Capitalism, Socialism, and Management and Organization Scholarship
反驳了Bruton等人关于管理与组织研究忽视背景的观点，指出其错误地将资本主义偏见归因于创业研究，并简化了制度多样性，最后提出应关注不同国家和制度环境下组织与创业的多种形式与结果。
Abstract Bruton et al.'s Point article argues that management and organizational scholarship (MOS) pays insufficient attention to context, using entrepreneurship research as their main case. We agree with their call to put institutions and policies at the forefront of MOS scholarship but disagree with their proposed approach and see many weaknesses in their reasoning. But, in this Counterpoint , we argue that the Point article (1) imputes a questionable ‘capitalist’ bias to entrepreneurship research, (2) relies on notions of socialism and capitalism that do not advance entrepreneurship as a discipline, (3) oversimplifies or neglects the variety of real‐world institutional arrangements, (4) misses a large literature on institutions (in MOS and increasingly also in entrepreneurship research), and (5) fails to supply a positive agenda for entrepreneurship research. More generally, we question their interpretation and application of socialism – normally understood as a country‐ or society‐level construct – to organizations and argue that organizational and institutional scholarship already addresses their phenomena of interest. Our Counterpoint ends with a proposal to advance MOS and entrepreneurship scholarship by focusing on the different forms and outcomes of organizations and entrepreneurship across countries and institutional environments.