Entrepreneurship in Quasi-Markets: An Institutional Analysis

To bolster entrepreneurship and innovation in welfare service provision, numerous countries have established quasi-markets. Yet, the actual benefits from these reforms have often been modest. We posit that quasi-markets can realize their potential only within the appropriate institutional framework, which highlights the need for studies in the field of institutional economics that identify how best to regulate quasi-markets so that they deliver in line with these expectations. While competition and the presence of for-profit actors are necessary conditions for quasi-market improvements, they alone are insufficient. We illustrate this point by showing how the three leading entrepreneurship conceptions—Knightian, Kirznerian, and Schumpeterian—risk falling short of their potential in typical quasi-market setups. Most importantly, our analysis identifies the necessity for a set of complementary institutions that are epistemic in nature. Such reforms should help bolster (Knightian, Kirznerian, and Schumpeterian) quasi-market entrepreneurship and help users construct the requisite knowledge to make informed choices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Public Finance Review
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10911421261446683
Primary Topic
Social Policy and Reform Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Entrepreneurship in Quasi-Markets: An Institutional Analysis

Magnus Henrekson, Niklas Elert
Public Finance Review
Social Policy and Reform Studies
article

Entrepreneurship in Quasi-Markets: An Institutional Analysis

Magnus Henrekson, Niklas Elert
article en

Abstract

To bolster entrepreneurship and innovation in welfare service provision, numerous countries have established quasi-markets. Yet, the actual benefits from these reforms have often been modest. We posit that quasi-markets can realize their potential only within the appropriate institutional framework, which highlights the need for studies in the field of institutional economics that identify how best to regulate quasi-markets so that they deliver in line with these expectations. While competition and the presence of for-profit actors are necessary conditions for quasi-market improvements, they alone are insufficient. We illustrate this point by showing how the three leading entrepreneurship conceptions—Knightian, Kirznerian, and Schumpeterian—risk falling short of their potential in typical quasi-market setups. Most importantly, our analysis identifies the necessity for a set of complementary institutions that are epistemic in nature. Such reforms should help bolster (Knightian, Kirznerian, and Schumpeterian) quasi-market entrepreneurship and help users construct the requisite knowledge to make informed choices.

Public Finance Review
Retina Institute (US), Research Institute of Industrial Economics (SE)
Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Social Policy and Reform Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.