THE ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY OF NEW VENTURE CREATION
Samira Bakhtiari
Islamic Azad University, Iran, Islamic Republic of
E-mail: samira.bakhtiari@mail.com
Submission: 24/04/2016
Revision: 11/05/2016
Accept: 23/05/2016
ABSTRACT
In fact, [new] economic sociology is a meeting place for economists and sociologists. It is a rejection of the maximization hypothesis of orthodox economic theory. Thus its approach regarding new venture creation might be controversial. This paper attempts to connect these two areas, following a qualitative approach. Findings show that three main elements, i.e. (i) social action, (ii) embeddedness, and (iii) social relations, affect new venture creation. These elements are elaborated in this research and three main propositions are proposed.
Keywords: Economic Sociology, New
Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship
1. INTRODUCTION
Economic
sociology, per se, is no longer a novel idea; however its importance and
new domains in which this concept is developed are to be taken into account.
Developed in the late 19th century and redefined in the 1970s, it has produced
a long run of exciting studies and promising leads.
As the century turned, it was
timely to look beyond our accumulation of important empirical studies and
reassess what theoretical agenda a structural economic sociology might pursue,
and where this agenda fits with the main concerns of sociology and economics
(GRANOVETTER, 2000).
In
fact, economic sociology is a way to explain the economy with a sociological
lens. It deals with the multiple and complex relations between economy and
society. More specifically, it focuses on the impact of social, political and cultural factors on
economic behavior (BECKERT; ZAFIROVSKI, 2013). The main point is that, while
economic sociology deals with economically oriented action as well as with
economic action, economic theory only deals with the latter (SWEDBERG, 1998).
Granovetter
(2000) challenged the view that, with modernization, economies and societies
become detached and that "economic transaction [is] defined no longer by
the social and kinship obligation but by individual gains". He
reintroduced the concept of embeddedness to bring out the importance of
concrete personal relationships and networks of relationships in standard
market economic systems (PEREDO; CHRISMAN, 2006).
New
economic sociology covers many of the substantive areas of old economic
sociology. But there are also a number of new directions. Their theoretical approaches are fundamentally
eclectic and pluralistic. No single perspective is dominant. The influence of Weber and
Parsons can be seen, also that of Polanyi.
Some
representatives of NES are attracted by the critique of capitalism like Mintz
and Schwartz. More interesting, however, is the concept of “embeddedness” as
used by Granovetter in the sense that “economic action takes place within the
networks of social relations that make up the social structure.” DiMaggio adds
that economic action is embedded not only in social structure but also in
culture.
Points
of interest are the sociology of markets, the sociology of the firm and
industrial organization with topics like investor capitalism; the critique of
transaction cost economics, the sociology of industrial regions (RICHTER,
2015).
Max
Weber is without doubt the most important figure in early economic sociology.
He was uniquely trained to launch a project such as economic sociology since he
had worked both as an economist and as an economic historian before he turned
to sociology. Of the founders of sociology, he was also the only one who tried
to lay a systematic theoretical foundation for economic sociology.
Like
the works of the other classic writers in economic sociology, that of Weber is
still much in need of study. Economic sociology came to something of a
standstill after 1920 and would not come back to life again until the
mid-1980s. Still, some important work was done during the period after the
classics--especially by Schumpeter, Parsons, and Polanyi. The current
generation of economic sociologists has singled out Polanyi among these three
thinkers.
Polanyi
coined the term "embeddedness" and also supplied some other useful
conceptual tools, such as the three forms of integration. The works of
Schumpeter and Parsons have, on the other hand, more or less been ignored.
While the value of Parsons's economic sociology can be debated, it is clear
that Schumpeter's work is of much relevance to contemporary economic sociology.
Of Schumpeter's many contributions, especially his theory of entrepreneurship
and the analysis of the economy in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy deserve
to become part of contemporary economic sociology (SWEDBERG, 2009).
This
approach is widely used in different domains; however, it is nascent in some
other domains such as new venture creation (e.g. see ZANJANI et al., 2013;
SALAMZADEH; KAWAMORITA KESIM, 2015). In its business sense, economic sociology
is a vibrant area of research, investigating how social structures, power
allocations, and cultural understandings shape the production, consumption, distribution, and
exchange of goods and services (BANDELJ, 2009).
This
approach supports the idea that the behavior of firms is socially embedded. In
this regard, a firm's decision to embark on a major new venture could be
considered as an important case (SALINETTI, 2013). The concept of embeddedness,
which is extensively used in the literature of entrepreneurship and new venture
creation, seems to be entangled with such topics (e.g. see MARQUIS; LOUNSBURY,
2007; DIMOV, 2007; STEIER et al., 2009).
For
instance, research on economic sociology has highlighted the importance of
social networks in economic actions (DE CLERQ; ARENIUS, 2002). Yet, still there
is a considerable gap to define new venture creation based on economic
sociology. This paper tries to fill this gap. Therefore, in this paper, the
literature is reviewed and then research methodology is discussed. Then,
findings are presented and finally the paper concludes with some concluding
remarks.
2. NEW ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY: A CRITICAL REVIEW
New
Economic Sociology, which after decades of slump is suddenly booming,
is a little more than three decades old and has its roots in some works
that appeared in the early 1980s (SWEDBERG, 1990, 1997).
The
subfield of economic sociology is partly built on analysis of the types of
embeddedness, which is a major issue to be taken into account (GRANOVETTER,
2005). However, there are several topics on which this approach concentrates.
For instance, the way Weber conceptualized economic action and attempted to
elaborate it using this theory (SWEDBERG, 2000).
As
Convert and Heilbron (2007) argue, like all new research fields, the new
economic sociology was produced by the redeployment of relatively diverse
researchers under a single academic label. Academic entrepreneurs in the second
half of the 1980s took up the traditional term of the European “founding
fathers” claiming they were renewing the discipline while distinguishing
themselves from, (i) the old denomination economy and society, (ii) anti-disciplinary
currents, and (iii) interdisciplinary movements.
As
to theory, it appears that the embeddedness approach is still the most popular
approach – but it is also increasingly criticized and a few other theoretical
alternatives exist today (JAGD, 2007). The three topics of networks, markets
and firms continue to be central, and some important advances have been made
during the last decade (ASPKRS, 1999).
New
topics include finance, law, stratification and comparative-historical studies.
New economic sociology is still suspicious of mainstream economics but has good
relations with the other social sciences as well as with other subfields in
sociology (SWEDBERG, 2004; SMELSER, 2013).
In
fact, the goal of economic sociology is to show that this world of market
rationality is restrained (Mitchell, 2008). On the other hand, in this context,
economic sociology is by implication an "inquiry into the social relations
of the economy (ZAFIROVSKI, 1999). Thus, in this study, instead of focusing on
economic sociology as a whole, the focus will be on the main topics in this
domain.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The
qualitative researchers might aim at induction, in the sense of development of
theory from data (MALTERUD, 2001). As Miller (1986) notes, "Qualitative
research is an empirical, socially located phenomenon, defined by its own
history, not simply a residual grab-bag comprising all things that are not
quantitative". This is a conceptual paper which puts forward a conceptual
model for showing how economic sociology affects new venture creation
activities. In particular, the discussion presented here uses data from:
(i)
Interview
sessions: 7
face-to-face interviews with experts in the field of new economic sociology and
entrepreneurship were conducted. The experts had more than three years of
relevant experience, and also published a series relevant of books, papers, and
reports. As mentioned earlier, the aim of the research was to propose a
conceptual model. The interview agenda contained both structured elements, and open
questions. It should be mentioned that all the interviews were fully recorded
and notes are taken by another person who was at the session. Each interview
took between 30 minutes to one hour; and
(ii)
(ii)
Focus group sessions: 2 series of focus groups amongst experts were held
which raised a variety of topics, including new venture creation, economic
sociology, embeddedness, etc. It should be noted that, these sessions were
designed based on Morgan and Spanish (1984) technique. Each focus group session
was done in two hours and follow up questions were sent to the attendants after
the meeting. All the attendants received the memos and added their ideas and
made required justifications.
4. FINDINGS
a. Social actions and new venture
creation
“Economic
action is seen only as a special, if important, category of social action.”
(GRANOVETTER, 2000) Economic relations between two parties can be of different
character: implicit or explicit; hierarchical or among equals, mutually binding
contractual relations with freely chosen partners[1]
or power relationships[2],
reciprocal or one-sided, based on trust or burdened by distrust etc.
Social
actions are constrained by ongoing social relations and cannot be explained by
reference to individual motives alone (GRANOVETTER, 1985, 2005). They are
embedded in ongoing networks of personal relationships, economic and
non-economic, rather than being carried out by atomized actors. The
embeddedness concept can be described by social network analysis (RICHTER,
2015).
Since
entrepreneurship is concerned with social actions, some scholars argued that
the theories and methods of social psychology seem particularly appropriate to
understanding processes such as new venture creation (KOLVEREID; ISAKSEN,
2012). New venture creation opportunities often emerge as a result of
collective social action (RATTEN, 2011).
It
should be noted that embeddedness approaches prioritize the different
conditions within which social action takes place; then these two are somehow
entangled (WILLIAMS MIDDLETON, 2011). Moreover, social action has been
described as teleological in structure; the end of an action always implies a
future state which is dependent on the action of actors, i.e. new venture
creation (SALAMZADEH et al., 2013, 2014; GUERRERO et al., 2015; HERMES; MAINELA,
2015).
Interviewees
mentioned that "social actions in new venture creation play a significant
role, since nothing could be done without such actions". Another
interviewee argued that "even at the very early stages of new venture creation,
the entrepreneurs could enjoy the benefits of the social actions and
movements…, without such actions new ventures might be terminated before
birth". All the interviewees insisted on the social intentions of
entrepreneurs in running a new business.
P1: Social actions significantly
affect new venture creation process (bootstrapping, seed, and creation phases).
b. Embeddedness and new venture creation
As
developed so far, the concepts of the new economic sociology represent a broad
programmatic statement in need of further specification. Embeddedness, in this
regard, provides a very useful standpoint for criticizing neoclassical models (PORTES;
SENSENBRENNER, 1993). Prior research
shows that embeddedness is an exchange system with unique opportunities
relative to markets and that firms organized in networks have higher survival
chances than do firms which maintain arm's-length market relationships (UZZI,
1996).
To
some scholars, the concept of social embeddedness is arguably the major
contribution of this approach (HINRICHS, 2000). This topic is closely related
to social relations. In fact, relational embeddedness is defined by the type of
social relationship in which the tie is embedded (HITE, 2005).
Research
on new venture creation also considers embeddedness as a critical issue. For
instance, research shows that some percentage of family ties (i.e., a moderate
level of embeddedness) is likely to have positive effects on new venture growth
up to a point (ARREGLE et al., 2015). It is likely to transmit a set of
cognitive beliefs (ALMANDOZ, 2012). For example, entrepreneurship and new
venture creation scholars would benefit from an embeddedness perspective on new
venture creation (ALDRICH; CLIFF, 2003).
Moreover,
some scholars highlighted the importance of examining the causes and
consequences of embeddedness in the entrepreneurial process, which is a
critical issue (HOANG; ANTONCIC, 2003). Research into embeddedness can help to
advance understanding of how social structure affects economic life (UZZI,
1996).
Indeed,
the new venture creation process is highly affected by social contacts or
linkages which in fact form the patterns of social interaction (CARSRUD;
JOHNSON, 1989). Social embeddedness is relevant to new venture creation because
it helps the entrepreneur identify social resources, an essential step to
founding organizations (HOANG; ANTONCIC, 2003).
In
addition, being embedded within the social context means access to more support
during the new venture creation process but also a likelihood of increased
entrepreneurial activity (ALDRICH; CLIFF, 2003).
If
new venture creation is embedded in a social context, then it must involve and
draw on society. These factors may play a role in the way in which value is,
and can be, extracted in terms of resource availability, opportunity perception
and shape the new venture creation event. The argument proposed here is that
when examining the entrepreneur, the context has to be taken into account,
since the social whole is pre-eminent over its individual parts (ALMANDOZ,
2012).
In
sum, research on the mechanisms that control the entrepreneur’s personal
networks mainly addresses the role of embeddedness in new venture creation
(e.g. see ALDRICH; CLIFF, 2003; SALAMZADEH, 2015). Different dimensions of
embeddedness can be found in the extant literature. These dimensions refer to
the structure of the overall network of relationships, the extent to which
economic actions are affected by the quality of personal relationships and the
extent to which network ties contain valuable resources for the entrepreneur (ARREGLE
et al., 2015).
Interviewees
also addressed that "entrepreneurs use embeddedness as their exchange
system to reach new markets". They also believed that "new ventures
with use such embeddedness might make the rate of success higher for startups
and new ventures". Moreover, new ventures which are embedded in an
appropriate context might be more productive in their views.
P2: Embeddedness significantly
affects new venture creation process (bootstrapping, seed, and creation
phases).
c. Social relations and new venture
creation
How
behavior and institutions are affected by social relations is one of the
classic questions of social theories, and more specifically economic sociology
(GRANOVETTER, 1985). Granovetter (1985) also believes that disorder and
malfeasance do of course occur also when social relations are absent.
This
possibility is already entailed in his earlier claim that the presence of such
relations inhibits malfeasance. He concludes that “Instead of the economy being
embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in economy”. It
should be noted that social relations are the fundamental unit of analysis,
rather than ontological actors, frozen in space and time and isolated from
social and cultural context (AGUILERA; JACKSON, 2003).
In
fact, there is a close relation between embeddedness and social relations.
Embeddedness refers to the process by which social relations shape economic
action in ways that some mainstream economic schemes overlook or miss-specify
when they assume that social ties affect economic behavior only minimally (UZZI,
1996). In economic sociology, contrary to rational choice theory, the mechanism
of exchange is not interactions between individuals, it is embeddedness in a
web of social relations, or social context (RUTTEN; BOEKEMA, 2007). In other
words, social relations are the context in which economic activity is embedded
(GRANOVETTER, 1985).
Social
capital is the goodwill created through social relations that can be mobilized
to facilitate the attainment of needed resources, influence, and sponsorship in
any new venture creation process (DE CAROLIS et al., 2009). To some scholars,
all economic activity is embedded in social relations and that such relations
influence the establishment of businesses and the art of new venture creation (ULHØI,
2005).
Entrepreneurs
use external social relations to get information, obtain financial, physical,
and human resources, and gain legitimacy in new venture creation (CHANG et al.,
2009). In sum, networks and social relations also affect the discovery of
business opportunities (KLOFSTEN, 2005).
"An
entrepreneur is as normal and routine as a typical guy, if he/she does not have
good social relationships with different people", one of interviewees
mentioned. Another interviewee added that "social relation is an integral
part of any entrepreneur, especially in new venture creation
process".
P3: Social relations significantly
affect new venture creation process (bootstrapping, seed, and creation phases).
5. CONCLUSION
Based on the extant literature
and three main pillars of new economic sociology approach, and according to new
venture creation stages a model is proposed, using a qualitative research
method. According to this model, social action is considered as a fundamental
concept (e.g. see GRANOVETTER 1985, 2005; RATTEN, 2011; WILLIAMS MIDDLETON,
2011; KOLVEREID; ISAKSEN, 2012; RICHTER, 2015; HERMES; MAINELA, 2015).
Any social action, as a primary
phenomenon in this model, includes embeddedness (PORTES; SENSENBRENNER, 1993;
UZZI, 1996; HINRICHS, 2000; ARREGLE et al., 2015) and social relations (GRANOVETTER,
1985; AGUILERA; JACKSON, 2003; RUTTEN; BOEKEMA, 2007; DE CAROLIS et al., 2009; CHANG
et al., 2009).
This social action is also a
main pillar for any new venture creation activity, which includes the following
phases: (i) bootstrapping, (ii) seed, and (iii) creation (SALAMZADEH;
KAWAMORITA KESIM, 2015; SALAMZADEH, 2015). In this sense, the following model
is proposed.
Figure 1: New Venture Creation: and main
elements of New Economic Sociology
This model illustrates the key
elements which affect new venture creation process, based on the new economic
sociology approach. In fact there are several elements which might affect, but
most of the other elements were not considered as effective elements in this
research. The future researchers might also consider those elements and test
the hypotheses accordingly. One of the main implications of this research is
that it connects two seemingly separate domains which could be considered as a
whole.
REFERENCES
AGUILERA,
R. V.; JACKSON, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate
governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of management Review, v.
28, n. 3, p. 447-465.
ALDRICH,
H. E.; CLIFF, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on
entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal
of business venturing, v. 18, n. 5, p. 573-596.
ALMANDOZ,
J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial
logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, v.
55, n. 6, p. 1381-1406.
ARREGLE,
J. L.; BATJARGAL, B.; HITT, M. A.; WEBB, J. W.; MILLER, T.; TSUI, A. S. (2015).
Family ties in entrepreneurs' social networks and new venture growth.Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, v. 39,
n. 2, p. 313-344.
ASPKRS,
P. (1999). The economic sociology of Alfred Marshall: an overview. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, v. 58, n. 4, p. 651-667.
BANDELJ,
N. (2009). Toward Economic Sociology of Work: Economic Sociology of Work, London,
UK: Emerald Publishing.
BECKERT,
J.; ZAFIROVSKI, M. (Eds.). (2013). International encyclopedia of economic
sociology. Routledge.
CARSRUD,
A. L.; JOHNSON, R. W. (1989). Entrepreneurship: a social psychological
perspective. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, v.
1, n. 1, p. 21-31.
CHANG,
E. P.; MEMILI, E.; CHRISMAN, J. J.; KELLERMANNS, F. W.; CHUA, J. H. (2009).
Family social capital, venture preparedness, and start-up decisions: A study of
Hispanic entrepreneurs in New England. Family Business Review,
v. 22, n. 3, p. 279-292.
CONVERT,
B.; HEILBRON, J. (2007). Where did the new economic sociology come from?. Theory
and Society, v. 36, n.
1, p. 31-54.
DE
CAROLIS, D. M.; LITZKY, B. E.; EDDLESTON, K. A. (2009). Why networks enhance
the progress of new venture creation: The influence of social capital and
cognition. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, v. 33, n. 2, p. 527-545.
DE
CLERQ, D.; ARENIUS, P. (2002). Effects of human capital and social capital on
entrepreneurial activity. In Babson College, Babson Kauffman
Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BKERC) (v. 2006).
DIMOV,
D. (2007). Beyond the single‐person, single‐insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial
opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, v. 31, n. 5, p. 713-731.
GRANOVETTER,
M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American journal of sociology, p.
481-510.
GRANOVETTER,
M. (2000). A theoretical agenda for economic sociology. Center for Culture,
Organizations and Politics. Stanford University.
GRANOVETTER,
M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 19, n. 1, p. 33-50.
GUERRERO,
M.; URBANO, D.; SALAMZADEH, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial transformation in the
Middle East: experiences from Tehran Universities. Technics Technologies
Education Management, v. 10,
n. 4, p. 533-537.
HERMES,
J.; MAINELA, T. (2015) Institutional entrepreneuring in erratic
environments. Context, Process
and Gender in Entrepreneurship: Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research, v. 34, n. 4.
HINRICHS,
C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct
agricultural market. Journal of rural studies, v.
16, n. 3, p. 295-303.
HITE,
J. M. (2005). Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network
ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship theory and
practice, v. 29, n. 1,
p. 113-144.
HOANG,
H.; ANTONCIC, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical
review. Journal of business venturing, v. 18, n. 2, p. 165-187.
JAGD,
S. (2007). Economics of Convention and New Economic Sociology Mutual
Inspiration and Dialogue. Current Sociology, v. 55, n. 1, p. 75-91.
KLOFSTEN,
M. (2005). New venture ideas: an analysis of their origin and early
development. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, v.
17, n. 1, p. 105-119.
KOLVEREID,
L.; ISAKSEN, E. J. (2012). The Psychology of the Entrepreneur'. Perspectives
in Entrepreneurship: A Critical Approach, p. 27-39.
MALTERUD,
K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The
lancet, v. 3, n. 58,
p. 483-488.
MARQUIS,
C.; LOUNSBURY, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the
consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, v.
50, n. 4, p. 799-820.
MILLER,
M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. NY: Sage.
MITCHELL,
T. (2008). Rethinking economy. Geoforum, 39(3),
1116-1121.
MORGAN,
D. L.; SPANISH, M. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative
research. Qualitative sociology, v. 7, n. 3, p. 253-270.
PEREDO,
A. M.; CHRISMAN, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy
of Management Review, v. 31,
n. 2, p. 309-328.
PORTES,
A.; SENSENBRENNER, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social
determinants of economic action. American journal of sociology, p.
1320-1350.
RATTEN,
V. (2011). Social entrepreneurship and innovation in sports.International
journal of social entrepreneurship and innovation, v. 1, n. 1, p. 42-54.
RICHTER,
R. (2015). New economic sociology and new institutional economics. In Essays
on New Institutional Economics (p. 51-75). Springer
International Publishing.
RUTTEN,
R.; BOEKEMA, F. (2007). Regional social capital: Embeddedness, innovation
networks and regional economic development. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, v. 74,
n. 9, p. 1834-1846.
SALAMZADEH,
A. (2015). New Venture Creation: Controversial Perspectives and Theories. Economic
Analysis, v. 48, n. 3-4,
p. 101-109.
SALAMZADEH,
A.; KAWAMORITA KESIM, H. (2015). Startup Companies: Life Cycle and Challenges.
In 4th International Conference on Employment, Education and
Entrepreneurship (EEE), Belgrade, Serbia.
SALAMZADEH,
A.; AZIMI, M. A.; KIRBY, D. A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship education in
higher education: insights from a developing country. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, v. 20, n. 1, p. 17-34.
SALAMZADEH,
A.; FARJADIAN, A. A.; AMIRABADI, M.; MODARRESI, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial
characteristics: insights from undergraduate students in Iran. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, v. 21, n. 2, p. 165-182.
SALINETTI,
E. (2013). New business formation in business networks, Doctoral
dissertation, Università della Svizzera italiana.
SMELSER,
N. J. (2013). The sociology of economic life.
Quid Pro Books.
STEIER,
L. P.; CHUA, J. H.; CHRISMAN, J. J. (2009). Embeddedness perspectives of
economic action within family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
v. 33, n. 6, p. 1157-1167.
SWEDBERG,
R. (1990). Economics and Sociology: redefining their boundaries: conversations
with economists and sociologists. Princeton University Press.
SWEDBERG,
R. (1997). New economic sociology: What has been accomplished, what is
ahead?. Acta Sociologica, v. 40, n. 2, p. 161-182.
SWEDBERG,
R. (1998). Max Weber's manifesto in economic sociology. European Journal of Sociology,
v. 39, n. 02, p. 379-398.
SWEDBERG,
R. (2000). Max Weber and the idea of economic sociology. Princeton
University Press.
SWEDBERG,
R. (2004). What has been accomplished in new economic sociology and where is it
heading?. European Journal of Sociology, v. 45, n. 03, p. 317-330.
SWEDBERG,
R. (2009). Principles of economic sociology. Princeton University
Press.
ULHØI,
J. P. (2005). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Technovation,
v. 25, n. 8, p. 939-946.
UZZI,
B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic
performance of organizations: The network effect. American sociological review,
p. 674-698.
WILLIAMS
MIDDLETON, K. (2011). Facilitating entrepreneurial behavior development through
learning. In Nordic Academy of Management Meeting (NFF)
Conference, Stockholm.
ZAFIROVSKI,
M. (1999). Economic Sociology in Retrospect and Prospect. American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, v. 58,
n. 4, p. 583-627.
ZANJANI,
S. S.; GHOLAMALI, A.; ABBASI, D. (2013). Social Networks and the Success of
SMEs in Media Industries. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and
Economics, v. 1, n. 1/2,
p. 125–139.