Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus: Two Visions of Human Action


Abstrakt

This article provides a comparative analysis between the technocratic model of entrepreneurship, based on the homo oeconomicus concept, and alternative models, based on the homo donator concept: i.e., between a personalistic model of entrepreneurship and a social model of entrepreneurship. A special focus is then put on the Indian model of social entrepreneurship. The main theme of the analysis is to search for an answer to the research question: which concept of entrepreneurship and management best serves the human being and helps in his or her development?


Słowa kluczowe

homo oeconomicus; homo donator; technocratic entrepreneurship; social entre-preneurship; personalistic entrepreneurship

Alexandre, V., Gasparski, W. eds. (2000). The Roots of Praxiology. French Action Theory from Bourdeau and Espinas to Present Days.. New Brunswick. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashmos, D., and Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work. A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2): 134-145.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 1-22.

Baporikar, N. (2017). Genesis and Development of Social Entrepreneurship in India, in. M. Khosrow-Pou, ed, Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey PA: IGI Global, pp. 414-428.

Benedict XVI, (2009). Encyklika Caritas in Veritate. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Księży Sercanów.

Bombała, B. (2014a). Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka’s and Max Scheler’s Phenomenology as the Ontopoietic Genesis of Managers Life’. in A-T. Tymieniecka, ed, Phenomenology of Space and Time: The Forces of the Cosmos and the Ontopoietic Genesis of Life, Book I, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 155-165.

Bombała, B. (2015). Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Phenomenological Praxeology. in S. Mistra, D. Awasthi, G. Bathini, eds, Eleventh Biennial Conference on Entrepreneurship, Vol.I. Ahmedabad: Bookwell, pp. 32-38.

Bombała B. (2020). Personalistyczna wizja organizowania jako alternatywa technopolu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe FNCE.

Bombała, B. (2014b). Phenomenology as the Epistemological and Methodological Basis of Management Sciences. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 13(1): 150-172.

Bombała, B. (2011). Phenomenology of the Leadership: to be Somebody-to Make Something. Prakseologia, 151: 11-33.

Bombała, B. (2018). The Question Concerning Human Action. Seminare. Poszukiwania naukowe, 4: 117-128.

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, S.W., McMullen, J.S., Artz, K., Simiyu, E.M. (2012). Capital is not enough: Innovation in developing economies. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4): 684–717.

Bruni, L. ed. (2002). The Economy of Communion. New York: New City Press.

Case, P., Gosling, J. (2010). The spiritual organization: Critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 7(4): 257-282.

Chauhan, R.S. Das, R. (2017). Entrepreneurship Policy Framework: Understanding Cultural and Educational Determinants for Entrepreneurship. in M. Khosrow-Pou, ed, Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Hershey PA: IGI Global, pp. 138-170.

Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualising Spiritual Leadership in Secular Organizational Contexts and its Relation to Transformational, Servant and Environmental leadership. Leadersh and Organization Development, 31(7): 596–608.

Carnegie, A. (1889). The Best Fields for Philanthropy, North American Review, 149(397): 682–699.

Defourny, J. (2001). From Third Sector to Social Enterprise’, in C. Borzaga and J. Defourny, eds, The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge, pp.1-18.

Delsol, Ch. (2003). Essai sur la modernité tardiveéloge de la singularité. Essai sur la modernité tardive, (Polish transl.), Kraków: Znak.

Freeman R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409–429.

Godbout, J.T. (2002). Is homo donator a homo moralis? Diogenes, 49(195): 86–93.

González-Ricoy, I. 2019). Firm Authority and Workplace Democracy: a Reply to Jacob and Neuhäuser. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice: An International Forum, 22: 679-684.

Greenleaf, R.. (1991). The Servant as Leader (Rev. ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Gronbacher, G.M.A. (1998) The Need for Economic Personalism. The Journal of Market & Morality, 1, pp.1-34.

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Heil, D. (2011). Ontological Fundamentals for Ethical Management. Heidegger and the Corporate World. Dordrecht: Springer.

Howard, A. (2020). Theorising Leadership Authenticity: An Existentialist-Personalist Perspective. Sydney: The University of Notre Dame Australia.

Kharas, H., Hamel, K., Hofer, M. (2018). The Start of a new Poverty Narrative, Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/06/19/the-start-of-a-new-poverty-narrative/

Kumari, B., Malhotra, R. (2019). Socio-Economic Empowerment of Women through Women Dairy Co-operatives: A Study of Begusarai District of Bihar. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 15(1): 91-97.

Mair, J. Noboa E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. in J. Mair, J. Robinson, K. Hockerts, eds, Social Entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.121-135.

McClellan, J.L. (2009). The Levels of Leadership and Transcendent Servant Leadership Development. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2): 88–110.

Mohapatra, S. Verma, P. (2018). Tata as a Sustainable Enterprise: The Causal Role of Spirituality. Jourmal of Human Values, 24(3): 153–165.

Nayak, P., Mahanta, B. (2008). Women Empowerment in India. Bulletin of Political Economy, 5(2): 155-183.

Ouimet, J. –R.. (2010). „Wszystko zostało wam powierzone”. Rozmowy z Yves Semen, Kraków: Wyd. AA.

Rangnath, R.B. (2014). Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi. Indian Streams Research Journal, 4(8): 1-4.

Reward Work, (2018). Not wealth Oxfam International: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-reward-work-not-wealth-220118-summ-en.pdf

Roelants, B. (2002). How to define the social economy? in Prague First Social Economy Conference Preparatory Dossier, Praha: CECOP.

Saji, T.G. (2019). Inclusive Growth in India: Some Realities. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 15(3): 410-417.

Scheler, M. (1987). Letters of Philosophical Anthropology and the Theory of Knowledge. (Polish transl.) Warsaw: PWN.

Scheler, M. 1998. Ordo amoris. In About love. ed. M. Grabowski, Toruń: Wyd. UMK, pp. 13-47.

Scholten, B.A. (2010). India’s White Revolution: Operation Flood, Food Aid and Development. London: I.B. Tauris.

Sedláček, T. (2011). Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Sethy, S.K. (2016). Towards Financial Inclusion in India: Progress so far, Issues and Challenges. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 12(4): 641-652.

Stępniak, M. (2010). Koncepcja przedsiębiorstwa w nauczaniu społecznym Kościoła katolickiego. Annales. Etyka w życiu gospodarczym, 13(1): 157-166.

Szafulski, A. (2006). Cnota przedsiębiorczości w personalistycznej koncepcji ładu gospodarczego. PERSPEC†IVA: Legnickie Studia Teologiczno-Historyczne, 1, 195-206.

Taneja, N. Pstakia, A. (2015). Business for Inclusive Development: Profiling the Social Business Enterprise in India. in S. Mistra, D. Awasthi, G. Bathini, eds, Eleventh Biennial Conference on Entrepreneurship, Vol. II. Ahmedabad: Bookwell, pp. 721-734.

Yunus, M. Weber, K. (2010). Building Social Business: the New Kind of Capitalism that Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs. New York: Public Affairs.


Opublikowane : 2022-10-06


Bombała, B. (2022). Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus: Two Visions of Human Action. Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne, 35(1), 57-81. https://doi.org/10.30439/WST.2022.1.4

Bronisław Bombała 
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie  Polska
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7453-4986

Bronisław Bombała — dr nauk ekonomicznych, pracownik naukowo-dydaktyczny w Instytucie Nauk Politycznych Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. Jego zainteresowania naukowe obejmują: personalistyczno-fenomenologiczne ujęcie organizacji, zarządzania i przywództwa; transdyscyplinarne, jakościowe badania organizacji, zarządzania i przywództwa; etyczne, emocjonalne i estetyczne wymiary życia w świecie organizacji; zagadnienia bezpieczeństwa, wiedzy, uczenia się i kreatywności.






Czasopismo jest bezpłatne i udostępniane na zasadach otwartego dostępu (w formacie pdf na stronie internetowej). Od autorów artykułów nie są pobierane żadne opłaty. „Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne” ukazują się na licencji według standardów Creative Commons: CC BY-ND 4.0 (Uznanie autorstwa - Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe) i nie prowadzą skonkretyzowanej polityki dotyczącej danych badawczych. Autorzy zachowują prawa autorskie.