The role of demand routines in entrepreneurial judgment

Abstract

One of the main problems in fully integrating uncertainty in entrepreneurship process theory is how to distinguish entrepreneurial competence from pure luck. We propose a routine-based approach where entrepreneurs use their idiosyncratic knowledge to identify emergent demand routines—that is, standardized demand behavior lacking specifically adequate artifacts—that can serve as an objective reference point to their judgment of emergent opportunity situations and coordination of resources. Uncertainty is assessed from its structural nature to its endogenous origins in creatively reflexive market interactions. Routines reduce uncertainty when agents choose to adopt standardized behavior over ad hoc creative action. Thus, routines stabilize market interactions as they get increasingly more established, though emergent demand routines are volatile enough to allow for price divergences. Entrepreneurs can cohesively or generatively introduce products as specific artifacts for these routines, thus making profits by either consolidating or triggering (or both) emergent demand routines in the market. Entrepreneurial competence is thus a matter of convergence between entrepreneurial idiosyncratic judgment and emergent demand routines resulting in unique situations, which explain differences among entrepreneurs, serial business creation, and business longevity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    As Knight (1921, pp. 277–278, emphasis added) explained: “The character of the entrepreneur’s income is evidently complex, and the relations of its component elements subtle. It contains an element which is ordinary contractual income, received on the ground of routine services performed by the entrepreneur personally for the business (wages) or earned by property which belongs to him (rent or capital return). And the differential element is again complex, for it is clear that there is an element of calculation and an element of luck in it. […] The serious difficulty comes with the attempt to deal with the relation between judgment and luck in determining that part of the entrepreneur’s income which is associated with the performance of his peculiar twofold function of (a) exercising responsible control and (b) securing the owners of productive services against uncertainty and fluctuation in their incomes.”

  2. 2.

    For more on the ongoing opportunity debate in entrepreneurship process theory, see Shane (2012), Venkataraman et al. (2012), Alvarez and Barney (2013), Eckhardt and Shane (2013), and Ramoglou (2013). Although that debate is not the subject of this article, it is worth mentioning that the actualization approach of Ramoglou and Tsang (2016) is just another chapter in that discussion. Critics indicate the complexity of the actualization approach (Foss and Klein 2017), its failure to present a mechanism explaining the actualization of propensities (Berglund and Korsgaard 2017), its lack of empirical amenability (Davidsson 2017), and its tautological analysis (Alvarez et al. 2017). Ramoglou and Tsang (2017a, b) address most of these critiques.

  3. 3.

    Information incompleteness can be confused with ignorance of existing information, that is, ambiguity (Dequech 2011; Ellsberg 1961). This weaker form of uncertainty also implies the lack of an objective basis for decision-making, but it can be solved through learning, without any new information being creatively generated.

  4. 4.

    The unknowability pervading the market process also includes problems of probabilistic risk, ambiguity—the ignorance of existing information—and equivocality—confusion of the meaning of existing information (Townsend et al. 2018). Nevertheless, in the absence of the creatively reflexive process resulting in fundamental uncertainty, these problems can be solved through learning, as they are based on ignorance of predetermined information. Once one accounts for creative reflexivity, and hence fundamental uncertainty, learning becomes limited as extensiveness and complexity increase, which can reinforce risk, ambiguity, and equivocality.

  5. 5.

    These six criteria for emergence were compiled by Humphreys (1997, pp. S341–S342). Although there are other compilations of emergence criteria (e.g., Harper and Endres 2012, pp. 354–356), we have retained Humphreys’s criteria as they are common to all types of emergence: inferential, conceptual, and ontological; diachronic or synchronic; weak or strong. These typologies are not relevant to this paper, but an analysis of them can be found in Humphreys (2008).

  6. 6.

    This functional meaning is meant as a logical structure of the form “X counts as Y” (Searle 1995, pp. 14–23, 2005, p. 7). For example, having food at noon counts as lunch; using resources to produce goods counts as production; using resources to satisfy immediate needs counts as consumption; and so on.

  7. 7.

    Whenever routines become internalized by individual agents in an unexamined, unconscious manner, they become habits (Hodgson 1997, p. 664, 2001, p. 288 ff.). Nevertheless, we prefer the use of the term “routine” over “habit” for rule-based reproducible actions, since it refers to both conscious and unconscious reproducibility.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: the origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2008). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9157-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Strom, R. J. (Eds.). (2009). Entrepreneurship, growth, and public policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43(7), 1109–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aldrich, H. E., & Yang, T. (2014). How do entrepreneurs know what to do? Learning and organizing in new ventures. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-013-0320-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Alvarez, S. A. (2007). Entrepreneurial rents and the theory of the firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(3), 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2004). Organizing rent generation and appropriation: toward a theory of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2010). Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2010.495521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2013). Epistemology, opportunities, and entrepreneurship: comments on Venkataraman et al. (2012) and Shane (2012). Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 154–157. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Anderson, P. (2013). Forming and exploiting opportunities: the implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational research. Organization Science, 24(1), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., McBride, R., & Wuebker, R. (2014). Realism in the study of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., McBride, R., & Wuebker, R. (2017). On opportunities: philosophical and empirical implications. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 726–730. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Archer, M. S. (2010). Introduction: the reflexive re-turn. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Conversations about reflexivity (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Arora, A., Caulkins, J. P., & Telang, R. (2006). Sell first, fix later: impact of patching on software quality. Management Science, 52(3), 465–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: the creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9508-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become commercial products: a theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baumol, W. J. (2010). The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Becker, M. C. (2005). A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research: linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction patterns. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 817–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Berglund, H., & Korsgaard, S. (2017). Opportunities, time, and mechanisms in entrepreneurship: on the practical irrelevance of propensities. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 730–733. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bianchi, M. (Ed.). (1998). The active consumer: novelty and surprise in consumer choice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Borry, P., Cornel, M. C., & Howard, H. C. (2010). Where are you going, where have you been: a recent history of the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market. Journal of Community Genetics, 1(3), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-010-0023-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Buchanan, J. M., & Di Pierro, A. (1980). Cognition, choice, and entrepreneurship. Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 693–701. https://doi.org/10.2307/1057139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. J. (2007). The market as a creative process. In D. M. Hausman (Ed.), The philosophy of economics: an anthology (3rd ed., pp. 101–113). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Buenstorf, G. (2007). Creation and pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities: an evolutionary economics perspective. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9039-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bulmer, S., Elms, J., & Moore, S. (2018). Exploring the adoption of self-service checkouts and the associated social obligations of shopping practices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bylund, P. L., & McCaffrey, M. (2017). A theory of entrepreneurship and institutional uncertainty. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: how people create alternatives to reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cantner, U. (2016). Foundations of economic change—an extended Schumpeterian approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(4), 701–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0479-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Caraça, J., Lundvall, B.-Å., & Mendonça, S. (2009). The changing role of science in the innovation process: from queen to Cinderella? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 861–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Carbonara, E., Tran, H. T., & Santarelli, E. (2019). Determinants of novice, portfolio, and serial entrepreneurship: an occupational choice approach. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00138-9.

  42. Casson, M. (2003). The entrepreneur: an economic theory (2nd ed.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chen, S. L., Jiao, R. J., & Tseng, M. M. (2009). Evolutionary product line design balancing customer needs and product commonality. CIRP Annals, 58(1), 123–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chetty, S., Eriksson, K., & Lindbergh, J. (2006). The effect of specificity of experience on a firm’s perceived importance of institutional knowledge in an ongoing business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chick, V., & Dow, S. (2005). The meaning of open systems. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780500223585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chiles, T. H., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gupta, V. K. (2007). Beyond creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery: a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 28(4), 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606067996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Chiles, T. H., Vultee, D. M., Gupta, V. K., Greening, D. W., & Tuggle, C. S. (2010). The philosophical foundations of a radical Austrian approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 138–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492609337833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). The innovator’s solution: creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2626876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., & Winter, S. G. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 653–698. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/5.3.653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(Special Issue 02), 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741000024X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Davidson, P. (1991). Is probability theory relevant for uncertainty? A post Keynesian perspective. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Davidson, P. (1996). Reality and economic theory. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 18(4), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.1996.11490083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Davidsson, P. (2003). The domain of entrepreneurship research: some suggestions. In J. Katz & D. Shepherd (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 6, pp. 315–372). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-conceptualization. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Davidsson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial opportunities as propensities: do Ramoglou & Tsang move the field forward? Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7(Supplement C), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Davidsson, P., Recker, J., & von Briel, F. (2018). External enablement of new venture creation: a framework. Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0163.

  64. Dequech, D. (2011). Uncertainty: a typology and refinements of existing concepts. Journal of Economic Issues, 45(3), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624450306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Dimov, D. (2011). Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00423.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Dosi, G., & Egidi, M. (1991). Substantive and procedural uncertainty. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01224917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Earl, P. E., & Potts, J. (2004). The market for preferences. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(4), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/28.4.619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. (2010). An update to the individual-opportunity Nexus. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: an interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 47–76). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1191-9_3.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Eckhardt, J. T., & Shane, S. (2013). Response to the commentaries: The Individual-Opportunity (IO) Nexus integrates objective and subjective aspects of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 160–163. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Elert, N., & Henrekson, M. (2016). Evasive entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9725-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.611.12529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Folta, T. B. (2007). Uncertainty rules the day. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Foss, N. J., & Garzarelli, G. (2007). Institutions as knowledge capital: Ludwig M. Lachmann’s interpretative institutionalism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(5), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bem003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2012). Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: a new approach to the firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2017). Entrepreneurial discovery or creation? In search of the middle ground. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 733–736. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Franke, N., & Von Hippel, E. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: a test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: an anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gartner, W. B. (2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Entrepreneurial Narrative, 22(5), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00100-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: a narrative perspective. Research Policy, 43(7), 1177–1188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Geroski, P. A., Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding conditions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 510–529.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ghosh, V. E., & Gilboa, A. (2014). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Rationality for mortals: how people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Giménez Roche, G. A. (2011). A socially situated praxeological approach to entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(2), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135571102000201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Giménez Roche, G. A. (2016). The impossibility of entrepreneurship under the Neoclassical framework: open vs. closed-ended processes. Journal of Economic Issues, 50(3), 695–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2016.1210378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Gobet, F. (2015). Understanding expertise: a multi-disciplinary approach. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Gupta, A., Streb, C., Gupta, V. K., & Markin, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior during industry emergence: an unconventional study of discovery and creation in the early PC industry. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-18-02-2015-B005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Harnad, S. (2017). Chapter 2 - To cognize is to categorize: cognition is categorization. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (Second ed., pp. 21–54). San Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101107-2.00002-6.

  96. Harper, D. A. (2003). Foundations of entrepreneurship and economic development. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Harper, D. A., & Endres, A. M. (2012). The anatomy of emergence, with a focus upon capital formation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2–3), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Hayek, F. A. (1940). Socialist calculation: the competitive “solution”. Economica, 7(26), 125–149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2548692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Hayek, F. A. (1969). The theory of complex phenomena. In Studies in philosophy, politics, and economics (pp. 22–42). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Heit, E. (2005). Schemas in psychology. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 1–3). Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2011). The interaction of entrepreneurship and institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137410000342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Hippel, E. v. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Hjorth, D., & Steyaert, C. (Eds.). (2004). Narrative and discursive approaches in entrepreneurship: a second movements in entrepreneurship book. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Hodgson, G. M. (1997). The ubiquity of habits and rules. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(6), 663–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Hodgson, G. M. (2001). How economics forgot history: the problem of historical specificity in social science. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Holcombe, R. G. (2003). The origins of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Review of Austrian Economics, 16(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022953123111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Holcombe, R. G. (2006). Does the invisible hand hold or lead? Market adjustment in an entrepreneurial economy. The Review of Austrian Economics, 19(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-7347-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Humphreys, P. (1997). Emergence, not supervenience. Philosophy of Science, 64, S337–S345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Humphreys, P. (2008). Computational and conceptual emergence. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1086/596776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: a review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Kier, A. S., & McMullen, J. S. (2018). Entrepreneurial imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0395.

  116. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Klein, P. G. (2008). Opportunity discovery, entrepreneurial action, and economic organization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Kothari, S. P., & Warner, J. B. (2007). Chapter 1 - Econometrics of event studies. In B. E. Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of empirical corporate finance (pp. 3–36). San Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53265-7.50015-9.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Lachmann, L. M. (1971). The legacy of Max Weber. Berkeley, CA: The Glendessary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: a philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (2000). Path dependence. In Encyclopaedia of law and economics volume i: The history and methodology of law and economics (pp. 981–998). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Littlechild, S. C. (1979). Comment: Radical subjectivism or radical subversion? In M. J. Rizzo (Ed.), Time, uncertainty, and disequilibrium: exploration of Austrian themes (pp. 32–50). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management, 34(5), 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Lwango, A., Coeurderoy, R., & Giménez Roche, G. A. (2017). Family influence and SME performance under conditions of firm size and age. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(3), 629–648. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-11-2016-0174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: origins of conceptual thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Mankiw, N. G. (2017). Economists actually agree on this: the wisdom of free trade. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html. Accessed 17 September 2018.

  128. Markides, C., & Geroski, P. (2005). Fast second: how smart companies bypass radical innovation to enter and dominate new markets. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  129. McMullen, J. S. (2015). Entrepreneurial judgment as empathic accuracy: a sequential decision-making approach to entrepreneurial action. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 651–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137413000386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. McMullen, J. S., Plummer, L. A., & Acs, Z. J. (2007). What is an entrepreneurial opportunity? Small Business Economics, 28(4), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9040-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.50.18024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Mises, L. v. (1998). Human action: a treatise on economics (Scholar’s ed.). Auburn, AL: Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Murray, D. C. (2015). Notes to self: the visual culture of selfies in the age of social media. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18(6), 490–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2015.1052967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Napolitano, M. R., Marino, V., & Ojala, J. (2015). In search of an integrated framework of business longevity. Business History, 57(7), 955–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Nelson, R. R. (2016). Behavior and cognition of economic actors in evolutionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(4), 737–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-015-0431-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00152-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  139. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  140. North, D. C. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic performance. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  141. O’Driscoll, G. P., & Rizzo, M. J. (1996). The economics of time and ignorance. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Packard, M. D., Clark, B. B., & Klein, P. G. (2017). Uncertainty types and transitions in the entrepreneurial process. Organization Science, 28(5), 840–856. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science, 6(5), 541–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (2012). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed. (pp. 11–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Pub..

    Google Scholar 

  150. Preda, A. (2001). Order with things? Humans, artifacts, and the sociological problem of rule-following. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(3), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Quito, A. (2017). Front-facing cameras were never intended for selfies. Quartz. https://qz.com/1104742/front-facing-cameras-were-never-intended-for-selfies/. Accessed 22 September 2018.

  152. Ramoglou, S. (2011). Who is a ‘non-entrepreneur’?: Taking the ‘others’ of entrepreneurship seriously. International Small Business Journal, 31(4), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611425838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Ramoglou, S. (2013). On the misuse of realism in the study of entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 463–465. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 410–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017a). In defense of common sense in entrepreneurship theory: beyond philosophical extremities and linguistic abuses. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 736–744. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2017b). Accepting the unknowables of entrepreneurship and overcoming philosophical obstacles to scientific progress. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Ramoglou, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2015). The constructivist view of entrepreneurial opportunities: a critical analysis. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9590-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Riddell, O. P. (2013). Who is the active consumer? Insight into contemporary innovation and marketing practices. Uppsala: Uppsala Universiteit Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:617683/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 657–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Schotter, A. (1981). The economic theory of social institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(01), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Selten, R. (2001). What is bounded rationality? In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: the individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Shane, S. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. T. (2003). The individual-opportunity nexus. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: an interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 161–191). Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.2791611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Shepherd, D. A., McMullen, J. S., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). The formation of opportunity beliefs: overcoming ignorance and reducing doubt. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Soros, G. (2003). The alchemy of finance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Soros, G. (2013). Fallibility, reflexivity, and the human uncertainty principle. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Sterne, J. (2006). The mp3 as cultural artifact. New Media & Society, 8(5), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806067737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Taylor, S. E., Pham, L. B., Rivkin, I. D., & Armor, D. A. (1998). Harnessing the imagination: mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping. American Psychologist, 53(4), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Todd, P. M. (2001). Fast and frugal heuristics for environmentally bounded minds. In Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox (pp. 51–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Townsend, D. M., Hunt, R. A., McMullen, J. S., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2018). Uncertainty, knowledge problems, and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 659–687. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Veblen, T. (2007). The theory of the leisure class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00005-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Ward, T. B., & Saunders, K. N. (2005). Creativity. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8). Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  190. Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Weisberg, R. W., & Reeves, L. M. (2013). Cognition: from memory to creativity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005a). Decisions, actions, and performance: do novice, serial, and portfolio entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management, 43(4), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2005.00144.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Binks, M. (2005b). Novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneur behaviour and contributions. Small Business Economics, 25(2), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-003-6461-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Witt, U. (1998). Imagination and leadership – the neglected dimension of an evolutionary theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00058-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Witt, U. (2007). Firms as realizations of entrepreneurial visions. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1125–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00731.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Witt, U. (2011). Emergence and functionality of organizational routines: an individualistic approach. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137410000226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Witt, S. (2015). How music got free: the end of an industry, the turn of the century, and the patient zero of piracy. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Wood, M. S. (2017). Misgivings about dismantling the opportunity construct. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. Wood, M. S., & McKinley, W. (2018). The entrepreneurial opportunity construct: dislodge or leverage? Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0162.

  202. Zagorski, N. (2006). Profile of Alec J. Jeffreys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(24), 8918. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603953103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and relevant comments and suggestions that greatly helped improve previous versions of this article. We would also like to thank associate editor Prof. Rui Baptista, who provided much helpful guidance throughout the whole reviewing process.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel A. Giménez Roche.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giménez Roche, G.A., Calcei, D. The role of demand routines in entrepreneurial judgment. Small Bus Econ 56, 209–235 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00213-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Creativity
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Reflexivity
  • Routines
  • Uncertainty

JEL codes

  • D02
  • D81
  • L26
  • O43