Political entrepreneurship: Jefferson, Bayard, and the election of 1800
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-01-2014-0004 |
| Date | 02 November 2015 |
| Published date | 02 November 2015 |
| Pages | 298-312 |
| Author | Noel Campbell,Marcus Witcher |
| Subject Matter | Strategy,Entrepreneurship,Business climate/policy |
Political entrepreneurship:
Jefferson, Bayard, and the
election of 1800
Noel Campbell
Department of Economics, Finance, Insurance and Risk Management,
University of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas, USA, and
Marcus Witcher
History Department, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purposeof this paper is to demonstratethat an implication of Holcombe’s(2002) model is
a“revolutiontrap.”This paper extends Holcombe’s modeladding Klein’s concept of entrepreneurshipas
judgment concerning the use of heterogeneous political capital. The authors use the case of the USA
presidential election of 1800 to demonstrate the utility of the extension, and to discuss how political
entrepreneurshipserved to prevent a revolution trap. The political entrepreneurshipof 1800 established
the precedent of peaceful transition of powerin the USA, which opened the door to the rapid economic
development of the early nineteenth century.
Design/methodology/approach –This is a historical case study using letters, newspapers,
pamphlets, and other pieces of empirical evidence to highlight an important moment of political
entrepreneurship.
Findings –Many contemporary observers predicted that the USA would devolve into continuous
revolution,which the authorsargue Holcombe’s(2002) model predicts. However, political entrepreneurship
ended the revolutionary period in the former British North America. Moreover, the political
entrepreneurship ending the election crisis established the precedent of peaceful political succession.
This precedent comparatively elevated the returns of productive, market entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990).
As a result, the USAexperiences a prolonged period of entrepreneurially driven economic growth.
Originality/value –To the authors knowledge, no one has developed the implication of a “revolution
trap”from Holcombe’s (2002) model, nor has anyone applied Klein’s (2008) model to extend Holcombe’s
model of political entrepreneurship. Although the disputed presidential election of 1800 has been
extensively researched, no one has analyzed the election and its resolution from the perspective of
political entrepreneurship.
Keywords Case study, Historical entrepreneurship, Political entrepreneurship
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Entrepreneurship is understood to be the human capacity to perceive personally gainful
opportunities, to act by organizing productive resources to take advantage of the
perceived gainful opportunity, and to bear the risk of the enterprise. Many writers since
have stressed that entrepreneurship is a general feature of human behavior. One aspect
of entrepreneurship theory, deriving from Knight (1921), is the concept of action in the
face of uncertainty. The entrepreneur bears the risk of these choices. The entrepreneur’s
decisions often involve the introduction of novelty –doing something new, or doing
something in a new way or manner. Thus, in an environment of uncertainty, the
entrepreneur sees a way forward that others do not; she makes a decision and acts,
thereby organizing and consuming resources, introducing novelty or innovation, and
setting others in motion. Entrepreneurial supplywill flow into the activity that promises
the highest net reward. Baumol’s (1990) key insights were: entrepreneurship can be
Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Public Policy
Vol. 4 No. 3, 2015
pp. 298-312
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2045-2101
DOI 10.1108/JEPP-01-2014-0004
Received 28 January 2014
Revised 29 September 2014
3 October 2014
Accepted 3 October 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2045-2101.htm
298
JEPP
4,3
To continue reading
Request your trial