ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how ideological and methodological biases can combine to support a Kuhnian paradigm with strong positive bias. The author motivation is the possibility that some of the emerging policy recommendations influenced by this paradigm may be similarly biased and hence potentially damaging for the economy. It argues this paradigm is stabilized by both external-demand and internal-supply side factors. Ideological biases, path-dependent framing effects and the existence of politically powerful small-firm lobbies contribute towards a powerful demand for positive interpretations of entrepreneurship that constrains the diffusion of realistic research-backed interpretations. The supply of more realistic evaluations has been further constrained by publication biases and methodological problems. These methodological problems mean that the evidence on the impact of entrepreneurship is typically ambiguous, allowing the selection of positive interpretations and the dismissal of negative findings as anomalies. Finally, it generates better understanding of the mismatch between recent research and the widely held view that entrepreneurial activity is always 'a good thing'.
