Characteristic of the entrepreneurial government is how earlier collective objectives of economic growth, social security, and employment are outsourced from political institutions to enterprises and individual subjects, trusted to possess endemic entrepreneurial capacities (cf. Rose 1996: 165). Also, markets have gained an unforeseen importance following certain convictions that they enhance competition-and thus productivity-between diff erent enterprising entities and increase the effi ciency in resource utilization and allocation (Du Gay 1996: 183; Osborne and Gaebler 1993). The entrepreneurial government is also accompanied by the so-called “capability approach,” which replaces, at least partly, the collective responsibility for individual social security and employment by the individualization of that responsibility (cf. Lessenich 2003a; Salais 2003; Schmid 2004; Trubek and Mosher 2003). The emphasis on the individuals’ capability to be active in the government of their own social security draws on the neoliberal notion of the endemic capacity and interest of individual subjects to realize their personal life projects. However, it remains a collective responsibility to teach and advise individual subjects how they should conduct themselves so as to make the most use of their personal freedom. It is in this context that we encounter the unprecedented importance of the entrepreneur. In the

framework of the entrepreneurial government, entrepreneur has become one of the projected role models and scripts of subjectivity in the form of which individuals are asked to make both a contribution to political government and to engage in active self-management of their own social welfare and employment (Bröckling 2007; Burchell 1993; Rose 1996b).