Does the government and "the academe" understand "entrepreneurship" in the same way?

In research literature, entrepreneurship as a strategy for development arises from an understanding of Schumpeterian growth theory. The basic thesis of this understanding is that the level of entrepreneurial activities in a given economy influences economic growth and development through the process of “creative destruction”. Creative destruction is rooted in Joseph Schumpeter’s view that economic expansion will come from a continuing cycle of replacing uncompetitive economic actors and systems (i.e. firms and industry structures) with competitive ones that possess short-term (temporary) monopolies of innovative business activities (referred to as firm entry- exit; turbulence). In this view, the basic imperative to improve growth and development is to provide a correct set of incentives that will increase and sustain entrepreneurial habits in a given economy.

With the foregoing in mind, it is quite interesting to assess whether government initiatives on entrepreneurship is consistent with and actually rooted in the opinions of research and the academe. This could be done by reviewing actual government policies on entrepreneurship vis-a-vis the literature on entrepreneurship, and finding out whether the two sets of "thinking" are converging or not.


(A recent review of literature, mostly revolving around the works of Audretsch, Acs, Baumol, Miniti, Thurik, Reynolds, etc. and other colleagues, will suggest that the government's understanding diverges with those asserted by theoretical and empirical entrepreneurship research.)