Special Issue: Enterprise and Entrepreneurial Identity

Over the past 20 years the entrepreneur as an economic agent has moved centre stage in the public policy arena of most countries, being identified as the key to maintaining or achieving competitive advantage. This is representative of a significant shift in attitudes towards business and entrepreneurship. Individuals such as Jeff Bezos, Julie Meyer, Charles Dunstone, Reuben Singh

and Kanya King are highly valued as entrepreneurs who represent an enterprising frame of mind. In addition, the term ‘entrepreneur’ has been applied to a multiplicity of actors such as vice chancellors of universities, local authority officers, social workers, general practitioners, small business owners, head teachers, accountants, middle managers in large businesses, etc, providing a

further demonstration of the privileged position of this ethical personality. The high value attached to the entrepreneur is directly connected to the emphasis placed by government on the need to promote enterprising and entrepreneurial activities. This is described by Scott (1996, p 106) as ‘wild capitalism’, which attempts to reproduce ‘..in a controlled and regulated fashion something like the conditions of early capitalism without losing the state’s ability to regulate these processes. . .’ In understanding this phenomenon it is important that it is not simply viewed as an attempt at economic renewal. It is also a moral crusade in recognition of the fact that economic success based on enterprise is heavily dependent on individuals possessing a positive attitude and constructive orientation to the market order. In other words, institutional and organizational change cannot successfully take place independently of the people involved, with a connection being made between the self-fulfilling desires and activities of individuals and the achievement of social and political objectives (du Gay, 1996). The association between enterprise culture and the entrepreneur has been made by a number of management writers including popularist authors such as Peters and Waterman (1982) and Osborne and Gaebler (1992), and more serious academic authors such as Burchell (1996) and du Gay (1996). The connection between these two complex concepts forms the background to the papers contained in this special issue.