Johan Fourie's blog

I'd rather be a comma than a fullstop

The incentives for entrepreneurs

with 5 comments

Vast volumes have been written on the importance of entrepreneurship in building prosperity. Entrepreneurs innovate, identify new markets, implement new systems and process, connect labour, capital and technology in novel ways; in short, entrepreneurs make stuff more efficient than before. But measuring the contribution of ‘entrepreneursip’ to growth has been difficult, given the unquantifiable nature of entrepreneurial traits: motivation, creativity, risk-taking, to name a few. In a recent working paper, Sascha Becker and Hans Hvide claim to have found an answer to the question: Do Entrepreneurs Matter? They consider Norwegian companies between 1997 and 2008 and identify 500 firms where the founding entrepreneur died. This exogenous shock they show had strong negative consequences for these firms, regardless of firm size, age and location. Interestingly, more qualified entrepreneurs had a larger negative impact. (Read the review here.) Entrepreneurship clearly matters.

The more important (policy) question, though, is how to cultivate entrepreneurship. How important is formal education in creating entrepreneurs? (What type of education?) Does access to finance play a role? Rules and regulations? Inequality?

Koos Bekker at the World Economic Forum

Koos Bekker at the World Economic Forum

William Baumol, in his famous 1990 paper, suggests an alternative framework for thinking about entrepreneurship. Instead of (attempting to) cultivate entrepreneurship, he assumes a given stock of entrepreneurs in all societies. (Just as one would assume that there is a given stock of land-handed people in all countries, instead of trying to ‘cultivate’ left-handed individuals.) The important question, Baumol suggests, is how to change the incentives for entrepreneurs so that they participate in what he calls “productive” activities. Here is his central hypothesis: “the exercise of entrepreneurship can sometimes be unproductive or even destructive, and whether it takes one of these directions or one that is more benign depends heavily on the structure of payoffs in the economy – the rules of the game.”

Baumol use historical examples to show how the incentives for entrepreneurs – in essence, the risk-taking individuals in society – determined whether they were involved in productive or unproductive activities. Where warfare was the most likely activity to yield wealth, ‘entrepreneurship’ was rewarded through war spoils, with destructive consequences for the economy. In other societies, incentives were directed to rent-seeking, i.e. spending resources on obtaining a larger share of existing wealth, instead of growing the wealth, also known as redistribution. The most successful entrepreneurs, in this context, were those that could extract as much wealth from the state.

These ideas are particularly relevant for South Africa. The rules of the game changed dramatically for white South Africans during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Gone were the days where the state could be relied on for support, where rent seeking could be a profitable exercise. Instead, as I’ve written before, it was Afrikaner entrepreneurs that came to the fore after 1994 – Jannie Mouton, Michiel le Roux, Christo Wiese, Koos Bekker. Much of this success has been built on export markets: between 1998 and 2013, Naspers shares increased by more than 1900%, largely due to investments in China, Russia and Brazil. The Financial Times recently dubbed Bekker the “exemplar of the post-apartheid Afrikaner”.

But how has the post-1994 “rules of the game” changed incentives for black South Africans? Have Black Economic Empowerment facilitated productive or unproductive activities by black entrepreneurs? Where are the highest financial rewards for black South African entrepreneurs: to sell to a market, or to sell to government? In the former, competition is rife and global; in the latter, competition is protected because only BEE-rated businesses compete. It seems the incentives are heavily biased in favour of (unproductive) government contracts.

Here is the key question for policy-makers: What can we do to modify and improve the rules of the game (the reward structure of the economy) so that entrepreneurs – black and white – change the type of activities they engage in (from unproductive to productive)? Allocating more entrepreneurial resources towards more productive activities is the key to building a prosperous future.

Written by Johan Fourie

March 28, 2013 at 07:13

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] that protected new innovations and free-trade economic policies -> rhetoric). To transform, entrepreneurs must make use of comparative advantages and be encouraged to do so (or, at least, not be prevented […]

  2. I stumbled upon some interesting information regarding Dr Hendrik van der Bijl posted by Johan Fourie ( and others ) and was impressed by the contribution he made to the industrial development of the country in the first half of the previous century. My particular area of interest is a possible comparison/ distinction between him and post Apartheid entrepreneurs. I wil greatly appreciate any reference to Internet websites or other material which I can explore.

    Thomas van Tonder

    December 3, 2013 at 14:55

  3. […] makes black South Africans poorer compared to a counterfactual world of no BEE. I’ve voiced my concerns, too, with BEE, especially in the way it distorts incentives for black entrepreneurs, but even in […]

  4. […] Johan Fourié writes quite simple about private entrepreneurship, rents, profits, the state and in… (should he also add a female ‘Coco Chanel’ twist?): […]

  5. Hi Johan,

    You know my stand point on the pit falls of BEE laws, invariably, much like in Apartheid South Africa, protectionism seems to rule the day when Government is involved. BEE has great features and should be maintained as a “reformative measure”. It has produced productive as well and unproductive activities, organisations and entrepreneurs.

    Much like with any system it is not without fallacies, by mans nature, protection causes you to be lax and unproductive – hence post-apartheid white entrepreneurship has increased. While black participation has dwindled, though we have more scores of very wealthy black people now.

    Check out:

    But the ultimate point I am making is that, BEE as a legislative directive, is essential for the increased participation of black entrepreneurs – not tenderpreneurs, into the mainstream economy. Political connection and greed has destroyed the noble endeavours of BEE.

    Yongama Skweyiya

    March 28, 2013 at 08:45

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: