REVIEWS–REPORTS
Grażyna Krzyminiewska (rev.): Maria Na-wojczyk, Przedsiębiorczość. O trudnościach w aplikacji teorii [Entrepreneurship. On the Diffi culties of Th eory Application], Wydawnictwo Nomos, Kraków 2009, pp. 254.
Entrepreneurship’s meaning for the develop-ment of economy is grand. Great hopes are pinned upon it in regard to economic and social policy, since it may increase the number of self-supporting people and en-hance positive effects on labour markets. From this point of view, analyses of entre-preneurship’s determinants and ways of eradicating barriers in this respect are a sig-nifi cant task for social and economic sci-ences. Th e studies on entrepreneurship have undoubtedly brought great achievements, yet they have so far been dominated by economists, at the expense of a broader un-derstanding of the phenomenon. Th e per-ception of entrepreneurship in contempo-rary sciences is moving away from strictly economic analyses and is approaching a broader scientifi c fi eld where it is under-stood as a cultural, psychological, economic, technological and social phenomenon. Therefore carrying research on entrepre-neurship has an interdisciplinary character
and is established according to widely un-derstood cultural determinants.
Th e work of Maria Nawojczyk
Entre-preneurship. On Diffi culties in Th eory Ap-plication, published by Nomos Publishing
House in 2009, belongs without doubt to the above-mentioned scientific current. Th e publication evokes interest due to at least three reasons. Firstly, it presents a stantially competent and eruditely interest-ing review of literature on the subject, where the author shows diversity and evo-lution of the entrepreneurship-notion. One has to do with an attempt to demonstrate various perspectives of understanding en-trepreneurship and indicating the interdis-ciplinary character of its research. Second-ly, M. Nawojczyk makes an eff ort to show some aspects of creating entrepreneurship in the economies of Central and Eastern Europe, focusing on the specificity of Polish entrepreneurship. Th irdly – because of methodological originality of her em-pirical research and characteristics of the local market.
Entrepreneurship. On Diffi culties in Th e-ory Application is interesting in every
re-spect, as it encourages additional refl ection on some issues discussed in the book and polemics with some of its parts.
Th e fi rst two chapters, which discuss the essence of entrepreneurship, concentrate on theoretical approaches to entrepreneurship typical for economics and sociology. Th e author emphasizes the interdisciplinary character of research on entrepreneurship and writes about psychological and cogni-tive perspeccogni-tive of the phenomenon, al-though she does not pay as much attention to it as it is the case in economic perspec-tives. It is worth emphasizing that wide em-pirical research (including the research in the reviewed book) to a great extent makes use of this perspective when examining, among other things, motivation to achieve-ment, involvement in work, etc. Cognitive psychology seems to have a future in ex-plaining the phenomenon of entrepreneur-ship, especially in the respect which M. Na-wojczyk adopts in her scientifi c perspective and uses in her surveys. One can even try to risk an iconoclastic statement that where economics begins to exhaust its possibilities as to applying the theories of entrepreneur-ship, remaining within the acknowledged, but classical (historical) currents, social psy-chology, cognitive science and sociology have still a lot to off er.
In Entrepreneurship…, one has to do with a very solid lecture on economic theo-ries. And despite the fact that the author favours the paradigm of socioeconomics or sociology of economy (the dispute as to the name of this subdiscipline is still unsolved), or even of sociology of entrepreneurship, the reader’s appetite for analyses of these diverse perspectives remains unsatisfied. Th is quite frequent practice, typical of
so-ciological research on entrepreneurship, contributes to the conviction that sociology has less to off er in this respect than eco-nomics. Accordingly, the author of the book, using interdisciplinary character of her re-search as an excuse, seems to enhance the status of economic theories of entrepre-neurship instead of indicating application opportunities of socioeconomics. In my opinion, achievement of both sociology and psychology is rich enough not to be a com-plement to economic theory of entrepre-neurship, but to provide an independent research perspective. However, it does not belittle the rank of the characterization car-ried out in the first two chapters where M. Nawojczyk, in a solid and interesting way, presents the achievement of the two disciplines, i.e. economics and sociology in theory of entrepreneurship. Th e problem is rather that the bottom line is not stated ex-pressly enough. It is not until the conclusion that the author states that in relation to the chosen subject “psychology and sociology have somewhat more to off er in the issue of entrepreneurship” (p. 221). Th e author of
Entrepreneurship… claims, citing some
re-searchers, that the concept of social entre-preneurship means abandoning its nar-rower economic meaning. She also main-tains that social change is done owing to social entrepreneurship in the process of civic creation of entrepreneurship and its connection to social change (with the dif-ferentiation between an internal change as a form of development and an external change leading to adaptation). Th e author acknowledges the connection’s usefulness
for analyses of economies under transfor-mation (p. 109). If so, taking one’s stance expressly in favour of sociology of entrepre-neurship would not be inappropriate, espe-cially because subsequent parts of the work concern the mentioned change.
M. Nawojczyk writes erroneously in Conclusions about some discomfort result-ing from her conviction about incompatibil-ity between empirical interests and numer-ous theoretical models (p. 219). Well, to be quite blunt, if realities do not fi t in created theoretical models, it is with the loss for the latter (it indicates namely a problem of to-day’s economics which proves a bit helpless in the face of giving an explanation for the current economic crisis, going beyond the theoretical frames known so far). To cut a long story short, I regret that the author did not present the theoretical assumption of her empirical research more explicitly.
Th e second part is devoted as a whole to entrepreneurship of economies under transformation. M. Nawojczyk concentrates on Central – and Eastern European coun-tries, treating them as a point of reference for processes in Poland. She justifi es her choice with the fact that it concerns a group of countries participating in integration with the EU. One deals with a lot of infor-mation on the issue in numerous scientifi c and journalistic works. One might therefore infer that Entrepreneurship… would not contribute much to the situation. It is not the case, though. Th e author has found an interesting key to show entrepreneurship in the countries within her interest, making comparisons between different aspects
which influence entrepreneurship. The comparisons concern environment for en-trepreneurship’s development in Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary; they concentrate specifi cally on legislative barriers, fi nancial and social de-terminants and diff erences in adopted strat-egies for entrepreneurship. Showing this material helps above all to realize the grim truth that Poland performs very badly in terms of entrepreneurship, if one makes a ranking of best-performing countries un-der transformation. Th e country’s weakness is exposed and although the author, using diff erent gauges of economic freedom, indi-cates that in all economies under transfor-mation one deals with bureaucratized and long procedure of company registration, it is still specially onerous in Poland (in spite of the endless debate on the subject there’s no signifi cant change). Each of the present-ed variables should at last throw the state institutions off their complacency.
M. Nawojczyk mentions in her analysis an important issue of social determinants of entrepreneurship. She indicates that al-though numerous gauges confi rm the great modernization jump of countries under transformation, social opinions on the transformation’s advantages are ambiguous and the level of acceptance of transforma-tions is not as high as one could expect. M. Nawojczyk does not pay much attention to the issue, which is a pity, since a more elaborate explanation of this phenomenon would be extremely benefi cial.
Writing on social determinants, the au-thor of the book states that “Environment
unfavourable for entrepreneurship did not create a great barrier for development of the private sector. Liberalization itself gave a strong enough rise to releasing the re-sources of social entrepreneurship. This proces was favoured by the level of educa-tion of the societies under transformaeduca-tion, although here opinions vary. Accordingly, some people considered educational stand-ards in socialist countries as similar to those in capitalist ones; others thought that the education system in the latter was subordi-nate to the industrial, centralized structure of capitalist economies. Nevertheless, all emphasized the lack of managerial skills, strategic planning, creating business plans, knowledge of marketing and rules of func-tioning of market institutions” (p. 128). In my opinion, the issue of education is worth a signifi cant elaborating because of the fre-quent mythologization of the Polish educa-tion’s quality, both in the past and today. Th e problem is that education in terms of entre-preneurship not only means knowledge of economics, organization and management, but also fostering creativity. P. Drucker claims that good education curriculums should be constructed in a way to promote openness, self-reliance, creativity, ability of an independent problem analysis, freedom of thinking and ability of critical thinking1. Learning entrepreneurship cannot only comprise the acquisition of professional knowledge, but also the comprehensive
1 P. Drucker, Innowacja i przedsiębiorczość.
Praktyka i zasady [Innovation and Entrepreneur-ship, New York 1985], Warszawa 1992, p. 30).
forming of these social characteristics and competences which enable individuals and communities to participate as subjects in social and economic life. Th e list of abilities recognized as indispensable for effective functioning in economic and public life is rich, though it is defi nitely worth mention-ing the followmention-ing ones: skills concernmention-ing interpersonal communication, co-operation regarded in today’s world as a condition for realization of various tasks and undertak-ings, confl ict solving, where the ability of controlling the confl ict equals the ability of reaction to diffi cult situations and initiating defi nite relevant behaviours. One should also mention the ability of creating inter-personal contacts – an important element of building social capital, which is crucial for communities’ development, the ability of gathering information, regarded as a pre-requisite to participate in economic and social processes in knowledge-based econo-mies, readiness to change, important for the dynamics of labour market and market processes, ability to use new solutions, im-portant for innovative attitude and readi-ness to abide contracts and agreements with other people, which builds credibility as well as trust and makes an important com-ponent of an image of a public life partici-pant. Last but not least, it is worth listing the ability to plan one’s activities, which means the skill of rationalizing activities, readiness to postpone the benefi t from their eff ects, the ability of eff ective time management and management of one’s own life career.
To my mind, Polish education has never met these conditions, which may have fatal
consequences for socio-economic develop-ment of our country, since “the present edu-cation system concentrates on the students’ achievements and marginalizes activities aiming to perpetuate the desirable cultural patterns”2. Th is remark, perhaps too elabo-rate, results from the conviction that the Polish way of transformation, even though it is in the end positively evaluated, is full of the same problems which have remained unsolved for years. Th e pessimistic view is that entrepreneurship in Poland, described perhaps by M. Nawojczyk in future in her next scientifi c works, will be developing in the same diffi cult conditions.
Th e third part of Entrepreneurship… is an analysis of the fi eldwork conducted by the author, concentrating on local markets. Th e research is interesting, as it perceives entrepreneurship from the point of view of ecology and spatial diff erentiation. Torun and Cracow are two cities where two loose interviews were conducted. Th ey focused on enterprises placed within chosen streets. M. Nawojczyk examines the local market’s surroundings – macroeconomic situation, institutional environment, the issue of the entrepreneurs’ attitude to the EU; she ana-lyzes also social networks – families, cus-tomers and competitors. An interesting part of the analyses in question is sketching the entrepreneurs’ portrayals. In the previous
2 Z. Pisz, Odpowiedzialność społeczna w
nictwie [Social Responsibility in Education] [in:] Człowiek w pracy i polityce społecznej [Human at
Work and Social Policy], J. Szambelańczyk, M. Żukowski (eds.), Poznań 2010, pp. 305–307.
part of the book, the author refers to the portrayals of Polish entrepreneurs, present in the literature on the subject. She describes their construction – mental types and stere-otypes. Th en – does the analysis carried out on the basis of the conducted research con-tribute somehow to the already existing characteristics? In my opinion – it does. For it is a value to show the phenomenon in a micro-scale. Admittedly, M. Nawojczyk explains that “the picture of small enter-prises on both research fields is rather a patchwork than a homogenous portrait, that is why excessive generalizations might lead to oversimplifi cation” (p. 213), which she wishes to avoid in her conclusions con-cerning the analyses. Nevertheless, I regard such analyses as a value in itself, because they allow a better understanding of the phenomenon of small enterprises, the phe-nomenon’s locality, essential for knowledge about processes within diff erent communi-ties. Th is type of research does not need to have a generalizing value, or bear character-istics typical of whole communities, espe-cially if one is aware of the polarization in this respect. It becomes a value to show a microworld where people live, act and cre-ate phenomena making up a larger picture of social reality. From this point of view, the conclusions drawn by the book’s author are important. She writes, “Most of them aim to survive in their activity on the market, which means that they do not reach the ex-pected financial satisfaction, although it does not concern all of my respondents. Th ey have, according to their words, a mor-al satisfaction but remain optimists. It is
a very signifi cant trait in their attitude to the world. Th ey have some plans for the future and most of them seems realistic. Th ey do not have a long-term development strate-gies. Th eir time horizon is relatively short. I think that most of these companies are go-ing to remain on the market, but as “micro-enterprises” (pp. 217–218). Th ey are impor-tant because by showing economic and cultural determinants which are unfavour-able for entrepreneurship, they allow to “create a map of good and bad sides of local markets, which could enable proper institu-tional changes to enhance supporting desir-able patterns and eliminate harmful and forbidden practices” (p. 226).
Concluding my discussion of the analy-ses presented in the book of Maria Nawojc-zyk Entrepreneurship. On Difficulties in
Th eory Application, I would like to state that
it is a fault of numerous scientifi c elabora-tions and reviews to point out by the review-er what the work, according to him/hreview-er, is missing. Focusing on shortcomings oft en obscures the work’s indisputable values. I’m afraid that the author of these words did not escape this disease of reviewers. Th is is why I wish to emphasize that the work of Maria Nawojczyk is by all means praiseworthy, dis-tinguishing itself by a solid knowledge of literature on the subject and an interesting approach to empirical research. Th e chosen fragments of the book should not be treated as criticism, but rather serve as an incentive to further deliberation, discussion and espe-cially empirical research on diff erent aspects of entrepreneurship.
Grażyna Krzyminiewska
Maria Nawojczyk: Controversy on the Sideli-nes. Comment to Review of the Book siębiorczość. O trudnościach w aplikacji te-orii [Entrepreneurship. On the Diffi culties of Th eory Application]
I want to thank the Author of my book re-views for all comments and the editorial of “Culture and Education” for providing me with this review and thereby creating the possibility of open polemics on this text. As the reviewer pointed out, the diffi culty of a review lies in its very nature, rather focus-ing on the drawbacks or shortcomfocus-ings than advantages of this text, so the convention of the polemics with my peer’s review makes my answer mainly focus on these issues which seem questionable to me. For all the warm words addressed to the book thank you very much. Now, I will focus on the po-lemic comments.
Already in the introduction (p. 12), I ex-plicitly advocate for the adoption of the perspective of economic sociology, as the basic framework of my discussion. In this context, it is not surprising that I devoted so much space to the economic theories of entrepreneurship. But I do not consider this topic as the dominant one. Aft er all, the whole section Sociology of
Entrepre-neurship (Sec. 2.3.) shows the achievements
of sociology in this fi eld and documents how much sociological research in this fi eld has to off er. If there occurred an impression of imbalance in the legal treatment of the two disciplines, it may result from diff erent approaches to the classical concept of the intellectual traditions of both. In
