Law is rarely connected with Entrepreneurs. Lawyers are a careful pack zeroed in on the point of reference, hazard regulation, and will be responsive—not inventive. Business people are alternate variety. They make alternative plans of action considering market voids, conveying hazard funding to accomplish consumer loyalty and scale. Entrepreneurs require enthusiasm, information, vision, measure, assets, ability, execution, results, execution measurements, consistent improvement, cooperation, straightforwardness, adaptability, and admittance to capital.A pile of Entrepreneurs is entering the legal arena. They are taking advantage of inert interest for admittance to legitimate administrations just as skill separated, proficient, practical, prescient, digitized, and adaptable lawful items and administrations for corporate lawful purchasers. Entrepreneurs are merging legitimate, mechanical, and measure skill—and capital—to re-engineer lawful conveyance and give simple, reasonable access. A law permit isn’t needed, however, industry information and capital are.
We can consider that the law and entrepreneurship have a paradox in common, that of being everywhere without finally knowing where they are. Indeed, Carbonnier (1955) advised being wary of pan laws which leads to considering that everything is right. Such a vision, of course, presents the danger of inhibiting the slightest initiative for fear of breaking a rule or worse of having to respect it. The latest politico-economic visions lead some to a kind of criticizing entrepreneurship, recommending that entrepreneurship should be everywhere. Since the entrepreneur would solve the problem of employment and entrepreneurship presents an economic model replacing the old wage-earning culture.
Beyond this common paradox, entrepreneurship and law maintain relationships that are themselves paradoxical in so far as they are very little studied by the literature, whereas many entrepreneurial situations have to be known about the law.
This article is to propose several elements for constructing a Theory of Entrepreneurship and Law for providing a better view of Entrepreneurship in Law. We understand here the notion of the theory as an organized set of concepts, explanations and principles that describe the relationship to entrepreneurial law. It is a question on the one hand of trying to explain an aspect of entrepreneurial reality, understood until then in a heterogeneous way and of conceptualizing this reality clearly as an integral part of research in entrepreneurship, thus removing an economic analysis of the law. If both can work effectively, then it makes it possible to go beyond approaches that reduce the right to a constraint or an opportunity by emphasizing the multi-level and interactive nature of the relationship with entrepreneurial rights.
Studies Related to the Interface of Entrepreneurship and Law
We can classify studies at the interface of entrepreneurship and law according to their analytical logic that is macro or micro-legal. According to a macro-legal logic, I understand the law as an element of public policies. Research studies its impact on entrepreneurial activity. From a micro-legal logic, legal analyzes are more technical and pragmatic, focusing on the rule or the entrepreneur. The research here focuses on understanding the law.
The object of study is the rule itself and or the effects it produces or would produce. The work that falls under this approach is descriptive or effective.
Descriptive studies aim to explain a particular device, its salient features, its strengths or weaknesses. Often these are simply documentary studies. Most are written by lawyers elsewhere. Documentary analysis can of course be critical and identify elements in the body of the legal text that are complicated to implement, or even ambiguous.
The “effective” studies seek to assess the effects of the rule in question on the behaviour of the agents for whom they intend it. By illustration, several authors have studied the effects of the Bayh Dole Act passed in 1980 in the United States. This mechanism guarantees the ownership of universities over inventions developed within them, although the funding is of federal origin. The aim was to encourage American universities to develop their resources from the commercial exploitation of their technology. Several studies have found that overall the law itself (alone) had little impact on the commercialization of such technologies and that, if this had exploded, it was because of other reasons. It has reoriented the patent policies of some universities towards sectors in which the acquisition of technology is done mainly by purchasing licenses. The device has therefore not produced any identifiable significant effect, but it has instead reoriented the strategies of some universities towards more lucrative sectors.
In France, in a somewhat similar register, the Law on Innovation of 1999 has also been the subject of several studies. It aimed to promote the development of public research by organizing, as much as possible, its transfer to the economic world. Unlike the Bayh Dole Act, it was not about allowing universities to get new resources, but about facilitating the exploitation of academic research for economic development. It bases part of the system on legal innovation since it allows the transfer of research with and by those who have developed it within the framework of their home institution. The first results on this part of the law noted ten years after its implementation, are very mixed. Indeed, this is little used regarding the objectives declared at its launch and in a roundabout way.
Likewise, the status of auto-entrepreneur has been the subject of apprehension in its use. While it has contributed to exploding the figures for business creation, its users are not all entrepreneurs or not all derive a turnover and an income from it.
We can see the interest of such studies on the actual reality of the rule. They seek to understand whether the political intention that brought the device to the baptismal font has been translated into reality. The questioning challenges both the design of the enactment, i.e. how it is supposed to meet the set aim and objectives, and its concrete application. This type of study can contribute, from a certain legal point of view to the improvement of the system, or even to its questioning.
The Entrepreneur and the Law (Entrepreneur Centered micro-legal approach)
Some studies in economics question the law as well as entrepreneurship. Some legal studies question entrepreneurship. But few studies in entrepreneurship ask the question of what the entrepreneur does with the law. The legal action of the entrepreneur is an unknown reality. The work that can be placed in this perspective is focused not on the rule but its “user”, i.e. the entrepreneur.
Some relate to ways that the entrepreneur uses or should use; these studies have a characteristic dimension of legal advice. They are supposed to shed light on tools for the specialist, also to guide in the choices. They often link these two problems of structuring the activity – company law – or of a fiscal nature (Goldberg, 2002). These two dimensions organizational and fiscal are not the only ones called for and a few rare summaries work to present their articulation. In the entrepreneur’s relationship with the tool, the lawyer plays a role that has been repeatedly emphasized.
Others focus on the entrepreneur himself, in a way confronted with the law. The first type of study focuses on the perception of the law by the entrepreneur. Here, the perspective is that of law seen as a constraint. This perception is frequently. Yet, there are few studies to back it up. On the contrary. Indeed, Jacquemin (2012) has shown that entrepreneurs can seize regulation as an opportunity. In research on the difficulties encountered by the managers of companies created for six years at most, the regulation comes in a 10th position out of 18 possibilities. We are therefore quite far from focusing on legal constraints. There is also little analysis of how entrepreneurs use regulation. However, considering that the entrepreneur seizes opportunities, we can expect that he will also consider the law as an opportunity to be seized. We can even consider that some actors use a legal device for purposes different from those which prevailed when it was designed. Thus, for example, Philippart (2005) identified the behaviour of entrepreneurs intelligently diverting the research transfer system with its researcher in the Law on Innovation to avoid certain pitfalls of the system. The observation of certain legal intelligence by the entrepreneur himself in the legal dimensions relating to his project, of course, calls for more in-depth studies. To undertake is therefore also to understand the law, another way to understand is to disregard it knowingly.
There are a few issues with law, including a conveyance problem, a Justice Crisis, and a high level of shopper dissatisfaction. To respond to these challenges, legal entrepreneurs are skirting around obsolete guidelines. They are deploying capital, creativity, legal company and other planned expertise to provide retail and corporate clients with easier access to and efficient delivery of legal services. Legal ability is not inextricably linked to legal conveyance; it is a component of modern business and monetary models.
From the above analysis, we can conclude that some studies in economics question the law and entrepreneurship and also legal studies question entrepreneurship. But few studies in entrepreneurship ask what the entrepreneur does with the law, but in the current scenario, we can saw the big law firms and legal entrepreneurs excelling in the business. The legal action of the entrepreneur is a little-understood reality. It built from existing work while going beyond it, amounts to laying the foundations for more research in this area.
Author(s) Name: Shivendra Nath Mishra (Chanakya National Law University)