Call for Papers

Economic disparities present potential entrepreneurs with opportunities to create new organizations that may facilitate their socioeconomic mobility. Yet, many face substantial barriers to realizing those opportunities. This sub-theme will examine these dynamics, exploring how, when, and for whom entrepreneurship leads to upward, downward, or lateral social mobility across space and time. Embracing diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches from multiple disciplines, we endeavor to unravel the opportunities and constraints at the intersection of entrepreneurship, societal stratification, and inclusive growth.
 
Entrepreneurship is arguably one of the most creative economic acts in modern societies, celebrated widely and featured in entrepreneurship education (e.g., Audia & Rider, 2005; Hamidi et al., 2008; Aldrich & Ruef, 2018). Focusing on theoretical and empirical relationships between entrepreneurship and social mobility, we acknowledge the potential of entrepreneurial activity to reshape societal structures in ways that are more or less inclusive and equitable. We pose the questions of “How?”, “When?”, “Why?”, and “For whom?”.
 
We draw inspiration from both classic works and recent research. For example, Sorokin (1959) observed that the hierarchical structure of many societies fosters upward mobility aspirations. Schumpeter (1951) observed that ascending rigid social hierarchies often necessitates “extraordinary” and creative acts like entrepreneurship.
 
More recently, scholars have cast entrepreneurship as a creative process that can cause individuals to ascend or descend social hierarchies (e.g., Sørensen & Sharkey, 2014; Frederiksen et al., 2016; Rider et al., 2023). While much research considers the relationship between entrepreneurship and inequality (e.g., Halvarsson et al., 2018), entrepreneurship’s specific role in alleviating or accentuating inequality via socioeconomic mobility has received less scholarly attention.
 
We welcome proposals from researchers engaging with these topics and expect to foster focused dialogue on the role that entrepreneurship plays in facilitating and impeding socioeconomic mobility. We envision submissions that address topics like those below and present these topics to be illustrative, not all-inclusive.

1. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Intersectionality: Some research highlights the importance of network structures, institutional support, regulations, and resource access within ecosystems for entrepreneurial success (e.g., Audia & Rider, 2006). Submissions might consider how entrepreneurial opportunities differ for different demographic groups defined by multi-dimensional social identities, with implications for entrepreneurial social mobility and inequalities (e.g., Portes & Zhou, 1996; Hoang & Gimeno, 2010; Thébaud, 2015; Guzman & Kacperczyk, 2019; Castellaneta et al., 2020; Conti et al., 2022; Kacperczyk & Younkin, 2022; Yang et al., 2023; Kim & Rider, 2023).

2. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Inclusive Growth: Some research highlights the importance of network structures, institutional support, community cultures, and resource availability within ecosystems for entrepreneurial success (e.g., Wennberg & Lindqvist, 2010; Samila & Sorenson, 2011, 2017; Wennberg et al., 2013). Such factors likely influence different groups different with implications for inclusive growth and inequality. Submissions might consider how ecosystems nurture or hinder entrepreneurial ventures, with implications for entrepreneurial social mobility related to social identities.

3. Policies and Institutional Change: Many valuable insights have been obtained from research that investigates how policy and institutional change opens and closes pathways for social mobility via entrepreneurship (e.g., Castellaneta et al., 2020; Conti et al., 2022). Submissions might evaluate variation in policies and institutions across contexts or within contexts over time to elucidate how policies and institutions render entrepreneurship a more or less viable path to social mobility (e.g., Thébaud, 2015).

4. Narratives and Cultural Perceptions: Much research examines how cultural narratives and perceptions influence both entrepreneurial aspirations for social mobility and one’s chances of attaining it (e.g., Audia & Rider, 2005; Aldrich & Yang, 2012; Wennberg et al., 2013; Aldrich & Ruef, 2018; Rider et al., 2023). Submission might explore narrative construction, the diffusion of cultural narratives, or the evolution of norms and values across time and/or space.

These topics are intended to be illustrative and are certainly not all-inclusive. Contributions from diverse fields and disciplines like entrepreneurship, organizational theory, management, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, and others are encouraged. This sub-theme aims to foster dialogue, generate insights, and offer actionable strategies to reshape systems and promote entrepreneurship as a pathway to equitable social mobility.

 

References

• Aldrich, H.E., & Ruef, M. (2018): “Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 32 (4), 458-472.

• Aldrich, H.E., & Yang, T. (2012): “Lost in translation: Cultural codes are not blueprints.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6 (1), 1–17.
• Audia, P.G., & Rider, C.I. (2005): “A garage and an idea: what more does an entrepreneur need?” California Management Review, 48 (1), 6–28.
• Audia, P.G., & Rider, C.I. (2006): “Entrepreneurs as Organizational Products Revisited.” In: The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. Psychology Press, 145–162.
• Castellaneta, F., Conti, R., & Kacperczyk, A. (2020): “The (un)intended consequences of institutions lowering barriers to entrepreneurship: The impact on female workers.” Strategic Management Journal, 41 (7), 1274–1304.
• Conti, R., Kacperczyk, O., & Valentini, G. (2022): “Institutional protection of minority employees and entrepreneurship: Evidence from the LGBT Employment Non-Discrimination Acts.” Strategic Management Journal, 43 (4), 758–791.
• Folta, T.B., Delmar, F., & Wennberg, K. (2010): “Hybrid entrepreneurship.“ Management Science, 56 (2), 253–269.
• Frederiksen, L., Wennberg, K., & Balachandran, C. (2016): “Mobility and entrepreneurship: Evaluating the scope of knowledge-based theories of entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40 (2), 359–380.
• Halvarsson, D., Korpi, M., & Wennberg, K. (2018): “Entrepreneurship and income inequality.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 145, 275–293.
• Hamidi, D.Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008): “Creativity in entrepreneurship education.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15 (2), 304–320.
• Guzman, J., & Kacperczyk, A.O. (2019): “Gender gap in entrepreneurship.” Research Policy, 48 (7), 1666–1680.
• Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. (2010): “Becoming a founder: How founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions and persistence in founding.” Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (1), 41–53.
• Kacperczyk, O., & Younkin, P. (2022): “A founding penalty: evidence from an audit study on gender, entrepreneurship, and future employment.” Organization Science, 33 (2), 716–745.
• Kim, Y,. & Rider, C.I. (2023): Push and pull in immigrant entrepreneurship: Evidence from generational self-employment patterns. Working paper, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
• Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1996): “Self-Employment and the Earnings of Immigrants.” American Sociological Review, 61 (2), 219–30.
• Rider, C.I., Choe, S., Myung, B.J., & McCullers, K. (2023): “Entrepreneurship and social mobility: Three status metaphors for future research.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 43; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2023.100192.
• Rider, C.I., Thompson, P., Kacperczyk, A., & Tåg, J. (2019): “Experience and Entrepreneurship: A Career Transition Perspective.” ILR Review, 72 (5), 1149–1181.
• Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2011): “Venture Capital, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 93 (1), 338–49.
• Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2017): “Community and Capital in Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.” American Sociological Review, 82 (4), 770–795.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1972): Imperialism and Social Classes: Two Essays. Cleveland: Meridian Books.
• Sørensen, J.B. (2007): “Bureaucracy and entrepreneurship: Workplace effects on entrepreneurial entry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (3), 387–412.
• Sørensen, J.B., & Sharkey, A.J. (2014): “Entrepreneurship as a mobility process.” American Sociological Review, 79 (2), 328–349.
• Sorokin, P.A. (2019): “Social and cultural mobility.” In: Grusky, D.B. (ed.): Social Stratification. Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. New York: Routledge, 303–308.
• Thébaud, S. (2015): “Business as plan B: Institutional foundations of gender inequality in entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 60 (4), 671–711.
• Wennberg, K., & Lindqvist, G. (2010): “The effect of clusters on the survival and performance of new firms.” Small Business Economics, 34, 221–241.
• Wennberg, K., Pathak, S., & Autio, E. (2013): “How culture moulds the effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25 (9–10), 756–780.
• Yang, T., Kacperczyk, A., & Naldi, L. (2023): “The Motherhood Wage Penalty and Female Entrepreneurship.” Organization Science, 35 (1), 27–51.
•