-
Title
-
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
-
Author
-
Ruef, Martin
-
Research Area
-
Social Institutions
-
Topic
-
Complex Organizations and Bureaucracies
-
Abstract
-
Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a growing body of scholarship that investigates the social context, processes, and consequences of entrepreneurship. Despite—or, perhaps, because of—the conceptual vagueness around the definition of the entrepreneur, this topic has attracted attention from a wide range of interdisciplinary scholars and has been applied to a variety of entrepreneurial activities among businesses, nonprofits, social movements, and public sector initiatives. This review begins with three views of entrepreneurs that are rooted in classical scholarship, conceptualizing them as innovators, autonomy seekers, and organizers. It then analyzes the mechanisms that link these views to entrepreneurial outcomes at different levels of analysis. Scholarship on social networks examines how the structure of relations may transmit new ideas, encourage freedom from interpersonal constraint, and produce social support for organizing. Research on career structures considers how past organizational contexts tend to augment or decrease entrepreneurial propensities. Studies of organizational populations and regions address when the ecology of those contexts allows entrepreneurs to carve out a new niche, despite competition from incumbents. The review concludes with suggestions for improving research methodology and the representativeness of social contexts in the study of entrepreneurship.
-
Related Essays
-
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
-
The Public Nature of Private Property (Sociology), Debbie Becher
-
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus Schöemann and Rolf Becker
-
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
-
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
-
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan State
-
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
-
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis and Johan S. G. Chu
-
Financialization of the US Economy (Sociology), Gerald (Jerry) F. Davis and Suntae Kim
-
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank Dobbin
-
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
-
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor Orosz
-
Innovation (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
-
Search and Learning in Markets (Economics), Philipp Kircher
-
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
-
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
-
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson
-
Identifier
-
etrds0313
-
extracted text
-
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
MARTIN RUEF
Abstract
Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a growing body of scholarship that investigates
the social context, processes, and consequences of entrepreneurship. Despite—or,
perhaps, because of—the conceptual vagueness around the definition of the
entrepreneur, this topic has attracted attention from a wide range of interdisciplinary scholars and has been applied to a variety of entrepreneurial activities
among businesses, nonprofits, social movements, and public sector initiatives.
This review begins with three views of entrepreneurs that are rooted in classical
scholarship, conceptualizing them as innovators, autonomy seekers, and organizers. It then analyzes the mechanisms that link these views to entrepreneurial
outcomes at different levels of analysis. Scholarship on social networks examines
how the structure of relations may transmit new ideas, encourage freedom from
interpersonal constraint, and produce social support for organizing. Research on
career structures considers how past organizational contexts tend to augment or
decrease entrepreneurial propensities. Studies of organizational populations and
regions address when the ecology of those contexts allows entrepreneurs to carve
out a new niche, despite competition from incumbents. The review concludes with
suggestions for improving research methodology and the representativeness of
social contexts in the study of entrepreneurship.
INTRODUCTION
The sociology of entrepreneurship addresses the context, process, and effects
of novelty. “Entrepreneurship,” within this perspective, can be interpreted
narrowly to refer to a purposive set of actions that lead to the creation of a
new organization or a new technology, or, more generally, as any endeavor
that seeks to generate durable change in social routines, structures, or institutions. The sociological study of entrepreneurship is thus related to theories
of agency, but it tends to be less abstract and sweeping in its approach. It also
differs from related work in psychology or economics insofar as it targets
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
mechanisms that operate above the level of the individual and complements
the common emphasis on material aspects of entrepreneurial activity with
attention to its interpersonal and cultural dimensions.
One challenge in studying entrepreneurship from a sociological perspective is that there are multiple (and sometimes conflicting) conceptualizations
of the phenomenon in classical and contemporary scholarship. Some sociologists focus on entrepreneurial activity as a matter of social or economic
innovation. Others emphasize the act of creating a new formal organization,
whether it involves innovation or the mundane reproduction of existing
routines and competencies (as is the case in many business franchises).
Yet other scholars highlight aspects that range from risk-bearing and
autonomy-seeking behavior to actions that transform institutions or create
networks that can be mobilized toward a common goal. Complicating the
conceptual vagueness of “entrepreneurship,” business media and political
discourse offer their own interpretations of the phenomenon, which often
hinge on hagiographic portrayals of specific business leaders or social
entrepreneurs.
A second central challenge in sociological scholarship on entrepreneurship is that can be pursued at multiple levels of analysis. The object
of entrepreneurship may itself vary from an artifact or idea or enterprise to an industry or movement or social institution. The mechanisms
of entrepreneurship identified among sociologists range similarly from
the micro- to the macro-level. Some observers emphasize micro-level
mechanisms involving the interpersonal networks or social identity of an
entrepreneur. Others target their inquiry at features of organizational structure or culture that may serve to encourage or discourage entrepreneurial
action. At the most macro-level, scholars seek to understand when the
attributes of an industry, an organizational field, or a society are likely to
promote entrepreneurship and how those attributes become imprinted
on the entrepreneurial endeavor, even in the face of subsequent social
change.
This review begins with foundational work in sociology and economics
that has deployed three distinct definitions of entrepreneurship, considering
it as an act of innovation, autonomy, or organizing. It then moves to current
research that tackles these conceptions from different levels of analysis, with
a particular emphasis on the role of interpersonal networks, organizational
structures, and the ecology of organizations and regions. The concluding
section considers how scholars can advance work on entrepreneurship
by modeling social context as being endogenous to entrepreneurial
activity and by examining contexts that differ from the high-tech,
high-growth industries that tend to be highlighted in contemporary media
accounts.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
3
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
INNOVATION
The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1942, p. 132) famously declared that
“the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern
of production,” thus initiating an extensive stream of work that equates
entrepreneurship with innovation. For Schumpeter himself, the essential
feature of such innovation was the combination of existing methods or technologies in new and unexpected ways. The innovation could involve a novel
product or service, a new method of production, distribution, or marketing,
or entry into an unexploited market niche. Schumpeter’s heterodox view of
economics held that the entrepreneur was the source of disequilibrium in
markets, contributing to the “creative destruction” of incumbent firms and
technologies. Sociologists often extend Schumpeter’s conception to include
social innovations that fall outside the realm of business, such as those
undertaken by social movements, nonprofit organizations, or the state.
AUTONOMY
In contrast to Schumpeter, the German sociologist Max Weber did not view
the defining role of the entrepreneur as related to innovation, but to his or her
relative immunity from the constraints of bureaucratic organization. Within
Weber’s typology of authority structures, it was only the entrepreneur who
could lay claim to autonomy from the dictates of formal rules and hierarchy. The importance of autonomy, in this view, extended not only to specific
organizational environments but also to cultural traditions and sources of
socialization that impeded the development of entrepreneurial capitalism.
This conception of entrepreneurship has been picked up to some extent by
sociologists who study entrepreneurship in terms of self-employment and
entrepreneurial personalities. It is also central to a rich body of empirical
work which considers whether employment in large, bureaucratic settings
produces a taste for autonomy and, thus, a propensity toward entrepreneurship (Sørensen & Fassiotto, 2011).
ORGANIZING
A final conception of entrepreneurship emphasizes the actions and risks
involved in creating a new organization. Although one can trace its origins
back to the work of enlightenment economists, such as Richard Cantillon
and Jean-Baptiste Say, the sociological embrace of this conception is of more
recent vintage than either the Schumpeterian or Weberian definitions. Nevertheless, the idea that entrepreneurship involves instances of organizational
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
founding has become widespread since the 1970s, especially for scholars
employing an evolutionary or ecological perspective. These theories tend
to investigate the success and rate of organizational founding as a function
of broader societal forces that promote competition among organizations
and the legitimation of particular organizational forms. A separate stream
of analytical work in politics and economics also emphasizes the challenges
of organizing, but builds on the work of Mancur Olson to argue that the
entrepreneur is an individual who resolves the problem of collective action
while bringing together individuals with common goals.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Current research on entrepreneurship can be categorized broadly in terms
of mechanisms at three contextual levels of analysis. At the most micro-level
level, sociologists consider how the structure of interpersonal networks
affects the propensity and success of innovation, autonomy, and organizing.
A central debate is whether (and how) diverse and “open” social networks
encourage entrepreneurship, as opposed to homogeneous and “closed”
networks. Much of the literature has argued in favor of the advantages of
network diversity and weak ties, suggesting that these interpersonal structures enable entrepreneurs to acquire more information or resources, avoid
pressures for conformity, and develop new ideas (e.g., Burt, 2004). This intuition must, however, be reconciled with the entrepreneurs’ need for social
support and interpersonal trust. Empirical studies of average entrepreneurs
find that few begin with diverse networks. Moreover, homogeneous and
intimate interpersonal ties can have beneficial effects on entrepreneurial
equality, effort, and innovation, as well as the short-term survival of new
organizations (Ruef, 2010).
At a meso-level, recent sociological research has centered on the tendency
of organizations and careers to structure pathways to entrepreneurship.
The vast majority of entrepreneurs have been employed by other organizations before they set out to create their own business or nonprofit,
or enter into self-employment outside of an organizational context. It is
widely agreed that these experiences impact entrepreneurial capabilities
and opportunities, although the specific mechanisms remain in dispute.
For instance, a genealogical approach emphasizes how the movement of
high-ranking employees from an established organization to a start-up also
involves a transfer of resources and routines, weakening the incumbent
while strengthening the new enterprise (Phillips, 2002). Other approaches
consider how existing organizations may serve as fonts of social capital and
enculturation that can spur or deter entrepreneurial propensities (Sørensen
& Fassiotto, 2011). Scholars who focus on intrapreneurship argue that some
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
5
entrepreneurial processes can be observed entirely within extant organizations, which may provide opportunities for innovation, autonomy, and
spin-offs even when members or employees are not setting off on their own
(Kacperczyk, 2012).
Macro-level research considers the characteristics of organizational populations and regions that are likely to be conducive to entrepreneurship.
While a long line of ecological studies has addressed the structural features
of industries that impact competition and legitimation among new ventures,
more recent studies have often centered on the cultural challenges of creating
new categories of products or services. Particularly for those organizations
that are misfits in existing categories, it appears critical that entrepreneurs
attract media attention and identify a handful of peers who are pursuing
similar activities (Kennedy, 2008). The idea that market and start-up formation depends on context extends to features of geographic regions. In
addition to regional infrastructure, social networks, and material resources,
researchers have proposed that the formation of a regional identity—based
on shared understandings among local residents and external audiences,
combined with a focus on specific forms of enterprise—may be a crucial
source of support for entrepreneurs (Romanelli & Khessina, 2005).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Sociological research has convincingly shown that social context is associated with the rate and success of entrepreneurship; and it has begun
to document the diverse processes that link context with entrepreneurial
tendencies toward innovation, autonomy, and organizing. Owing to the
limits of observational data, the causal direction of these associations is
more ambiguous. It is usually impossible to randomly assign individuals to
interpersonal networks, career histories, industries, and regions in an effort
to probe whether those contexts have a causal effect on entrepreneurship.
And there is some evidence to suggest that skillful entrepreneurs can
maneuver into social contexts that will further enhance their capabilities.
Experiments and naturally occurring quasi-experiments offer promise,
but they sometimes rely on highly artificial settings that may violate the
voluntaristic self-perception of individuals involved in entrepreneurial
activity. Further progress thus depends on clever research designs that will
isolate plausible causal effects of social context on entrepreneurship.
Perhaps an even greater challenge lies in documenting how entrepreneurs
modify their context, particularly at the macro-level of industries, institutions, and regions. Laudatory depictions of innovators and entrepreneurs are
plentiful, of course, but they frequently emphasize singular cases and analyze entrepreneurial success with hindsight. As a consequence, systematic
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
theorizing and empirical research that explains transformative instances of
entrepreneurship is at a fairly nascent stage. One lively domain has involved
work on institutional entrepreneurship, which considers those actors who create new social institutions or transform existing ones. Analytical depictions
of institutional entrepreneurs suggest that their success depends on a combination of enabling environmental conditions (e.g., a crisis or contradiction in
existing institutional arrangement), the social position of the entrepreneurs
(especially, as it relates to resource access), and activities that revolve around
resource mobilization and the framing of social problems (Battilana, Leca, &
Boxenbaum, 2009). While this literature has grown rapidly, far more effort is
required to develop a predictive theory of institutional entrepreneurship that
can be applied across a wide range of social contexts and which is accompanied by rigorous tests of causality.
Given the centrality of context to sociological studies of entrepreneurship,
another step forward will require that scholars address social environments
that deviate from those that have been widely examined in the literature.
Because a good deal of research on entrepreneurs originates in professional
schools, much of this work has emphasized high-tech, high-growth sectors,
such as bio- and nanotechnology, information technology, venture capital firms, and academic spinouts (Ruef, 2010). Studies of more common
start-ups—such as restaurants, construction firms, garage bands, and auto
repair shops—have lagged. Reasons for this disparity range from the
empirical difficulty of systematically sampling average entrepreneurs to a
belief that influential start-ups are more likely to be found in some sectors
than others. The disparity extends to not-for-profit ventures, which have
received less attention from researchers than businesses or, more recently,
have been lumped into the heterogeneous category of “social enterprise”.
By the same token, data availability and substantive familiarity has often
trained the eyes of entrepreneurship scholars on business and nonprofit ventures located in advanced capitalist economies. Many of the regularities identified within these economies, including the importance of social capital and
the role of previous organizational experiences in shaping entrepreneurial
careers, may be highly idiosyncratic to this context. In particular, underlying assumptions in studies of entrepreneurship often hinge on the view that
entrepreneurs are engaged in the voluntary recruitment of other start-up
participants, that ideas and routines for organizing are readily available to
attentive individuals, and that the act of entrepreneurship is valued by society. These assumptions must be critically probed in historical contexts and
regions that differ from those within which entrepreneurship scholars themselves are located, perhaps in dialogue with economic historians and interdisciplinary area specialists.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
7
REFERENCES
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions:
Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Annals, 3, 65–107. doi:10.1080/19416520903053598
Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,
349–399.
Kacperczyk, A. (2012). Opportunity structures in established firms: Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57,
484–521. doi:10.1177/0001839212462675
Kennedy, M. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73, 270–295. doi:10.1177/000312240807300205
Phillips, D. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The
parent-progeny transfer among silicon valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.
Romanelli, E., & Khessina, O. (2005). Regional industrial identity: Cluster configurations and economic development. Organization Science, 16, 344–358. doi:10.1287/
orsc.1050.0131
Ruef, M. (2010). The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and collective action.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Sørensen, J., & Fassiotto, M. (2011). Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22, 1322–1331. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0622
FURTHER READING
Aldrich, A., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10.4135/9781446212509
MARTIN RUEF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Martin Ruef is the Jack and Pamela Egan Professor of Entrepreneurship
at Duke University. Ruef has written or coauthored several books on
organizations and entrepreneurship, including Institutional Change and
Healthcare Organizations (2000, with W. Richard Scott and colleagues),
Organizations Evolving (2006, with Howard Aldrich), and The Entrepreneurial
Group (2010). His most recent book is Between Slavery and Capitalism (2014),
which addresses the organizational transformation of the American South
following the Civil War, with a particular emphasis on the role of economic
uncertainty and the construction of capitalist institutions.
Personal webpage:
http://sociology.duke.edu/people?Gurl=%2Faas%2FSociology&Uil=
mr231&subpage=profile
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Curriculum vitae: https://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Sociology/faculty/
mr231/files/CV.pdf
RELATED ESSAYS
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
The Public Nature of Private Property (Sociology), Debbie Becher
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
Financialization of the US Economy (Sociology), Gerald (Jerry) F. Davis and
Suntae Kim
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Innovation (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Search and Learning in Markets (Economics), Philipp Kircher
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
-
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
MARTIN RUEF
Abstract
Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a growing body of scholarship that investigates
the social context, processes, and consequences of entrepreneurship. Despite—or,
perhaps, because of—the conceptual vagueness around the definition of the
entrepreneur, this topic has attracted attention from a wide range of interdisciplinary scholars and has been applied to a variety of entrepreneurial activities
among businesses, nonprofits, social movements, and public sector initiatives.
This review begins with three views of entrepreneurs that are rooted in classical
scholarship, conceptualizing them as innovators, autonomy seekers, and organizers. It then analyzes the mechanisms that link these views to entrepreneurial
outcomes at different levels of analysis. Scholarship on social networks examines
how the structure of relations may transmit new ideas, encourage freedom from
interpersonal constraint, and produce social support for organizing. Research on
career structures considers how past organizational contexts tend to augment or
decrease entrepreneurial propensities. Studies of organizational populations and
regions address when the ecology of those contexts allows entrepreneurs to carve
out a new niche, despite competition from incumbents. The review concludes with
suggestions for improving research methodology and the representativeness of
social contexts in the study of entrepreneurship.
INTRODUCTION
The sociology of entrepreneurship addresses the context, process, and effects
of novelty. “Entrepreneurship,” within this perspective, can be interpreted
narrowly to refer to a purposive set of actions that lead to the creation of a
new organization or a new technology, or, more generally, as any endeavor
that seeks to generate durable change in social routines, structures, or institutions. The sociological study of entrepreneurship is thus related to theories
of agency, but it tends to be less abstract and sweeping in its approach. It also
differs from related work in psychology or economics insofar as it targets
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
mechanisms that operate above the level of the individual and complements
the common emphasis on material aspects of entrepreneurial activity with
attention to its interpersonal and cultural dimensions.
One challenge in studying entrepreneurship from a sociological perspective is that there are multiple (and sometimes conflicting) conceptualizations
of the phenomenon in classical and contemporary scholarship. Some sociologists focus on entrepreneurial activity as a matter of social or economic
innovation. Others emphasize the act of creating a new formal organization,
whether it involves innovation or the mundane reproduction of existing
routines and competencies (as is the case in many business franchises).
Yet other scholars highlight aspects that range from risk-bearing and
autonomy-seeking behavior to actions that transform institutions or create
networks that can be mobilized toward a common goal. Complicating the
conceptual vagueness of “entrepreneurship,” business media and political
discourse offer their own interpretations of the phenomenon, which often
hinge on hagiographic portrayals of specific business leaders or social
entrepreneurs.
A second central challenge in sociological scholarship on entrepreneurship is that can be pursued at multiple levels of analysis. The object
of entrepreneurship may itself vary from an artifact or idea or enterprise to an industry or movement or social institution. The mechanisms
of entrepreneurship identified among sociologists range similarly from
the micro- to the macro-level. Some observers emphasize micro-level
mechanisms involving the interpersonal networks or social identity of an
entrepreneur. Others target their inquiry at features of organizational structure or culture that may serve to encourage or discourage entrepreneurial
action. At the most macro-level, scholars seek to understand when the
attributes of an industry, an organizational field, or a society are likely to
promote entrepreneurship and how those attributes become imprinted
on the entrepreneurial endeavor, even in the face of subsequent social
change.
This review begins with foundational work in sociology and economics
that has deployed three distinct definitions of entrepreneurship, considering
it as an act of innovation, autonomy, or organizing. It then moves to current
research that tackles these conceptions from different levels of analysis, with
a particular emphasis on the role of interpersonal networks, organizational
structures, and the ecology of organizations and regions. The concluding
section considers how scholars can advance work on entrepreneurship
by modeling social context as being endogenous to entrepreneurial
activity and by examining contexts that differ from the high-tech,
high-growth industries that tend to be highlighted in contemporary media
accounts.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
3
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
INNOVATION
The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1942, p. 132) famously declared that
“the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern
of production,” thus initiating an extensive stream of work that equates
entrepreneurship with innovation. For Schumpeter himself, the essential
feature of such innovation was the combination of existing methods or technologies in new and unexpected ways. The innovation could involve a novel
product or service, a new method of production, distribution, or marketing,
or entry into an unexploited market niche. Schumpeter’s heterodox view of
economics held that the entrepreneur was the source of disequilibrium in
markets, contributing to the “creative destruction” of incumbent firms and
technologies. Sociologists often extend Schumpeter’s conception to include
social innovations that fall outside the realm of business, such as those
undertaken by social movements, nonprofit organizations, or the state.
AUTONOMY
In contrast to Schumpeter, the German sociologist Max Weber did not view
the defining role of the entrepreneur as related to innovation, but to his or her
relative immunity from the constraints of bureaucratic organization. Within
Weber’s typology of authority structures, it was only the entrepreneur who
could lay claim to autonomy from the dictates of formal rules and hierarchy. The importance of autonomy, in this view, extended not only to specific
organizational environments but also to cultural traditions and sources of
socialization that impeded the development of entrepreneurial capitalism.
This conception of entrepreneurship has been picked up to some extent by
sociologists who study entrepreneurship in terms of self-employment and
entrepreneurial personalities. It is also central to a rich body of empirical
work which considers whether employment in large, bureaucratic settings
produces a taste for autonomy and, thus, a propensity toward entrepreneurship (Sørensen & Fassiotto, 2011).
ORGANIZING
A final conception of entrepreneurship emphasizes the actions and risks
involved in creating a new organization. Although one can trace its origins
back to the work of enlightenment economists, such as Richard Cantillon
and Jean-Baptiste Say, the sociological embrace of this conception is of more
recent vintage than either the Schumpeterian or Weberian definitions. Nevertheless, the idea that entrepreneurship involves instances of organizational
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
founding has become widespread since the 1970s, especially for scholars
employing an evolutionary or ecological perspective. These theories tend
to investigate the success and rate of organizational founding as a function
of broader societal forces that promote competition among organizations
and the legitimation of particular organizational forms. A separate stream
of analytical work in politics and economics also emphasizes the challenges
of organizing, but builds on the work of Mancur Olson to argue that the
entrepreneur is an individual who resolves the problem of collective action
while bringing together individuals with common goals.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Current research on entrepreneurship can be categorized broadly in terms
of mechanisms at three contextual levels of analysis. At the most micro-level
level, sociologists consider how the structure of interpersonal networks
affects the propensity and success of innovation, autonomy, and organizing.
A central debate is whether (and how) diverse and “open” social networks
encourage entrepreneurship, as opposed to homogeneous and “closed”
networks. Much of the literature has argued in favor of the advantages of
network diversity and weak ties, suggesting that these interpersonal structures enable entrepreneurs to acquire more information or resources, avoid
pressures for conformity, and develop new ideas (e.g., Burt, 2004). This intuition must, however, be reconciled with the entrepreneurs’ need for social
support and interpersonal trust. Empirical studies of average entrepreneurs
find that few begin with diverse networks. Moreover, homogeneous and
intimate interpersonal ties can have beneficial effects on entrepreneurial
equality, effort, and innovation, as well as the short-term survival of new
organizations (Ruef, 2010).
At a meso-level, recent sociological research has centered on the tendency
of organizations and careers to structure pathways to entrepreneurship.
The vast majority of entrepreneurs have been employed by other organizations before they set out to create their own business or nonprofit,
or enter into self-employment outside of an organizational context. It is
widely agreed that these experiences impact entrepreneurial capabilities
and opportunities, although the specific mechanisms remain in dispute.
For instance, a genealogical approach emphasizes how the movement of
high-ranking employees from an established organization to a start-up also
involves a transfer of resources and routines, weakening the incumbent
while strengthening the new enterprise (Phillips, 2002). Other approaches
consider how existing organizations may serve as fonts of social capital and
enculturation that can spur or deter entrepreneurial propensities (Sørensen
& Fassiotto, 2011). Scholars who focus on intrapreneurship argue that some
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
5
entrepreneurial processes can be observed entirely within extant organizations, which may provide opportunities for innovation, autonomy, and
spin-offs even when members or employees are not setting off on their own
(Kacperczyk, 2012).
Macro-level research considers the characteristics of organizational populations and regions that are likely to be conducive to entrepreneurship.
While a long line of ecological studies has addressed the structural features
of industries that impact competition and legitimation among new ventures,
more recent studies have often centered on the cultural challenges of creating
new categories of products or services. Particularly for those organizations
that are misfits in existing categories, it appears critical that entrepreneurs
attract media attention and identify a handful of peers who are pursuing
similar activities (Kennedy, 2008). The idea that market and start-up formation depends on context extends to features of geographic regions. In
addition to regional infrastructure, social networks, and material resources,
researchers have proposed that the formation of a regional identity—based
on shared understandings among local residents and external audiences,
combined with a focus on specific forms of enterprise—may be a crucial
source of support for entrepreneurs (Romanelli & Khessina, 2005).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Sociological research has convincingly shown that social context is associated with the rate and success of entrepreneurship; and it has begun
to document the diverse processes that link context with entrepreneurial
tendencies toward innovation, autonomy, and organizing. Owing to the
limits of observational data, the causal direction of these associations is
more ambiguous. It is usually impossible to randomly assign individuals to
interpersonal networks, career histories, industries, and regions in an effort
to probe whether those contexts have a causal effect on entrepreneurship.
And there is some evidence to suggest that skillful entrepreneurs can
maneuver into social contexts that will further enhance their capabilities.
Experiments and naturally occurring quasi-experiments offer promise,
but they sometimes rely on highly artificial settings that may violate the
voluntaristic self-perception of individuals involved in entrepreneurial
activity. Further progress thus depends on clever research designs that will
isolate plausible causal effects of social context on entrepreneurship.
Perhaps an even greater challenge lies in documenting how entrepreneurs
modify their context, particularly at the macro-level of industries, institutions, and regions. Laudatory depictions of innovators and entrepreneurs are
plentiful, of course, but they frequently emphasize singular cases and analyze entrepreneurial success with hindsight. As a consequence, systematic
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
theorizing and empirical research that explains transformative instances of
entrepreneurship is at a fairly nascent stage. One lively domain has involved
work on institutional entrepreneurship, which considers those actors who create new social institutions or transform existing ones. Analytical depictions
of institutional entrepreneurs suggest that their success depends on a combination of enabling environmental conditions (e.g., a crisis or contradiction in
existing institutional arrangement), the social position of the entrepreneurs
(especially, as it relates to resource access), and activities that revolve around
resource mobilization and the framing of social problems (Battilana, Leca, &
Boxenbaum, 2009). While this literature has grown rapidly, far more effort is
required to develop a predictive theory of institutional entrepreneurship that
can be applied across a wide range of social contexts and which is accompanied by rigorous tests of causality.
Given the centrality of context to sociological studies of entrepreneurship,
another step forward will require that scholars address social environments
that deviate from those that have been widely examined in the literature.
Because a good deal of research on entrepreneurs originates in professional
schools, much of this work has emphasized high-tech, high-growth sectors,
such as bio- and nanotechnology, information technology, venture capital firms, and academic spinouts (Ruef, 2010). Studies of more common
start-ups—such as restaurants, construction firms, garage bands, and auto
repair shops—have lagged. Reasons for this disparity range from the
empirical difficulty of systematically sampling average entrepreneurs to a
belief that influential start-ups are more likely to be found in some sectors
than others. The disparity extends to not-for-profit ventures, which have
received less attention from researchers than businesses or, more recently,
have been lumped into the heterogeneous category of “social enterprise”.
By the same token, data availability and substantive familiarity has often
trained the eyes of entrepreneurship scholars on business and nonprofit ventures located in advanced capitalist economies. Many of the regularities identified within these economies, including the importance of social capital and
the role of previous organizational experiences in shaping entrepreneurial
careers, may be highly idiosyncratic to this context. In particular, underlying assumptions in studies of entrepreneurship often hinge on the view that
entrepreneurs are engaged in the voluntary recruitment of other start-up
participants, that ideas and routines for organizing are readily available to
attentive individuals, and that the act of entrepreneurship is valued by society. These assumptions must be critically probed in historical contexts and
regions that differ from those within which entrepreneurship scholars themselves are located, perhaps in dialogue with economic historians and interdisciplinary area specialists.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
7
REFERENCES
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions:
Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Annals, 3, 65–107. doi:10.1080/19416520903053598
Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,
349–399.
Kacperczyk, A. (2012). Opportunity structures in established firms: Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57,
484–521. doi:10.1177/0001839212462675
Kennedy, M. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73, 270–295. doi:10.1177/000312240807300205
Phillips, D. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The
parent-progeny transfer among silicon valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.
Romanelli, E., & Khessina, O. (2005). Regional industrial identity: Cluster configurations and economic development. Organization Science, 16, 344–358. doi:10.1287/
orsc.1050.0131
Ruef, M. (2010). The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and collective action.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Sørensen, J., & Fassiotto, M. (2011). Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22, 1322–1331. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0622
FURTHER READING
Aldrich, A., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10.4135/9781446212509
MARTIN RUEF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Martin Ruef is the Jack and Pamela Egan Professor of Entrepreneurship
at Duke University. Ruef has written or coauthored several books on
organizations and entrepreneurship, including Institutional Change and
Healthcare Organizations (2000, with W. Richard Scott and colleagues),
Organizations Evolving (2006, with Howard Aldrich), and The Entrepreneurial
Group (2010). His most recent book is Between Slavery and Capitalism (2014),
which addresses the organizational transformation of the American South
following the Civil War, with a particular emphasis on the role of economic
uncertainty and the construction of capitalist institutions.
Personal webpage:
http://sociology.duke.edu/people?Gurl=%2Faas%2FSociology&Uil=
mr231&subpage=profile
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Curriculum vitae: https://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Sociology/faculty/
mr231/files/CV.pdf
RELATED ESSAYS
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
The Public Nature of Private Property (Sociology), Debbie Becher
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
Financialization of the US Economy (Sociology), Gerald (Jerry) F. Davis and
Suntae Kim
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Innovation (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Search and Learning in Markets (Economics), Philipp Kircher
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
MARTIN RUEF
Abstract
Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a growing body of scholarship that investigates
the social context, processes, and consequences of entrepreneurship. Despite—or,
perhaps, because of—the conceptual vagueness around the definition of the
entrepreneur, this topic has attracted attention from a wide range of interdisciplinary scholars and has been applied to a variety of entrepreneurial activities
among businesses, nonprofits, social movements, and public sector initiatives.
This review begins with three views of entrepreneurs that are rooted in classical
scholarship, conceptualizing them as innovators, autonomy seekers, and organizers. It then analyzes the mechanisms that link these views to entrepreneurial
outcomes at different levels of analysis. Scholarship on social networks examines
how the structure of relations may transmit new ideas, encourage freedom from
interpersonal constraint, and produce social support for organizing. Research on
career structures considers how past organizational contexts tend to augment or
decrease entrepreneurial propensities. Studies of organizational populations and
regions address when the ecology of those contexts allows entrepreneurs to carve
out a new niche, despite competition from incumbents. The review concludes with
suggestions for improving research methodology and the representativeness of
social contexts in the study of entrepreneurship.
INTRODUCTION
The sociology of entrepreneurship addresses the context, process, and effects
of novelty. “Entrepreneurship,” within this perspective, can be interpreted
narrowly to refer to a purposive set of actions that lead to the creation of a
new organization or a new technology, or, more generally, as any endeavor
that seeks to generate durable change in social routines, structures, or institutions. The sociological study of entrepreneurship is thus related to theories
of agency, but it tends to be less abstract and sweeping in its approach. It also
differs from related work in psychology or economics insofar as it targets
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
mechanisms that operate above the level of the individual and complements
the common emphasis on material aspects of entrepreneurial activity with
attention to its interpersonal and cultural dimensions.
One challenge in studying entrepreneurship from a sociological perspective is that there are multiple (and sometimes conflicting) conceptualizations
of the phenomenon in classical and contemporary scholarship. Some sociologists focus on entrepreneurial activity as a matter of social or economic
innovation. Others emphasize the act of creating a new formal organization,
whether it involves innovation or the mundane reproduction of existing
routines and competencies (as is the case in many business franchises).
Yet other scholars highlight aspects that range from risk-bearing and
autonomy-seeking behavior to actions that transform institutions or create
networks that can be mobilized toward a common goal. Complicating the
conceptual vagueness of “entrepreneurship,” business media and political
discourse offer their own interpretations of the phenomenon, which often
hinge on hagiographic portrayals of specific business leaders or social
entrepreneurs.
A second central challenge in sociological scholarship on entrepreneurship is that can be pursued at multiple levels of analysis. The object
of entrepreneurship may itself vary from an artifact or idea or enterprise to an industry or movement or social institution. The mechanisms
of entrepreneurship identified among sociologists range similarly from
the micro- to the macro-level. Some observers emphasize micro-level
mechanisms involving the interpersonal networks or social identity of an
entrepreneur. Others target their inquiry at features of organizational structure or culture that may serve to encourage or discourage entrepreneurial
action. At the most macro-level, scholars seek to understand when the
attributes of an industry, an organizational field, or a society are likely to
promote entrepreneurship and how those attributes become imprinted
on the entrepreneurial endeavor, even in the face of subsequent social
change.
This review begins with foundational work in sociology and economics
that has deployed three distinct definitions of entrepreneurship, considering
it as an act of innovation, autonomy, or organizing. It then moves to current
research that tackles these conceptions from different levels of analysis, with
a particular emphasis on the role of interpersonal networks, organizational
structures, and the ecology of organizations and regions. The concluding
section considers how scholars can advance work on entrepreneurship
by modeling social context as being endogenous to entrepreneurial
activity and by examining contexts that differ from the high-tech,
high-growth industries that tend to be highlighted in contemporary media
accounts.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
3
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
INNOVATION
The economist Joseph Schumpeter (1942, p. 132) famously declared that
“the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern
of production,” thus initiating an extensive stream of work that equates
entrepreneurship with innovation. For Schumpeter himself, the essential
feature of such innovation was the combination of existing methods or technologies in new and unexpected ways. The innovation could involve a novel
product or service, a new method of production, distribution, or marketing,
or entry into an unexploited market niche. Schumpeter’s heterodox view of
economics held that the entrepreneur was the source of disequilibrium in
markets, contributing to the “creative destruction” of incumbent firms and
technologies. Sociologists often extend Schumpeter’s conception to include
social innovations that fall outside the realm of business, such as those
undertaken by social movements, nonprofit organizations, or the state.
AUTONOMY
In contrast to Schumpeter, the German sociologist Max Weber did not view
the defining role of the entrepreneur as related to innovation, but to his or her
relative immunity from the constraints of bureaucratic organization. Within
Weber’s typology of authority structures, it was only the entrepreneur who
could lay claim to autonomy from the dictates of formal rules and hierarchy. The importance of autonomy, in this view, extended not only to specific
organizational environments but also to cultural traditions and sources of
socialization that impeded the development of entrepreneurial capitalism.
This conception of entrepreneurship has been picked up to some extent by
sociologists who study entrepreneurship in terms of self-employment and
entrepreneurial personalities. It is also central to a rich body of empirical
work which considers whether employment in large, bureaucratic settings
produces a taste for autonomy and, thus, a propensity toward entrepreneurship (Sørensen & Fassiotto, 2011).
ORGANIZING
A final conception of entrepreneurship emphasizes the actions and risks
involved in creating a new organization. Although one can trace its origins
back to the work of enlightenment economists, such as Richard Cantillon
and Jean-Baptiste Say, the sociological embrace of this conception is of more
recent vintage than either the Schumpeterian or Weberian definitions. Nevertheless, the idea that entrepreneurship involves instances of organizational
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
founding has become widespread since the 1970s, especially for scholars
employing an evolutionary or ecological perspective. These theories tend
to investigate the success and rate of organizational founding as a function
of broader societal forces that promote competition among organizations
and the legitimation of particular organizational forms. A separate stream
of analytical work in politics and economics also emphasizes the challenges
of organizing, but builds on the work of Mancur Olson to argue that the
entrepreneur is an individual who resolves the problem of collective action
while bringing together individuals with common goals.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Current research on entrepreneurship can be categorized broadly in terms
of mechanisms at three contextual levels of analysis. At the most micro-level
level, sociologists consider how the structure of interpersonal networks
affects the propensity and success of innovation, autonomy, and organizing.
A central debate is whether (and how) diverse and “open” social networks
encourage entrepreneurship, as opposed to homogeneous and “closed”
networks. Much of the literature has argued in favor of the advantages of
network diversity and weak ties, suggesting that these interpersonal structures enable entrepreneurs to acquire more information or resources, avoid
pressures for conformity, and develop new ideas (e.g., Burt, 2004). This intuition must, however, be reconciled with the entrepreneurs’ need for social
support and interpersonal trust. Empirical studies of average entrepreneurs
find that few begin with diverse networks. Moreover, homogeneous and
intimate interpersonal ties can have beneficial effects on entrepreneurial
equality, effort, and innovation, as well as the short-term survival of new
organizations (Ruef, 2010).
At a meso-level, recent sociological research has centered on the tendency
of organizations and careers to structure pathways to entrepreneurship.
The vast majority of entrepreneurs have been employed by other organizations before they set out to create their own business or nonprofit,
or enter into self-employment outside of an organizational context. It is
widely agreed that these experiences impact entrepreneurial capabilities
and opportunities, although the specific mechanisms remain in dispute.
For instance, a genealogical approach emphasizes how the movement of
high-ranking employees from an established organization to a start-up also
involves a transfer of resources and routines, weakening the incumbent
while strengthening the new enterprise (Phillips, 2002). Other approaches
consider how existing organizations may serve as fonts of social capital and
enculturation that can spur or deter entrepreneurial propensities (Sørensen
& Fassiotto, 2011). Scholars who focus on intrapreneurship argue that some
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
5
entrepreneurial processes can be observed entirely within extant organizations, which may provide opportunities for innovation, autonomy, and
spin-offs even when members or employees are not setting off on their own
(Kacperczyk, 2012).
Macro-level research considers the characteristics of organizational populations and regions that are likely to be conducive to entrepreneurship.
While a long line of ecological studies has addressed the structural features
of industries that impact competition and legitimation among new ventures,
more recent studies have often centered on the cultural challenges of creating
new categories of products or services. Particularly for those organizations
that are misfits in existing categories, it appears critical that entrepreneurs
attract media attention and identify a handful of peers who are pursuing
similar activities (Kennedy, 2008). The idea that market and start-up formation depends on context extends to features of geographic regions. In
addition to regional infrastructure, social networks, and material resources,
researchers have proposed that the formation of a regional identity—based
on shared understandings among local residents and external audiences,
combined with a focus on specific forms of enterprise—may be a crucial
source of support for entrepreneurs (Romanelli & Khessina, 2005).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Sociological research has convincingly shown that social context is associated with the rate and success of entrepreneurship; and it has begun
to document the diverse processes that link context with entrepreneurial
tendencies toward innovation, autonomy, and organizing. Owing to the
limits of observational data, the causal direction of these associations is
more ambiguous. It is usually impossible to randomly assign individuals to
interpersonal networks, career histories, industries, and regions in an effort
to probe whether those contexts have a causal effect on entrepreneurship.
And there is some evidence to suggest that skillful entrepreneurs can
maneuver into social contexts that will further enhance their capabilities.
Experiments and naturally occurring quasi-experiments offer promise,
but they sometimes rely on highly artificial settings that may violate the
voluntaristic self-perception of individuals involved in entrepreneurial
activity. Further progress thus depends on clever research designs that will
isolate plausible causal effects of social context on entrepreneurship.
Perhaps an even greater challenge lies in documenting how entrepreneurs
modify their context, particularly at the macro-level of industries, institutions, and regions. Laudatory depictions of innovators and entrepreneurs are
plentiful, of course, but they frequently emphasize singular cases and analyze entrepreneurial success with hindsight. As a consequence, systematic
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
theorizing and empirical research that explains transformative instances of
entrepreneurship is at a fairly nascent stage. One lively domain has involved
work on institutional entrepreneurship, which considers those actors who create new social institutions or transform existing ones. Analytical depictions
of institutional entrepreneurs suggest that their success depends on a combination of enabling environmental conditions (e.g., a crisis or contradiction in
existing institutional arrangement), the social position of the entrepreneurs
(especially, as it relates to resource access), and activities that revolve around
resource mobilization and the framing of social problems (Battilana, Leca, &
Boxenbaum, 2009). While this literature has grown rapidly, far more effort is
required to develop a predictive theory of institutional entrepreneurship that
can be applied across a wide range of social contexts and which is accompanied by rigorous tests of causality.
Given the centrality of context to sociological studies of entrepreneurship,
another step forward will require that scholars address social environments
that deviate from those that have been widely examined in the literature.
Because a good deal of research on entrepreneurs originates in professional
schools, much of this work has emphasized high-tech, high-growth sectors,
such as bio- and nanotechnology, information technology, venture capital firms, and academic spinouts (Ruef, 2010). Studies of more common
start-ups—such as restaurants, construction firms, garage bands, and auto
repair shops—have lagged. Reasons for this disparity range from the
empirical difficulty of systematically sampling average entrepreneurs to a
belief that influential start-ups are more likely to be found in some sectors
than others. The disparity extends to not-for-profit ventures, which have
received less attention from researchers than businesses or, more recently,
have been lumped into the heterogeneous category of “social enterprise”.
By the same token, data availability and substantive familiarity has often
trained the eyes of entrepreneurship scholars on business and nonprofit ventures located in advanced capitalist economies. Many of the regularities identified within these economies, including the importance of social capital and
the role of previous organizational experiences in shaping entrepreneurial
careers, may be highly idiosyncratic to this context. In particular, underlying assumptions in studies of entrepreneurship often hinge on the view that
entrepreneurs are engaged in the voluntary recruitment of other start-up
participants, that ideas and routines for organizing are readily available to
attentive individuals, and that the act of entrepreneurship is valued by society. These assumptions must be critically probed in historical contexts and
regions that differ from those within which entrepreneurship scholars themselves are located, perhaps in dialogue with economic historians and interdisciplinary area specialists.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship
7
REFERENCES
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions:
Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management
Annals, 3, 65–107. doi:10.1080/19416520903053598
Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,
349–399.
Kacperczyk, A. (2012). Opportunity structures in established firms: Entrepreneurship versus intrapreneurship in mutual funds. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57,
484–521. doi:10.1177/0001839212462675
Kennedy, M. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73, 270–295. doi:10.1177/000312240807300205
Phillips, D. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life chances: The
parent-progeny transfer among silicon valley law firms, 1946–1996. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.
Romanelli, E., & Khessina, O. (2005). Regional industrial identity: Cluster configurations and economic development. Organization Science, 16, 344–358. doi:10.1287/
orsc.1050.0131
Ruef, M. (2010). The entrepreneurial group: Social identities, relations, and collective action.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York, NY: Harper and
Row.
Sørensen, J., & Fassiotto, M. (2011). Organizations as fonts of entrepreneurship. Organization Science, 22, 1322–1331. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0622
FURTHER READING
Aldrich, A., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
10.4135/9781446212509
MARTIN RUEF SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Martin Ruef is the Jack and Pamela Egan Professor of Entrepreneurship
at Duke University. Ruef has written or coauthored several books on
organizations and entrepreneurship, including Institutional Change and
Healthcare Organizations (2000, with W. Richard Scott and colleagues),
Organizations Evolving (2006, with Howard Aldrich), and The Entrepreneurial
Group (2010). His most recent book is Between Slavery and Capitalism (2014),
which addresses the organizational transformation of the American South
following the Civil War, with a particular emphasis on the role of economic
uncertainty and the construction of capitalist institutions.
Personal webpage:
http://sociology.duke.edu/people?Gurl=%2Faas%2FSociology&Uil=
mr231&subpage=profile
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Curriculum vitae: https://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Sociology/faculty/
mr231/files/CV.pdf
RELATED ESSAYS
Global Economic Networks (Sociology), Nina Bandelj et al.
The Public Nature of Private Property (Sociology), Debbie Becher
Returns to Education in Different Labor Market Contexts (Sociology), Klaus
Schöemann and Rolf Becker
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Stability and Change in Corporate Governance (Sociology), Gerald F. Davis
and Johan S. G. Chu
Financialization of the US Economy (Sociology), Gerald (Jerry) F. Davis and
Suntae Kim
Institutions and the Economy (Sociology), Carl Gershenson and Frank
Dobbin
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Innovation (Economics), Adam B. Jaffe
Search and Learning in Markets (Economics), Philipp Kircher
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
