The entrepreneurship agenda required actively reshaping state and corporate institutions, not leaving individuals alone

Evidence

But the new entrepreneurial behavior was certainly not just left as a choice for individuals. All kinds of state and private institutions involved in regional and business development, education, and even unemployment insurance and labor exchanges were involved in crafting the new entrepreneurship agendas quite in line with the thinking and advice of neoliberal intellectuals like Herbert Giersch. Take Germany as an example: transfer payments for economic development are no longer distributed evenly across space and population. They are redirected to promising locations and firms. Private companies in turn provide incentives for intrapreneurship: most company units are now organized according to the cost-center principle to simulate market relations within corporations. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 309

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly corrodes the caricature that neoliberalism just deregulates and ‘leaves people alone’; connects to Foucault’s notion of the state actively fabricating entrepreneurial subjects. — connects to: Neoliberal entrepreneurship theory holds that institutions, not individuals, create entrepreneurial supply — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 307; 1930s planning consensus elevated bureaucracies and the M-form over individual entrepreneurship — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 271; Fordism required active nation-state economic management. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 813 (+1 more)

Broader Connections