The Equilibrating and Disequilibrating Effects of Entrepreneurship: Revisiting the Central Premises
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research summary We review existing theoretical propositions on the equilibrating and disequilibrating effects of entrepreneurship in the market process. We then introduce a game theoretical model of the market process and employ computer simulation to analyze it through time. The formal analysis suggests that entrepreneurship as the creation of new opportunities may not always be disequilibrating, and entrepreneurship as the discovery and exploitation of existing opportunities may not always be equilibrating. We identify specific conditions that produce counterexamples to the generic equilibration and disequilibration propositions previously considered to be the central premises of entrepreneurship research. Managerial summary Many entrepreneurs advance society by building businesses around creative new ideas. Yet, other entrepreneurs start businesses by discovering opportunities to profit without necessarily innovative ideas. In reality, most entrepreneurship involves both creation and discovery. We run computer simulations of a small hypothetical economy to analyze the impact of creation and discovery actions on the extent to which the economy contains unexploited opportunities at any given time. Our results largely support previous ideas on how entrepreneurs help clear the markets by discovering opportunities or how innovations disrupt the market through creative destruction. Our results also highlight ways in which these ideas may be oversimplified and may have boundary conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it