Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus: Two Visions of Human Action

Bronisław Bombała


Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie (Poland)
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7453-4986

Abstract

This article provides a comparative analysis between the technocratic model of entrepreneurship, based on the homo oeconomicus concept, and alternative models, based on the homo donator concept: i.e., between a personalistic model of entrepreneurship and a social model of entrepreneurship. A special focus is then put on the Indian model of social entrepreneurship. The main theme of the analysis is to search for an answer to the research question: which concept of entrepreneurship and management best serves the human being and helps in his or her development?


Keywords:

homo oeconomicus, homo donator, przedsiębiorczość technokratyczna, przedsiębiorczość społeczna, przedsiębiorczość personalistyczna

Alexandre, V., Gasparski, W. eds. (2000). The Roots of Praxiology. French Action Theory from Bourdeau and Espinas to Present Days.. New Brunswick. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
  Google Scholar

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, Stress and Coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  Google Scholar

Ashmos, D., and Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work. A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2): 134-145.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105649260092008   Google Scholar

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 1-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x   Google Scholar

Baporikar, N. (2017). Genesis and Development of Social Entrepreneurship in India, in. M. Khosrow-Pou, ed, Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey PA: IGI Global, pp. 414-428.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1923-2.ch019   Google Scholar

Benedict XVI, (2009). Encyklika Caritas in Veritate. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Księży Sercanów.
  Google Scholar

Bombała, B. (2014a). Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka’s and Max Scheler’s Phenomenology as the Ontopoietic Genesis of Managers Life’. in A-T. Tymieniecka, ed, Phenomenology of Space and Time: The Forces of the Cosmos and the Ontopoietic Genesis of Life, Book I, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 155-165.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02015-0_13   Google Scholar

Bombała, B. (2015). Entrepreneurship from the Perspective of Phenomenological Praxeology. in S. Mistra, D. Awasthi, G. Bathini, eds, Eleventh Biennial Conference on Entrepreneurship, Vol.I. Ahmedabad: Bookwell, pp. 32-38.
  Google Scholar

Bombała B. (2020). Personalistyczna wizja organizowania jako alternatywa technopolu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe FNCE.
  Google Scholar

Bombała, B. (2014b). Phenomenology as the Epistemological and Methodological Basis of Management Sciences. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 13(1): 150-172.
  Google Scholar

Bombała, B. (2011). Phenomenology of the Leadership: to be Somebody-to Make Something. Prakseologia, 151: 11-33.
  Google Scholar

Bombała, B. (2018). The Question Concerning Human Action. Seminare. Poszukiwania naukowe, 4: 117-128.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21852/sem.2018.4.10   Google Scholar

Bornstein, D. (2004). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Google Scholar

Bradley, S.W., McMullen, J.S., Artz, K., Simiyu, E.M. (2012). Capital is not enough: Innovation in developing economies. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4): 684–717.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01043.x   Google Scholar

Bruni, L. ed. (2002). The Economy of Communion. New York: New City Press.
  Google Scholar

Case, P., Gosling, J. (2010). The spiritual organization: Critical reflections on the instrumentality of workplace spirituality. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 7(4): 257-282.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2010.524727   Google Scholar

Chauhan, R.S. Das, R. (2017). Entrepreneurship Policy Framework: Understanding Cultural and Educational Determinants for Entrepreneurship. in M. Khosrow-Pou, ed, Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Hershey PA: IGI Global, pp. 138-170.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1923-2.ch007   Google Scholar

Crossman, J. (2010). Conceptualising Spiritual Leadership in Secular Organizational Contexts and its Relation to Transformational, Servant and Environmental leadership. Leadersh and Organization Development, 31(7): 596–608.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079646   Google Scholar

Carnegie, A. (1889). The Best Fields for Philanthropy, North American Review, 149(397): 682–699.
  Google Scholar

Defourny, J. (2001). From Third Sector to Social Enterprise’, in C. Borzaga and J. Defourny, eds, The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge, pp.1-18.
  Google Scholar

Delsol, Ch. (2003). Essai sur la modernité tardiveéloge de la singularité. Essai sur la modernité tardive, (Polish transl.), Kraków: Znak.
  Google Scholar

Freeman R.E. (1994). The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions, Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4): 409–429.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340   Google Scholar

Godbout, J.T. (2002). Is homo donator a homo moralis? Diogenes, 49(195): 86–93.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/039219210204919518   Google Scholar

González-Ricoy, I. 2019). Firm Authority and Workplace Democracy: a Reply to Jacob and Neuhäuser. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice: An International Forum, 22: 679-684.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10024-8   Google Scholar

Greenleaf, R.. (1991). The Servant as Leader (Rev. ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
  Google Scholar

Gronbacher, G.M.A. (1998) The Need for Economic Personalism. The Journal of Market & Morality, 1, pp.1-34.
  Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time, Albany: State University of New York Press.
  Google Scholar

Heil, D. (2011). Ontological Fundamentals for Ethical Management. Heidegger and the Corporate World. Dordrecht: Springer.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1875-3   Google Scholar

Howard, A. (2020). Theorising Leadership Authenticity: An Existentialist-Personalist Perspective. Sydney: The University of Notre Dame Australia.
  Google Scholar

Kharas, H., Hamel, K., Hofer, M. (2018). The Start of a new Poverty Narrative, Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/06/19/the-start-of-a-new-poverty-narrative/
  Google Scholar

Kumari, B., Malhotra, R. (2019). Socio-Economic Empowerment of Women through Women Dairy Co-operatives: A Study of Begusarai District of Bihar. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 15(1): 91-97.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2019.00010.6   Google Scholar

Mair, J. Noboa E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed. in J. Mair, J. Robinson, K. Hockerts, eds, Social Entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.121-135.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625655_8   Google Scholar

McClellan, J.L. (2009). The Levels of Leadership and Transcendent Servant Leadership Development. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2): 88–110.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12806/V8/I2/TF3   Google Scholar

Mohapatra, S. Verma, P. (2018). Tata as a Sustainable Enterprise: The Causal Role of Spirituality. Jourmal of Human Values, 24(3): 153–165.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685818774116   Google Scholar

Nayak, P., Mahanta, B. (2008). Women Empowerment in India. Bulletin of Political Economy, 5(2): 155-183.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1320071   Google Scholar

Ouimet, J. –R.. (2010). „Wszystko zostało wam powierzone”. Rozmowy z Yves Semen, Kraków: Wyd. AA.
  Google Scholar

Rangnath, R.B. (2014). Economic Ideas of Mahatma Gandhi. Indian Streams Research Journal, 4(8): 1-4.
  Google Scholar

Reward Work, (2018). Not wealth Oxfam International: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-reward-work-not-wealth-220118-summ-en.pdf
  Google Scholar

Roelants, B. (2002). How to define the social economy? in Prague First Social Economy Conference Preparatory Dossier, Praha: CECOP.
  Google Scholar

Saji, T.G. (2019). Inclusive Growth in India: Some Realities. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 15(3): 410-417.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2019.00051.9   Google Scholar

Scheler, M. (1987). Letters of Philosophical Anthropology and the Theory of Knowledge. (Polish transl.) Warsaw: PWN.
  Google Scholar

Scheler, M. 1998. Ordo amoris. In About love. ed. M. Grabowski, Toruń: Wyd. UMK, pp. 13-47.
  Google Scholar

Scholten, B.A. (2010). India’s White Revolution: Operation Flood, Food Aid and Development. London: I.B. Tauris.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755620623   Google Scholar

Sedláček, T. (2011). Economics of Good and Evil: The Quest for Economic Meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Google Scholar

Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and Freedom. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
  Google Scholar

Sethy, S.K. (2016). Towards Financial Inclusion in India: Progress so far, Issues and Challenges. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 12(4): 641-652.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2016.00187.6   Google Scholar

Stępniak, M. (2010). Koncepcja przedsiębiorstwa w nauczaniu społecznym Kościoła katolickiego. Annales. Etyka w życiu gospodarczym, 13(1): 157-166.
  Google Scholar

Szafulski, A. (2006). Cnota przedsiębiorczości w personalistycznej koncepcji ładu gospodarczego. PERSPEC†IVA: Legnickie Studia Teologiczno-Historyczne, 1, 195-206.
  Google Scholar

Taneja, N. Pstakia, A. (2015). Business for Inclusive Development: Profiling the Social Business Enterprise in India. in S. Mistra, D. Awasthi, G. Bathini, eds, Eleventh Biennial Conference on Entrepreneurship, Vol. II. Ahmedabad: Bookwell, pp. 721-734.
  Google Scholar

Yunus, M. Weber, K. (2010). Building Social Business: the New Kind of Capitalism that Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs. New York: Public Affairs.
  Google Scholar

Download


Published
2022-10-06

Cited by

Bombała, B. . (2022). Homo Donator versus Homo Oeconomicus: Two Visions of Human Action. Warsaw Theological Studies, 35(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.30439/WST.2022.1.4

Authors

Bronisław Bombała 

Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7453-4986

Bronisław Bombała — dr nauk ekonomicznych, pracownik naukowo-dydaktyczny w Instytucie Nauk Politycznych Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. Jego zainteresowania naukowe obejmują: personalistyczno-fenomenologiczne ujęcie organizacji, zarządzania i przywództwa; transdyscyplinarne, jakościowe badania organizacji, zarządzania i przywództwa; etyczne, emocjonalne i estetyczne wymiary życia w świecie organizacji; zagadnienia bezpieczeństwa, wiedzy, uczenia się i kreatywności.



Statistics

Abstract views: 297
PDF downloads: 121


License

The journal is available free-of-charge and according to the Open Access regulations (as a PDF file on the website). The authors do not incur any costs related to publication. The journal is published in accordance with the Creative Commons license standard:  CC BY-ND 4.0 (Attribution – NoDerivatives 4.0 International)  and does not follow a concrete policy of conducting research. By submitting the article, the author gives the consent to such a form of sharing the text. The authors of the published articles retain their copyrights.