|
|
|
| Parental Entrepreneurial Experience and Offspring Entrepreneurs’ Firm Performance? |
| Liu Shuchun1, Lin Zhouyu2, Lin Hanchuan3 |
1.Zhejiang Institute of Informatization Development, Hangzhou University of Electronic Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310018, China
2.School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China
3.School of International Business, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100105, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The wave of “mass entrepreneurship and innovation” has not only reshaped the microstructure of China’s economy but also fostered a dynamic community of entrepreneurs which has attracted a lot of attention. Since Schumpeter defined entrepreneurs as a group with distinct innate traits, centering on the fundamental topic of “who entrepreneurs are”, scholars have carried out various theoretical debates from the perspective of individual characteristics, including mental qualities and personality traits. In China’s entrepreneurial market, entrepreneurs have exhibited significant generational differences based on whether their families have a history of paternal entrepreneurship. Unlike first-generation entrepreneurs, who typically emerged from grassroots backgrounds, second-generation entrepreneurs, referred to as new-generation business leaders with direct familial ties to first-generation entrepreneurs, have drawn widespread attention due to their cross-generational family entrepreneurial heritage. Paternal entrepreneurial experience provides second-generation entrepreneurs with resources such as social networks, industry insights, and specialized knowledge, which can well support their business operations. However, the rapid shifts driven by policy reforms, market competition, and evolving consumer demands during China’s economic transition, coupled with heterogeneous factors like differences in individual capabilities between generations, make it difficult to simply replicate the paternal experience, thereby making it more challenging for second-generation entrepreneurs to achieve performance advantages.The familial entrepreneurial backgrounds have potential multi-dimensional impacts on entrepreneurship’s performance, which makes the intergenerational characteristics of entrepreneurs a critical yet empirically under-explored issue in entrepreneurship economics. Using data from the 12th nationwide sampling survey of private enterprises conducted by authoritative departments, including the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, this study examines how paternal entrepreneurial backgrounds influence the performance level of the enterprises they have founded .The findings are as follows: (1) Compared to first-generation entrepreneurs without paternal entrepreneurial backgrounds, family backgrounds with entrepreneurial heritage significantly affect the operational performances of second-generation-founded enterprises in a positive way;(2) Mechanism analysis shows that paternal entrepreneurial experience enhances second-generation ventures’ performance by elevating entrepreneurial initiative, optimizing resource allocation efficiency, and securing familial capital support, which well demonstrates that the cultivation of entrepreneurial awareness, the development of operational skill, and the refinement of governance structure are key sources of competitive advantage for second-generation entrepreneurs; (3) Contextual analysis showcases that the positive impact of paternal entrepreneurial backgrounds is more pronounced in regions with low marketization and weak social trust, as well as among second-generation entrepreneurs with strong intergenerational ties but limited entrepreneurial experience. This indicates that paternal entrepreneurial heritage mitigates institutional constraints and personal capability gaps, thereby producing improvements in enterprise performance.Theoretical contributions of this study are listed as below: First, it advances scientific understanding of the sources and developmental laws of entrepreneurial advantages during economic transitions, expanding research on entrepreneurship transformation trends. Second, it enriches studies on the micro-foundations and contextual factors influencing firm performance in cross-generational entrepreneurial processes. Finally, from an intergenerational perspective, it offers unique insights by evaluating and comparing how the distinct mechanisms of two entrepreneurial cohorts impact new venture performance, so as to provide reference for government policies aimed at promoting entrepreneurial activities.
|
|
Received: 24 April 2025
|
|
|
|
1 Schumpeter J. A.， Theory of Economic Development， Cambridge， MA： Harvard University Press， 1934.
2 Brockhaus Sr. R. H.， “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 23， No. 3 （1980）， pp. 509-520.
3 Nicolaou N. Shane S.， “Can genetic factors influence the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activity？” Journal of Business Venturing， Vol. 24， No. 1 （2009）， pp. 1-22.
4 Nordqvist M. Zellweger T.， Transgenerational Entrepreneurship： Exploring Growth and Performance in Family Firms Across Generations， Cheltenham： Edward Elgar Publishing， 2010.
5 张玉利、杨俊、任兵：《社会资本，先前经验与创业机会——一个交互效应模型及其启示》，《管理世界》2008年第7期，第91-102页。
6 Granovetter M.， “Economic action and social structure： the problem of embeddedness，” American Journal of Sociology， Vol. 91， No. 3 （1985）， pp. 481-510.
7 Dyer J. H.， Gregersen H. B. Christensen C.， “Entrepreneur behaviors， opportunity recognition， and the origins of innovative ventures，” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal， Vol. 2， No. 4 （2008）， pp. 317-338.
8 李新春、宋丽红：《基于二元性视角的家族企业重要研究议题梳理与评述》，《经济管理》2013年第8期，第53-62页。
9 宋培林：《试析企业成长不同阶段的企业家胜任力结构及其自我跃迁机理》，《经济管理》2011年第3期，第183-190页。
10 李新春、何轩、陈文婷：《战略创业与家族企业创业精神的传承——基于百年老字号李锦记的案例研究》，《管理世界》2008年第10期，第127-140页。
11 Auty R.， Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies： The Resource Curse Thesis， Abingdon： Routledge， 2002.
12 朱晓文、吕长江：《家族企业代际传承：海外培养还是国内培养？》，《经济研究》2019年第1期，第68-84页。
13 陈凌、李新春、储小平：《中国家族企业的社会角色：过去，现在和未来》，杭州：浙江大学出版社，2011年。
14 Burt R. S.， “The network structure of social capital，” Research in Organizational Behavior， Vol. 22 （2000）， pp. 345-423.
15 Acemoglu D.， Johnson S. Robinson J. A.， “Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth，” Handbook of Economic Growth， Vol. 1 （2005）， pp. 385-472.
16 Delhey J.， Newton K. Welzel C.， “How general is trust in ‘most people’？ solving the radius of trust problem，” American Sociological Review， Vol. 76， No. 5 （2011）， pp. 786-807.
17 Dinesen P. T. S?nderskov K. M.， “Ethnic diversity and social trust： evidence from the micro-context，” American Sociological Review， Vol. 80， No. 3 （2015）， pp. 550-573.
18 Becker G. S.， Human Capital： A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis， with Special Reference to Education， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 1994.
19 Shane S. Venkataraman S.， “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research，” Academy of Management Review， Vol. 25， No. 1 （2000）， pp. 217-226.
20 戴维奇、刘洋、廖明情：《烙印效应：民营企业谁在“不务正业”？》，《管理世界》2016年第5期，第99-115页。
21 高勇强、陈亚静、张云均：《“红领巾”还是“绿领巾”：民营企业慈善捐赠动机研究》，《管理世界》2012年第8期，第106-114页。
22 罗淳：《关于人口年龄组的重新划分及其蕴意》，《人口研究》2017年第5期，第16-25页。
23 张维迎、柯荣住：《信任及其解释：来自中国的跨省调查分析》，《经济研究》2002年第10期，第59-70页。
24 王伟同、谢佳松、张玲：《人口迁移的地区代际流动偏好：微观证据与影响机制》，《管理世界》2019年第7期，第89-103页。
25 潘越、宁博、纪翔阁等：《民营资本的宗族烙印：来自融资约束视角的证据》，《经济研究》2019年第7期，第94-110页。
26 史晋川、王维维：《互联网使用对创业行为的影响——基于微观数据的实证研究》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2017年第4期，第159-175页。
27 陶云清、曹雨阳、张金林等：《数字金融对创业的影响——来自地区和中国家庭追踪调查（CFPS）的证据》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2021年第1期，第129-144页。
28 Chen Y.， Fan Z. Gu X. et al.， “Arrival of young talent： the send-down movement and rural education in China，” American Economic Review， Vol. 110， No. 11 （2020）， pp. 3393-3430. |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
