Executive Summary
The theory of innovative entrepreneurship introduced by Joseph Schumpeter retains an influential position in the modern age. Schumpeter associated the processes of socioeconomic and technological development with innovative entrepreneurial activity. Innovative entrepreneurs are capable of launching the cycles of development through the process of creative destruction, a radical change of products, processes, and ideas that results in the replacement of outdated paradigms. While Schumpeter considered this pattern mostly beneficial for society, he believed that entrepreneurship is incompatible with corporate forms of business organization due to the rigidity and bureaucracy of large corporations.
This report attempted to examine and evaluate the activities of Ooredoo, the leading telecommunication company in Qatar, from the Schumpeterian perspective. The three-pronged narrative literature review was conducted in order to accomplish three research goals. In the first section, the key themes of the classic Schumpeterian model were revealed. The second section identified critical developments and narratives in the neo-Schumpeterian model. In the third part, Ooredoo’s recent business activities were examined and evaluated through the lenses of the Schumpeterian and neo-Schumpeterian criteria of innovative entrepreneurship.
The review of Ooredoo’s activities indicated that the large-scale Qatari telecommunication corporation possesses the essential traits of the Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneur. Given the generally beneficial outcomes associated with innovative entrepreneurship, the report recommends that smaller-sized Qatari companies adopt and promote an entrepreneurial mindset and engage in knowledge and diffusion practices. In the case of Ooredoo, the report recommends staying on the course of innovative entrepreneurship since neo-Schumpeterian practices may benefit both the company and internal Qatari market development.
Abstract
Despite its age, Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of innovative entrepreneurship remains one of the most influential socioeconomic models of the modern era. This theory played a significant part in outlining the drivers that facilitate technological, economic, social, and political modernization. In 1934, Schumpeter introduced his famous “creative destruction” argument, which is directly associated with business innovations. According to Schumpeter (1934), the introduction of a new product or technological innovation instigates market competition, leading to higher productivity and economic growth (cited in Crudu, 2019, p. 38). Schumpeter’s idea found continuation in Acs et al. (2009) and Pontus et al. (2010), who developed the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship (cited in Crudu, 2019, p. 38). In this neo-Schumpeterian theory, economically relevant knowledge plays the most significant role in socioeconomic development, whereas entrepreneurship links knowledge and economic growth through commercialization. In general, an entrepreneur acts as a disruptive force that breaks the stalemate in the economy through innovation. Given this role of entrepreneurship in the economy, one can argue that companies should strive to adopt the Schumpeterian approach to business.
Introduction
In the Ooredoo case, research primarily focuses on studying the impact of innovative business practices or a company’s contribution to technological advancements. For instance, Khalid and Unal (2021) mention Ooredoo in the context of 5G technology spread in Qatar. Koch (2020) offers Ooredoo as an example of commercial nationalism, thus noting its social contribution to Qatar’s national identity. However, limited research explores Ooredoo’s activities through the Schumpeterian innovation entrepreneurship theory. Meanwhile, it would be valuable to understand how Ooredoo contributes to the socioeconomic development of Qatar and how the innovation entrepreneurship theory finds an application in the real-life economy. Therefore, this paper attempts to evaluate Ooredoo through the lens of the Schumpeterian innovation entrepreneurship theory. The study’s findings might be valuable both for the Qatari companies willing to develop or adopt technological or business innovations and for demonstrating the relevance of Schumpeter’s legacy in the modern era.
In terms of structure, the paper is divided into seven main sections. Firstly, a detailed literature review builds the research context by highlighting the main themes related to Schumpeter’s theory and Ooredoo activities. Secondly, the paper’s theoretical and methodological outline is drawn to introduce and justify the research design used to attain the primary goal of the study. The main body, or the third section of the study, consists of three sub-sections: a comprehensive overview of Schumpeter’s theory, an evolution of Schumpeter’s theory in the modern economic paradigm, and an analysis of Ooredoo activities, respectively. The three-pronged design of the main body allows one to understand the significance of Schumpeter’s theory, track its development over the years, and evaluate Ooredoo’s business decisions through the Schumpeterian lens. Finally, the conclusion and recommendations sections offer a summary of findings and a brief discussion followed by practical advice for the Qatari companies. Overall, this project aims to achieve the following goals: explain the fundamental principles of Schumpeter’s theory, describe its connection to modernity, and clarify how Qatari enterprises may benefit from implementing the Schumpeterian paradigm.
Literature Review
Due to its historical legacy and modern-day relevance, Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory is frequently discussed in the academic community. The most common concepts in the conversation around Schumpeter’s theory and its descendants are innovation, risk, social structure and regional change, and the impact of Schumpeterian innovations on socioeconomic development. In particular, Asbari, Santoso, and Prasetya (2020) linked Schumpeterian innovation to the implementation of new products, services, business, and organizational practices. Consequently, creativity can be considered a vital feature of a successful entrepreneur since it acts as a prerequisite for innovation and market competitiveness. Mehmood et al. (2019) claimed that neo-Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship should be implemented at the state level to guarantee economic development. In this regard, Schumpeter’s theory can explain the rise of entrepreneurship that is not averse to risk-taking. Innovative entrepreneurship seeks solutions instead of focusing on the problem, which aligns it with economic and technological development.
In addition, innovative entrepreneurship is considered powerful enough to serve as a driver of social and regional changes. According to Grillitsch (2019), innovation systems created by entrepreneurship foster the cumulative development of knowledge and resources in specific industries and fields. Henning and McKelvey (2020) argue that innovative entrepreneurship drives the regional transformation process through the development and diffusion of knowledge. Crudu (2019) found innovative entrepreneurship is more prevalent in countries with higher development and income levels. In this regard, the author perceives Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship both as a long-term predictor and an outcome of economic growth. Malebra and McKelvey (2020) emphasized the role of knowledge by proposing the neo-Schumpeterian knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship (KIE) model, in which existing knowledge is transformed to generate innovation within the innovation systems. Finally, Chatzinikolaou and Vlados (2019) developed the neo-Schumpeterian Stra. Tech. Man’s approach has a constant goal of effective innovation for the firm’s survival and development. Overall, Schumpeter’s innovation entrepreneurship theory and its neo-Schumpeterian descendants perceive knowledge as the most valuable resource for driving innovation and positive socioeconomic change.
The innovative potential of the Schumpeterian model is commonly associated with the concept of creative destruction. In the classic Schumpeterian logic, true entrepreneurs utilize creativity and innovation to destroy the ineffective, outdated elements of the economic structure. Entrepreneurs push the economy out of the state of equilibrium, acting as a force of progress (Litau, 2018). As such, creative destruction should be considered a positive influence since it creates a prerequisite for economic growth and development (Peprah & Adekoya, 2020). According to Langroodi (2021), creative destruction combines two interconnected processes — the liquidation of old economic patterns and the subsequent reallocation of productive resources toward promising technological and business innovations. In this regard, one can claim that Schumpeter placed the entrepreneur figure at the center of his economic theory. The entrepreneur drives the economy forward by recognizing the possibility of innovation, overcoming social and psychological resistance to changes, and taking significant financial risks.
The role of the entrepreneur is directly associated with the waves of technological progress In the neo-Schumpeterian models of economic development. According to Perez (2002), entrepreneurs recognize, install, and deploy the products of industrial revolutions (cited in Bodrožić and Adler, 2018, p. 10). In addition, innovative entrepreneurs play a significant role in the exhaustion of technological revolutions as they promptly understand when the economic paradigm ceases to drive innovation and stimulate growth. Consequently, entrepreneurs can impact the trajectory of social development by changing the economic paradigm via technology. Considering this impact, Bodrožić and Adler (2022) developed a conceptual framework to predict the future development of digital transformation. Regardless of which of the possible scenarios — digital oligarchy, authoritarianism, localism, or democracy prevails, Schumpeterian entrepreneurs play a vital role by shaping technological development and cooperating with such actors as government, social movements, and media.
The research on particular innovations implemented by Ooredoo is relatively scarce; however, the preliminary literature review has yielded certain results. In accordance with Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory, academic sources divide Ooredoo’s innovations into two main categories. The first part of the selection explores Ooredoo’s innovative products and services. For instance, Khalid and Unal (2021) noticed Ooredoo’s innovative approach in the introduction of 5G technology in Qatar, as the company launched a live 5G network ahead of its competitors. Koch (2020) demonstrated how Ooredoo creatively used the National Day of Qatar in promotional campaigns for the company’s services. Finally, Al Hilali and Shaker (2021) describe Ooredoo’s blockchain initiative to support companies willing to adopt the new technology. From these examples, one can conclude that Ooredoo values technological innovation in its products and services and perceives it as an important competitive advantage.
The second part of the research explores Ooredoo’s innovations in business and organizational practices. For instance, Al Hbabi and Alomari (2020) noted that Ooredoo pays significant attention to knowledge management processes, which aligns with the role of knowledge in Schumpeter’s entrepreneurship theory. Al Thani and Obeidat (2020) found that Ooredoo shows interest in adopting strategic leadership practices, which positively contribute to the development of corporate mission, vision, and culture. According to Al Thani and Obeidat (2020), the learning dimension of leadership was particularly important for Ooredoo, which corresponds with the Schumpeterian emphasis on knowledge. A study by Aissa, Thabit, and Hadj (2018) shows that Ooredoo has become highly reliant on Customer Relationship Management (CRM) technology, which illustrates the company’s capacity to adapt for survival. Abderrahmane (2021) found evidence of the adoption of internal marketing policies to boost employees’ organizational commitment. Furthermore, Ooredoo pioneered several innovations in digital communication services in Qatar, such as cloud-based managed hosting and IT security solutions (Venkatesh et al., 2017). In addition, the company emphasized expansion to the mobile service market and supported innovative startups and SMEs (Venkatesh et al., 2017; Bhuian et al., 2018). In this regard, one can see the hint of innovative influence in Ooredoo’s activities.
Given these findings, it is possible to find traces of Schumpeter’s theory’s influence on Ooredoo’s activities. Ultimately, the knowledge gathered during the literature review should assist in linking innovations implemented by Ooredoo with the Schumpeterian model of innovation. The company has implemented several steps in technology, customer support, and internal practices departments, seemingly dictated by the logic of innovative entrepreneurship. However, one still has to evaluate Ooredoo’s activities from the Schumpeterian logic standpoint. In this regard, the literature review offers a comprehensive outline of Schumpeter’s entrepreneurship theory, which makes it possible to apply this theoretical framework to the Ooredoo case. As a result, the study would close the research gap by providing real-life evidence of Schumpeterian impact in the Qatari setting.
Theory and Methodology
The paper is based on secondary data sources, such as credible academic articles on Schumpeter’s entrepreneurship theory and Ooredoo’s innovations and business activities. Essentially, a case study of Ooredoo’s business and organizational innovations is performed in order to confirm the real-life application of Schumpeter’s theory and trace its possible evolution in the Qatar setting. The research design can be defined as a traditional narrative literature review, which is neither a quantitative nor a qualitative method. This methodological approach was selected due to its appropriateness for reaching the project’s research aims. The narrative review design allows one to trace the internal functioning of innovations and link the real-life innovation cases in Ooredoo with the key elements of Schumpeter’s theory. Overall, the research design fits the goal of finding and synthesizing the information on the subjects.
In particular, the narrative literature review is divided into three main sections. The first section provides a comprehensive explanation of Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory. The ultimate goal of this part lies in outlining key themes that define Schumpeterian innovation and the overall role of an entrepreneur in the economy. The second section attempts to trace the evolution of Schumpeter’s perspective in the modern era. The review of the academic sources belonging to this part identifies changes made to the Schumpeterian paradigm over the years. As such, these two parts provide a dynamic analysis of Schumpeter’s theory, thus determining the relevant criteria for innovative entrepreneurship. Finally, the third part examines Ooredoo’s activities in various business spheres, such as organization, leadership, development of new technologies, and promotion of social change in Qatar. Overall, the narrative literature review approach serves as a solid basis for a comprehensive analysis of the Schumpeterian paradigm in the first two sections, whereas the final section presents an application of Schumpeterian principles to Ooredoo’s activities.
The date of publishing, language, and theme were the main criteria for secondary sources of data selection during the research. In particular, the sample was limited to academic articles written in English and published within the last five years, starting from 2017. Furthermore, the topics were limited to Schumpeter’s innovation entrepreneurship theory, neo-Schumpeterian approaches to innovation, and Ooredoo’s business and organizational activities. In this regard, the literature reviewed is thematically linked to the proposed narrative literature review methodology. The selection was significantly richer for the sources on Schumpeter’s theory of innovative entrepreneurship and the evolution of the Schumpeterian paradigm. However, the availability of sources on Ooredoo’s recent business activities was sufficient for making an evaluation from the Schumpeterian criteria standpoint.
Schumpeter’s Theory of Innovation: An Overview
A narrative literature review of Schumpeter’s theory revealed four major themes. Most importantly, the Schumpeterian economic paradigm is built around the entrepreneur figure. Entrepreneurs act as agents of change, growth, and development, which makes them critically important to the economy. Secondly, entrepreneurship is inseparable from creative destruction, a process of radical change in the market, technology, and, potentially, society. In this regard, creative destruction is directly related to innovation, the third central theme of Schumpeter’s theory. The circular pattern of entrepreneurial activity, creative destruction, and innovation is the fourth central theme of the Schumpeterian paradigm. Lastly, Schumpeter’s theory had a rather pessimistic look at the fate of entrepreneurship and capitalism. The subsequent sub-sections delve deeper into these five themes, providing a comprehensive overview of Schumpeter’s theory. This overview enables the application of Schumpeter’s theory to the recent Ooredoo activities, making it possible to analyze them through the Schumpeterian framework.
Entrepreneur
Without a doubt, the entrepreneur plays the most important role in Schumpeter’s model of innovation and economic development. This influence of the entrepreneur is dictated by several vital characteristics only an entrepreneur can possess. Most importantly, an entrepreneur has the will to fight and the desire to conquer and become superior to others. However, entrepreneurs demonstrate these traits in order to achieve success, not the fruits of success (Mehmood et al., 2019). True entrepreneurs celebrate their ingenuity, skills, and energy, which drastically differs them from most business owners. Litau (2018) divided all economic agents into four groups — entrepreneurs, managers, investors, and epigones. The latter group is particularly interesting since it strives to mimic the key traits of Schumpeterian entrepreneurs, such as risk-taking (Litau, 2018). However, the epigones are significantly more pragmatic and rational than the entrepreneurs, as they tend to take safe risks, try to avoid mistakes, and make decisions based on others’ experiences. In addition, the epigones strive to generate more income and achieve self-actualization, whereas entrepreneurs fulfill visions, thus thinking on a grander scale (Litau, 2018). Therefore, an economic agent must have an ambitious, visionary mindset in order to be considered Schumpeterian.
Overall, one can identify the following traits that separate the Schumpeterian entrepreneurs from other economic agents. Entrepreneurs are willing to take significant risks in order to prove their superiority to their competitors. Their actions are guided by a vision rather than pragmatic goals, such as high return on investment, career progress, or income generation. Furthermore, an entrepreneur is not afraid to go against popular opinion and makes decisions regardless of skeptics’ opinions. Schumpeter proclaimed that an entrepreneur is “a pivot of everything that turns” (McGraw, 2009, as cited in Langroodi, 2021, p. 73). As such, achieving the status of an entrepreneur requires a significant effort from an individual or a company, and only a small portion of economic agents can be considered entrepreneurs in Schumpeterian understanding.
Creative Destruction
The unique traits of Schumpeterian entrepreneurs enable them to launch creative destruction, the fundamental process in Schumpeter’s theory. Creative destruction allows entrepreneurs to influence economic growth and social development. The entrepreneurs achieve a competitive advantage against other economic agents, which leads to the disturbance of the market equilibrium. Companies that cannot adopt the innovations created by the entrepreneur’s mind lose their customers while the entrepreneur thrives. Ultimately, entrepreneurs reshape the economy and society as less productive firms fade away (Crudu, 2019). In this regard, the Schumpeterian entrepreneurs introduce new standards and trends, which replace outdated models and stimulate economic growth.
Essentially, creative destruction divides all economic agents into two categories — the winners, who drive the economy forward, and the losers, who fail to retain their positions. The impact of creative destruction justifies viewing Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory as a macroeconomic concept. According to the macro-Schumpeterian perspective, the world had already witnessed several technological and social revolutions instigated by entrepreneurs. The machinery-and-water power revolution was consequently followed by the steam-and-railway, steel-and-electricity, and automobile-and-oil revolutions. The modern-day Schumpeterian entrepreneurs have started and led the information and communication technology revolution (Bodrožić & Adler, 2022). While one can argue that creative destruction may be devastating and brutal for the losers, Schumpeter’s theory perceives it as a fundamentally beneficial process. Creative destruction establishes a competitive environment, forcing entrepreneurs to improve their productivity or introduce more innovations (Crudu, 2019). In this regard, one can perceive Schumpeterian entrepreneurs not as heroes but as essential agents of economic growth and development since creative destruction leads to renewal at the cost of significant sacrifices. In turn, creative destruction should be considered a natural process that reshapes and heals the economy, rendering ineffective solutions and models obsolete.
Innovation
While creative destruction is an essential function of a Schumpeterian entrepreneur, it would be impossible to launch without innovation. The theme of innovation lies in the very foundation of Schumpeter’s theory. True entrepreneurs are inseparable from innovation — they recognize an opportunity for improvement, promote their innovative ideas regardless of initial public reaction, and ultimately succeed in getting them implemented (Mehmood et al., 2019). In this regard, entrepreneurship and innovation coexist in a symbiotic state. On the one hand, an entrepreneur’s bravery and determination provide a fruitful ground for innovative thinking. On the other hand, the successful implementation of innovations via creative destruction acts as a vital prerequisite for the competitive business environment. On the other hand, innovation increases productivity and facilitates overall economic growth, which creates conditions for subsequent innovations.
Schumpeterian innovation can be developed, introduced, and spread in various business domains. According to Asbari, Santoso, and Prasetya (2020), innovation can be classified into four types: product, process, marketing, and organization. Product innovation introduces new technologies better suited for satisfying consumer needs and demands. Process innovation is associated with significant improvements in product manufacturing operations. Marketing innovations refer to product positioning and promotion in the market. Finally, organizational innovation implements enhanced labor organization practices, which contribute to productivity improvement (Asbari et al., 2020). Given the variety of functions carried out by innovation, one can claim that innovation represents the main component of entrepreneurship (Crudu, 2019). Innovation serves as a means of accelerating economic growth and development, paving the road to massive technological revolutions. This feature of innovation is instrumental for the change of the economic cycles, another hallmark of the Schumpeterian model of entrepreneurship.
Circular Pattern
The Schumpeterian spirit of entrepreneurship does not become satisfied with initial success. Innovation begins creative destruction, shatters existing economic models, and replaces them with more productive and effective variants. Once innovation becomes widespread, the entrepreneurs secure a temporary consolidation of the economic system while still looking for potential innovations and improvements. As a result, socioeconomic development follows a distinctive circular pattern defined by economic and technological factors.
From the economic standpoint, the circular pattern is primarily based on bank credit. Entrepreneurs take out loans in order to fund the primary wave of innovations; at the same time, consumers use loans to increase their purchasing power. As a result, the economy enters the upswing state — the demand, sales, prices, and profits rise, which gives the entrepreneurs a reason for expansion. Moreover, the evident success of innovative entrepreneurship stimulates the secondary wave of innovations, which encourages optimism in business circles (Langroodi, 2021). Innovative products enter the market, which leads to a gradual decline in sales of the previous generations of products. Creative destruction takes place, and the companies that fail to adapt to new economic conditions cease to exist (Langroodi, 2021). As a result, the economy enters a temporary stage of depression until the new generation of entrepreneurs launches a new cycle of innovation.
From the technological perspective, Schumpeterian theory explains the beginning, consolidation, and end of industrial revolutions. According to Bodrožić and Adler (2022), industrial revolutions are characterized by the outcomes of problem-solving cycles. Schumpeterian entrepreneurs apply innovative thinking to solve inadequacies in currently available products. As such, Schumpeter’s theory of innovative entrepreneurship presumes that economic agents constantly search for new ways of product improvement. Once the necessary product improvements are achieved, the economy enters a state of growth and prosperity, which ends when the products become unable to satisfy the consumers.
End of Capitalism
Despite his favorable disposition toward entrepreneurs and capitalism, Schumpeter had a rather pessimistic perception of their future. In particular, he was wary of the rise of large corporations and bureaucracy. Schumpeter considered these factors an existential threat to creativity and adventurous spirit, the key features of an entrepreneur. He believed that innovative entrepreneurs inevitably yield results of their labor to corporations. Consequently, corporations grow stronger with every cycle of innovation and creative destruction, leading to the creation of massive business empires (Plehwe, 2020). Eventually, the corporations secure a dominant position in the market, which incentivizes them to oversee independent entrepreneurs in order to stay in control.
As such, Schumpeter believed that entrepreneurs, the driving force of socioeconomic development in his theory, would succumb to the power of corporative bureaucracy. However, that corporative victory would be short-lived, as the decadence of independent entrepreneurship would result in the decline of corporations. Corporations are bound to stagnate and decay without a steady supply of innovations from entrepreneurs. In the end, the capitalist paradigm would experience a critical lack of innovation and collapse, letting socialism fill the power vacuum (Mehmood et al., 2019). In this regard, Schumpeter issued a warning for capitalism, instructing it to refrain from destroying its very foundation, the independent, innovative entrepreneurial class.
In summary, Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory revolves around the entrepreneur’s figure. One can consider entrepreneurs the life essence of the capitalist paradigm. Without independent, adventurous, risk-taking entrepreneurs capable of launching the cycles of innovation and creative destruction, the capitalist system faces a risk of disintegration. In addition, Schumpeter believed that corporations pose the greatest threat to entrepreneurship with their dominance, regulations, and restrictive bureaucracy. Therefore, the narrative analysis of Schumpeter’s theory leaves a fundamental question — can the concept of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship be reconciled with large corporations like Ooredoo? A further narrative analysis of modern developments in Schumpeter’s theory would provide an answer to this question.
Evolution of Schumpeter’s Theory
A review of academic sources dedicated to the development of Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory demonstrated that scholars and economic agents listened to the warning and attempted to reconcile corporative capitalism with an entrepreneurial spirit. The narrative review revealed three major directions of Schumpeter’s theory adaptation to modernity. Firstly, Schumpeterian entrepreneurship had been increasingly associated with knowledge. In particular, entrepreneurs have become regarded as conductors of essential knowledge, and knowledge has been recognized as a vital resource. Secondly, the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm has reconciled entrepreneurship with corporative entities. The classic theory perceived corporations as a threat that would ultimately destroy entrepreneurship. However, more recently, Schumpeterian theorists have managed to explain how to preserve entrepreneurship in corporations and extract substantial benefits. Finally, Schumpeter’s model of entrepreneurship fully transformed into a macroeconomic theory, confirming the significance of entrepreneurship for national and global economic development. Overall, a combination of the neo-Schumpeterian narratives provides additional criteria for the evaluation of Ooredoo’s recent business activities.
Increasing Role of Knowledge
Neo-Schumpeterian scholars believe that entrepreneurship makes a valuable contribution to society not only via socioeconomic and technological advancements but via the spread of knowledge as well. In particular, Acs et al. (2009) and Pontus et al. (2010) introduced the knowledge spillover theory of innovative entrepreneurship, which regards economically relevant knowledge as the most important resource (cited in Crudu, 2019, p. 38). In this theory, entrepreneurship plays the role of a medium that transforms knowledge into economic growth and development. Entrepreneurship requires the presence of networks that facilitate knowledge transfer in order to succeed in this role (Kressel and Lento, 2012, cited in Crudu, 2019, p. 40). If these conditions are met, entrepreneurial activity creates the necessary potential for knowledge spillover. In turn, knowledge spillover leads to an enhanced ability to produce a stream of “commercially relevant innovations” (Wennekers et al., 2005, cited in Crudu, 2019, p. 41). Therefore, neo-Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship is characterized by a potent exchange of knowledge and ideas that have a potential for commercial application.
In this regard, innovative entrepreneurship becomes an important prerequisite for further innovations. Schumpeter’s original theory introduced the concepts of creative destruction, innovation, and business cycles. However, the neo-Schumpeterian rethinking added an element of positive continuity to the original model. While the Schumpeterian paradigm focused on constant competition for supremacy, the neo-Schumpeterian approach placed knowledge above ambition and instant success. Knowledge creation, dissemination, and preservation for future generations have become distinctive traits of a true neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneur.
In combination with the knowledge spillover role, the Schumpeterian theory inspired various knowledge-oriented business models. For instance, Malerba and McKelvey (2020) proposed the concept of knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship (KIE). According to Malerba and McKelvey (2020), knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial agents use and transform existing knowledge to generate new knowledge and innovate within the innovation systems. Consequently, innovative entrepreneurship can be described as a learning and problem-solving process aimed at identifying, creating, and exploiting opportunities for innovation (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020). In a classic form of Schumpeter’s theory, an entrepreneur constantly searches for opportunities to develop and introduce innovations to the market. However, knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship elevates innovation to an even higher level. Innovation becomes a prominent feature of neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneurs, their most valuable contribution to society since it produces a significant spillover of knowledge. Subsequently, this knowledge may be adopted and repurposed by economic agents linked to an entrepreneurial nexus.
Given these findings, one can conclude that the Schumpeterian paradigm has evolved toward greater respect for knowledge. Previously, knowledge was considered a side-product of innovation, while the innovation itself was seen as a means of achieving superiority over the competition. The neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovative entrepreneurship values knowledge as highly as innovation. A neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneur acts as a nexus between knowledge and commercial value and contributes to the dissemination of knowledge via social networks. As such, a true neo-Schumpeterian enterprise produces a beneficial impact on a multitude of economic agents instead of reaping the rewards of innovation on a virtually exclusive basis.
Reconciliation of Entrepreneurship with Corporations
The classic Schumpeterian model perceived corporations as an ultimate and inevitable threat to entrepreneurship. Schumpeter (1961) believed that corporations emerging in the aftermath of innovation waves would suppress the entrepreneurial class with bureaucracy and regulations, ultimately leading to “the destruction of the capitalist system” (cited in Langroodi, 2021, p. 71). However, neo-Schumpeterian theorists attempted to reconcile Schumpeter’s theory of innovative entrepreneurship with the corporative business model, arguing that corporations can adopt Schumpeterian entrepreneurship instead of crippling it to the point of elimination.
A push for redefining entrepreneurship started in the 1970s in Western Europe. In 1970, Günter Schmölders, a German economist, urged the development of a new focus on entrepreneurs. In particular, Schmölders claimed that postwar capitalism obscured the foundations of the market, diminishing the role of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship has become associated with greed and arrogance instead of representing ideas of progress and development (Plehwe, 2020). After Schmölders’ speech, the neoliberal think tanks across Europe focused on improving the image of entrepreneurship. The sources of anti-entrepreneurial sentiment were identified among educators, tax unions, and intellectuals (Plehwe, 2020). Once the source of negativity toward entrepreneurs was identified, the image of entrepreneurship was reconstructed from a positive perspective.
However, the most important contribution to the reconciliation between entrepreneurship and corporate business forms was made by Herbert Giersch, another German economist. In the 1980s, Giersch shifted the focus of discussion around Schumpeter’s theory from selected innovative entrepreneurs to firms. Giersch believed that it is easier for a person to develop managerial skills rather than individual talents (Plehwe, 2020). As such, corporations that accumulate capital, technological knowledge, and managerial skills would benefit from employing entrepreneurs and utilizing their skills to a full extent. Essentially, a corporation becomes a productive outlet of entrepreneurial talent, providing the most favorable conditions for its fulfillment. Instead of suppressing the entrepreneurs, corporations form a mutually beneficial alliance with the entrepreneurial class, thus avoiding the destructive path predicted by Schumpeter.
The later neo-Schumpeterian theories dare to venture further by equating corporate entities with entrepreneurs. For instance, Sledzik (2013) claimed that a “large bureaucratic R&D-based firm” is capable of becoming a driving force of the Schumpeterian creative destruction (cited in Chatzinikolaou and Vlados, 2019, p. 87). In this regard, the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm perceives organizations as full-fledged entrepreneurs rather than obstacles in the way of ambitious, daring individuals. According to Chatzinikolaou and Vlados (2019), firms are capable of transformation and the creation of new resources. As such, firms should be considered complex business ecosystems that possess the capacity to create and disseminate knowledge and introduce innovations.
Ultimately, the neo-Schumpeterian approach focused on improving entrepreneurship’s tarnished image and applying Schumpeter’s criteria to corporate entities. On the one hand, the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm returned entrepreneurs to a position of a driving force behind socioeconomic development. On the other hand, neo-Schumpeterian scholars expanded entrepreneurship criteria onto corporations, the agents of entrepreneurial demise in classic Schumpeter’s theory. Given these narratives in theoretical background, one can expect that Ooredoo may potentially be qualified as an entrepreneur, at least from the neo-Schumpeterian perspective.
Transition to Macroeconomic Scale
The third major theme in the evolution of the Schumpeterian theory of innovative entrepreneurship is its gradual transformation into a macroeconomic paradigm applicable to national and global markets. In particular, the neo-Schumpeterian approach posits that innovative entrepreneurship is capable of changing the whole social structure through the distribution of knowledge and resources within innovative systems. According to Grillitsch (2019), innovative entrepreneurship generates pathbreaking innovations that drive structural change. Entrepreneurs are linked to social structures via networks, which allows them to combine knowledge and resources from different social structures and develop innovations (Grillitsch, 2019). Once relevant innovations are developed, the entrepreneurs use connections to social structures in order to diffuse the innovations and distribute knowledge via the spillover effect. Therefore, innovative entrepreneurs have the capacity to affect socioeconomic development at the national and global levels. The mechanism of networks can turn innovative entrepreneurs into one of the most influential drivers of progress, depending on a particular country’s social and political climate. As such, a country interested in socioeconomic development should consider creating favorable conditions for entrepreneurship.
The neo-Schumpeterian paradigm has been aligned with an evolutionary framework of economics. For instance, Dopfer (2011) claimed that the neo-Schumpeterian theory explains the ascension of entrepreneurship from the micro- to the macroeconomic level (cited in Chatzinikolaou and Vlados, 2019, p. 88). Innovation initially occurs on the microeconomic level; however, the mass diffusion of innovation via copying elevates entrepreneurs’ achievements to a middle level of the economy. As a consequence, the waves of creative destruction begin to spread, potentially leading to a transformation of the whole system (Chatzinikolaou & Vlados, 2019). In this regard, neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneurship demonstrates the capacity of an evolutionary force capable of overhauling economies on a fundamental level.
Unsurprisingly, neo-Schumpeterian scholars have adapted Schumpeter’s original theory to explain the patterns of global macroeconomic development. In particular, the neo-Schumpeterian theorists defined five global technological revolutions that changed the world, ranging from machinery and water power to information and communication technology (ICT). Using the findings of the neo-Schumpeterian scholars, Bodrožić and Adler (2022) argued that the future of digital transformation will reflect changes in technology, organization, and public policy. In this regard, the neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneurs working in the digital sphere will be directly involved in a technological revolution that may drastically change the future of the world.
Overall, one can conclude that a neo-Schumpeterian interpretation of the original Schumpeter theory added three major aspects to the classic model of innovative entrepreneurship. Firstly, a neo-Schumpeterian entrepreneur pays significant attention to generating and disseminating knowledge. Knowledge has become one of the most valuable resources in the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm. Secondly, neo-Schumpeterian scholars have expanded the definition of entrepreneur, reconciling corporations with the entrepreneurial class. While Joseph Schumpeter initially believed that corporations would destroy entrepreneurs, the neo-Schumpeterian approach regards corporations as entities capable of innovative entrepreneurship. As such, one can reasonably expect that Ooredoo might have adopted the entrepreneurial mindset in the neo-Schumpeterian understanding. Finally, the transition of Schumpeter’s classic theory to the macroeconomic level makes it possible to assume that corporate entrepreneurs are capable of starting innovative change on national, regional, and global scales. Therefore, one can presume to find neo-Schumpeterian innovations in the activities of such a significant corporate entity as Ooredoo. However, a detailed examination of Ooredoo’s business and organizational innovations is necessary to reveal the application of the Schumpeterian and neo-Schumpeterian theories in practice.
Evaluation of Innovations Implemented by Ooredoo
Revealing potential applications of Schumpeter’s theory or its updated variant in Ooredoo’s activities requires an analysis of specific steps undertaken by the company. In particular, this section focuses on business activities related to the introduction of innovations in various spheres of business. The review of academic sources on the Schumpeterian and neo-Schumpeterian models of entrepreneurship established four pathways for innovative change: product, process, marketing, and organization. As such, recent innovations implemented by Ooredoo are examined and divided into these categories. In addition, each innovation is evaluated from the perspective of essential features of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. The application of such a procedure provides an opportunity to conclude whether Ooredoo deploys innovative entrepreneurship in Schumpeterian understanding.
Product Innovations
The first type of Schumpeterian innovation is associated with introducing new products and services to the market. In this regard, Ooredoo recently acted as a pioneer of several technological solutions. For instance, by 2020, the company signed up 100,000 Qatari customers to adopt the new 5G Internet connections. Ooredoo was the first telecom operator in Qatar to launch a 5G network running on the 3.5GHz spectrum band (O’Grady, 2020, cited in Khalid and Unal, 2021, p.5). While one can argue that Ooredoo was not an entrepreneur who invented the 5G technology, the company acted as a nexus between the technological knowledge and the customers. In addition, Ooredoo spearheaded the spread of digital initiatives in communication services by offering customers an array of cloud-based managed hosting and IT security solutions (Venkatesh et al., 2017). Finally, in 2019, Ooredoo launched a blockchain initiative in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia (Al Hilali & Shaker, 2021). These product innovations share the motif of Ooredoo playing the role of nexus between technological advancements and commercialization.
From the standpoint of the neo-Schumpeterian approach, an entrepreneur possesses a capacity for making a change on the macroeconomic scale. In the case of Ooredoo, the company promotes the digitalization of the national economy by spreading relevant technological knowledge. While the product innovations introduced by Ooredoo were not originally developed in Qatar, the company still demonstrated the Schumpeterian features by promoting economically relevant innovations and contributing to technological progress in the country. As such, one can claim that Ooredoo deploys the neo-Schumpeterian approach in terms of product innovations despite not introducing core technologies to the market.
Process Innovations
The Schumpeterian paradigm associates process innovations with the introduction of valuable product-creation practices that significantly improve productivity and effectiveness. A review of Ooredoo’s recent activities revealed several examples of innovations that fall into the process innovation category. In particular, Aissa, Thabit, and Hadj (2018) found that Ooredoo has become reliant on customer relationship management (CRM) technology, which demonstrates the company’s readiness to adapt in order to optimize the working process. Organization-wide adoption of CRM allowed Ooredoo to establish interactive communication with the customers, thus improving organizational capacity to deliver products and services (Aissa et al., 2018). Furthermore, Abderrahmane (2021) found that Ooredoo pays significant attention to internal marketing policies. By implementing this innovation, the company achieved an improvement in the employees’ organizational commitment, which in turn led to an improvement in service quality (Abderrahmane, 2021). However, the most important process innovation occurred in March 2017, when Ooredoo joined the Qatar Innovation Community (QIC). According to Nawaz and Koç (2020), QIC launched innovative programs and initiatives to improve innovation capabilities in Qatar via collaborations and collaborative resource development. In this regard, Ooredoo contributed to process innovations at the national level.
Similar to the product innovations pathway, one can argue that Ooredoo did not launch trailblazing innovative projects since the concepts of CRM, internal marketing, and think tanks are not novel from the global perspective. However, the very launch of such innovations in Qatar indicates that Ooredoo is capable of being an innovative enterprise on a national scale. In addition, Ooredoo’s membership in QIC aligns with the neo-Schumpeterian concept of knowledge spillover since the company demonstrates its willingness to share knowledge and promote innovative approaches to business. Therefore, one can consider Ooredoo an innovative enterprise from the process innovations perspective, as the company implements concrete steps to optimize internal working processes and facilitate knowledge spillovers.
Marketing Innovations
The Schumpeterian marketing innovations positively impact product positioning, image, and sales. This type of innovation is closely related to interactions with the customer base, customer retention, and marketing strategies of the company’s brands. However, in the Ooredoo case, one can find examples of marketing innovations aimed at strengthening the Qatari national identity. For example, Ooredoo utilized the number 18, a reference to December 18, the National Day of Qatar, to produce a positive impression on the customers. The company offered its customers an 18-fold increase in mobile Internet data in order to encourage sharing the celebration of the National Day with friends around the world (Koch, 2020). In this regard, one can claim that Ooredoo, a company closely linked to the Qatari authorities, deployed a marketing innovation to unify the Qatari nation, even if the unifying influence was relatively small.
At the same time, Ooredoo deployed marketing innovations specifically dedicated to achieving improvements in customer retention. According to Venkatesh, Singhal, and Mathew (2017), the company introduced the Nojoom customer engagement and rewards program, which has become popular among customers. On this occasion, Ooredoo showcased the innovative capacity of a neo-Schumpeterian enterprise capable of using entrepreneurship to attain positive business results. In addition, the introduction of marketing innovations allowed Ooredoo to spread the wave of creative destruction launched by the digital revolution in technology. Due to the deployment of marketing innovations, Ooredoo acts as a neo-Schumpeterian economic agent, capable of driving socioeconomic change via the spread of technological advancements in a loyal customer base. As such, one can conclude that Ooredoo demonstrates how a corporate business entity may assume the role of an entrepreneur instead of leading the entrepreneurial class to its demise.
Organizational Innovations
The Schumpeterian model of innovative entrepreneurship primarily associates organizational innovations with internal labor organization practices that improve overall productivity and grant a competitive advantage to the entrepreneurs. Two studies indicated an application of the Schumpeterian organizational innovations in Ooredoo. Firstly, Al Hbabi and Alomari (2020) found that Qatari telecommunication companies, including Ooredoo, pay significant attention to internal knowledge management processes. In particular, all researched dimensions of knowledge management — application, storage, acquisition, and sharing, had high relative importance in the Qatari telecommunication industry (Al Hbabi & Alomari, 2020). These findings indicate that Ooredoo emphasizes the role of knowledge in achieving internal excellence and optimal organizational performance. Such a respectful corporation-wide attitude toward knowledge aligns with a neo-Schumpeterian approach that perceives it as one of the most valuable resources at the entrepreneur’s disposal.
In addition, Ooredoo utilizes organizational innovations to promote the classical Schumpeterian features of entrepreneurship among its employees. In particular, Al Thani and Obeidat (2020) found that Ooredoo increased its attention toward the promotion of strategic leadership practices within the company. According to Al Thani and Obeidat (2020), strategic leadership belongs to the most effective leadership styles, enhancing the organizational capacity to promote its vision, mission, and culture. In this regard, Ooredoo strives to adhere to a fundamental principle of the Schumpeterian paradigm — the ultimate value of vision. Vision separates entrepreneurs from managers and epigones; by promoting strategic leadership, Ooredoo attempts to strengthen its entrepreneurial capacity through organizational innovations. In this regard, the company demonstrates a willingness to enhance its entrepreneurial capacity in the spirit of the neo-Schumpeterian reconciliation between entrepreneurship and corporate form of business organization.
In summary, one can conclude that Ooredoo exhibits essential features of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. The company has introduced several important innovations in all four domains of innovative entrepreneurship. More precisely, Ooredoo is characterized by the neo-Schumpeterian strand of the theory that reconciled entrepreneurship with corporations. Ooredoo plays the role of a valuable nexus between technological advancements and commercialization, creates conditions for useful knowledge spillovers, and promotes changes that can affect Qatar’s socioeconomic development. In this regard, Ooredoo operates on a macroeconomic level, utilizing its neo-Schumpeterian innovative capacity to potentially create and lead the cycle of creative destruction in the Qatari economy. One may argue that Ooredoo does not introduce fundamentally new technologies and merely adapts existing ideas and knowledge to the Qatari setting. However, such an adaptation should be considered a pathbreaking Schumpeterian change in the context of Qatar since Ooredoo’s activities have the potential to modernize the whole Qatari telecommunication industry. Given this consideration, one can confirm that Ooredoo utilizes the Schumpeterian and, to a greater extent, the neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovative entrepreneurship in its operations.
Conclusions
The research based on the narrative literature review methodology aimed to accomplish three primary goals. The initial goal consisted of an assessment of the original Schumpeterian theory of innovative entrepreneurship in order to define the key themes of this classic model. Once this task was complete, further review attempted to trace critical changes and amendments made to the Schumpeterian paradigm throughout its existence. Finally, the information gathered during the completion of the first two stages of the study was applied to the recent activities of Ooredoo, the leading telecommunication company in Qatar. The primary research goal was to find the influence of Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory in Ooredoo’s recent activities in order to connect Joseph Schumpeter’s legacy to modernity and explain how Qatari companies may benefit from innovative entrepreneurship. In the end, the research efforts produced several conclusions related to the state of Schumpeter’s theory, the application of Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship at Ooredoo, and potential benefits for Qatari enterprises and society.
From the theoretical standpoint, the narrative review revealed that the Schumpeterian model of innovative entrepreneurship and socioeconomic development has drastically evolved over the last several decades. The neo-Schumpeterian paradigm preserved the fundamental principles of innovative entrepreneurship outlined by Joseph Schumpeter — the central role of an entrepreneur, the importance of innovation, and the cyclical pattern of development associated with creative destruction. However, the updated version of the original theory introduced several fundamental changes that have redefined the concept of innovative entrepreneurship. Neo-Schumpeterian amendments to the classic framework have produced a crucial impact on the role of corporations in innovative entrepreneurship.
Most importantly, the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm reconciled entrepreneurship with corporations. Joseph Schumpeter believed massive corporations would inevitably subdue entrepreneurs with regulations and bureaucracy. From his perspective, entrepreneurship was incompatible with corporations since corporative standards restrict freedom and risk-taking, the features of a true entrepreneur. However, neo-Schumpeterian theorists expanded the concept of entrepreneurship and applied it to corporations. In its earlier variants, the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm considered corporations capable of appreciating, developing, and utilizing entrepreneurial traits in employees. More recent theories went further, positing that corporations are capable of becoming Schumpeterian entrepreneurs by developing vision, introducing innovations, and launching the hallmark process of creative destruction. Furthermore, corporations have been recognized as nexuses between technologies and commerce. A strong connection between corporations and society has turned them into powerful agents of knowledge spillover, the fuel of the Schumpeterian creative destruction.
In addition, the neo-Schumpeterian theory completed a transition to a macroeconomic level. As such, the concept of innovative entrepreneurship has become applicable to the regional, national, and global levels. In this regard, the reconciliation of Schumpeter’s theory with corporative forms of business organization created a possibility of corporate participation in the development processes on a macroeconomic scale. In relation to Ooredoo, this possibility has become a reality as the company introduced various innovations in four domains of innovative entrepreneurship. Ooredoo exhibited the signs of the Schumpeterian approach in the product, process, marketing, and organizational innovations, respectively. In particular, the company introduced new products that may contribute to the launch of the creative destruction process associated with digitalization in Qatari society. Additionally, Ooredoo has assumed the position of a potent knowledge spillover agent by becoming a part of QIC. Finally, the company emphasized the development of strategic, visionary leadership, which indicates that Ooredoo is not satisfied with profit-making.
Therefore, one can conclude that the fundamental principles of Schumpeter’s innovative entrepreneurship theory have found a reflection in Ooredoo’s business activities. While the company did not introduce fundamentally “new” innovations, Ooredoo pioneered several technological solutions in Qatar, such as 5G and blockchain. Additionally, Ooredoo introduced marketing and organizational practices that were relatively novel in the Qatari setting. In this regard, the national telecommunication corporation acted as a corporate innovator, a potential driver of significant socioeconomic change in the country. These findings align with the neo-Schumpeterian understanding of Schumpeter’s original theory, where a corporation can possess the capacity of an innovative entrepreneur. As such, an evaluation of Ooredoo’s recent business activities makes it possible to conclude that the company can be considered an example of a neo-Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneur.
Finally, one should note that the selected research design is associated with certain limitations. Firstly, a selection of academic sources on Ooredoo’s innovative activities is relatively scarce. As a result, this study provides a general evaluation of the company’s innovations through the Schumpeterian criteria rather than a comprehensive analysis. Secondly, this study emphasized the theoretical side of the subject, so a detailed analysis of the practical results of Ooredoo’s activities would require additional research. Finally, conclusions related to the application of Schumpeter’s theory by Ooredoo are based on recent events. Therefore, the outcomes of Ooredoo’s current innovations will become evident in the future. Nevertheless, the narrative review revealed a clear pathway of Schumpeter’s theory development and made it possible to connect Ooredoo’s activities with the Schumpeterian model. In this regard, the research confirmed the relevance of Schumpeter’s theory in the modern age.
Recommendations
Analysis of Schumpeter’s original theory and the neo-Schumpeterian theoretical developments provide the basis for general practice recommendations relevant to Qatari companies. Most importantly, the theory indicates the presence of a link between innovations and overall socioeconomic development. As such, encouraging the promotion of an innovative mindset within Qatari firms is highly recommended since high levels of socioeconomic development would likely result in national economic growth. In addition, innovative enterprises would likely receive a chance to benefit from the innovator’s status directly and gain a competitive advantage after an introduction of pathbreaking solutions to the market. Therefore, even small- and medium-sized enterprises should consider adopting entrepreneurial values characterized by freedom of thinking, pursuit of knowledge, creativity, and reasonable risk-taking.
Furthermore, Qatari companies should strive to engage in collaborative relationships. Partnerships and collaborations create a favorable environment for sharing knowledge and creating the knowledge spillover effect. As a result, successful collaboration may facilitate the development of economically relevant innovations since the knowledge pool available to partners would increase. These recommendations are also applicable to Ooredoo with an adjustment to the large scale of the organization. Given its size, Ooredoo should seek collaboration with international partners in order to enhance its knowledge base and develop innovations aimed at the national market. Subsequently, Ooredoo might use its significant resources to diffuse the pathbreaking innovations in Qatar, making a significant contribution to technological and socioeconomic development in the country and achieving decent financial results in the process. In the end, adhering to the neo-Schumpeterian paradigm would likely bring benefits both to Ooredoo and the Qatari society.
Reference List
Abderrahmane, D. (2021) ‘The impact of internal marketing policies in attaining organizational commitment: the case of Ooredoo company’, SME Research & Innovation Laboratory
University of Mascara, VII(3). Web.
Aissa, S. A. H., Thabit, T. and Hadj, H. (2018) ‘The impact of customer relationship management on customer behavior: case study of Ooredoo for telecommunications’, Revue Des Sciences Commerciales, 17(1). Web.
Al Hbabi, K. N. and Alomari, Z. S. (2020) ‘The impact of knowledge management processes on organizational innovation’, Asian Social Science, 10(11), pp. 949–967.
Al Hilali, R. A. and Shaker, H. (2021) ‘Blockchain technology’s status of implementation in Oman: empirical study. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems. 10(1), pp. 715–736.
Al Thani, F. B. H. and Obeidat, A. M. (2020) ‘The impact of strategic leadership on crisis management’, International Journal of Asian Social Science, 10(6), pp. 307–326.
Asbari, M., Santoso, P. B. and Prasetya, A. B. (2020) ‘Elitical and antidemocratic transformational leadership critics: is it still relevant? (a literature study)’, International Journal of Social, Policy and Law, 1(1), pp. 12–16.
Bhuian, S.N., Balushi, M.A. and Butt, I. (2018) ‘Antecedents and consequences of customer loyalty in Qatar’, Journal for Global Business Advancement, 11(1), pp.41-63.
Bodrožić, Z. and S. Adler, P. (2022) ‘Alternative futures for the digital transformation: a macro-level Schumpeterian perspective’, Organization Science, 33(1), pp.105–125.
Bodrožić, Z. and Adler, P.S. (2018) ‘The evolution of management models: a neo-Schumpeterian theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), pp.85-129.
Chatzinikolaou, D. and Vlados, C. (2019) ‘Schumpeter, neo-Schumpeterianism, and Stra. Tech. Man evolution of the firm’, Issues in Economics and Business (International Economics and Business), 5(2), pp. 80–102. Web.
Crudu, R. (2019) ‘The role of innovative entrepreneurship in the economic development of EU member countries’, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 15(1), pp. 35–60.
Grillitsch, M. (2019) ‘Following or breaking regional development paths: on the role and capability of the innovative entrepreneur’, Regional Studies, 53(5), pp. 681–691.
Henning, M. and McKelvey, M. (2020) ‘Knowledge, entrepreneurship and regional transformation: contributing to the Schumpeterian and evolutionary perspective on the relationships between them’, Small Business Economics, 54(2), pp. 495–501.
Khalid, F. and Unal, D. (2021) ‘An overview of the fifth generation (5G) networking technology’, Qatar University. Web.
Koch, N. (2020) ‘The corporate production of nationalism’, Antipode, 52(1), pp. 185–205.
Langroodi, F.E. (2021) ‘Schumpeter’s theory of economic development: a study of the creative destruction and entrepreneurship effects on the economic growth’, Journal of Insurance and Financial Management, 4(3), pp. 65–81.
Litau E. (2018) ‘Entrepreneurship and economic growth: a look from the perspective of cognitive economics’, 9th International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics. ICEME, August 2018, pp. 143-147.
Malerba, F. and McKelvey, M. (2020) ‘Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems’, Small Business Economics, 54(2), pp. 503–522.
Mehmood, T. et al. (2019) ‘Schumpeterian entrepreneurship theory: evolution and relevance’, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 25(4). Web.
Nawaz, W. and Koç, M. (2020) Industry, university and government partnerships for the sustainable development of knowledge-based society: drivers, models and examples in US, Norway, Singapore and Qatar. Web.
Peprah, A.A. and Adekoya, A.F. (2020) ‘Entrepreneurship and economic growth in developing countries: evidence from Africa’, Business Strategy & Development, 3(3), pp.388–394.
Plehwe, D. (2020) ‘Schumpeter revival? How neoliberals revised the image of the entrepreneur, in Plehwe, D., Slobodian, Q. and Mirowski, P. (eds.) Nine lives of neoliberalism. London: Verso, pp. 120–142.
Venkatesh, R., Singhal, T.K. and Mathew, L. (2017). ‘Emergence of digital services innovation as a path to business transformation: case of communication services providers in GCC region’, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 5. Web.