IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/indrel/qt392635v2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Are the Entrepreneurs: The Elite or Everyman?

Author

Listed:
  • Haveman, Heather A.
  • Habinek, Jacob
  • Goodman, Leo A.

Abstract

We trace the social positions of the men and women who found new enterprises from the earliest years of one industry’s history to a time when the industry was well established. Sociological theory suggests two opposing hypotheses. First, pioneering entrepreneurs are socially prominent individuals from fields adjacent to the new industry and later entrepreneurs are from an increasingly broad swath of society. Second, the earliest entrepreneurs come from the social periphery while later entrepreneurs include more industry insiders and members of the social elite. To test these hypotheses, we study the magazine industry in America over the first 120 years of its history, from 1741 to 1860. We find that magazine publishing was originally restricted to industry insiders, elite professionals, and the highly educated, but by the time the industry became well established, most founders came from outside publishing and more were of middling stature – mostly small-town doctors and clergy without college degrees. We also find that magazines founded by industry insiders remained concentrated in the three biggest cities, while magazines founded by outsiders became geographically dispersed. Finally, we find that entrepreneurship evolved from the pursuit of a lone individual to a more organizationally-sponsored activity; this reflects the modernization of America during this time period. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of grounding studies of entrepreneurship in historical context. Our analysis of this “old” new media industry also offers hints about how the “new” new media industries are likely to evolve.

Suggested Citation

  • Haveman, Heather A. & Habinek, Jacob & Goodman, Leo A., 2011. "Who Are the Entrepreneurs: The Elite or Everyman?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt392635v2, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:indrel:qt392635v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/392635v2.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Killingsworth, 1984. "Letter," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 63-63, May.
    2. Fligstein, Neil, 2001. "Social Skill and the Theory of Fields," Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics, Working Paper Series qt26m187b1, Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics of theInstitute for Research on Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley.
    3. Ramana Nanda & Jesper B. Sørensen, 2010. "Workplace Peers and Entrepreneurship," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(7), pages 1116-1126, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. The History of Media Entrepreneurs
      by bearodr in NEP-HIS blog on 2012-04-10 19:57:47
    2. The History of Media Entrepreneurs
      by bearodr in NEP-HIS blog on 2012-04-10 19:57:47

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haveman, Heather A. & Habinek, Jacob & Goodman, Leo A., 2010. "The Press and the Public Sphere: Magazine Entrepreneurs in Antebellum America," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt7f90p6rq, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    2. Jeannette A. Colyvas & Spiro Maroulis, 2015. "Moving from an Exception to a Rule: Analyzing Mechanisms in Emergence-Based Institutionalization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 601-621, April.
    3. Modell, Sven & Yang, ChunLei, 2018. "Financialisation as a strategic action field: An historically informed field study of governance reforms in Chinese state-owned enterprises," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-59.
    4. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    5. Luigi Romano & Marcello Ruberti, 2019. "Focus on the Performances of the Most Advanced Italian Thermoelectric Power Plants," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(5), pages 264-273.
    6. Michael Fritsch & Korneliusz Pylak & Michael Wyrwich, 2019. "Persistence of Entrepreneurship in Different Historical Contexts," Jena Economics Research Papers 2019-003, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. Saurabh A. Lall & Li-Wei Chen & Dyana P. Mason, 2023. "Digital platforms and entrepreneurial support: a field experiment in online mentoring," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 631-654, August.
    8. Sorgner, Alina & Fritsch, Michael, 2013. "Stepping Forward: Personality Traits, Choice of Profession, and the Decision to Become Self-Employed," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79768, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Fredriksen, Lars & Wennberg, Karl & Balachandran, Chanchal, 2015. "Mobility and Entrepreneurship: Evaluating the scope of knowledge-based theories of entrepreneurship," Ratio Working Papers 266, The Ratio Institute.
    10. Merkel, Janet & Suwala, Lech, 2021. "Intermediaries, work and creativity in creative and innovative sectors. The case of Berlin," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: Culture, Creativity and Economy. Collaborative practices, value creation and spaces of creativity., pages 56-69, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    11. Bougheas, Spiros & Nieboer, Jeroen & Sefton, Martin, 2013. "Risk-taking in social settings: Group and peer effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 273-283.
    12. Diego A. B. Marconatto & Luciano Barin-Cruz & Eugenio Pedrozo, 2016. "Lending Groups and Different Social Capitals in Developed and Developing Countries," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 20(6), pages 651-672.
    13. Beatrix Futák‐Campbell & Christian Schwieter, 2020. "Practising Populism: How Right‐wing Populists Negotiate Political Competence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 890-908, July.
    14. Kristina McElheran & J. Frank Li & Erik Brynjolfsson & Zachary Kroff & Emin Dinlersoz & Lucia Foster & Nikolas Zolas, 2024. "AI adoption in America: Who, what, and where," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 375-415, March.
    15. Jain, Sanjay, 2020. "Fumbling to the future? Socio-technical regime change in the recorded music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Peter W. Roberts & Adina D. Sterling, 2012. "Network Progeny? Prefounding Social Ties and the Success of New Entrants," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(7), pages 1292-1304, July.
    17. Robert J. David & Wesley D. Sine & Heather A. Haveman, 2013. "Seizing Opportunity in Emerging Fields: How Institutional Entrepreneurs Legitimated the Professional Form of Management Consulting," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 356-377, April.
    18. Anne Pezet & Jérémy Morales, 2010. "Les contrôleurs de gestion, « médiateurs » de la financiarisation," Post-Print halshs-00498673, HAL.
    19. Puyou, François-Régis, 2014. "Ordering collective performance manipulation practices: How do leaders manipulate financial reporting figures in conglomerates?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 469-488.
    20. Beckert, Jens, 2009. "Pragmatismus und wirtschaftliches Handeln," MPIfG Working Paper 09/4, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Business;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:indrel:qt392635v2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.