Enterprise, education and economic development: an exploration of entrepreneurship's economic function in the Australian government's education policy

This research explores the relationship between enterprise, education and economic development found in the communication of the Australian federal government's education policy. The stimulus for this research was grounded in the perceived economic importance of entrepreneurship. However, the experience of the researcher as an educator in entrepreneurship led to a questioning of the extent of the economic impact of new ventures created as a result of much available entrepreneurship education. The contribution to knowledge of this research is twofold. First, it demonstrates a novel method of theory building in the entrepreneurship field. Second, it builds upon the early work of Schumpeter (1961) and argues the case for distinguishing entrepreneurship from business studies and for distinguishing enterprise from the firm, in terms of their contribution to fundamental economic development, as compared with incremental economic growth. The author also argues that entrepreneurship education policy, when laden with economic rationality, needs to adopt an approach that targets the development of multidisciplinary enterprise skills and encourage career pathways for the broad range of individuals who engage in enterprise. The central research question that guided the research was: How does national government policy portray entrepreneurship education to serve the purpose of achieving economic development? The theory building methodology needed to accommodate a paradoxical and poorly defined phenomenon. Several options were considered to approach theory building before a hybrid design was adopted that had similarities to a metaparadigmatic method modelled by Lewis and Grimes (1999). Public policy communications (texts) became the subject that supported the theory development, sourced from a publicly available website of the Australian government department responsible for policy development and leadership in education. It was found that Australian entrepreneurship education policy did not align well with the concept of enterprise as the driver of economic development. Instead, Australian policy broadly reflected an attitudinal and behavioural approach to enterprise. Entrepreneurship education in Australian policy communication also reflected the burden of frequently meeting a range of different expectations. Aside from being thought of as responsible for economic development, other expectations placed upon it included being a way of learning and teaching about commerce and industry, a means to stimulate regional and community development and an avenue to create more work and employment. The author contends that there are several actors that bring about economic development, apart from the entrepreneur, including those who create, manage, advise, support and stimulate new, innovative and market disruptive economic activity. Recognising a distinction between the activities of enterprise and the firm, and the need to prepare individuals for different roles in enterprise, is important if the paradoxes presented by entrepreneurship between the interests of the individual and broad economic outcomes are to be reconciled and understood within the context of education and policy.