Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus: Two Visions of Human Action
Bronisław Bombała
Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie (Poland)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7453-4986
Abstract
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?
Keywords:
homo oeconomicus, homo donator, przedsiębiorczość technokratyczna, przedsiębiorczość społeczna, przedsiębiorczość personalistycznaReferences
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.
Google Scholar
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Google Scholar
Ashmos, D., and Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work. A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2): 134-145.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105649260092008
Google Scholar
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 1-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1923-2.ch019
Google Scholar
Benedict XVI, (2009). Encyklika Caritas in Veritate. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Księży Sercanów.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02015-0_13
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Bombała B. (2020). Personalistyczna wizja organizowania jako alternatywa technopolu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe FNCE.
Google Scholar
Bombała, B. (2014b). Phenomenology as the Epistemological and Methodological Basis of Management Sciences. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 13(1): 150-172.
Google Scholar
Bombała, B. (2011). Phenomenology of the Leadership: to be Somebody-to Make Something. Prakseologia, 151: 11-33.
Google Scholar
Bombała, B. (2018). The Question Concerning Human Action. Seminare. Poszukiwania naukowe, 4: 117-128.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21852/sem.2018.4.10
Google Scholar
Bornstein, D. (2004). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01043.x
Google Scholar
Bruni, L. ed. (2002). The Economy of Communion. New York: New City Press.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2010.524727
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1923-2.ch007
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079646
Google Scholar
Carnegie, A. (1889). The Best Fields for Philanthropy, North American Review, 149(397): 682–699.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Delsol, Ch. (2003). Essai sur la modernité tardiveéloge de la singularité. Essai sur la modernité tardive, (Polish transl.), Kraków: Znak.
Google Scholar
Freeman R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409–429.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340
Google Scholar
Godbout, J.T. (2002). Is homo donator a homo moralis? Diogenes, 49(195): 86–93.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/039219210204919518
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10024-8
Google Scholar
Greenleaf, R.. (1991). The Servant as Leader (Rev. ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Google Scholar
Gronbacher, G.M.A. (1998) The Need for Economic Personalism. The Journal of Market & Morality, 1, pp.1-34.
Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Google Scholar
Heil, D. (2011). Ontological Fundamentals for Ethical Management. Heidegger and the Corporate World. Dordrecht: Springer.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1875-3
Google Scholar
Howard, A. (2020). Theorising Leadership Authenticity: An Existentialist-Personalist Perspective. Sydney: The University of Notre Dame Australia.
Google Scholar
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/
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2019.00010.6
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655_8
Google Scholar
McClellan, J.L. (2009). The Levels of Leadership and Transcendent Servant Leadership Development. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2): 88–110.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12806/V8/I2/TF3
Google Scholar
Mohapatra, S. Verma, P. (2018). Tata as a Sustainable Enterprise: The Causal Role of Spirituality. Jourmal of Human Values, 24(3): 153–165.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685818774116
Google Scholar
Nayak, P., Mahanta, B. (2008). Women Empowerment in India. Bulletin of Political Economy, 5(2): 155-183.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1320071
Google Scholar
Ouimet, J. –R.. (2010). „Wszystko zostało wam powierzone”. Rozmowy z Yves Semen, Kraków: Wyd. AA.
Google Scholar
Rangnath, R.B. (2014). Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi. Indian Streams Research Journal, 4(8): 1-4.
Google Scholar
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
Google Scholar
Roelants, B. (2002). How to define the social economy? in Prague First Social Economy Conference Preparatory Dossier, Praha: CECOP.
Google Scholar
Saji, T.G. (2019). Inclusive Growth in India: Some Realities. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 15(3): 410-417.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2019.00051.9
Google Scholar
Scheler, M. (1987). Letters of Philosophical Anthropology and the Theory of Knowledge. (Polish transl.) Warsaw: PWN.
Google Scholar
Scheler, M. 1998. Ordo amoris. In About love. ed. M. Grabowski, Toruń: Wyd. UMK, pp. 13-47.
Google Scholar
Scholten, B.A. (2010). India’s White Revolution: Operation Flood, Food Aid and Development. London: I.B. Tauris.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755620623
Google Scholar
Sedláček, T. (2011). Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Google Scholar
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.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2016.00187.6
Google Scholar
Stępniak, M. (2010). Koncepcja przedsiębiorstwa w nauczaniu społecznym Kościoła katolickiego. Annales. Etyka w życiu gospodarczym, 13(1): 157-166.
Google Scholar
Szafulski, A. (2006). Cnota przedsiębiorczości w personalistycznej koncepcji ładu gospodarczego. PERSPEC†IVA: Legnickie Studia Teologiczno-Historyczne, 1, 195-206.
Google Scholar
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.
Google Scholar
Yunus, M. Weber, K. (2010). Building Social Business: the New Kind of Capitalism that Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs. New York: Public Affairs.
Google Scholar
Authors
Bronisław BombałaUniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie Poland
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.
Statistics
Abstract views: 308PDF downloads: 129