Academic Theories of Entrepreneurship

 
1-
Topic:                               Academic Theories of Entrepreneurship 
Paper Type:                          Essay
Word Count:                          3511
Pages:                                 14
Referencing Style:                   Harvard
Education Level:                     College
Description:                        This essay helps to better understand the entrepreneur in line with the concept of entrepreneurship                                                and see what is the appropriate concept of entrepreneur is







Academic Theories of Entrepreneurship
[Name of Student]
[Name of Institution]
[Course]












Introduction
Until the end of the 1950s, it was undeniable that the entrepreneur's analysis was purely economic. The theorists of the domain remain almost all prisoners of the methodological individualism. Beginning in the 1960s, without defining a definite boundary, and with a few exceptions, the entrepreneur's analysis, alongside economic theories, was interdisciplinary (McDougall‐Covin et al., 2014). It emphasises its actions and behaviours, its psychological traits and the influence of social and cultural variables. The current literature on entrepreneurship rejects the exclusivity of analyses dear to the neoclassic, focused on the "individual" actor.
This course of discussion attempts to identify the entrepreneur and the theoretical evolution. To better understand the entrepreneur in line with the concept of entrepreneurship that we adopted and see what is the appropriate concept of entrepreneur is.
Socioeconomic peregrinations of the entrepreneur
The word "entrepreneur", was born in France at the end of the 17th century (Barreto, 2013). Smith & Chimucheka (2014)assigns the principal function of the entrepreneur to the accumulation of capital and the smooth running of his business as the sole objective. It distinguishes profit, the entrepreneur's source of income, wages and rent. The profit which the entrepreneur derives from the employment of capital is a constituent part of value. Unlike wages and rent, the latter does not increase according to the economic state of the nation, that is to say, the state of national wealth. Smith & Chimucheka (2014) add that the ordinary profits of capital cannot be affected by the constancy or uncertainty of employment in any industry. It is the trader's fault and not that of business, if capital is not constantly employed. It traces four ways of using capital. It may be used for the supply or manufacture of raw materials for use and consumption; It can be used to transport these raw or manufactured products, or to the fragmentation of these same products to meet the needs of daily consumption.
If the activity of the entrepreneur is new, whether it is a new manufacture, a new branch of commerce or a new practice in agriculture, the latter aims to realize the profits as high as possible. He is then "speculator" in the sense of Smith & Chimucheka (2014), and his particular interest may even be contrary to the general interest. Only personal profit guides the use of capital in a given activity. He, however, divides the capital into two: fixed capital and circulating capital. It produces a clear separation between the capitalist who lends for an interest and the businessman who employs the capital he holds or borrows.
Naudé (2013) criticizes this approach because the analysis was not articulated with those ofBarreto (2013).Smith & Chimucheka (2014) with their famous invisible hand, depersonalizes the entrepreneur (Kuratko, 2016). Our criticism will focus on the non-existence of an analysis of the role of the entrepreneur and his influence as an economic agent on economic activity. In this sense, there is a regression, at least on the axis of time, in comparison with Barreto (2013). Linden (2015) establishes a theory of pure political economy, which he contrasts with applied political economy. Linden (2015)states that a single individual can accumulate two, three or even all his functions. The diversity of these combinations engenders the diversity of business modes. 
This paradox, according toNaudé(2013), is that in the context of general equilibrium theory, the entrepreneur, who is initially identified as a separate actor, is reduced by the law of Supply and Demand, to a Transition and Market Coordination Officer. The author empties his contents the act of the entrepreneur as an actor of economic life. Linden (2015) makes the observation that entrepreneurs do not make any profit or loss, but they do not subsist as entrepreneurs, But as landowners, workers or capitalists in their own enterprises or in others. He goes so far as to conclude that, at the state of equilibrium of exchange and production, one can disregard the intervention of the entrepreneur. It thus ignores the risk that it can bear.
Thus the entrepreneur combines the factors of production, but one has to agree with Audretsch et al (201