a less serious appeal for those who could perceive the customer problems intricately. Perhaps it was the aversion of those people with the stagnation, arising from better knowledge of market situations. In fact, such advanced knowledge appears to be the prime motivator in any entrepreneurial recognition process. References Aldrich, E.H. & Wiedenmayer, G., 1993. From Traits to Rates: An Ecological Perspective on Organizational Foundings". In Jerome A. Katz and Robert H. Brockhaus, eds Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth Vol 1. Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Bygrave, W. & Hofer, C., 1991. Theorizing about Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15, pp.7-25. Christensen, P.S. & Peterson, R., 1990. Opportunity identification: Mapping the sources of new venture ideas (paper presented at the 10th annual Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, April 1990). Denmark, 1990. Aarhus University Institute of Management. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D., 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp.128-52. Earl, P., 1990. Economics and Psychology: A Survey. The Economic Journal, 100, pp.781-55. Endres, A.M., 2004. Three Theories of Entrepreneurial Decision Making: A Comparison and Appraisal. [Online] Available at: http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/paperstorep/endres.doc. [Accessed 17 January 2010]. Fiet, J.O., 1996. The Informational Basis for Entrepreneurial Discovery. Small Business Economics, 8, pp.419-30. Gartner, W., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, pp.696-706. Gartner, W., 1989. Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial Traits and Characteristics. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp.27-37. Hayek, F.A., 1945. The Use of Knowledge in Society. London: Routledge. Kaish, S. & Gilad, B., 1991. Characteristics of Opportunities Search of Entrepreneurs Versus Executives: Sources, Interest, General Alertness. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, pp.45-61. Kirzner, I., 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I., 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, pp.60-85. Krueger, J. & Norris, F., 2000. The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity Emergence. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(3), pp.5-23. Liang, C.-l. & Dunn, P., 2004. Exploring Entrepreneurial Characteristics and Reflections on Learning among Small Manufacture Enterpreneurs. [Online] Available at: http://sbaer.uca.edu/research/asbe/2004/PDFS/04.pdf [Accessed 17 January 2010]. Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W.B., 2001. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, pp.5-16. NordicInnovationCentre, 2005. Entrepreneurial learning & academic spin-offs - Project report to Nordic Innovation Centre. [Online] Available at: http://www.nordicinnovation.net/_img/entrepreneurial_learning_final_report.pdf [Accessed 17 January 2010]. Ronstadt, R., 1998. The corridor principle. Journal of Business. Venturing, 3, pp.31-40. Schumpter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Sexton, D. & Smilor, R., 1986. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Company. Shane, S., 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, pp.448-69. Shane, S., 2001. Technology Regimes and New Firm Formation. Management Science, 47(9), pp.1173-90. Shane, S., 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S., 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field or research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp.217-26. Shepherd, D. & DeTienne, D., 2001. Discovery of opportunities: Anomalies, accumulation and alertness. Proceedings of the Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Stevenson, H.H., Roberts, M.J. & Grousbeck, H.I., 1989. New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur 3rd Edition. Homewood IL: Richard D Irwin Inc. Timmons, J.A., 1994. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. Burr Ridge IL: Irwin. Utsch, A., Rauch, A., Rothfufs, S. & Frese, M., 1999. Who Becomes a Small Scale Entrepreneur in a Post-Socialist Environment: On the Differences Between Entrepreneurs and Managers in East Germany. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), pp.31-42. Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J.A. Katz (ed.) Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth (Vol.3, pp. 119-138). Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Vesper, K., 1996. New Venture Experience Revised. Seattle WA: Vector Books. Young, C.R. & Francis, J.D., 1991. Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Small Manufacturing Firms. Social Science Quarterly, 72(1), pp.149-62. Yu, T.F.L., 2001. Bringing entrepreneurship back in: Explaining the industrial dynamics of Hong Kong with special reference to the textile and garment industry. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(3), pp.235-50. Read More