Traditionally the role of government has been viewed as one focused on policy and administration: implementing appropriate legislation and regulations, and ensuring such rules are duly applied and enforced, to provide a framework for a stable, progressive society (Moe, 1994).
Implied within this definition, is the role of government to also provide basic public services, which often extend beyond core functions such as standard-setting and enforcement. Essentially, the scope of such services differs between countries, depending on the level of market deregulation, and the development of private sector organisations within each country. Historically however these services have included basic functions and utilities such as health care, education, electricity, water, and telecommunications (Hardwick, Kahn, & Langmead, 1999; Stretton, 2000).
Due to changes over time such as advancements in technology and liberalisation of financial markets, particularly in developed nations, resources such as large scale finance, capital assets, and expansive networks, have become increasingly accessible to private sector organisations (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 1998). Thus traditional barriers to entry such as high start-up costs, significant capital investment, and large scale demand and supply requirements (often at a regional or national level); traditionally associated
with core public service industries, have diminished considerably. As such, these industries have become increasingly manageable for private sector organisations. Subsequent deregulation of such industries (whereby government organisations which had operated in a monopolistic or oligopolistic environment allow private sector organisations to enter the market and establish similar operations) has made entry to these markets increasingly open. This has resulted in competition for public sector organisations in these industries, as well as the opportunity for governments to privatise existing public sector organisations (Zahra & Hansen, 2000) which they do not wish to continue operating.
The issues of deregulation, competition, and privatisation are particularly relevant given the increasing demand for accountability within government, from both a financial and social perspective. As a reflection perhaps of a progressive society, governments are increasingly held responsible not only for policy making and provision of basic public services, but also for the manner in which they serve those functions. This includes responsibility for issues such as stewardship, efficiency, and effectiveness, as well as the promotion of continued economic development by way of fostering entrepreneurial activity (Reynolds et al., 2004; Teske &
Schneider, 1994). The notion of entrepreneurial government has been used in a number of contexts including civic-regarding entrepreneurship (Bellone & Goerl, 1992) promoting the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process; public entrepreneurship (Shockley, Frank, & Stough, 2002) involving a more innovative and opportunity focused approach to government administration; and managerial entrepreneurship (Moon, 1999), involving enhancement of customer satisfaction and service levels, while eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and expense.
One such aspect which has received little attention, however, is the notion of strategic entrepreneurship in a government context, involving the promotion of activities which are both entrepreneurial and strategic. Frohlich, Oppenheimer, and Young (1972) have considered a specific aspect of this from an economic perspective, in the context of political leadership and the supply of collective goods. Others such as Shockley et al. (2002) have broached certain aspects of strategic entrepreneurship in a government context, through an emphasis on innovation.
Essentially, however the notion of strategic entrepreneurship as the intersection of entrepreneurship and strategy has not been comprehensively explored in the context of public sector or government organisations.
Given the objectives and expectations of governments to be more innovative and strategic in providing efficient and cost effective services to the public (Gore, 1993), arguably an approach which is both entrepreneurial and strategic deserves consideration. Thus, if governments are to address the call for innovative and strategic conduct together with fostering continued economic development, strategic entrepreneurship seems a viable approach to achieve this.
Within both theory and practice, enhancement of entrepreneurial activity, or more specifically, a combination of entrepreneurial and strategic activity, is recognised as an important tool for development. From a microeconomic perspective, fostering entrepreneurship or strategic entrepreneurship is widely viewed as a potential source of wealth creation for individual organisations (Hitt et al., 2001; Ireland et al., 2001). From a macroeconomic perspective, fostering such activity is increasingly associated with national economic development and growth (OECD, 1998; Reynolds, et al., 2004).
Attention in this area has focused primarily on government and economic policy assisting and supporting the private sector through the promotion of entrepreneurial policies to foster economic growth. Recent studies in this area indicate entrepreneurial activity can be fostered through economic policy which is open and supportive of business development (Swierczek & Quang, 2004), streamlined regulatory requirements (Bharath, 2004), and increased assistance in accessing finance (Prince, 2003). Such initiatives are collectively referred to by Massey (2003, p.
128) as enterprise assistance programs. Specific initiatives employed by government include establishing export trade offices in foreign cities to promote national products and services, attracting foreign investment through the establishment of industry and trade zones, business incubators, taxation incentives for foreign investors, regionalised financial incentives (e.g. low interest loans for businesses located in areas of high unemployment, and government supported capital venture programs (Ventriss, 2002). While Ventriss acknowledges the popularity of such initiatives by federal and often state governments of developed counties, he also questions their effectiveness, comparing the funding allocated to such programs with the returns received.
An area which has received far less attention in the search for governments fostering entrepreneurial, or strategic and entrepreneurial activity, however, is the rather more simplistic approach of governments leading by example. The association of government organisations with bureaucracy is a long-standing one (Moe, 1994). Traditionally government organisations have been viewed as inefficient and overly regulated. Such inefficiencies are commonly attributed to
unnecessary and ineffective procedures resulting in onerous and cumbersome processes (Wilson, 1989). While this tradition is generally well recognised and ill received (Miller, 1994), there has been little change in the conduct or perceived conduct of such organisations. Arguably, however, adoption of strategic entrepreneurship within government organisations is an equally viable option for promoting entrepreneurial and strategic activity on a national scale, and offers both economic and non-economic benefits such as enhanced trust in and support of government.
Thus, examination of this concept in some detail seems feasible, if not essential.