This analysis explores how institutional frameworks affect entrepreneurship in quasi-markets, suggesting improvements are needed.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elert et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: