Professor Bruni, in your an article published in Nuova Umanità you offer a very unique description of the entrepreneur. Can you explain where the figures of the investor, manager and speculator have become confused with that of the entrepreneur innovator? Much has to do with the financial revolution that has affected the economy (praxis and theory) over the past twenty years . . . due to globalisation. The West has slowed its growth, but has not wanted to reduce its consumption. With new technical instruments, creative finance then promised a growth phase in consumption without growth in revenue. The result was that many entrepreneurs were transformed into speculators, thinking of making profit through speculation, stepping outside of their traditional sector and calling. A second reason was the standardization of business cultures on the trail of a strong force in Anglo Saxon culture. The European and Italian tradition of business administration were characterized by a strong attention to the communitarian and social dimension, because of the presence of a Catholic-communitarian paradigm. This, along with the primary causes of the financial revolution, caused managers to assume an ever more central role in the big corporations, at the expense of traditional entrepreneurs. Nowadays there is an enormous need to launch a new season of entrepreneurship, if we want to come out of this crisis, and reduce the burden of speculators. Beginning with Schumpter’s theory of economic development, you describe the market as a “righteous relay” between innovation and imitation (. . .) but the profit, for the innovator, is essentially limited to the amount of time that elapses between the innovation and the imitation. What can be done to avoid that such a “righteous relay” will generate reciprocal damage between businesses?     Here politics plays an important role and, in general, the institutions, which, through appropriate regulations to protect  competition and the proper functioning of the markets, see to it that the relay is virtuous and not vicious. But a co-essential role is carried out by civil society, the citizen-consumers who with their buying choices must reward those businesses that have acted ethically, and “punish” (by changing businesses) those with predatory and aggressive attitudes. The market functions and produces fruits for society when it has a proper relationship with the institutions and with civil society. Finally you outline the characteristics of “civil competition” in which competition is not played out, Company A against Company B to avoid Client C, but on the basis of Company A for Client C and Company B for Client C. Could you explain the positive effects that this different way of seeing competition produces? What examples of “civil competition” can you give us? In the first place it helps to give a different tone to market trading. Our reading and descriptions of the world are very important for the behaviors. If I read the market to be a battle that must be won, when I go to trade on the market, or also at work, I tend to approach it with a mental and spiritual attitude that very much influences the results that I obtain and the happiness (or unhappiness) that I experience. If instead I see the market as a grand network of cooperative relations, I promotes creation of relational goods even during “economic” moments of my life, and individual and collective happiness grows. Moreover, reading the market as cooperation is closer to the vision of the great classical figures of economic history (Smith, Mill, Einaudi and, nowadays, Sen or Hirschman) and it is closer to what millions of people experience every day, working and exchanging not only in the field of social economy.