“Corporate Scene Investigation”: A Praxeological Attempt to Sketch the Profile of the Entrepreneur in Modern Business

Octavian-Dragomir Jora (), Mihai Vladimir Topan, Radu Cristian Musetescu and Matei-Alexandru Apavaloaei
Additional contact information
Octavian-Dragomir Jora: Bucharest University of Economic Studies
Radu Cristian Musetescu: Bucharest University of Economic Studies
Matei-Alexandru Apavaloaei: Bucharest University of Economic Studies
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Radu Cristian Musetescu ()

The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 2015, vol. 17, issue 38, 456

Abstract: Mature capitalism and market economy realities become intelligible also by scrutinizing their “prodigal children”: modern business corporations. But these are not some undivided entities. Beyond the place in the global division of labour, they are fiefs of in-built specialization among the corporate governance stakeholders, each of them representing individual-based aggregations of pure catallactic functions. With an atomized, anonymous, asymmetrical and amalgamated ownership in a globalized capital market, with the multi-level directorship, delegated to harmonize profit-orientated investment interests, with creditors, but also with other suppliers of factors of production, modern corporations seem to have overshadowed both the real entrepreneurs-actors as well as the pure corresponding function. Our article is a (praxeo)logical exercise to pinpoint and reveal the realistic field of definition of the “entrepreneurship function” within the modern corporate spectrum, delimiting and portraying the entrepreneurial aspect out of the real characters that inhabit the corporate entourage (precisely said, of shareholders, managers, creditors). It seems that the modern literature on the law and economics of the firm has lost sight of the entrepreneur(ship), whose presence is felt but rarely positively identified. The endeavour to locate and isolate this, along with the associated incentives and logic of action is a task with some analytical merits. A thorough discrimination of the entrepreneurs’ position inside the corporate field and, respectively, of the “natural” vs. “allowed” decision spheres can generate sounder judgments about the wellstructured and poorly-structured companies (good vs. poor corporate governance) or about institutions found to be business (un)friendly (good vs. poor corporate law-making). We define “good governance” at the level of the corporate form the situation when incentives are aligned with rights and obligations, and the “good law” the norm which does not alter the common sense of property rights and freedom of contracting. Without knowing them, any legal organization of the corporate form will be fraught with problems.

Keywords: entrepreneur; capitalist; shareholder; creditor; corporation; praxeology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B53 D23 F44 K20 L26 M14 P12 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_2398.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:38:y:2015:i:17:p:456

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal from Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Valentin Dumitru ().