「What is Value?」 – A Framework for Analyzing and Facilitating Entrepreneurial Value Creation
什麼是價值？--一種分析和促進創業價值創造的框架
子謙譯文
英文原文作者：Martin Lackéus 馬丁·拉克烏斯
文章來源：www.idunn.no
翻譯：高文、朱燕空
推薦語
從創業教育理論的演化來看，創業教育的內容與方法一直在更迭。在內容上先後出現了特質論、過程論、認知論與方法論（海迪 M.內克，Heidi M.Neck）以及最新的基於「價值創造」的創業教育。基於「創造新價值」這種創業認知視角，重在學生的創業思維培養，能夠更好地將創業融入教育，實現創業教學的三個匹配（理論與實踐的匹配、學習內容與學習對象的匹配、教學內容與教學方法的匹配），培養出富有創業精神的、能夠創造社會創造價值的接班人。
今年最值得關注的一本書是高瓴資本張磊出版的《價值》。張磊以樂觀主義創業者的心態創立高瓴,堅持價值投資理念,以長期主義和研究驅動發現價值,創造價值。他認為「價值投資已經從只是單純地發現靜態價值向發現動態價值並幫助被投企業創造價值轉化」，「只要是為社會瘋狂創造價值的企業，它的收入、利潤早晚會兌現」；「任何創業都不可能一夜成功，但如果堅持不看短期利潤，甚至不看短期收入，不把掙錢當做唯一重要的事，而把價值觀放在利潤的前面，堅信價值觀是這個企業真正核心的東西，那麼利潤將只是做正確的事情後自然而然的結果。」
2020年，阿里巴巴深陷「偽金融創新」的旋渦；小罐茶風光不在，跌落"神壇"消聲滅跡......只有抓住商業的『根』和『本』，專注創造價值，而非創造概念，就一定能提供有價值的產品和服務。基於「價值創造」的創業教育契合了張磊的觀點，既關注經濟價值，也關注娛樂價值、社會價值、和諧價值和影響力價值；既關注利己的價值，也關注利他的價值。
既不單純關注狹義的創業實踐教育，也不能只談廣義的創業者教育，而更多關注基於價值創造的創業教育。基於「價值創造」的創業教育從核心價值出發，不僅關注人在專業的提升，更強調其在專創融合方面的成長、能力體系培養，實現對整體價值的提升，讓人不僅具備幹事的水平，更要學會成事的能力。這種教育更適合所有的的高校本專科階段的學生和教師共學、共創、共享，所以在大學低年級開設創業教育課程應具體體現在「創業思維層面」，高年級則體現在價值創造層面即創業能力+專創融合。創業教育作為通識必修課也成為更具時代感的教育理論。
ABSTRACT
摘要
Entrepreneurship viewed as new value creation is a perspective gaining ground in entrepreneurial education. Educators have found it to be a helpful approach in order to escape a situation where the two established ways to infuse entrepreneurship into education are both quite problematic. A value creation view on entrepreneurship, however, currently lacks a clear answer to a crucial question: What is value? Responding to this research gap, the article presents a value framework consisting of five different kinds of value: economic, enjoyment, social, harmony and influence value. Each kind of value can be experienced and created both for oneself and for others, thus constituting a total of ten different perspectives on value. This value framework has in practice been useful for teachers working with educational design. It has also been useful for research on assessment of the impact entrepreneurial education has on students, leading to new insights that could improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education. The value framework also casts new light on what entrepreneurship is and why people engage in entrepreneurship. A limitation of the work presented here is the inherent difficulty in conducting a systematic literature review on a term as generic as「value」.
創業被視為一種新的價值創造，是創業教育中一個正在興起的觀點。教育工作者發現，這是一種有用的方法，可以避免將創業融入教育的既定方法所造成的兩種困境的情況的出現。然而，關於創業的價值創造觀這個關鍵問題，到目前還缺乏明確的答案，那就是：什麼是價值？因此針對這一研究空白，本文提出了一個由經濟價值、娛樂價值、社會價值、和諧價值和影響力價值五種不同價值構成的價值框架。每種價值都可以為自己和他人體驗和創造，因此構成了總共十種不同的價值觀。這個價值框架在實踐中對從事教育設計工作的教師非常有用。它對評估創業教育對學生的影響也很有用，可以幫助學生提出新的見解，從而提高創業教育的有效性。價值框架也為什麼是創業以及人們為什麼要從事創業提供了新的解釋。但本文的一個局限性是，在對「價值」這樣的通用術語進行系統的文獻綜述時還存在內在的困難。
Keywords
關鍵詞
entrepreneurship, value creation, entrepreneurship education, enterprise education, valuation studies, economic sociology
創業，價值創造，創業實踐教育，創業者教育，價值評估，經濟社會學
1
INTRODUCTION 導言
There are two established ways to infuse entrepreneurship into education (QAA, 2012; Jones & Iredale, 2010). One approach is called entrepreneurship education, and is based on entrepreneurship being narrowly defined as starting new businesses (Gartner, 1989). The aim of entrepreneurship education is to educate those relatively few students who are interested in business start-ups, i.e. to prepare people to become entrepreneurs. The other established approach to infuse entrepreneurship into education is called enterprise education, and is based on entrepreneurship being more broadly defined as identifying (Shane, 2003) or creating (Sarasvathy, 2001) new opportunities. Here the aim is to develop students』 creativity, self-confidence, sense of initiative, opportunity orientation, uncertainty to lerance and perseverance, i.e. to make people more entrepreneurial (QAA, 2012).
現在有兩種方法可以將創業融入到教育當中去。一種方法被稱為創業實踐教育，其基礎就是狹義地將創業定義為創辦新企業，目的是對那些對創業感興趣、且數量相對較少的學生進行教育，讓他們為成為創業者做好準備。另一種成熟方法稱為創業者教育，它基礎就是將創業更廣泛的定義為發現或創造新機會。它的目的是培養學生的創造力、自信心、主動性、機會導向、對不確定性的寬容和保持毅力的能力，即讓人更具創業精神。
A new third way to infuse entrepreneurship into education has been discussed by researchers in recent years (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman, 2011; Neck & Greene, 2011; Blenker et al., 2011; Lackéus et al., 2016). While this new approach does not have an established term yet, it is here provisionally termed value creation-based entrepreneurial education. It is based on entrepreneurship being defined as new value creation for others (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Moroz & Hindle, 2012). According to Bruyat (1993, p. 69), the greater the novelty of the value created, and the greater the impact the process has on the individual managing it, the more people tend to describe a process as entrepreneurship. Such a view of entrepreneurship is well established among both scholars and practitioners (Gartner, 1990), but has Christian Bruyat and his colleagues (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Bruyat, 1993; Fayolle, 2007), there is little recent work to rely on.
近年來，研究人員討論了將創業融入到教育的第三種新方法，雖然這種新方法還沒有一個確定的術語定義，但在這裡先暫時稱之為基於價值創造的創業教育，它是基於為他人創造新的價值的創業。根據布魯亞特（Bruyat）的說法，創造的價值越新穎，對個人管理的過程所產生的影響就越大，人們就越傾向於把這個過程描述為創業。這種創業觀在學者和實踐者中都得到了很好的確立，但是對克裡斯蒂安·布魯亞特（Christian Bruyat）和他的同事布魯亞特和朱利安來說，最新的研究依據幾乎沒有什麼可依賴的。
The emphasis on learning and personal development in a value creation based view of entrepreneurship makes it particularly relevant to educators. It offers teachers a solution to the troubling dilemma that the two main approaches to infuse entrepreneurship into education are both quite problematic (Lackéus, 2017a). Entrepreneurship education based on a business start-up logic (Gartner, 1989) is problematic for many teachers due to its connotations with capitalism (Rae, 2010).Enterprise education based on an opportunity identification logic (Shane, 2003; QAA, 2012) suffers from fuzziness and weak effects on students (Moberg, 2014; Leffler, 2009). The resulting dilemma where many teachers are caught between two inappropriate alternatives could explain why infusing entrepreneurship into education has remained a challenging and marginal endeavor in practice (Eurydice, 2016; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012).
在以價值創造為基礎的創業觀中，強調學習和個人發展使其與教育工作者產生了很強的關聯性，因為它為老師提供了一個解決困難的方法，即將創業融入教育的兩種主要方法都是相當有問題的。基於商業創業邏輯的創業實踐教育(Gartner, 1989)對許多教師來說是有問題的，因為它的資本主義的內涵(Rae, 2010)；而基於機會識別邏輯的創業者教育的模糊性和對學生的微弱影響，由此而產生的困境，令許多老師被夾在兩個不合適的選擇之間，這也解釋了為什麼將創業和教育融合在實踐中仍然是一個具有挑戰性和仍處於邊緣的原因。
The value creation approach in education is fundamentally about letting students learn by applying their knowledge to create something of value to external stakeholders (Lackéus et al., 2016).Empirical studies have shown that such an approach is capable of escaping the teacher dilemma by allowing for strong development of entrepreneurial competencies, deep integration into the core curriculum and good alignment with many teachers』 humanistic values (Lackéus, 2017a).Yet, as much as this development constitutes a promising path, teachers have also raised a crucial and vexing question that begs for clarification: What is value? If entrepreneurship is claimed to be about new value creation, a clear answer is needed to this question, both within and outside education. The purpose of this article is to attempt to provide exactly that. It is achieved by developing an analytical framework for different kinds of value through a necessarily opportunistic review of literature in economics and sociology. The resulting framework has been deemed useful by scholars analyzing entrepreneurship in education and by teachers attempting to infuse entrepreneurship into education. It remains to be seen whether the framework can be used also to analyze and facilitate entrepreneurship more generally.
教育中的價值創造方法從根本上講就是讓學生通過應用他們的知識來學習，為外部利益相關者創造一些有價值的東西。大量實證研究表明，這種方法能夠通過強大的創業能力發展，深度融入核心課程，並將它與許多教師的人文價值相吻合，從而讓老師擺脫困境。儘管這是一條充滿希望的道路，但老師們也提出了一個至關重要卻又令人煩惱且需要澄清的問題：什麼是價值？如果創業是關於新的價值創造，那麼這個問題需要一個明確的答案，無論是在教育內部還是外部，本文的目的就是試圖回答這一問題。它通過對經濟學和社會學的文獻進行必要的全面的回顧，從而開發出針對不同類型的價值分析框架來實現的，由此產生的框架已經被分析創業教育的學者和試圖將創業融入到教育的老師們認為是有用的，但這個框架是否也能被更廣泛地用於分析和促進創業，還有待觀察。
This article starts with a brief background of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial education and value creation-based entrepreneurial education. This is followed by a literature review of singular and plural conceptions of value, informing the articulation of a framework with five different kinds of value. Finally, some implications for research and practice are summarized.
本文首先簡要介紹了創業實踐、創業教育和基於價值創造的創業教育的背景。接下來是單一和多元價值概念的文獻回顧，一個框架下的五個不同類型的價值。最後，對研究與實踐的啟示進行了總結。
2
BACKGROUND 背景
Entrepreneurship
創業
It has been argued that there are three main research strands in entrepreneurship research (Fayolle, 2007): studying entrepreneurship (1) as the creation of new organizations, (2) as the discovery or creation of opportunities, or (3) as the creation of new value. The new value creation strand has a long history in entrepreneurship research, with roots in work by Cantillon (1755) and Say (1803). Gartner (1990) has empirically identified new value creation as a main focus of entrepreneurship in the subjective views of entrepreneurship researchers, business leaders and politicians. The value creation perspective of entrepreneurship was further developed by Bruyat (1993), who proposed a definition of entrepreneurship based on two dimensions: the novelty of the value created for others, and the resulting impact of the process on the individual. Bruyat presented entrepreneurship as a dialogic between the individual and the new value created. Entrepreneurship is often assumed by many to be primarily about economic value creation (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011). This risks neglecting other kinds of value such as social, ecological, mental and physical value potentially created through entrepreneurial processes (Hindle, 2010). Clarification and widening of the term value in connection to entrepreneurship is necessary in order to advance scholarly work in both entrepreneurship and in education.
有人認為在創業研究中有三個主要的研究方向，研究創業：(1)創建新公司，(2)發現或創造機會，(3)新價值的創造。在創業研究中，新價值創造方向有著悠久的歷史，其根源可以追溯到坎特隆（Cantillon)和薩伊(Say)當時的研究。高德納(Gartner)在創業研究者、商業領袖和政治家的主觀性的觀點中，確定了新價值創造是創業的主要關注點。1993年，布魯亞特（Bruyat）進一步發展了創業的價值創造視角，他從兩個維度對創業進行了定義：為他人創造價值的新穎性，以及在這個過程對個人產生的影響。布魯亞特將創業描述為個人與新創造價值之間的對話。通常許多人認為創業主要是關於經濟價值的創造，但這可能會忽視其他類型的價值，比如通過創業過程可能創造的社會、生態、精神和物質價值，因此明確和擴大與創業相關的術語價值，是推動創業和教育學術工作的必要條件。
Entrepreneurial education
創業教育
The interdisciplinary field occupying the border space between entrepreneurship and education is characterized by two main approaches: a narrow approach termed entrepreneurship education, and a broad approach termed enterprise education (Jones and Iredale, 2010). Entrepreneurship education focuses on developing competencies needed to set up a venture for oneself, and enterprise education is often self-oriented in terms of aiming to develop student self-reliance, self-insight, self-efficacy, creativity, initiative taking and action orientation (QAA, 2012; Mahieu, 2006). In order to avoid the conceptual confusion that two such different approaches could result in, the term『entrepreneurial education』has been proposed as a unifying term for entrepreneurship education and enterprise education (Erkkil, 2000). This unifying term will be used here, instead of the more common but also more confusing term 『enterprise and entrepreneurship education』.
佔據創業和教育之間的跨學科研究主要有兩種類型：狹義的方法稱為創業實踐教育，而廣義的方法稱為創業者教育。創業實踐教育的重點是培養為自己未來創辦企業所需的能力，而創業者教育往往以自我為導向，旨在培養學生的自力更生能力、自我洞察力、自我效能感、創造力、主動性和行動導向的能力。為了避免兩種不同做法可能導致的概念混淆，特提議將「創業教育」一詞作為創業實踐教育和創業者教育的統一術語，而本文將使用這個統一的術語，而不是更常見但也更令人困惑的術語「創業實踐教育和創業者教育」。
Value creation based entrepreneurial education
基於創業教育的價值創造
One of the first—or perhaps the first—entrepreneurial education scholars to focus on entrepreneurship as new value creation was Alain Fayolle. In 2007 he published a book (Fayolle, 2007) containing a translation into English of key parts of Bruyat’s (1993) seminal doctoral dissertation in French, presenting entrepreneurship as a dialogic between the individual and the new value created. Fayolle’s book made a value creation-based view of entrepreneurship more widely available and brought these ideas into the scholarly field of entrepreneurial education. According to Bruyat and Julien (2001), the dialogic system of the individual and the value created is an open system, implying that value creation requires interaction with the surrounding environment. Student interaction with external stakeholders thus constitutes a key recommendation in value creation-based entrepreneurial education.
阿蘭法約爾(Alain Fayolle)或許是第一批將創業作為新的價值創造加以關注的創業教育學者。2007年，他出版了一本書，其中包含了布魯亞特具有開創性的法語博士論文的關鍵部分的英文譯本，將創業作為個人與創造的新價值之間的對話。書中提出了一個基於價值創造的更廣泛應用創業的觀點，並將這些觀點帶入創業教育的學術領域。根據布魯亞特的觀點，個體與價值創造的對話系統是一個開放的系統，這意味著價值創造需要與周圍環境的互動。因此，學生與外部利益相關者的互動構成了基於價值創造的創業教育的重要建議。
The next important step in a value creation-based view of entrepreneurial education came in 2011. Three key contributions were published this year. An attempt to define entrepreneurship as an educationally useful method for value creation was published by Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011, p. 120), stating that value creation tools should be taught on a large scale and become 「an essential part of basic education.」 The same year, Neck and Greene (2011) stated that a focus on methods for value creation represented a new approach to entrepreneurial education. A third article the same year published by Blenker, Korsgaard, Neergaard and Thrane (2011) proposed that entrepreneurial education should be focused on value creation in its broadest sense, as an everyday practice. The following year a definition of entrepreneurial education leaning on value creation was proposed by the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship (Vestergaard et al., 2012, p. 11):
基於價值創造的創業教育的另一個重要時間節點是2011年，當年有三篇關鍵性的文章進行了發表。薩拉斯瓦西（Sarasvathy）和維卡塔拉曼（Venkataraman）發表了一篇文章，試圖將創業定義為一種有助於創造價值的教育方法，指出應該大規模地教授創造價值的工具，並使之成為」基礎教育的重要組成部分」。Neck和Greene指出，對價值創造方法的關注代表了創業教育的一種新方法。而Blenker，Korsgaard，Neergaard和Thrane發表的第三篇文章提出，創業教育應該將重點放在最廣泛意義上的價值創造上，就像日常實踐一樣。就在第二年，丹麥創業基金會提出了基於價值創造的創業教育的定義。
Entrepreneurship Education is defined from a broad understanding of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship is when you act upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into value for others. The value that is created can be financial, cultural, or social.
創業教育的定義來自於對創業的廣泛理解：創業是利用機遇和想法並將它們轉化為對他人有用的價值，它可以是有關經濟的、文化的，或者是社會的。
This definition has, in a relatively short period of time, come to influence both theory and practice around Europe. According to a researcher at the Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship1 , the idea to place value creation at the core of this definition came after Alain Fayolle had visited them and talked about his book from 2007. Based on these developments, and on access to rich empirics from a number of different learning environments, Lackéus, Lundqvist and Williams-Middleton (2016, p. 790) recently proposed a more detailed definition of value creation-based entrepreneurial education: 「[Let] students learn by applying their existing and future competencies to create something preferably novel of value to at least one external stakeholder outside their group, class or school」.
這個定義在較短的時間內，影響了整個歐洲的理論和實踐。據丹麥創業基金會的一位研究人員介紹，將價值創造置於這個定義的核心的想法，是在阿蘭·法約爾(Alain Fayolle)拜訪了他們並談論了他2007年寫的一本書之後提出的。在不斷更新發展的基礎上，以及從一些不同的學習環境中獲得豐富的經驗，lackéus，lundqvist和williams-middleton等人最新提出了一個更詳細的基於價值創造的創業教育的定義：」讓學生通過運用他們現有的和未來的能力來創造一些新的價值，最好是跟他們所處的群體、班級或學校之外的至少一個外部利益相關」。
3
VALUE AND ITS CREATION 價值和創造
The main proponents of the value creation strand in entrepreneurship research have not provided much guidance on the deeper meaning of value and its creation. In their seminal article on entrepreneurship as new value creation, Bruyat and Julien (2001, p. 170) merely stated that they did 「not need to take up this old (and somewhat outmoded) debate」. Fayolle (2007, p. 46) at least hinted that value 「relates to exchanges between market players at prices determined by the market」. Hindle (2010, p. 610) outlined a more pluralistic but equally brief view by stating that 「new value may take many forms: economic, social, monetary, ecological, mental, physical, etc.」 While these views on value might be enough when studying entrepreneurship in isolation, they do not give teachers enough guidance when the purpose is to infuse entrepreneurship, viewed as new value creation, into education. This review of value creation therefore needs to venture outside the field of entrepreneurship.
在創業研究中，價值創造鏈的主要支持者並沒有提供太多關於價值及其創造的深層含義的指導。布魯亞特和朱利安在他們關於創業作為新的價值創造的開創性文章中僅僅表示，「不需要進行這種老式的(有點過時的)辯論」。阿蘭·法約爾至少暗示了價值「與市場參與者之間的交換有關，其價格由市場決定」。亨德爾（Hindle）概述了一種更多元但同樣簡短的觀點，指出」新的價值可以採取多種形式，可以是經濟、社會、貨幣、生態、心理、身體形式等。雖然在單獨研究創業時，這些觀點可能足夠了，但在將被視為新價值創造的創業融入教育時，這些觀點並沒有給予教師足夠的指導。因此，這種對價值創造的回顧需要在創業領域之外進行探索。
The review starts with an overview of singular and plural conceptions of value. The roots of singular conceptions are traced to 18th century economic thought, and the roots of plural conceptions are traced to 20th century sociological thought. These two differing perspectives on value are then summarized and integrated into a value framework.
本文首先對價值的單一和多元概念進行了概述。單一概念的根源可以追溯到18世紀的經濟思想時期，而多元概念的根源可以追溯到20世紀的社會學思想時期。這兩種不同的價值觀被總結並整合成一個新的價值框架。
Value versus values
價值與價值觀
The term 「value」 has been frequently used in the domain of economics. Among classical economists such as Marx (1867), Smith (1776), and Ricardo (1817), there was consensus around a framework of three phases that value progresses: production (or creation), circulation (or trade/exchange) and consumption (or use/destruction) of value (Mirowski, 1991, p. 143). However, value is more elusive as a concept than such simple frameworks would allow us to believe. Sociology scholars have assumed a more pluralistic view of value. In fact, discussions around value could be viewed as divided between economists and sociologists, illustrated by the example of Parson’s Pact, a deal struck between different departments at Harvard University in the middle of the 20th century: 「You, economists, study value; we, the sociologists, will study values」 (Stark, 2011, p. 7). Such a division between singular and plural views of value is ultimately a question of degrees of commensurability, calculability and comparability between different, more or less incommensurable kinds of value (Kornberger et al., 2015; Kjellberg et al., 2013).
「價值」一詞在經濟學領域中經常被使用。在馬克思（Marx)、史密斯(Smith )和李嘉圖(Ricardo )等古典經濟學家中眼中，他們對價值發展的三個階段的框架有一個共識，即： 價值的產生(或創造)、流通(或貿易/交換)和消費(或使用/毀滅)。然而，價值作為一個概念，它比這些簡單的框架更難以讓人捉摸，因此社會學家擬定了一個更加多元化的價值觀。事實上，圍繞價值的討論可以被看作是經濟學家和社會學家之間的分歧，帕森的契約就是一個例子。20世紀中葉，哈佛大學不同部門之間達成了一項協議: 「經濟學家研究經濟學家的價值，社會學家研究社會學家的價值」。單一價值觀和多重價值觀之間的這種劃分歸根結底是一個不同的、或多或少不可通約性價值之間的可通約性、可計算性和可比性程度的問題。
A singular and standardized measure of value is often viewed as a requirement for scientific calculations, for example in economics, where such calculations are used to mathematically determine prices and predict markets (Mirowski, 1991). In any such attempt to arrive at a singular notion of value, there is a logically necessary but at the same time detrimental assumption around assumed stability and conservation of value, leading to major difficulties and inconsistencies. This makes modern economic theories apt for treating mature markets where focus is on routine value creation, prices, consumption and situations of equilibrium, yet less useful for analyzing entrepreneurial value creation, innovation, co-creation and production (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Mirowski, 1991; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Narrow economic value calculations also marginalize and silence other values such as fairness, ecology, equality and the common good (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013; Kjellberg et al., 2013). Economic sociologist Stark (2011, p.6) asks:：What counts? Each of us confronts this question on a daily basis. Faced with decisions involving incommensurable frameworks – work versus family life, career opportunities versus loyalty to friends or attachment to a locality, vacations versus investments for retirement, and so on – we ask ourselves what really counts. What is valuable, and by what measures?
單一和標準化的價值衡量常常被視為科學計算的必要要求，例如在經濟學中，這種數學計算被用於確定價格和預測市場。在任何這種試圖達成單一價值概念的嘗試中，都存在一種邏輯上必要但同時又有損於假定的穩定性和價值守恆的假設，從而導致重大困難和矛盾，這使得現代經濟理論易於處理常規價值創造、價格、消費和均衡情況的成熟市場，而對於分析創業價值創造、創新、共同創造和生產則不是那麼有用。狹義的經濟價值計算也使公平、生態、平等和共同利益等其他價值邊緣化和沉寂。經濟社會學家斯塔克(Stark)問道：什麼才是重要的？我們每個人每天都要面對這個問題。面對涉及到不可衡量框架的決定——工作還是家庭生活、職業機會還是對朋友的忠誠或對某個地方的依戀、度假還是退休投資等這些問題時——我們捫心自問，什麼才是真正重要的。什麼是有價值的，有什麼方法可以來衡量它？
Stark draws on Dewey (1939) to point out the dangers of separating the intellectual from the emotive through dichotomies such as value versus values, economy versus society, calculation versus judgment, or estimate versus esteem. They both state that such separations lead to flawed assumptions around human action and valuation. Stark points to the fact that the term 「worth」 is a bridging term in that it has both an economic and a moral meaning. While semantics does not offer a solution, it helps to illustrate and make us aware of the many false dichotomies at play here. Other bridging terms, such as 「socioeconomics,」 have been proposed to describe new arenas and forms of value creation in today’s society characterized by openness, sharing, co-creation and global networking, which defy singular categorizations of value (Bollier and Pavlovich, 2008). An emerging scholarly field labeled 「valuation studies」 represents an attempt to unite a broad number of scholars from many different disciplines grappling with issues related to value and valuation (for an overview, see Helgesson and Muniesa, 2013).
斯塔克引用杜威(Dewey) 的理論，指出諸如價值與價值觀、經濟與社會、計算與判斷、估計與尊重等二分法將知識分子與情感分離的危險。他們都指出，這種分離會導致圍繞人類行為和價值的錯誤假設。斯塔克指出，「價值」一詞是一個連接術語，因為它既有經濟意義，也有道德意義。雖然語言學沒有提出具體的解決方案，但它說明和讓我們意識到二分法在這裡起的錯誤作用。其他連接術語，如「社會經濟學」，已經被提出用來描述當今社會中以開放、共享、共同創造和全球網絡為特徵的價值創造的新領域和新形式，它們顛覆了單一的價值分類。一個被稱為「估值研究」的新興學術領域試圖將來自許多不同學科的大量學者聯合起來，研究與價值和估值有關的問題。
Value according to economists—a singular view
經濟學家的價值——一個單一的觀點
A common basis for economic views of value is the assumption of homo oeconomicus, i.e. that humans are strictly rational in their daily utility calculations, always aiming to optimize (or at least satisfice) their own interests (Hirshleifer, 1985; Lemke, 2001; Lindenberg, 1990; Ghoshal, 2005). A well-quoted passage in a seminal book by the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith (1776, p. 7), illustrates this well: 「It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest」. Such a utilitarian position was also developed by Bentham (1776, p. ii), who stated that what is deemed valuable should be guided by people’s perceived pleasures and pains, and that society therefore should strive for 「the greatest happiness for the greatest number.」 Economists have conceptualized value in at least three main different ways: as an objective substance inherent in valuable artifacts; as a subjective utility perceived by a consumer, and as a creation process where the ability to create value is determined by various circumstances. They will now be briefly outlined.
經濟價值觀的一個共同基礎是經濟人的假設，即人類在日常效用計算中是完全理性的，總是以最優化（最少的犧牲）為目標。現代經濟學創始人亞當 · 斯密(Adam Smith)在其影響深遠的著作中有一段被廣為引用的話，很好地說明了這一點：「我們期待我們的晚餐，不是出於屠夫、釀酒師或麵包師的仁慈，而是出於他們對自身利益的關心」，邊沁（Bentham）也提出了這種類似的功利主義立場。他指出，被認為有價值的東西應該由人們感知到的快樂和痛苦來引導，因此，社會應該為「最大多數人的最大幸福」而奮鬥。經濟學家至少以三種不同的方式對價值進行了概念化：有價值的工藝品中的客觀實體；消費者所感知的主觀效用；創造價值的能力取決於不同環境的創造過程。現在我們來對它們進行簡單介紹。
Classical economics—value as objective substance
古典經濟學ー客觀實體的價值
The term 「classical economics」 refers to ideas developed by a small but influential group of classical economists in the 18th and 19th centuries. A key theme in classical economics was the substance-based value theories developed by Quesnay (1758), Smith (1776), Ricardo (1817) and Marx (1867). These now largely abandoned value theories all stated that the 「natural」 value of goods was determined by some objectively identifiable substance used for its production, such as corn, stock or labor time (Mirowski, 1991). The shift in the 1870s away from such objective substance theories of value (see next section) was so abrupt that the term 「value」 was deemed too ambiguous, unscientific and dangerous, and therefore abandoned and delegated to 「the dustbin of history by mainstream economics」 (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013, p. 179). The following advice from Jevons (1871) is illustrative of the challenges:
「古典經濟學」是指18世紀和19世紀由一小群有影響力的古典經濟學家發展出來的思想。古典經濟學的一個關鍵主題是由魁奈（Quesnay）、史密斯（Smith）、李嘉圖（Ricardo）和馬克思（Marx）發展的基於實體的價值理論。這些現在基本上被拋棄的價值理論指出，商品的「自然」價值是由其生產的某些客觀實體所決定的，如玉米、庫存或勞動時間。19世紀70年代這種客觀實體價值理論(見下一節)的轉變是如此突然，以至於「價值」一詞被認為過於模糊、不科學和危險的，因此被放棄，並被扔到了「主流經濟學的歷史垃圾箱中去了」。傑文斯（Jevons）以下的建議闡述了這些挑戰。
I must, in the first place, point out the thoroughly ambiguous and unscientific character of the term value. Adam Smith noticed the extreme difference of meaning between value in use and value in exchange; (...) I often detect myself using the word improperly; (...) To avoid all difficulty, I shall discontinue the use of the word Value altogether (Jevons, 1871, p. 81–83)
首先，我必須指出「價值」這個術語的完全模糊和不科學的性質。亞當 · 史密斯（Adam Smith）注意到使用價值和交換價值在意義的極端差異；我經常發現自己用詞不當。為了避免這一切，我決定完全停止使用「價值」這個詞。
The resulting emphasis on demand (i.e. utility) and consequent neglect of supply (i.e. value creation) led, however, to significant limitations in the ability to explain phenomena pertaining to creation of new value (Mirowski, 1991), which is a key topic in entrepreneurship.
然而，由此而產生的對需求(即效用)的強調和對供應(即價值創造)的忽視，導致解釋與創造新價值有關的現象的能力受到重大限制，而這是創業的一個關鍵主題。
Neoclassical and neoliberal economics—value as subjective utility
新古典主義和新自由主義經濟學----主觀效用的價值
Neoclassical economics studies supply and demand under the assumption that markets consist of rational individuals maximizing their own benefit (or that of their firm). Neoliberalism is neoclassical economics turned into politics, asserting that society maximizes well-being of the collective by letting each individual maximize their own benefit (Harvey, 2005). Neoclassical and neoliberal economics both take a similar position to value as that expressed by Smith and Bentham: what is valuable is simply up to the recipient of value to determine—the utility-maximizing consumer exerting her freedom of choice. Here the term used is not「value,」but instead「utility,」semantically and conceptually in line with Bentham’s utilitarianism. This represents a subjective view of value (Meynhardt & von Müller, 2014), and was introduced in the 1870s by Walras (1874), Menger (1871) and Jevons (1871). These theories of value were all, independently of each other, inspired by new discoveries in physics around field energy equations (Mirowski, 1991). They allowed for solving the puzzling discrepancy between the 「natural」 (i.e. objective) value of goods and fluctuating market prices (Meynhardt and von Müller, 2014). The solution was simply to say that the market value is the value of goods, illustrated in mathematical terms as a force field of differing levels of utility, and that there is no such thing as a 「natural」 value of goods. The use of field equations also allowed for unprecedented mathematical precision and complexity in economic calculations of utility, opening up for new levels of analysis,explanation and prediction (Mirowski, 1991).
新古典主義經濟學是在這樣的假設下研究供給和需求：市場是由使自己（或公司）利益最大化的個體組成的。新自由主義是將新古典主義經濟學政治化，主張社會通過讓每個個體實現自身利益最大化來實現集體福祉的最大化。新古典主義和新自由主義經濟學都採取了與史密斯和邊沁所表達的價值相似的立場：價值只是由價值的接受者來決定——效用最大化的消費者行使其自由選擇權。這裡使用的術語不是「價值」，而是「效用」，在語義和概念上都符合邊沁的功利主義。這代表了一種主觀的價值觀 ，並在19世紀70年代由Walras ，Menger 和傑文斯引入。這些價值理論都是相互獨立的，它們的靈感來自於受到場能量方程的物理學啟發而新發現的。它們解決了商品的「自然」(即客觀)價值與波動的市場價格之間令人費解的差異。簡單地說就是，市場價值就是商品的價值，用數學術語表示就是效用程度不同的力場之間不存在商品的」自然」價值這種東西。場方程的使用還為效用的經濟計算帶來了前所未有的數學精度和複雜性，為新的分析、解釋和預測水平開闢了新道路，
Strategic management—value creation as strategic capability
戰略管理----戰略能力的價值創造
A practitioner oriented scholarly field that has embraced the term「value」 is that of strategic management of firms. Normann and Ramirez (1993, p. 65) start a seminal article in the field by stating that「Strategy is the art of creating value.」 Ever since Porter (1985) introduced the idea of analyzing a firm’s 「value chain,」 i.e. the chain of activities that generate value for a firm’s customers, the term value has been widely used by strategic management scholars and practitioners alike (Lopdrup-Hjorth, 2013). According to strategic management literature, there are a number of more or less tangible factors determining a firm’s value creation capacity: activities (Porter, 1985), resources (Wernerfelt, 1984), core competencies (Hamel & Prahalad, 1990), social networks for co-creation (Normann & Ramirez, 1993), dynamic capabilities and intellectual assets (Teece et al., 1997). All these attempts to explore where value comes from could be interpreted as an unexpected revival of ideas from classical economics, since they all try to trace the journey of value through the production system in a manner similar to the abandoned substance value theories (LopdrupHjorth, 2013). In recent work studying an increasingly common co-creation logic, such a linear view of production, exchange and consumption of value however falls apart to some extent. In today’s networked society, it has become increasingly difficult to tell producers of value apart from consumers of value. Social media platforms and banks are particular examples of this (Fuchs, 2012).
一個以實踐為導向的學術領域，已經接受了術語「價值」是企業戰略管理的理念。Normann和Ramirez在這個領域開創性的一篇文章中指出：「戰略是創造價值的藝術。」自從 Porter提出了分析企業「價值鏈」，即為企業客戶創造價值的一系列活動的概念以來，價值這個術語就被戰略管理學者和實踐者廣泛使用。根據戰略管理文獻，有或多或少的有形因素決定了企業價值創造能力：活動、資源、核心競爭力、共同創造的社交網絡、動態能力和智力資產等。所有這些探索價值從何而來的嘗試都可以被解釋為古典經濟學思想的意外復興，因為它們都試圖以類似於被拋棄的物質價值理論的方式來追溯價值通過生產系統的旅程。在最近研究一種日益普遍的共同創造邏輯的工作中，這種對價值的生產、交換和消費的線性觀點卻在某種程度上被推翻了。在今天的網絡社會中，區分價值生產者和價值消費者變得越來越困難，而社交媒體平臺和銀行就是一個特別的例子。
Value according to sociologists—a pluralistic view
社會學家的價值----多元化的觀點
A common basis for sociological views of value is the assumption of homo sociologicus, i.e. that humans are socializing, role-playing, volitional, meaning-seeking and docile individuals acting not only on self-interest but also on advice, social status, and norms and values they perceive in society (Simon, 1993; Lindenberg, 1990; Fehr & Gintis, 2007). Sociological views on value are more pluralistic than economic views. This section will therefore necessarily be an arbitrary selection of value related frameworks and perspectives, included based on their utility for the purpose of this article.
社會學價值觀的一個共同基礎是社會學人的假設，即人是社會化的、角色扮演的、有意志力的、尋求意義的和溫順的個人，其行為不僅基於自身利益，而且還基於他們在社會中感知的建議、地位以及規範和價值觀。社會學的價值觀比經濟學的價值觀更加多元化。因此，本節必然是一個與價值相關的框架和觀點的任意選擇，包括基於他們在本文的目的--實用性。
Economic sociology
經濟社會學
Economic sociology is the study of sociological perspectives on economic phenomena (Smelser & Swedberg, 2005). A key argument in the field is that markets need to be viewed as embedded in society (Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter, 1985). Polanyi claimed that any attempt to disembed markets from society will have disastrous consequences, and that such attempts will trigger dangerous counter-movements such as authoritarianism and fascism (Gemici, 2008; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005; Harvey, 2005). This has positioned economic sociology as an attack on both neoclassical and neoliberal views, united as they are in their view of the free and rational homo oeconomicus outlined above (Peck, 2008; Smelser & Swedberg, 2005). Economic sociology has not advanced only through the work of sociologists (Swedberg, 1990); economists have also made attempts to integrate the two fields of economics and sociology. Amartya Sen has stated that 「we should not fall into the trap of presuming that the assumption of pure self-interest is, in any sense, more elementary than assuming other values」 (Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999, p. xii).
經濟社會學是對經濟現象的社會學觀點的研究。該領域的一個關鍵論點是，市場需要被視為嵌入社會當中去。波蘭尼（Polanyi）聲稱，任何將市場從社會中分離出去的企圖都將產生災難性的後果，這種嘗試將引發危險的反運動，如威權主義和法西斯主義。這將經濟社會學定位為對新古典主義和新自由主義兩種觀點的攻擊，因為它們在上述自由和理性的經濟人觀點中是統一的。經濟社會學不僅僅是通過社會學家的工作取得進步的，而且經濟學家曾經還試圖整合經濟學和社會學這兩個領域。阿瑪蒂亞森(Amartya Sen)曾經說過: 「我們不應該落入這樣的陷阱，即在任何意義上，假定純粹的利己主義者都比假定其他價值觀更基本」。
(Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999, p. xii)。Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) have developed one of the main theoretical frameworks for value analysis in economic sociology. The framework consists of six different 「worlds」 of value. In the 「world of inspiration,」 it is qualities such as creativity, imagination and passion that are valued. In the 「industrial world,」 what is valued is productivity, predictability and performance. The 「market world」 celebrates competition, rationality and desire for scarce goods and self-benefit. In the 「domestic world,」 worth is determined by hierarchies, or relationships between people and their associated esteem. The 「world of fame」 positions value in the number of people who gain their recognition through reliance on 「appearance, stardom and superficiality」 (Boivin & Roch, 2006, p. 411). Finally, the 「civic world」 encapsulates collective common good values such as fairness, democracy and solidarity. These six worlds of value are shown in Table 1 below.
波爾坦斯基（Boltanski）和泰弗諾（Thévenot）開創了經濟社會學價值分析的主要理論框架之一。這個框架由六個不同的價值「世界」組成。在「靈感的世界」中，諸如創造力、想像力和激情這樣的品質是有價值的；在「工業世界」，重視的是生產力、可預測性和表現；「市場世界」崇尚競爭和理性，讚美對稀缺商品和自我利益的渴望；在「家庭世界」中，價值取決於等級制度，或者人與人之間的關係和他們相關的尊重程度；「名人世界」的價值在於通過「表現、明星和膚淺的外表」獲得認可的人的數量。最後，「公民世界」涵蓋了公平、民主和團結等集體利益價值觀。這六個價值世界如下表1所示。
Behavioral economics
行為經濟學
Behavioral economics combines economics with other fields that empirically study human behavior—primarily psychology, but also other fields (Weber & Dawes, 2010). A pioneer in this field was Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who modified the rationality assumption underlying neoclassical economics by stating that rationality is 「bounded」 (i.e. limited) by lack of information, limitations in human cognitive power and the presence of multiple and shifting personal wants (Simon, 2000). According to Simon (1993; 2005), humans respond to this by carefully listening to others』 advice, constantly learning in social settings and internalizing rules of thumb and heuristics that can be used for future decisions on which actions to take. This results in behavior that at times appears altruistic, i.e. helping others with no expected reciprocity, thereby deviating from the mainstream economic assumption of elf-optimizing behavior. Whether it is in fact altruistic, or rather a futureoriented, dynamic and 「intelligent」 form of subtle egoism is a question often discussed by scholars (Batson et al., 2008; Simon, 2005; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981).
行為經濟學結合經濟學和其他領域的實證研究人類行為----主要是心理學，但也包括其他領域。這一領域的先驅者是諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得主赫伯特 · 西蒙(Herbert Simon) ，他修正了新古典主義經濟學的理性假設，指出理性受到信息缺乏、人類認知能力有限以及存在多重和不斷變化的個人需求的「限制」。根據西蒙的研究，人類對此的反應應該是認真聽取他人的建議，在社會環境中不斷學習，內化經驗法則和啟發式教學法，這些經驗法則將來可用於決定採取何種行動。這導致了有時表現為利他主義的行為，即在沒有預期互惠的情況下幫助他人，偏離了自我優化行為的主流經濟學假設。它究竟是一種利他主義，還是一種面向未來、動態的、「聰明」的微妙利己主義形式，成為了學者們經常討論的問題。
A widely applied value framework in behavioral economics has been developed by Sheth, Newman and Gross (1991). They took consumer decisions as a starting point of empirical analysis and ended up with five different values influencing consumer choice: functional, emotional, epistemic, social and conditional value. Functional value refers to consumers』 perceived utility in terms of product function or performance. Emotional value stems from a capacity of products to arouse feelings that consumers value. Epistemic value is based on consumers』 curiosity, novelty, and desire to learn. Social value is derived from utility related to consumers』 participation in groups. Examples include jewelry, clothing, gifts and cars that convey a desirable image to others (Sheth et al., 1991, p. 161). Finally, conditional value depends on needs that arise out of situations such as seasons and cultural events, where consumers would otherwise be at odds with the situation they find themselves in. With its focus on how consumers choose between alternative products, this framework aligns more with the singular view of a self-serving homo oeconomicus. Still, the framework illustrates how consumers combine multiple values to form perceptions of utility. These five consumer values are shown in Table 1 below.
謝斯（Sheth），紐曼（Newman）和Gross提出了一個廣泛應用於行為經濟學的價值框架。他們以消費者決策為實證分析為出發點，最終得出影響消費者選擇的五種不同價值：功能價值、情感價值、認知價值、社會價值和條件價值。功能價值是指消費者對產品功能或性能的感知效用；情感價值是源於產品喚起消費者情感的能力；認知價值是基於消費者的好奇心、新奇感和求知慾；社會價值來源於消費者參與群體的效用；這些例子包括珠寶、服裝、禮物和汽車等，它們可以向他人傳達理想的形象。最後，這個條件價值取決於季節和文化活動等情況下產生的需求，否則消費者將發現與他們自己所處的實際情況不一致。這個框架聚焦於消費者如何選擇替代產品，才能更符合自我主義的經濟人的獨特觀點。儘管如此，這個框架還是說明了消費者如何結合多種價值來形成對效用的認知。這五個消費者價值觀如下表1所示。
Psychology
心理學
Motivation and well-being theories stemming from psychological research constitute one possible starting point in an investigation of what humans find valuable. Fiske (2008) has synthesized the vast literature on motivational research into a framework consisting of five different perspectives. According to Fiske, human motives differ depending on whether we study patients on the psychoanalytic couch, examine our own consciousness, watch students in the classroom, use the computer as a metaphor for cognitive understanding, or study group members in a collective. On the psychoanalytic couch, people appear hedonistically self-focused on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain, in line with utilitarian economics. When studying people’s conscious experiences, they appear optimistic, futureoriented, trust-based and focused on functional potential to get things done, i.e. an emphasis on the emotional enjoyment and flow inherent in human valued activity. In the classroom, the clear-cut incentives in a constructed learning environment make for behavioristic motives based on students』 expectation of achieving a goal and the perceived value of achieving it. When using the computer as a metaphor for researching human cognition, scientists have studied mental and social aspects of how people process information in order to reach a coherent understanding, i.e. aiming to reach a harmonious experience free from individual and collective disharmony and disjuncture. When studying groups, the motives for belonging to a social collective seem endless, ranging from surviving, reproducing and conforming to collectively acting, understanding and sympathizing. These five perspectives in motivation theory are shown in Table 1 below.
源於心理學研究的動機和幸福感理論構成了一個對人類發現有價值的東西進行研究的可能的起點。約翰·費斯克（Fiske）綜合了大量關於動機研究的文獻，形成了一個由五個不同視角組成的框架。根據費斯克的研究，人類動機的不同取決於我們是否在為病人做心理分析，檢查我們自己的意識、在課堂上觀察學生、用計算機作為認知理解的隱喻，或在集體中研究小組成員。在做心裡分析時，人們表現出一種享樂主義的自我關注，專注於最大化快樂和避免痛苦，這與功利主義經濟學是一致的；在研究人們的意識體驗時，他們表現出樂觀、面向未來，以信任為基礎，關注完成事情的潛力，即強調人的價值活動所固有的情感享受和流動；在課堂教學中，構建一個學習環境中，明確的動機促成了學生對實現目標的期望和價值的感知，進而形成了行為動機；當使用計算機作為研究人類認知的隱喻時，科學家們研究了人們如何處理信息的心理，以便達成一致的理解，即旨在達到一種擺脫個人和集體不和諧和分離的和諧體驗；當研究群體時，歸屬於一個社會集體的動機似乎是無窮無盡的，從生存、繁衍和到集體行動、理解和同情。動機理論中的這五個觀點如下表1所示。
Another value framework anchored in psychology has been developed by Seligman (2012), consisting of five measurable elements of subjective well-being; positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and achievement. Positive emotion is interpreted as a mood induced by a pleasant life. Engagement is interpreted as being in 「flow,」 being completely absorbed by a task and losing track of time. Relationships are interpreted as meaningful experiences shared with other people, often in close and long-term relationships. Meaning is interpreted as belonging to and serving something that is bigger than the self, often despite its sometimes detrimental impact on other elements in the framework. Achievement is interpreted as achieving one’s goals solely for their own sake, isolated from any eventual resulting impact on the four other elements of the framework, i.e. winning just for the sake of winning. These five elements of well-being are shown in Table 1 below.
馬丁·塞利格曼（Seligman）提出了另一個以心理學為基礎的價值框架，它包括主觀幸福感的五個可測量元素：積極的情緒、參與、關係、意義和成就因素。積極情緒是指由愉快的生活引起的情緒；參與情緒是處於一種「流動」狀態，完全沉浸在任務中，忘記了時間；關係因素是與他人分享的有意義的經歷，通常是在親密和長期的關係中；意義因素是為屬於並服務於比自我更重要的東西，儘管它有時會對框架中的其他元素產生不利影響；成就因素是指完全為了自己的目標，與框架中其他四個因素的任何最終影響相無關，即僅僅是為了成功而成功。幸福的這五個要素如下表1所示。
Entrepreneurship
創業
Given the centrality of value creation to entrepreneurship (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; Moroz & Hindle, 2012), it is reasonable to expect that all the previously outlined perspectives on value have already been discussed to some extent by entrepreneurship scholars. The most obvious kind of value associated to entrepreneurship would arguably be economic value. Indeed, Korsgaard and Anderson (2011) state that it is even taken for granted in entrepreneurship. Social value is another major theme in entrepreneurship research, illustrated by a focus on social entrepreneurship (Tan et al., 2005). A less obvious value was put forward by Schumpeter (1934) in the early 20th century, proposing the joy of creating to be an important value for people acting entrepreneurially (Goss, 2005). While a quest for harmony through a search for disharmonies in one’s everyday life is perhaps not a common theme in entrepreneurship research, it has been proposed as a useful and theoretically wellgrounded view of entrepreneurship for educational purposes (Thrane et al., 2016). A fame and achievement oriented view of entrepreneurship as societal change through economic or political history-making has also been proposed in an influential book by Spinosa et al. (1999). These five perspectives on entrepreneurship are shown in Table 1 below.
鑑於價值創造對創業的核心作用，有理由可以預測之前概述的關於價值的所有觀點在一定程度上已經被創業學者討論過。與創業最相關的一種最明顯的價值可以說是經濟價值了。事實上，Korsgaard 和 Anderson 指出，在創業中，這甚至是理所當然的。社會價值是創業研究的另一個重要主題，以社會創業為例，熊彼特在20世紀早期提出了一個不太明顯的價值，認為創造的樂趣是人們創業行為的一個重要價值。雖然通過尋找日常生活中的不和諧來尋求和諧可能不是創業研究的共同主題，但也有人提出，這是一個有用的、理論上有充分根據的觀點，可以用於教育目的的創業。Thrane et al。Spinosa 等人在1999年出版的一本有影響力的書中也提出了一種以名譽和成就為導向的觀點，認為創業是通過經濟或政治歷史改變社會的。下面的表1顯示了這五個關於創業的觀點。
Table 1. Five prototypic kinds of value creation derived from sociological theories.
Notes: a (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006), b (Sheth et al., 1991), c (Fiske, 2008), d (Seligman, 2012), e (Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011), f (Spinosa et al., 1999), g (Goss, 2005), h (Tan et al., 2005), i (Blenker et al., 2011)
Value creation for oneself versus for others
價值創造：為自己與為他人
A key theme emerging from the value literature review is for whom value is created: for oneself versus for others. The scale stretches from Smith’s (1776) famous assertion that the butcher acts solely on self-interest, through Sen’s claim (Ben-Ner & Putterman, 1999) that such an assumption so common in neoclassical economic thinking is in fact a trap, to Simon’s (2005) explanation that the frequent occurrence of altruism in social and economic everyday life comes from people’s strong desires to learn from, belong to, contribute to and develop relations with other human beings. Since space here does not permit a lengthy discussion on altruism versus egoism, some key conclusions from an article by Lackéus (2017b) on this topic will be used to complement the value framework. Instead of making a futile attempt to disentangle doing good from doing well, the differing perspectives will instead be viewed in a Hegelian dialectical way: as two sides of the same coin. Hegel labeled this 『sublation』, implying a unity of opposites without eliminating or reducing either end position (Hegel, 1807/1977; Palm, 2009). In the resulting value framework in Figure 1 this unity of opposites is therefore illustrated graphically with the yin and yang shape found in Chinese thinking, representing 「two primal, separate standing, yet complementary forces found in all things」 (Chen et al., 2010, p. 175). This view also aligns with arguments put forward by Dewey (1939), Polanyi (1944) and Stark (2011), all stating that disembedding and dichotomizing self-oriented value creation from others-oriented value creation is a detrimental and dangerous path to take.
價值文獻綜述中出現的一個關鍵主題，是：價值是為誰而創建的， 為自己還是為他人？從史密斯的著名斷言——屠夫的行為完全出於自身利益，到森(Sen)的說法：這種假設在新古典經濟思想裡，實際上就是一個陷阱。再到西蒙的解釋——利他主義之所以在社會和經濟日常生活中頻繁出現，是源於人們強烈的向他人學習、歸屬和促進、發展與其他人的關係的原因。由於篇幅有限，無法就利他主義與利己主義進行冗長的討論，因此特引用lack éus一篇文章中的關於這一主題的一些關鍵結論來補充價值框架。不同的觀點可以用黑格爾（Hegelian）的辯證方式來看待，而不是徒勞地試圖將行善與做得好來區分：就像同一枚硬幣的兩面一樣。黑格爾給這個「分離」貼上標籤，意味著對立和統一，且不消除或減少任何一端的位置。因此，在圖1的結果價值框架中，這種對立統一被生動地用中國人思維中的陰陽形態表示出來，代表了「萬物中存在的兩種原始的、獨立的、但又互補的力量」。這一觀點也與杜威、波蘭尼和斯塔克提出的觀點一致，他們都認為將自我導向的價值創造與他人導向的價值創造相分離是一種有害而危險的做法。
Figure 1. Framework for five different kinds of value.
Notes: 1: Korsgaard & Anderson, 2011; Goss, 2005; Tan et al., 2005; Blenker et al., 2012; Spinosa et al., 1999.
2: Fiske, 2008; Seligman, 2012; Frankl, 1985. 3: Sheth et al., 1991. 4: Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991.
Five prototypic kinds of value creation
價值創造的五種原型
The literature review conducted here has resulted in five main kinds of value, see Table 1. While the literature could be summarized as consisting of more, less or indeed other kinds of prototypic value than the ones shown in Table 1, the table nevertheless illustrates that opting for these five main kinds of value creation captures most perspectives in a reasonably consistent way. The five kinds are labeled as follows: economic, enjoyment, social, harmony and influence value creation. Economic value creation could be viewed as primarily self-oriented attempts to create value for oneself by delivering what others want. Enjoyment value creation could be viewed as value creation just for the pure joy and fun of it. Social value creation could be viewed as a others-oriented kind of value creation focused on making other people happier or relieving their suffering. Harmony value creation could be viewed as value creation that makes more sense as a whole, culturally or in relation to collective values such as fairness, ecology, equality and the common good. Influence value creation could be viewed as creating value in order to increase one’s influence, power or historical legacy.
本文進行的文獻綜述得出了五種主要的價值，見表1。雖然文獻可以歸納出比表1更多、更少或包含其他類型的原型價值，但該表還是能說明，這五種主要類型的價值創造可以以合理一致的方式抓住了大多數觀點。這五種類型分別為： 經濟價值，娛樂價值，社會價值，和諧價值和影響價值。經濟價值可以被看作是主要以自我為導向的嘗試，通過滿足他人的需求來為自己創造價值；娛樂價值純粹是為了娛樂而創造的價值；社會價值是一種以他人為導向的價值創造，專注於讓他人更快樂或減輕他們的痛苦；和諧價值在是在整體上、文化上或與公平、生態、平等和共同利益等集體價值有關的、更有意義的價值創造；影響力價值可以看作是為了增加自己的影響力、權力或歷史遺產而來的創造價值。
Towards a value framework
邁向價值框架
While Table 1 clarifies the relationship between different views on value, it does not show how the five different kinds of value relate to egoistic vs altruistic perspectives, or how singular and plural conceptions of value relate to each other. Therefore, a graphical representation of the five different kinds of value is shown in Figure 1, showing how the pluralistic views on value discussed in section 3.3 integrate with the singular view on value discussed in section 3.2. The five different kinds of value creation from Table 1 are illustrated in Figure 1. All five kinds of value are pictured as relying on a common integrated core of value for oneself and for others. Figure 1 thus contains ten different value perspectives: an egoistic and an altruistic take on each of the five different kinds of value. While the usual view on economic value would be to think of it in terms of economic value for oneself, the framework illustrates that economic value can be created also for others. Social value can be created not only for others, but also for oneself. The white line in Figure 1 illustrates a key point made by Polanyi (1944) and Granovetter (1985) around economic value being embedded in society as a whole, and serves here as a reminder of the risks associated with disembedding economic value for oneself from the nine other perspectives on value.
雖然表1闡明了不同價值觀之間的關係，但它沒有說明五種不同的價值觀是如何與利己主義和利他主義的觀點相聯繫的，或者單一和多元的價值觀之間是如何相互聯繫的。因此用圖1----五種不同類型價值的圖形----來顯示多元價值觀是如何與單一價值觀相結合的。表1中的五種不同類型的價值創造如圖1所示。所有五種價值被描繪為依賴於一個共同的、為自己和為他人的綜合的核心價值。因此，圖1就包含了十種不同的價值觀: 利己主義和利他主義對五種不同價值觀的每一種都有不同的看法。雖然經濟價值的觀點通常是認為它的經濟價值是為自己的，但這個框架卻說明了，經濟價值也是可以為他人創造的。社會價值不僅可以為他人創造，也可以為自己創造。圖1中的白線說明了Polanyi 和Granovetter提出的一個關鍵點，即經濟價值作為一個整體嵌入社會中，並在此提醒人們從其他九個關於價值的觀點中剝離自己的經濟價值所帶來的風險。
4
DISCUSSION 討論
The resulting value framework will now be discussed in relation to three different fields: entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurship and valuation studies. Each sub-discussion will treat issues of novelty, usefulness and implications separately for the field in question.
現在將結合三個不同領域討論由此產生的價值框架: 創業教育、創業和估值研究。每個子討論將分別針對所討論的領域處理那些具有新穎性、實用性和影響力的問題。
The value framework in relation to entrepreneurial education
與創業教育相關的價值框架
This exploration into different views of value started as a quest for answers to a simple question posed by teachers. The answer now provided is summarized in the framework in Figure 1, representing one possible and relatively clear answer to that question: What is value? There are at least ten different perspectives teachers can take on value: five self-oriented and five others-oriented. While the framework could give the impression that they are all separate, the literature review has emphasized the importance of regarding all ten perspectives as simultaneously present in all entrepreneurial experiences, albeit to a varying degree for different people and in different situations. All ten perspectives could probably be present to some extent in one single day of the life of a business or student entrepreneur, with the emphasis changing hour by hour or even minute by minute, depending on how the day unfolds.
這種對不同價值觀的探索始於對教師提出的一個簡單問題的回答。現在提供的答案都總結在圖1的框架中，代表了對這個問題的一個可能且相對清晰的回答: 什麼是價值？老師們對價值至少有十種不同的看法: 五種以自我為中心，五種以他人為中心。雖然該框架可能給人留下它們都是相對獨立的印象，但文獻綜述強調必須考慮在所有創業經歷活動中同時存在十種不同的觀點的重要性，儘管對於不同的人和不同的情況而言，只是程度各不相同而已。所有這十種觀點都可能在某種程度上出現在一個企業或學生創業者一天的生活中，不管它是隨小時變化，還是隨分鐘變化，這取決於他的一天是如何展開的。
While Figure 1 is indeed a simplification, the broad and interdisciplinary literature review conducted here illustrates the usefulness of a heuristic that can summarize such a complex term as 「value」 into one single graphical representation. For teachers who need such an overview in order to be able to apply value creation based entrepreneurial education in their teaching, such a simplification could be important. Initial testing of the framework on teachers taking part in professional development activities has confirmed this. The value framework frequently triggered a deeper understanding among teachers. It also helped them in designing value creation assignments for their students by making explicit different possible starting points. The framework has also facilitated scholarly assessment of entrepreneurial education, allowing for detailed comparisons of different kinds of entrepreneurial education along dimensions not previously taken into account (Lackéus, 2017a). An interesting finding from these comparisons is that enjoyment value for others and influence value for oneself seem to be particularly powerful for students in entrepreneurial education. The framework has thus emerged as a useful tool for both practitioners and researchers in recent attempts to develop value creation-based entrepreneurial education. While certainly not the first value framework to be presented, it is particularly suited for issues related to value creation based entrepreneurial education.
雖然圖1的確是一個簡化形式，但是這裡進行的廣泛和跨學科的文獻綜述說明了啟發式教學方法的有用性，這種方法可以將諸如「價值」這樣的複雜術語總結為一個單一的圖形表示。對於需要這種概覽的教師來說，這樣一種簡化是很重要的，因為他們需要這樣一種概覽，以便能夠將基於價值創造的創業教育應用到他們的教學當中去，教師參與專業發展活動的框架的初步測試證實了這一點。這種價值框架還經常引發教師之間更深層次的理解。它還通過明確不同的可能出發點，幫助他們為學生設計有關價值創造的作業。該框架還促進了對創業教育的學術評估，允許以之前從未考慮過的維度，對不同類型的創業教育進行詳細比較。在這些比較中，老師們發現了一個有趣的現象：他人的娛樂價值和自身的影響價值似乎對正在接受創業教育的學生來說影響力特別大。因此，在最近發展基於價值創造的創業教育的嘗試中，這個框架已經成為實踐者和研究者的一個有用工具，儘管它不是第一個被提出的價值框架，但是特別適合於與基於價值創造的創業教育相關的問題。
The value framework in relation to entrepreneurship
和創業有關的價值框架
The framework in Figure 1 could also be viewed as an answer to a modified question that is more general: If entrepreneurship is about new value creation, what, then, is value? The answer provided by Figure 1 could thus trigger new perspectives on entrepreneurship, departing from the common dualistic view of social versus economic entrepreneurship (cf. Austin et al., 2006). A view of entrepreneurship as consisting of ten different perspectives as shown in Figure 1 is more pluralistic, allowing for ten fundamentally different but at the same time integrated motives to engage in entrepreneurship. The value framework thus contributes to a deeper understanding of what entrepreneurship is, and why people engage in entrepreneurship. This also implies a need to avoid separating out social entrepreneurship as one distinct kind of entrepreneurship, since such an act could represent a dangerous disembedding of the market from the society (cf. Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter,1985) or a risky dichotomization of value versus values (Stark, 2011cf. ; Dewey, 1939). Since the framework has not yet been tested outside the field of entrepreneurial education, it remains to be seen if it could be used to analyze and facilitate entrepreneurial processes more in general. This represents a possibility for future work.
圖1中的框架也可以被看作是對一個修改過、更普遍的問題的回答: 如果創業是關於新的價值創造，那麼到底什麼才是價值？因此，圖1提供的答案可能引發關於創業的新觀點，偏離了社會創業與經濟創業的共同二元觀點。而正如圖1所示的，由十個不同的視角組成的創業觀點，會更加的多元化，它允許在創業中有十個根本不同但同時又經過整合的動機。因此，價值框架有助於人們更深入地理解什麼是創業，以及為什麼人們要創業。這也意味著需要避免將社會創業作為一種獨特的創業加以區分，因為這種行為可能意味著市場與社會的危險分離或價值與價值觀的危險二分法。由於該框架尚未在創業教育領域之外進行過測試，它是否能夠更廣泛地用於分析和促進創業進程還有待觀察，但它代表了未來工作的一種可能性。
The value framework in relation to valuation studies
與價值觀研究有關的價值框架
The framework in Figure 1 represents an alternative to the dualistic Parson’s Pact-based view of separating value from values (Stark, 2011), since economic value for oneself is part of an integrated pluralistic framework rather than put against other kinds of value. The framework also summarizes graphically some important points made by key valuation scholars, such as the importance of viewing multiple kinds of value as simultaneously integrated (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006), the importance of considering both egoistic and altruistic perspectives on value (Simon, 1993) and the risk of disembedding economic value for oneself from the nine other perspectives on value presented here (Stark, 2011; Granovetter, 1985). This summarizing capacity of Figure 1 makes it useful as a graphical heuristic also in valuation studies. Figure 1 could also be one of the first meta-frameworks of value to be proposed, summarizing four established sociological value frameworks and five different kinds of entrepreneurship into one single framework that also integrates singular perspectives on value. The many established and well-researched frameworks and publications informing the articulation of Figure 1 increase the likelihood that it covers most of the essential perspectives on value to be found.
圖1的框架還代表了另一種基於多元的帕森的契約的將價值與價值觀分離的另一種選擇，因為自身的經濟價值是整合了多元化框架的一部分，而不是與其他類型的價值相對立。該框架還圖形化地總結了由主要價值評估學者提出的一些重要觀點，例如同時整合多種價值的重要性，考慮利己主義和利他主義價值觀的重要性，以及從其他9種價值觀中剝離自身經濟價值的風險。圖1的這種圖形啟發式教學方法在估值研究中也很有用。圖1也可以是擬議的第一批價值元框架之一，它將四個既定的社會學價值框架和五種不同類型的創業概括為一個單一的框架，該框架還將單一的價值觀點納入其中。圖1借鑑了許多既定的、經過充分研究的框架和出版物的闡述，增大了它涵蓋大多數關於價值的基本觀點的可能性。
Limitations
局限性
Any research endeavor spanning centuries of literature in many scholarly fields runs the risk of overlooking fundamental work, rendering the end result less trustworthy. The literature review conducted here was also not conducted in a structured or even semi-structured manner. Such an endeavor would probably be difficult to undertake given the broad use of the term 「value」. Any search in scientific databases for such a broad term would render a useless breadth of results. Faced with these semantic and methodological difficulties, the author has chosen a pragmatic path of presenting the results so far from this admittedly eclectic and opportunistic literature review, letting future applications and interactions inform around the usefulness and trustworthiness of Figure 1.
在許多學術領域，任何跨越幾個世紀的文獻研究都存在忽視基礎工作的風險，使最終結果變得不是那麼可靠。本文的文獻綜述也不是以結構化甚至半結構化的方式進行的。因此，鑑於「價值」一詞的廣泛使用，這樣的努力可能難以進行下去。任何在科學資料庫中搜索如此廣泛的術語的努力都可能得到很多無用的結果。面對這些語義和方法上的困難，作者選擇了一條務實的途徑來展示這個公認的折衷和機會主義的文獻綜述迄今為止的結果，讓未來的應用和交互圍繞圖1的有用性和可信度展示信息。
最新課表
點擊