This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]On: 27 June 2014, At: 17:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment: An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepn20

Beyond the entrepreneur as aheroic figurehead of capitalism: re-representing the lived practices ofentrepreneursColin C. Williams a & Sara J. Nadin aa School of Management, University of Sheffield , Sheffield , UKPublished online: 01 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Colin C. Williams & Sara J. Nadin (2013) Beyond the entrepreneur asa heroic figurehead of capitalism: re-representing the lived practices of entrepreneurs,Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 25:7-8, 552-568, DOI:10.1080/08985626.2013.814715

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.814715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Beyond the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism:re-representing the lived practices of entrepreneurs

Colin C. Williams* and Sara J. Nadin1

School of Management, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

(Received 15 December 2011; final version received 10 June 2013)

This paper evaluates critically the ideologically driven representation of theentrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism pursuing for-profitentrepreneurship in the formal commercial economy. To do this, two separatestreams of literature are brought together, which highlight how manyentrepreneurs operate in the informal economy and how many others are socialentrepreneurs. Reporting a 2006 survey of the lived practices of entrepreneur-ship involving interviews with 120 entrepreneurs in a rural West of Englandlocality in the UK, formal sector for-profit entrepreneurship is shown to be aminority practice. Most entrepreneurs are revealed to operate wholly or partiallyin the informal economy and to varying extents adopt social goals, includingthose engaged in a newly identified form of entrepreneurship so far missed bythe entrepreneurship literature, namely social entrepreneurship in the informaleconomy. This reveals the need to de-link entrepreneurship from the formalcommercial economy. The resultant outcome is to replace the dominantrepresentation of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism with a re-representation of the entrepreneur that recognizes the multifarious livedpractices of entrepreneurship and therefore demonstrates the feasibility ofimagining and enacting alternative futures beyond capitalist hegemony.

Keywords: social entrepreneurship; commercial entrepreneurship; informaleconomy; shadow economy; underground economy; England

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to de-link entrepreneurship from capitalism so as to debunk the

myth that entrepreneurs are the heroic figureheads of capitalism. In recent decades, the

validity of this dominant normative ideal-type depiction of the entrepreneur as a symbolic

figurehead of capitalism who pursues for-profit entrepreneurship in the formal commercial

economy has started to be challenged on various fronts. On the one hand, a small but

growing literature highlights how many entrepreneurs operate in the informal economy

(Aidis et al. 2006; Evans, Syrett, and Williams 2006; Gurtoo 2009; Gurtoo and Williams

2010; Llanes and Barbour 2007; Webb et al. 2009; Williams 2006) and on the other hand,

a separate but burgeoning literature displays how many others are social entrepreneurs

(Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Defourny and Nyssens 2008; Galera and

Borzega 2009; Hynes 2009; Lyon and Sepulveda 2009; Nicholls and Cho 2006;

Thompson 2008). This paper brings together these previous discrete literatures through an

investigation of the lived practices of entrepreneurship in a West of England locality.

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: c.c.williams@sheffield.ac.uk

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 2013

Vol. 25, Nos. 7–8, 552–568, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.814715

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Revealing the multifarious lived practices of entrepreneurship in this locality, the outcome

is to de-link entrepreneurship from the formal commercial economy and to demonstrate

the feasibility of using entrepreneurship to imagine and enact alternative futures beyond

capitalism.

To commence, therefore, the first sectionwill highlight the dominant normative depiction

of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalismpursuing for-profit logics in the formal

commercial economy and how the emergent but separate literatures on social entrepreneur-

ship and informal entrepreneurship have begun to challenge this dominant norm. To show

how combining these separate literatures can significantly advance understanding of the lived

practice of entrepreneurship and, in doing so, contest this dominant normative depiction, the

second section then reports a 2006 survey of the lived practices of entrepreneurship involving

interviews with 120 entrepreneurs in a rural West of England locality in the UK (here kept

anonymous to preserve the anonymity of the participants). This will reveal how for-profit-

driven entrepreneurship in the formal economy is aminority practice in this locality, and how

the vast majority operate wholly or partially in the informal economy and to varying degrees

adopt social goals, including in a newly identified but extensive form of entrepreneurship so

far missed in the entrepreneurship literature, namely social entrepreneurship in the informal

economy.Theoutcome in the concluding sectionwill be a call for themythof the entrepreneur

as a heroic figurehead of capitalism, which closes off the future to anything, but capitalist

hegemony tobe transcended.Displaying themultifarious livedpractices of entrepreneurs, this

paper disarms those believing that ‘there is no alternative to capitalism’ by denying them

exclusive rights to claim the entrepreneur as supportive of their ideologically driven depiction

of the naturalized hegemony of capitalism. Instead, by re-representing the lived experiences

of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur as demonstrative of the persistence and even growth

of economic endeavour beyond the formal commercial economy, this paper shows that it is

wholly feasible to imagine and enact alternative futures for economic life beyond capitalist

hegemony.

At the outset, however, what is here meant by formal and informal entrepreneurship as

well as commercial and social entrepreneurship needs to be clarified. Given that

‘entrepreneurship means different things to different people’ (Anderson and Starnawska

2008, 222) and how one defines that entrepreneurship heavily influences subsequent findings

on the extent and nature of this endeavour (McKay, Phillimore, and Teasdale 2010), we here

adopt the definition most commonly used, such as in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

surveys,whichdefines an entrepreneur as somebodyactively involved in starting a business or

the owner/manager of a business,36months old (Harding et al. 2005; Reynolds et al. 2002).

Commercial entrepreneurship therefore involves those actively involved in starting a business

or are the owner/manager of a business that is,36months old, which is grounded in a for-

profit objective. Social entrepreneurship, meanwhile, is defined as somebody who is actively

involved in starting a business or is the owner/manager of a business that is,36months old,

which has a social and/or environmental objective in either the non-profit, for-profit or

government sectors, whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the

business or community (e.g. Austin, Stevenson, andWei-Skillern 2006; Dees 1998; Dees and

Anderson 2003; Defourny and Nyssens 2008).

The informal economy, meanwhile, is defined as monetary transactions not declared to

the state for tax and/or benefit purposes when they should be declared but which are legal

in all other respects (European Commission 2007; Evans, Syrett, and Williams 2006;

Williams 2006). The formal economy, in contrast, refers to monetary transactions declared

to the state for tax and/or benefit purposes when they should be declared and which involve

legal activities in all respects. Formal entrepreneurship, in consequence, refers to those

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 553

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

starting a business or are the owner/manager of a business,36months old who engage in

monetary transactions declared to the state for tax and/or benefit purposes when they

should be declared and which involve legal activities. Informal entrepreneurship, in

contrast, refers to those starting a business or are the owner/manager of a business

,36months old who engage in monetary transactions not declared to the state for tax and/

or benefit purposes when they should be declared but which are legal in all other respects.

De-linking entrepreneurship from capitalist endeavour in the formal commercial

economy

Until now, the literature on entrepreneurship has been dominated by a normative ideal-

type depiction of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism who pursues for-

profit entrepreneurship in the formal commercial economy. To see this, one needs to look

no further than the oft-cited statement that entrepreneurs are ‘economic heroes’ (Cannon

1991), even ‘super heroes’ (Burns 2001, 24). As Burns (2001, 1) proclaims, they are ‘the

stuff of “legends” . . . held in high esteem and held up as role models to be emulated’. This

normative ideal-type narrative of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead is present,

furthermore, across all theoretical approaches to entrepreneurship. Whether the ‘great

person’ school is adopted that views them as born (rather than made) and reads them as

possessing a ‘sixth sense’ along with intuition, vigour, energy, persistence and self-esteem

and contrasts them with ‘mortals’ who ‘lack what it takes’, or the more socially

constructed approaches of the classical, management, leadership or intrapreneurship

schools are pursued, all represent the entrepreneur as a heroic figure possessing virtuous

attributes that ‘lesser mortals’ do not (see Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991, 47). Such a

normative reading of the entrepreneur as an object of desire, rather than as a descriptive

subject, as Jones and Spicer (2005, 237) assert,

offers a narrative structure to the fantasy that coordinates desire. It points to an unattainableand only vaguely specified object, and directs desire towards that object . . . One securesidentity not in ‘being’ an enterprising subject but in the gap between the subject and the objectof desire. This lack is central to maintaining desir[e] . . .

The outcome is that entrepreneurship not reinforcing the depiction of the entrepreneur as a

heroic figurehead of for-profit capitalism in the formal commercial economy is either

positioned outside the boundaries of entrepreneurship, ignored, portrayed as temporary or

transient or asserted to have little to do with ‘entrepreneurship’ proper, namely for-profit

entrepreneurship in the formal commercial economy.

Over the past few decades, however, several separate sub-streams of the

entrepreneurship literature have sought to contest this dominant normative representation

of the entrepreneur and move towards a more lived practice view of the entrepreneur as a

descriptive subject rather than an object of desire. On the one hand, there has been a

burgeoning sub-stream of literature that unravels how the logics underpinning

entrepreneurship are often grounded in social goals rather than purely driven by for-

profit motives and on the other hand, a separate small sub-stream of the entrepreneurship

literature that highlights how much entrepreneurial endeavour also takes place in the

informal economy. Each is now considered in turn.

Beyond for-profit entrepreneurs: social entrepreneurship

For many decades, entrepreneurship and enterprise culture were seen to be inextricably

related to profit-driven capitalism. Entrepreneurs were portrayed as mostly commercially

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin554

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

driven. That entrepreneurship and enterprise culture might be other than profit-driven

capitalist endeavour was seldom entertained. In recent decades, however, both the

representation of capitalism as hegemonic as well as the associated equating of

entrepreneurship with profit-driven capitalism has come under increasing criticism.

A widespread belief across the social sciences has been that capitalism, meant here as

the process by which goods and services are produced and delivered by formal economy

enterprises for monetized exchange for the purpose of profit (Williams 2005), is

increasingly all-pervasive and colonizing the few remaining spaces of daily life

untouched by its powerful force (e.g. Amin, Cameron, and Hudson 2002). The outcome

is that there is now seemingly no alternative to capitalism. On the one hand, this is

argued by neo-liberals such as De Soto (2001, 1) who rejoices that ‘Capitalism stands

alone as the only feasible way rationally to organize a modern economy’ and asserts that

‘all plausible alternatives to capitalism have now evaporated’ (De Soto 2001, 13). On the

other hand, it is also argued by those opposing the continuing incursion of commerciality

due to its negative impacts but who believe that its on-going encroachment is irreversible

(Anderson 2000). As Fulcher (2004, 127) concludes, ‘The search for an alternative to

capitalism is fruitless in a world where capitalism has become utterly dominant’.

Similarly, Castree et al. (2004, 16–17) contend, ‘that this is a predominantly capitalist

world seems to us indisputable . . . this system of production arguably now has few, if

any, serious economic rivals’. It is therefore widely believed that for-profit driven

capitalism has penetrated nearly every nook and cranny of the contemporary economic

landscape (Carruthers and Babb 2000; Ciscel and Heath 2001; Rifkin 2000). Thus, there

is only one possible future and it is one where capitalism is all-pervasive (Slater and

Tonkiss 2001).

Recently, however, the view of capitalism as hegemonic has begun to be contested. An

array of post-capitalist, post-development, post-colonial, post-structuralist and critical

scholars have questioned the on-going penetration of capitalism (e.g. Gibson-Graham

2006; St Martin 2005; Whitson 2007; Williams 2005). De-centring capitalism by showing

how the present is characterized by a plurality of economic practices, this emergent

literature has opened up the future to alternative possibilities beyond capitalism and re-

signification (Chowdhury 2007; Gibson-Graham 2006; Williams 2005).

Parallel to this, the depiction of entrepreneurship as part and parcel of profit-

motivated capitalism, and enterprise culture as a by-word for contemporary capitalist

culture, has also been challenged. A burgeoning literature on social entrepreneurship has

documented how entrepreneurship is not always entirely profit-driven and how social

rationales are often involved (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Defourny and

Nyssens 2008; Galera and Borzega 2009; Hynes 2009; Lyon and Sepulveda 2009;

Nicholls and Cho 2006; Thompson 2008). For example, some 6.6% of the UK

population have been found to engage in social entrepreneurship and some one in three

UK entrepreneurs have been found to be social entrepreneurs (Harding and Cowing

2004).

Arguably, however, this has had a limited impact on the dominant normative

reading of entrepreneurship and enterprise culture as inextricably interwoven with

profit-driven capitalist endeavour. By portraying social entrepreneurship as either weak,

peripheral, marginal and/or in the process of becoming incorporated into the realm of

profit-driven capitalism, such as commercial entrepreneurship (Eikenberry and Kluver

2004), it remains widely believed that entrepreneurship is inextricably tied to

capitalism and enterprise culture a by-word for contemporary capitalist culture

(Armstrong 2005).

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 555

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Beyond legitimate formal entrepreneurs: informal sector entrepreneurship

Reviewing the extensive literature on entrepreneurship, a small tributary of thought has

long existed that draws attention to the negative tendencies of entrepreneurs, such as how

they do not always play by the rulebook (Bhide and Stephenson 1990; Kets de Vries 1977).

During the past decade or so, this has begun to rapidly expand. Studies have shown how

many entrepreneurs participate in illegitimate activities (Armstrong 2005; Fournier 1998;

Gottschalk 2010; Gottschalk and Smith 2011; Rehn and Taalas 2004; Skold and Rehn

2007) and also how many entrepreneurs participate in illegitimate activities, such as drug-

dealers (Bouchard and Dion 2009; Frith and McElwee 2008), prostitutes and pimps (Smith

and Christou 2009), often display entrepreneurial traits and attributes.

One burgeoning sub-stream of this ‘dark side’ (Kets de Vries 1985) literature examines

entrepreneurs operating in the informal economy (Antonopoulos and Mitra 2009; Ram,

Edwards, and Jones 2007; Small Business Council 2004; Valenzuela 2001; Williams

2006, 2007, 2010). Examining this literature on informal sector entrepreneurship, and

similar to social entrepreneurship, much of it either depicts the informal and formal

economies as separate spheres possessing distinct logics, or else adopts a strong normative

ordering which positively constructs capitalism and/or formal sector (for-profit)

entrepreneurs as signalling ‘progress’, ‘advancement’ and ‘development’ and negatively

depicts non-capitalism and/or informal entrepreneurs as deviant, damaging and

detrimental, and denoting ‘under-development’ and ‘backwardness’.

To see this, each of the four major schools of thought on informal entrepreneurship is

here reviewed in turn, namely the modernization, structuralist, neo-liberal and post-

structuralist perspectives. In the modernization perspective, not only are the informal and

formal spheres viewed separate realms, but also the formal capitalism realm is privileged

normatively over the informal non-capitalist realm (Boeke 1942; Geertz 1963; Lewis

1959). Lewis (1959), for example, adopts a two-sector model of the economy in which one

sector has modern capitalist firms that maximize profit and is the route to ‘progress’ and

‘advancement’, whereas the other comprised peasant households operating according to a

different logic and signifies ‘backwardness’ and ‘under-development’.

In the structuralist perspective, meanwhile, although the logics driving the informal

and formal economies are not seen to differ, in the sense that the recent growth of the

informal economy is seen as a direct by-product of the unfolding de-regulated open world

economy, the entrepreneurial endeavour that results from surplus labour being offloaded

into the separate informal economy is seen to be deviant, damaging and detrimental to the

achievement of ‘decent work’ (Davis 2006; Gallin 2001; ILO 2002).

The neo-liberal perspective, meanwhile, again portrays the formal and informal realms

as separate spheres and strongly adheres to the view of the entrepreneur as a heroic

figurehead of capitalism. However, it is here the informal entrepreneur who is celebrated

as the heroic figurehead of capitalism since they are casting off the bureaucratic shackles

of an over-regulated state and exemplify the resurgence of undiluted capitalism and

untrammelled enterprise culture (De Soto 1989, 2001). For De Soto (1989, 255) in

consequence, ‘the real problem is not so much informality as formality’.

The post-structuralist perspective, finally, similarly views the two as separate spheres

operating according to different logics and again privileges informal entrepreneurship

over formal entrepreneurship but for different reasons. Reading informal entrepreneurs as

social actors, rather than rational economic actors, they are seen to freely choose to engage

in informal entrepreneurship for social, redistributive, resistance or identity reasons (Biles

2009; Snyder 2004; Whitson 2007; Williams 2006), such as to transform their work

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin556

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

identity and/or reveal their true selves such as through ‘lifestyle’ business ventures

(Snyder 2004).

On the whole, however, and despite the emergence of these burgeoning literatures on

informal and social entrepreneurship, there has been arguably little headway made in

challenging the dominant portrayal of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism

and de-linking entrepreneurship ‘proper’ from for-profit capitalist endeavour in the formal

commercial economy.

Towards the lived practices of entrepreneurship

Given the apparent lack of success of these two literatures in de-linking entrepreneurship

from capitalist endeavour in the formal commercial economy, recent years have seen an

alternative approach adopted. Rather than simply draw attention to how many

entrepreneurs engage in the separate realms of social entrepreneurship and entrepreneur-

ship in the informal economy, attempts have been made to contest the depiction of the

entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead of capitalism by blurring the boundaries between both

social and commercial entrepreneurship as well as formal and informal entrepreneurship

so as to undermine the solidity and fixity of for-profit entrepreneurship in the formal

commercial economy.

In the social entrepreneurship literature, rather than view commercial and social

entrepreneurship as two opposing forms of entrepreneurship, and as separate, discrete and

different, a spectrum has started to be conceptualized ranging from wholly commercial

entrepreneurship at one end of the continuum to wholly social entrepreneurs at the other

end, with many blends in-between (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006; Moore

et al. 2010). As Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern (2006, 3) state, ‘the distinction

between social and commercial entrepreneurship is not dichotomous, but rather more

accurately conceptualized as a continuum ranging from purely social to purely economic’.

From this perspective, therefore, social and commercial objectives are commonly

combined and inter-twinned in entrepreneurs’ logics, with different entrepreneurs giving

varying weights to each. As Mair and Marti (2005, 2) assert, ‘Social entrepreneurship is

seen as differing from other forms of entrepreneurship in the relatively higher priority

given to promoting social value and development versus capturing economic value’.

Likewise, Moore et al. (2010, 52) state, ‘Becoming a social entrepreneur usually does not

mean that one is no longer concerned with making money – financial gain is just one of an

expanded set of goals . . . sometimes referred to as the “triple bottom line” because they

focus on people, profit and the planet’.

Similarly in the realm of informal entrepreneurship, there is an emerging literature that

entrepreneurs are not always either wholly formal or wholly informal. Rather than treating

formal and informal entrepreneurship as discrete spheres inhabited by different

entrepreneurs with separate logics, and/or simply invert the normative ordering of the

two sides, a growing sub-stream of literature has begun to show that an entrepreneur is not

either a formal entrepreneur or an informal entrepreneur but can operate in both the formal

and informal economies, as exemplified by formal entrepreneurs who have registered

enterprises but conduct a portion of their trade in the informal economy (Evans, Syrett, and

Williams 2006; Llanes and Barbour 2007; Williams 2006).

Until now, however, few, if any, studies have sought to integrate these two sub-streams

of literature. For example, although the literature on informal entrepreneurship has begun

to point out how many entrepreneurs combine formal and informal work in various

combinations (Llanes and Barbour 2007; Small Business Council 2004; Williams 2006),

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 557

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

few have questioned whether they always adopt commercial logics when engaging in

informal entrepreneurship. Similarly, the social entrepreneurship literature which blurs the

commercial/social dichotomy has seldom examined whether social entrepreneurs

sometimes operate informally.

Here, therefore, the intention is to combine an analysis of whether entrepreneurs

operate in the formal and/or informal economies with an analysis of whether entrepreneurs

have commercial and/or social goals in order to unravel how in lived practice many

entrepreneurs might not only operate to varying extents in formal and informal economic

activities but also variously combine commercial and social goals.

Evaluating the lived practices of entrepreneurship in a West of England locality

The focus of this paper arises out of a study of the lived practices of entrepreneurship

conducted in a rural West of England locality in the UK during 2006. This is a largely rural

locality that heavily relies on the tourist industry for its economic resilience. Indeed,

according to the government’s index of multiple deprivation that ranks all local

government districts according to their level of multiple deprivation (DCLG 2000), this

district lies in the lowest quartile of districts, meaning that it suffers relatively high levels

of multiple deprivation, a variable which previous studies show some impact not only on

the level of entrepreneurship in the informal economy (e.g. Williams 2010) but also on

levels of social entrepreneurship (Williams and Nadin 2011).

Methodology

To evaluate the lived practices of entrepreneurs, and given that a large proportion of UK

businesses are home-based (Mason, Carter, and Tagg 2008), face-to-face interviews were

conducted with entrepreneurs using a household rather than business premise survey. To

select households, a spatially stratified sampling technique was employed (Kitchin and

Tate 2001). With 20,400 households in this West of England locality surveyed and 700

household interviews sought, the researcher called at every 29th household. If there was no

response and/or an interview was refused, then the 30th household was visited, then the

28th, 31st, 27th and so on. This spatially stratified sample meant that the interviews were

the representative of the locality. For each household, furthermore, the ‘closest birthday’

rule was used to select adult respondents for interview amongst those available in the

household at the time.

To collect data, a relatively structured interview schedule was employed that used a

mix of closed- and open-ended questions to gather information. This adopted a gradual

approach with the more sensitive questions only being asked once some rapport had been

established. First, open-ended questions with probes investigated whether they had

engaged in any enterprising endeavour in the past 36months, and if so, background data

was collected on the nature of the enterprising endeavour, the length of time they had been

doing it, whether they registered as an enterprise/self-employed, the number of employees

they had, if any, and the sector in which they operated. If no enterprising endeavour was

identified, the interview finished here. If identified, second, questions were posed about the

magnitude of the impact of the informal economy on their venture and on their sector.

Third, whether they traded partially or wholly in the informal economy was investigated

and fourth, questions were asked about their rationales both at the start-up of their business

and at the time of the interview. Of course, nobody really knows why they do something

and even if they did, one cannot be certain that they will give a truthful account to an

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin558

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

unknown researcher who turns up on their doorstep. However, the opportunity was given

to them in the interview to reflect on their reasons.

Respondents were first asked whether their venture was primarily a for-profit

enterprise or established for other social purposes. The definitions explicitly stated to

respondents that commercial entrepreneurship is where somebody is primarily profit-

driven for financial gain, whereas social entrepreneurship is where somebody starts some

kind of social, voluntary or community enterprise for primarily social and/or

environmental objectives. Following this initial question, two further probes were then

used to encourage them to reflect and to elicit additional information on the logics

underpinning their entrepreneurial endeavour. On the one hand, their first response was

inflected such as ‘purely commercially motivated?’ and on the other hand, they were asked

‘are there ever any other reasons besides (the main one stated) why’. Finally, they were

asked whether their rationales had changed over time. The findings are reported below.

Findings

This survey identified some 120 instances of respondents having commenced some

entrepreneurial endeavour in the past 36months. As Figure 1 displays, of these 120

instances of nascent entrepreneurial endeavour, just 16% were operating wholly in the

formal economy with a for-profit logic. Of the remaining 84%, some 8% were social

enterprises, 52% were commercial-oriented enterprises in the informal economy and 24%

were social enterprises in the informal economy. By combining both whether

entrepreneurs operate in the formal or informal economy, and whether they pursue

commercial or social goals, therefore, the clear lesson is that pursuing for-profit

entrepreneurship in the formal commercial economy is a minority practice among the

entrepreneurs surveyed. It also reveals that by combining an analysis of these two facets, a

type of entrepreneurial endeavour comes to the fore that has so far gone unrecognized in

the entrepreneurship literature, namely social entrepreneurship in the informal economy.

In lived practice of course, individual entrepreneurs are not either wholly formal or

wholly informal and neither do they pursue either wholly commercial or wholly social

goals, as will now be revealed.

Blurring the formal/informal entrepreneurship dualism

This survey reveals that few of the entrepreneurs interviewed were wholly formal

entrepreneurs reporting no transactions in the informal economy (16%) and even fewer

wholly informal entrepreneurs (5%) operating completely off-the-books enterprises. The

vast majority (79%) were somewhere in between ranging from those who operate

registered formal ventures and occasionally conduct a small portion of transactions in the

informal economy, but are on a journey to formalization, through to entrepreneurs who

have registered their enterprise or as self-employed but conduct in a serial and on-going

manner nearly all of their business in the informal economy and have no intention of

further formalizing or are even informalizing.

Although wholly off-the-books enterprises are often depicted as run by ‘spivs’ looking

for a quick profit and as operating at the fringes of law-abiding society, the interviews

revealed a rather different picture of them. As a participant who operated an unregistered

enterprise trading wholly in the informal economy explained,

I’ve retired now so I have a lot more time than I used to. My pension isn’t great so it’s a reallyuseful income . . . more than anything though, it’s what I enjoy doing. I get a real sense ofpride out of making dog collars and other accessories so it’s a really good way of doing my

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 559

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

hobby and making a bit of money at the same time. I have thought about expanding things andhaving a proper trade stall at shows but I don’t want to . . . I think it’d be too much pressureand would take the enjoyment out of it . . . but you want to see what some people charge forthe stuff they churn out! . . . . perhaps if I’d done this a few years back I might have madesomething more of it.

Indeed, for some half of entrepreneurs operating informally, as in the previous example,

the enterprise pursued had arisen out of needs identified in the community and/or some

hobby or interest. Examples include a woman who makes dog-collars, a house-sitting

service, home-cleaning service, dog-walking service and a woman who provides childcare

for various families.

In the other half of cases, their enterprising endeavour in the informal economy had

arisen out of their formal occupation and was directly related to their formal job. Examples

include a kitchen designer who worked for a chain store but operated in a ‘parasitic’

manner doing the work on a self-employed basis for clients he met through this waged

Wholly commercialentrepreneurship

16% of entrepreneurship

Examples:- Retail business operating wholly inthe formal economy- Builder working wholly on-the-books - Staircase manufacturer that is now wholly legitimate

Wholly formal

52% of entrepreneurship

Examples:- Retired person with no registeredbusiness selling cat-collars on a whollyoff-the-books basis- Builder with registered businessconducting a portion of their trade off-the-books- Kitchen retail store employee who runs a‘parasitic’ self-employed business offeringcustomers of his formal business the sameproduct at cheaper rates - Formal employee of building firm whowork off-the-books on an own-accountbasis at the weekends

Wholly informal

entrepreneurship

Examples:

- Legal firm offering pro bono work- Joiner doing voluntary work for alocal charity- Plumber who does jobs for a ‘tokenfee’ for those who could not otherwiseafford to get their heating repaired

8% of entrepreneurship

entrepreneurship

Examples:

- Physiotherapy employee doing work atmates’ rates for acquaintances

- Hairdresser doing elderly and friendshair at very low prices- Peripatetic music teacher giving lessonsto deprived children at greatly reducedprices

- Web design employee doing own-account jobs for friends and acquaintancesfor token payments

24% of entrepreneurship

Wholly socialentrepreneurship

Figure 1. Typology of the different forms of entrepreneurship in the West of England locality.

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin560

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

employment, a solicitor working for a legal firm who provided contracts and advice to

acquaintances for off-the-books payments and a range of self-employed plumbers,

electricians and builders doing a portion of their trade off-the-books for customers.

Some entrepreneurs operate informally in the sense that they pay workers on a cash-in-

hand basis. An example is a fast food takeaway:

It’s not the most desirable of jobs so I’d struggle to get people if it all had to go through thebooks. Most of the part timers here are on benefits of some sort so they just use it to top uptheir income. So long as I get all the shifts covered I don’t mind who does it . . .

The majority of entrepreneurial endeavour that is in the informal economy, however, is

because they are paid cash-in-hand for their goods and services and do not declare it. An

example is a formal employee of a building firm who does his own work informally at

weekends,

Well, yeah I do work for someone else through the week but at weekends I’m my own boss sothat’s when I do my foreigners . . . I steer clear of my gaffers patch though and just do itthrough word of mouth . . . family and friends mainly. It means they can get work done at anaffordable price and I can earn more working like that than through the week working forsomeone else.

Why, therefore, do they engage in such enterprising endeavour in the informal economy?

Although the literature on formal sector entrepreneurship has long recognized that they

can be motivated by either commercial and/or social goals, studies of informal sector

entrepreneurship have largely assumed that informal entrepreneurship is profit-motivated

endeavour pursued for financial gain. Below, however, we examine whether this is indeed

the case.

Blurring the commercial/social entrepreneurship dichotomy

Participants were asked, ‘why did you decide to start doing this [ . . . ]?’ Figure 1 reveals

that one in three entrepreneurs operating wholly in the formal economy stated social goals

when asked this question, which is similar to the finding of the Global Entrepreneurship

Monitor on social entrepreneurship in the UK (Harding and Cowing 2004).

Similarly, and contrary to the assumption that informal entrepreneurs are purely profit-

driven, just two in three of the informal entrepreneurs stated that commercial logics in

their initial responses, such as ‘if you do all your work legit, you would never make any

profit’, ‘taxes are far too high to make any decent profit’ and ‘to make enough to have

decent standard of living’. One in three informal entrepreneurs, therefore, expressed

primarily social goals in response. This, therefore, is what can be termed social

entrepreneurship in the informal economy, a form of entrepreneurship that has gone

unidentified so far in the entrepreneurship literature, but covers nearly one-quarter (24%)

of the entrepreneurial endeavour reported in this locality.

Who, therefore, are these informal entrepreneurs and what motivates them? And how

is their informal social entrepreneurship tied to their wider working life and/or hobbies or

interests? For many informal social entrepreneurs, as with all entrepreneurs, it is not

always purely social goals that motivate them. Rather, commercial and social goals are

combined in their rationales, but they are defined as social rather than commercial

entrepreneurs because social goals are to the fore in their rationales.

Take, for example, a middle-aged woman childcarer. Living in a small hamlet, she had

known the members of the families for whom she provided childcare for many years and

knew from personal experience the practical difficulties they faced working long hours in

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 561

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

their jobs whilst also bringing up children. Having recently retired herself and her own

children having left home, she had time on her hands and felt that providing childcare was

a way she could help out and make a difference to the three families. As she explained, ‘It

is about helping them out more than making money for myself’. To explain the off-the-

books payments for this work, meanwhile, she asserted:

‘it’s more helping them out, doing them a favour. They give me a little something [money] asa thank you gesture for the trouble I have gone to. It’s not about the money but it’s easier forthem to give me money than to feel that they owe me; they wouldn’t have the time to do mefavours in return, although they give me a lift into town when I need it’.

For another informal social entrepreneur who does hairdressing, it is again the social goals

that are given primacy over for-profit motives. As she explains,

I work in a salon three days a week and that’s all through the books but I mainly do that so Ican get tax credits for my child care. Then I do friends and family at home. It’s a nice way ofseeing people I know. I let them decide what to pay me – none of them are loaded so it’s whatthey can afford really . . .

Here, therefore, the informal social entrepreneurship is an on-the-side activity arising out

of their formal employment. This is also the case for another informal social entrepreneur

who is an employee of a web design consultancy,

my ‘on the side’ work I do cash in hand . . . people will slip me twenty quid or so . . . A lot isfor small amounts – below £100. It’s mostly for friends and acquaintances and is doing them afavour. They just pay me something so they feel they don’t owe me.

A common aspect of informal social entrepreneurship, therefore, is that it tends to be

conducted for closer social relations, such as kin living outside the household, friends,

neighbours and acquaintances. Reimbursement, moreover, is not at market rates but

instead tends to be a token gesture so as to obviate the need for a favour to be returned.

Such work, however, can sometimes be conducted for people beyond one’s close

social relations. An example is a man in waged employment as a plumber who additionally

undertakes entrepreneurial endeavour in the informal economy,

I do work sometimes which you would call off-the-books. A lot of retired people around herewould not be able to afford to get their heating mended if I didn’t. They’d probably end upfreezing to death in their homes. I’m a Christian and this is my way of expressing my Christianvalues. I just charge them a token fee if I know that they cannot afford what the companycharges for the work.

Here, therefore, where strong values underpin their decision to engage in social

entrepreneurship, this endeavour is being undertaken for a wider range of social groups

beyond the close social relations served in the earlier examples.

What is common across all these instances of informal social entrepreneurship,

however, is that the entrepreneur is using the skills and capabilities, often gained through

their formal employment, to engage in social entrepreneurship in the informal economy.

As a woman who works as an employee in a formal physiotherapy business explains:

I get friends, people I know and that asking me take a look at them sometimes, so that’s thekind of thing I do for what you call off-the-books. I usually see them in my spare time, say inthe evenings . . . Although they pay me for helping them, it’s not about the money; they justtend to offer me a little something. It’s more about doing people I know a favour. They haveproblems I can help with so they turn to me. I help them out. It’s about helping them youknow, not about making money. The money is a side issue.

Moving beyond the responses of all the entrepreneurs survey to this initial question of why

they started-up their enterprising venture, and analysing their responses to further probes

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin562

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

about their fuller rationales, it becomes quickly apparent that many entrepreneurs are not

either purely commercial or purely social in orientation. Just as the entrepreneurs surveyed

often operate neither on a wholly formal nor wholly informal basis, Table 1 reveals that it

is similarly the case that they are often neither purely commercial nor purely social in

terms of their rationales, as some of the earlier examples from informal social

entrepreneurs have displayed.

Starting with formal entrepreneurs, the finding is that just 48% cite either a purely

commercial or social modus operandi. The majority (52%) combine both commercial and

social rationales, signalling that the commercial/social entrepreneurship dualism is a

misnomer. Take, for example, the owner of a nascent legal firm which engages in pro-bono

work. As he put it,

The pro bono work provides free legal advice and representation to those who need it the mostbut where public funding is not available. Although this is a commercial business, the socialdimension of our pro bono work is an integrated part of the business model. We use our legalexpertise to ‘give back’ to our local community.

Another example of a wholly formal entrepreneur combining commercial and social

objectives is a joiner,

I don’t do cash-in-hand work. It is all on the books. However, there’s a local furniture projectI’m involved with . . . they collect unwanted furniture, do it up and then sell it on to peoplewho are on benefits. When they’ve got a few jobs which need more than a bit of gluing backtogether, they give me a ring and I drop in for a day or half a day and help out. It’s a way ofputting something back locally . . . I wouldn’t be in business today if it wasn’t for my localcustomers.

Turning to the fuller motives of informal entrepreneurs, it is similarly the case that just

49% express either purely commercial or purely social logics. The majority (51%)

combine both commercial and social rationales. Take, for example, a musician and music

teacher,

Although I do it primarily to earn money, I’m not desperate for the money – my husband’sbusiness is doing really well. I also make enough frommy college teaching. I don’t declare myperipatetic teaching. Sometimes I do it purely for money if I think that they can afford it, butother times, I do it for the kid’s sake and just charge them what I think they can afford,otherwise their parents would never let them have lessons. I’ve seen what a difference it canmake to these kids round here . . .

Indeed, examining all the informal entrepreneurship reported in this survey, some 64% of

all informal entrepreneurs cite social rationales in their fuller explanation for their

enterprise (see Table 1). However, of informal entrepreneurs who pursue both for-profit

and social logics, those who privilege commercial over social motives are about the same

proportion as those who privilege social over commercial rationales.

Table 1. Fuller rationale for entrepreneurship in the West of England locality.

Formalentrepreneurs

Informalentrepreneurs All entrepreneurs

Rationales No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage

Purely commercial 10 34 33 36 43 36Mainly commercial but also social 9 31 30 33 39 33Mainly social but also commercial 6 21 16 18 22 18Purely social 4 14 12 13 16 13

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 563

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Entrepreneurs’ logics, nevertheless, are not static. As Table 2 displays, they often shift

over time. Some 50% identified that their rationales had altered since starting up their

venture, with over one-third (35%) of entrepreneurs stating that it was away from

commercial to social rationales and 15% from social to commercial rationales.

Interestingly, informal entrepreneurs were slightly more likely than formal entrepreneurs

to have shifted over time from more social to more commercial rationales. This is

doubtless because as shown, many informal entrepreneurs start-up conducting work for

closer social relations, often on a social basis, and after test-trading in this manner and

establishing the viability of their business venture, then perhaps adopt more commercial

rationales when they realize the viability of their business.

Conclusions

To debunk the myth that entrepreneurs are the heroic figureheads of capitalism, the

validity of the dominant normative ideal-type representation of the entrepreneur as a

heroic figurehead of capitalism who pursues for-profit entrepreneurial endeavour in the

formal commercial economy has been evaluated critically. Recent decades have witnessed

the emergence of, on the one hand, a stream of literature which highlights how many

entrepreneurs operate in the informal economy and on the other hand, a stream which

reveals how many others engaged in entrepreneurial endeavour are social entrepreneurs.

This paper brings together these previously discrete literatures that contest separate

components of this dominant representation.

Reporting a 2006 survey involving interviews with 120 entrepreneurs in a rural West

of England locality in the UK, this paper displays that it is a myth that formal sector for-

profit entrepreneurship is the norm. Only 16% of entrepreneurship in this locality is for-

profit endeavour in the formal commercial economy. The result is a call to de-link

entrepreneurship from capitalism and for greater recognition of the multifarious lived

practices of entrepreneurship. Some 84% of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial

endeavour is a heterogeneous mix, which ranges from wholly formal to wholly informal

and two-thirds of all entrepreneurs adopt social rationales in their rationales for starting-up

their venture.

One interesting finding, moreover, is that a form of entrepreneurship that until now has

gone largely unnoticed, namely social entrepreneurship in the informal economy, is

identified. Indeed, 24% of the entrepreneurs surveyed are engaged primarily in this form of

entrepreneurial endeavour, although many other entrepreneurs who are, for instance,

commercially driven formal and informal entrepreneurs also pursue this type of

entrepreneurial endeavour within their overall portfolio of business practices. Whether

there is a similar prevalence of this form of entrepreneurship in other locality-types,

regions and nations now needs to be investigated, as does the issue of whether its nature is

similar in other localities and regions.

Table 2. Temporal alterations in rationales of entrepreneurs in the West of England locality.

All entrepreneursFormal

entrepreneursInformal

entrepreneurs

Rationales unchanged 50 52 48From more commercial to more social rationales 35 38 31From more social to more commercial rationales 15 10 21

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin564

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

The overall outcome of this paper, in consequence, has been to de-link

entrepreneurship from the formal commercial economy and in doing so, to challenge

the dominant ideologically driven representation of the entrepreneur as a heroic figurehead

of capitalism. By revealing how entrepreneurs engage in multifarious practices beyond

profit-driven endeavour in the formal commercial economy, the argument of this paper is

that it demonstrates that even in the symbolic heartland of capitalism (i.e. entrepreneurship

and enterprise culture), the penetration of for-profit commercial endeavour is shallow, and

that this shallowness opens up the feasibility of imagining and enacting alternative futures

for economic life beyond capitalist hegemony.

By entrepreneurship research taking this direction of de-linking entrepreneurship from

capitalism, therefore, what is at stake is not simply some descriptive account of the lived

practices of entrepreneurship. To pursue such a research agenda is to challenge both the

ideologically-driven depiction of the entrepreneur as the symbolic figurehead of

capitalism and the dominance of capitalism itself as a lived practice and its ‘natural’

trajectory as inevitable, all-powerful and all-conquering. By re-representing entrepreneur-

ship composed of multifarious practices much of which is not profit-motivated endeavour

in the formal commercial economy, therefore, one is not only attacking one of the core

symbols of capitalism by deconstructing a main ‘heartland’ of the imagined capitalist

economy, but also opening up the space to re-think both the present diversity of economies

and the feasibility of alternative futures by questioning the solidity and fixity of capitalist

hegemony as an indisputable, irrefutable and irreversible future.

Perhaps even more importantly, this re-representation of entrepreneurship composed

of diverse economic practices beyond profit-motivated endeavour in the formal

commercial economy does not only disarm and destabilize the naturalized hegemony of

capitalism. It is also performative and transformative since it opens up the feasibility,

validity and possibility of enacting, rather than just imagining, alternative economic

futures. By transcending the depiction of such practices as marginal, residual, weak,

existing only in the margins and scattered across the economic landscape compared with

for-profit formal entrepreneurship, which is considered systematic, naturally expansive

and extensive, and recognizing alternatives forms of entrepreneurship as existing

extensively in the here and now, it offers entrepreneurship research an opportunity to

explore the feasibility of nurturing some of these alternative forms of entrepreneurship by

analysing the barriers they confront and how these might be overcome so as to start

enacting their development and growth. Indeed, given that formal for-profit entrepreneur-

ship has been subjected to nurturing with religious zeal for some decades, yet remains such

a minor proportion of all entrepreneurship, one can only speculate what might happen if as

much attention was paid to some of these alternative forms of entrepreneurship, such as

social entrepreneurship in the informal economy.

In sum, if this paper results in further research to evaluate critically the dominant

normative ideal-type representationof the entrepreneur as a heroicfigureheadof capitalismby

showing themultifarious varieties of entrepreneurship in other localities, regions and nations,

then this paper will have fulfilled one of its objectives. If this also results in a more concerted

effort in entrepreneurship research to open up the entrepreneur to re-signification as

emblematic of the demonstrative feasibility of alternative economic futures beyond profit-

motivated capitalism, then this paper will also have achieved its wider intention.

Note

1. Email: s.j.nadin@sheffield.ac.uk

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

References

Aidis, R., F. Welter, D. Smallbone, and N. Isakova. 2006. “Female Entrepreneurship in Transition

Economies: The Case of Lithuania and Ukraine.” Feminist Economics 13 (2): 157–183.

Amin, A., A. Cameron, and R. Hudson. 2002. “The UK Social Economy: Panacea or Problem?” In

Social Capital in the Economy, edited by I. Bartle, and D. Castiglione, 22–45. Colchester:

Russell Papers Civic Series 2002/4, University of Essex.

Anderson, P. 2000. “Renewals.” New Left Review 2 (1): 1–22.

Anderson, A. R., and M. Starnawska. 2008. “Research Practices in Entrepreneurship: Problems of

Definition, Description and Meaning.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Innovation 9 (1): 221–230.

Antonopoulos, G. A., and J. Mitra. 2009. “The Hidden Enterprise of Bootlegging Cigarettes Out of

Greece: Two Schemes of Illegal Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Small Business and

Entrepreneurship 22 (1): 1–8.

Armstrong, P. 2005. Critique of Entrepreneurship: People and Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Austin, J., H. Stevenson, and J. Wei-Skillern. 2006. “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:

Same, Different or Both?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (1): 1–22.

Bhide, A., and H. H. Stevenson. 1990. “Why Be Honest if Honesty Doesn’t Pay?” Harvard Business

Review 68 (5): 121–129.

Biles, J. 2009. “Informal Work in Latin America: Competing Perspectives and Recent Debates.”

Geography Compass 3 (11): 214–236.

Boeke, J. H. 1942. Economies and Economic Policy in Dual Societies. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willnik.

Bouchard, M., and C. B. Dion. 2009. “Growers and Facilitators: Probing the Role of Entrepreneurs in

the Development of the Cannabis Cultivation Industry.” Journal of Small Business and

Entrepreneurship 22 (1): 25–38.

Burns, P. 2001. Entrepreneurship and Small Business. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Cannon, T. 1991. Enterprise: Creation, Development and Growth. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Carruthers, B. G., and S. L. Babb. 2000. Economy/Society: Markets, Meanings and Social Structure.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Oaks.

Castree, N., N. M. Coe, K. Ward, and M. Samers. 2004. Spaces of Work: Global Capitalism and the

Geographies of Labour. London: Sage.

Chowdury, S. A. 2007. Everyday Economic Practices: The ‘Hidden Transcripts’ of Egyptian Voices.

London: Routledge.

Ciscel, D. H., and J. A. Heath. 2001. “To Market, to Market: Imperial Capitalism’s Destruction of

Social Capital and the Family.” Review of Radical Political Economics 33 (4): 401–414.

Cunningham, J. B., and J. Lischeron. 1991. “Defining Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Small Business

Management 29 (1): 43–51.

Davis, M. 2006. Planet of Slums. London: Verso.

De Soto, H. 1989. The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism. London: Harper and Row.

De Soto, H. 2001. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails

Everywhere Else. London: Black Swan.

Dees, J. G. 1998. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Durham, NC: Duke University.

Dees, J. G., and B. B. Anderson. 2003. “For-Profit Social Ventures.” International Journal of

Entrepreneurship Education 2 (1): 1–26.

Defourny, J., and M. Nyssens. 2008. “Social Enterprise in Europe: Recent Trends and

Developments.” Social Enterprise Journal 4 (3): 202–228.

Department of Communities and Local Government. 2000. Index of Multiple Deprivation. London:

Department of Communities and Local Government.

Eikenberry, A. M., and A. M. Kluver. 2004. “The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil

Society at Risk?” Public Administration Review 64 (2): 132–140.

European Commission. 2007. Stepping Up the Fight Against Undeclared Work. Brussels: European

Commission.

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin566

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Evans, M., S. Syrett, and C. C. Williams. 2006. The Informal Economy and Deprived

Neighbourhoods: A Systematic Review. London: Department of Local Government and

Regions.

Fournier, V. 1998. “Stories of Development and Exploitation: Militant Voices in an Enterprise

Culture.” Organization 61 (1): 107–128.

Frith, K., and G. McElwee. 2008. “An Emergent Entrepreneur? A Story of a Drug Dealer in a

Restricted Entrepreneurial Environment.” Society and Business Review 3 (2): 270–286.

Fulcher, J. 2004. Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galera, G., and C. Borzega. 2009. “Social Enterprise: An International Overview of its Conceptual

Evolution and Legal Implementation.” Social Enterprise Journal 5 (3): 210–228.

Gallin, D. 2001. “Propositions on Trade Unions and Informal Employment in Time of

Globalization.” Antipode 19 (4): 531–549.

Geertz, C. 1963. Peddlers and Princes: Social Change and Economic Modernization in Two

Indonesian Towns. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Gibson-Graham, J.-K. 2006. Post-Capitalist Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gottschalk, P. 2010. “Entrepreneurship in Organised Crime.” International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business 9 (3): 295–307.

Gottschalk, P., and R. Smith. 2011. “Criminal Entrepreneurship, White-Collar Criminality and

Neutralization Theory.” Journal of Enterprising Communities 5 (4): 283–296.

Gurtoo, A. 2009. “Policy Support for Informal Sector Entrepreneurship: Micro-Enterprises in India.”

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 14 (2): 181–194.

Gurtoo, A., and C. C. Williams. 2009. “Entrepreneurship and the Informal Sector: Some Lessons

From India.” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 10 (1): 55–62.

Harding, R., D. Brooksbank, M. Hart, D. Jones-Evans, J. Levie, J. O’Reilly, and J. Walker. 2005.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor United Kingdom 2005. London: London Business School,

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Harding, R., and M. Cowing. 2004. Social Entrepreneurship Monitor United Kingdom 2004.

London: London Business School.

Hynes, B. 2009. “Growing the Social Enterprise: Issues and Challenges.” Social Enterprise Journal

5 (2): 114–125.

International Labour Office. 2002. Decent Work and the Informal Economy. Geneva: International

Labour Office.

Jones, C., and A. Spicer. 2005. “The Sublime Object of Entrepreneurship.” Organization 12 (2):

223–246.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 1977. “The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroads.” Journal

of Management Studies 4: 34–57.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 1985. “The Dark Side of Entrepreneurship.” Harvard Business Review

63 (6): 160–167.

Kitchen, R., and N. Tate. 2001. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Practice and

Methodology. London: Prentice Hall.

Lewis, A. 1959. The Theory of Economic Growth. London: Allen and Unwin.

Llanes, M., and A. Barbour. 2007. Self-Employed and Micro-Entrepreneurs: Informal Trading and

the Journey Towards Formalization. London: Community Links.

Lyon, F., and L. Sepulveda. 2009. “Mapping Social Enterprises: Past Approaches, Challenges and

Future Directions.” Social Enterprise Journal 5 (1): 83–94.

Mair, J., and I. Marti. 2005. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction

and Delight.” Journal of World Business 41 (1): 36–44.

Mason, C., S. Carter, and S. Tagg. 2008. “Invisible Businesses: The Characteristics of Home-Based

Businesses in the United Kingdom.” Working paper 08-01, University of Strathclyde

Business School, Glasgow.

McKay, S., J. Phillimore, and S. Teasdale. 2010. “Exploring the ‘Gendered’ Nature of Social

Entrepreneurship: Women’s Leadership, Employment and Participation in the Third Sector.”

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014

Paper presented at the 60th Political Studies Association annual conference, Edinburgh,

March 29 to April 1.

Moore, C. W., J. W. Petty, L. E. Palich, and J. G. Longnecker. 2010. Managing Small Business: An

Entrepreneurial Emphasis. London: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Nicholls, A., and A. Cho. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration of a Field.” In Social

Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, edited by A. Nicholls, 99–118.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ram, M., P. Edwards, and T. Jones. 2007. “Staying Underground: Informal Work, Small Firms and

Employment Regulation in the United Kingdom.” Work and Occupations 34 (3): 318–344.

Rehn, A., and S. Taalas. 2004. “Znakomstva I Svyazi! [Acquaintances and Connections]: Blat, the

Soviet Union and Mundane Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development

16 (3): 235–250.

Reynolds, P., W. D. Bygrave, E. Autio, and M. Hay. 2002. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2002

Executive Monitor. London: London Business School.

Rifkin, J. 2000. The Age of Access. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Skold, D., and A. Rehn. 2007. “Makin’ It, by Keeping It Real: Street Talk, Rap Music and the

Forgotten Entrepreneurship from the ‘Hood’.” Group and Organization Management 32 (1):

50–78.

Slater, D., and F. Tonkiss. 2001. Market Society: Markets and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge:

Polity.

Small Business Council. 2004. Small Business in the Informal Economy: Making the Transition to

the Formal Economy. London: Small Business Council.

Smith, R., and M. L. Christou. 2009. “Extracting Value from Their Environment: Some

Observations on Pimping and Prostitution as Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Small Business

and Entrepreneurship 22 (1): 69–84.

Snyder, K. A. 2004. “Routes to the Informal Economy in New York’s East Village: Crisis,

Economics and Identity.” Sociological Perspectives 47: 215–240.

St Martin, K. 2005. “Mapping Economic Diversity in the First World.” Environment and Planning A

37: 959–979.

Thompson, J. L. 2008. “Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship: Where Have We Reached?”

A Summary of Issues and Discussion Points. Social Enterprise Journal 4 (2): 149–161.

Valenzuela, A. 2001. “Day Labourers as Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27

(2): 335–352.

Webb, J. W., L. Tihanyi, R. D. Ireland, and D. G. Sirmon. 2009. “You Say Illegal, I Say Legitimate:

Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy.” Academy of Management Review 34 (3):

492–510.

Whitson, R. 2007. “Hidden Struggles: Spaces of Power and Resistance in Informal Work in Urban

Argentina.” Environment and Planning A 39: 2916–2934.

Williams, C. C. 2005. A Commodified World? Mapping the Limits of Capitalism. London: Zed.

Williams, C. C. 2006. The Hidden Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship in the Underground

Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Williams, C. C. 2007. “De-linking Enterprise Culture from Capitalism and Its Public Policy

Implications.” Public Policy and Administration 22 (4): 461–474.

Williams, C. C. 2010. “Spatial Variations in the Hidden Enterprise Culture: Some Lessons from

England.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22 (5): 403–423.

Williams, C. C., and S. Nadin. 2011. “Beyond the Commercial Versus Social Entrepreneurship

Divide: Some Lessons From English Localities.” Social Enterprise Journal 7 (2): 118–129.

C.C. Williams and S.J. Nadin568

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UZ

H H

aupt

bibl

ioth

ek /

Zen

tral

bibl

ioth

ek Z

üric

h] a

t 17:

07 2

7 Ju

ne 2

014