Here is a portion of the essay from Thomson Reuters:
In the first half of the 20th century, the role of the entrepreneur as a dynamic force in the economy received comparatively little academic attention. This began to change in 1968, when William J. Baumol, then of Princeton University, published “Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory, American Economic Review, 58 (2): 64-71 (about 200 citations to date in the Web of Science). Over his long career, Baumol has made influential and highly cited contributions over a range of topics, but his consistent study of entrepreneurism earned him special recognition in 2003, when he received the International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research of Sweden. He was honored for “his early formulation of a competition policy emphasizing the disciplinary effect of dynamic entrepreneurship.” Baumol’s most-cited article on this topic was published in 1990: “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive,” Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5): 893-921 (some 700 citations to date).
If a Nobel Prize is to be awarded for research on entrepreneurship, it would be difficult to imagine that it would not also recognize Israel M. Kirzner of New York University. Kirzner’s most-cited article, published in 1997, is “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach,” Journal of Economic Literature, 35 (1): 60-85, which has been cited nearly 600 times in the Web of Science. Even more cited is Kirzner’s 1973 book Competition and Entrepreneurship(University of Chicago), which has attracted more than 1,300 citations. In this book, Kirzner argues that neoclassical economic descriptions do not sufficiently recognize the role of the entrepreneur as the source of dynamic market adjustment processes."
Predicting Nobel prizes is not exactly a science, but a prize for entrepreneurship would certainly be welcome. Economic historians have for some time focused attention on an entrepreneurial alertness to opportunity (for a leading example, see David Landes' classic The Unbound Prometheus) to explain the remarkable birth of the modern world. Such attention seems warranted in explaining why England industrialized; according to Landes (p. 54), "Nowhere was the response to profit and loss so rapid; nowhere did entrepreneurial decisions less reflect non-rational considerations of prestige and habit." Perhaps this year the profession will acknowledge what seems to be a central driving force in the development of modern economies.