The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship

https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90028-4Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper takes a macroperspective of entrepreneurship, and focuses on the issues and events involved in constructing an industrial infrastructure that facilitates and constrains entrepreneurship. This infrastructure includes: (1) institutional arrangements to legitimate, regulate, and standardize a new technology, (2) public resource endowments of basic scientific knowledge, financing mechanisms, and a pool of competent labor, as well as (3) proprietary R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution functions by private entrepreneurial firms to commercialize the innovation for profit. Although extensive research substantiates the importance of these infrastructure components, they have been treated as externalities to entrepreneurship. By incorporating these components within a single framework, one can systematically examine how various actors and functions interact to facilitate and constrain entrepreneurship.

The paper makes three contributions to understanding entrepreneurship. First, I believe that the study of entrepreneurship is deficient if it focuses exclusively on the characteristics and behaviors of individual entrepreneurs, on the one hand, and if it treats the social, economic, and political factors influencing entrepreneurship as external demographic statistics, on the other hand. Popular folklore notwithstanding, the process of entrepreneurship is a collective achievement requiring key roles from numerous entrepreneurs in both the public and private sectors.

Second, the paper examines how and why this infrastructure for entrepreneurship emerges. I argue that while this infrastructure facilitates and constrains individual entrepreneurs, it is the latter who construct and change the industrial infrastructure. This infrastructure does not emerge and change all at once by the actions of one or even a few key entrepreneurs. Instead, it emerges through the accretion of numerous institutional, resource, and proprietary events that co-produce each other over an extended period. Moreover, the very institutional arrangements and resource endowments created to facilitate industry emergence can become inertial forces that hinder subsequent technological development and adaptation by proprietary firms. This generative process has a dynamic history that is itself important to study systematically if one is to understand how novel forms of technologies, organizations, and institutions emerge.

Finally, the paper emphasizes that the process of entrepreneurship is not limited to the for-profit sector; numerous entrepreneurial actors in the public and not-for-profit sectors play crucial roles. It motivates one to examine the different roles played by these actors, and how their joint contributions interact to develop and commercialize a new technology. This in turn makes it possible to understand how the risk, time, and cost to an individual entrepreneur are significantly influenced by developments in the overall Infrastructure for entrepreneurship. It also explains why the entrepreneurs who run in packs will be more successful than those that go it alone to develop their innovations.

References (87)

  • G.R. Carroll

    A stochastic model of organizational mortality

    Social Science Research

    (1983)
  • G. Dosi

    Technological paradigms and technological trajectories

    Research Policy

    (1982)
  • R.N. Nelson et al.

    In search of a useful theory of innovation

    Research Policy

    (1977)
  • W.J. Abernathy

    The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovations in the Automobile Industry

    (1978)
  • G.A. Akerlof

    The market for “lemons”: quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism

    Quarterly Journal of Economics

    (1970)
  • H. Aldrich

    Organizations and Environments

    (1979)
  • H. Aldrich

    Using an Ecological Perspective to Study Organizational Founding Rates

    Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice

    (1990)
  • H. Aldrich et al.

    Organization-sets, action sets, and networks: making the most of simplicity

  • P.M. Allen

    Evolution, innovation, and economics

  • T.J. Allen

    Managing the Flow of Technology

    (1977)
  • K.J. Arrow

    Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovative activity

  • W.G. Astley

    The two ecologies: population and community perspectives on organizational evolution

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1985)
  • W.G. Astley et al.

    Central perspectives and debates in organization theory

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1983)
  • A. Ben-Ner

    Cooperation, conflict and control in organizations

  • S.M. Besen et al.

    The economics of telecommunications standards

  • H.P. Binswanger et al.

    Induced Innovation

    (1978)
  • J. Bruderl et al.

    Organizational mortality: the liabilities of newness and adolescence

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1990)
  • G.R. Carroll

    Dynamics of publisher succession in newspaper organizations

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1984)
  • G.R. Carroll

    Publish and Perish

    (1987)
  • G.R. Carroll et al.

    Organizational mortality in the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland: an ecological approach

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (1982)
  • A.D. Chandler

    Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism

    (1990)
  • R.H. Coase

    Industrial organization: a proposal for research

  • A.C. Cooper et al.

    Entrepreneurs, processes of founding, and new-firm performance

  • E.W. Constant

    The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution

    (1980)
  • P. David

    Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age

  • M.A. Fichman et al.

    Honeymoons and the liability of adolescence: a new perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships

    (1988)
  • C. Freeman

    The Economics of Industrial Innovation

    (1986)
  • J. Freeman et al.

    The liability of newness: age dependence in organizational death rates

    American Sociological Review

    (1983)
  • J. Galaskiewicz

    Interorganizational relations

    Annual Review of Sociology

    (1985)
  • R. Garud

    Roles of researcher sub-committee in the development of a new technology: The case of cochlear implants

    (1990)
  • R. Garud et al.

    Innovation and the emergence of industries

  • S.G. Gilfillan

    The Sociology of Invention

    (1935)
  • J. Hagedoorn

    The Dynamic Analysis of Innovation and Diffusion: A Study in Process Control

    (1989)
  • H. Hakansson

    Industrial Technological Development: A Network Approach

    (1988)
  • T.C. Halliday et al.

    Minimalist organizations: vital events in state bar associations, 1870–1930

    American Sociological Review

    (1987)
  • M.T. Hannan et al.

    The population ecology of organizations

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1977)
  • M.T. Hannan et al.

    Structural inertia and organizational change

    American Sociological Review

    (1984)
  • M.T. Hannan et al.

    Organizational Ecology

    (1989)
  • T.P. Hughes

    Networks of Power; Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930

    (1983)
  • D.L. Hull

    Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science

    (1988)
  • J. Jewkes et al.

    The Sources of Invention

    (1958)
  • J.R. Kimberly

    Initiation, innovation and institutionalization in the creation process

  • T.S. Kuhn

    The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

    (1982)
  • Cited by (0)

    An earlier draft of this paper was presented at a conference organized by Ivan Bull on Theories of Entrepreneurship at the University of Illinois, October 18, 1991. Substantive sections in this paper were previously published in Van de Ven (1993). I gratefully appreciate useful suggestions in preparing this paper from Philip Anderson, Avner Ben-Ner, Ivan Bull, Joseph Galaskiewicz, Michael Levenhagen, and Richard Nelson. Support for research underlying this paper has been provided (in part) by a grant to the Strategic Management Research Center at the University of Minnesota from the Program on Organization Effectiveness, Office of Naval Research, under contract No. N00014-84-K-0016.

    View full text