early economic thinkers and classic works such as Cantillon (1755), Knight (1921), and Kirzner (1973). The paper opens by explaining how uncertainty and thus entrepreneurship disappeared from microeconomic theory as it became increasingly formalized (and stylized). It then goes on to bring the entrepreneur and entrepreneurial decision-making back into economic theory by focusing on the interrelationships among actors, knowledge, and perceived economic opportunities using a resource-based framework. The third paper in this section (Chapter 4) is by Foss and Klein, "Entrepreneurship and the Economic Theory of the Firm: Any Gains from Trade?" Foss and Klein strongly link theories of the firm to entrepreneurship, arguing a fundamental and intrinsic connection between the two. They, like Mahoney and Michael, explain how entrepreneurship became less important in economic models as the general equilibrium model became dominant. Foss and Klein ask: Does the entrepreneur need a firm? They focus on the judgment of the entrepreneur and suggest that this judgment is exercised through asset ownership and starting a firm. Foss and Klein further argue that it is through this notion of judgment that heterogeneous assets combine to meet future wants.

early economic thinkers and classic works such as Cantillon (1755), Knight (1921), and Kirzner (1973). The paper opens by explaining how uncertainty and thus entrepreneurship disappeared from microeconomic theory as it became increasingly formalized (and stylized). It then goes on to bring the entrepreneur and entrepreneurial decision-making back into economic theory by focusing on the interrelationships among actors, knowledge, and perceived economic opportunities using a resource-based framework. The third paper in this section (Chapter 4) is by Foss and Klein, "Entrepreneurship and the Economic Theory of the Firm: Any Gains from Trade?" Foss and Klein strongly link theories of the firm to entrepreneurship, arguing a fundamental and intrinsic connection between the two. They, like Mahoney and Michael, explain how entrepreneurship became less important in economic models as the general equilibrium model became dominant. Foss and Klein ask: Does the entrepreneur need a firm? They focus on the judgment of the entrepreneur and suggest that this judgment is exercised through asset ownership and starting a firm. Foss and Klein further argue that it is through this notion of judgment that heterogeneous assets combine to meet future wants.

The field of entrepreneurship continues to struggle with the development of a modern theory of entrepreneurship. In the past 20 years development of the current theories of entrepreneurship have centered on either opportunity recognition or the individual entrepreneur. At the same time many theoretical insights have come from economics including a rediscovery of the work of Schumpeter. However because there is a lack of clarity about the theoretical assumptions that entrepreneurship scholars use in their work, assumptions from both individual opportunity recognition and economics have been used as if they are interchangeable. This lack of theoretical distinction has hampered theory development in the field of entrepreneurship. While explanations of entrepreneurship have adopted different theoretical assumptions, most of these concern three central features of entrepreneurial phenomena: the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs as individuals, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. Nonetheless, various theoretical traditions in the field have adopted radically different interpretations with respect to these assumptions of entrepreneurial phenomena, therefore arriving at different explanations of these phenomena. Theories of Entrepreneurship investigates two sets of assumption about the nature of opportunities, the nature of entrepreneurs, and the nature of the decision making context within which entrepreneurs operate. It is suggested that these two sets of assumptions constitute logically consistent theories of entrepreneurship. Moreover, these two theories are complementary and can be applied to widely studied entrepreneurial phenomena -- the organization of the entrepreneurial firm. These applications demonstrate both the differences between these two theories and how they can be complementary in nature. Theories of Entrepreneurship sets the basis for future explorations into entrepreneurship theory. Students and researchers alike will benefit from the framework presented by the author in developing the theoretical underpinnings of entrepreneurship.