Time matters for entrepreneurship. Whose time should matter and how it should be conceptualized, however, are heavily contested questions in the humanities and social sciences. In this chapter, we examine the ways in which time matters for entrepreneurship and the temporal contexts in which entrepreneurs operate. We review how temporal processes are considered in other disciplines that focus on creative activities. We analyse the ways in which these frameworks can inform the study of entrepreneurship, and propose reconsideration – both theoretically and methodologically – of the temporal context of entrepreneurship research.

Social science researchers have long pursued answers to the puzzle of why some people achieve certain milestones more quickly than others and whether rate of progress matters for long-run outcomes. This “tortoise versus hare” puzzle raises the question of whether speed is a valid indicator of viability in an undertaking: Are those with slower rates of progress any less off in terms of long-run achievement when compared to their faster counterparts? We investigate this “tortoise and hare” puzzle in the context of business formation, an activity pursued by millions in the United States. Our analysis of a nationally representative survey of U.S. business founders revealed that leisure-based founders were slower to make progress initially, but after a certain time threshold, their progress was no different than other conventional types of founders. More importantly, leisure-based founders showed more favorable initial economic and non-economic outcomes, as these founders were more likely to consistently report early sales and profitability and were more committed to investing time into their ventures. Our study findings have both theoretical and practical implications for the evaluation of venture performance, when the rate of progress is considered to be a leading indicator of new business viability.

Although amateur radio remained popular for 100 years, it faced a crisis of legitimacy during the 1910s. The damaging behaviors of some operators threatened amateurs with banishment from the airwaves. Through an analysis of archival material from various sources, this paper demonstrates that in order to distance themselves from the actions of malevolent pranksters, responsible wireless operators tapped into contemporary cultural debates about maturity and the emergence of adolescence. As a result, amateur operators legitimated themselves in the eyes of the public while carving out a distinct space for youth hobbyists.

While not representative of all students, those who demonstrate a sense of entitlement demand a great deal of instructors' time and energy. Our article places student entitlement in its social context, with specific attention to the prevalence of the consumer mentality, grade inflation, and the self-esteem of the student generation. We then outline several strategies for dealing with entitlement behavior. We suggest that greater clarity in standards and assessment, combined with specific requirements guiding teacher-student interactions and general efforts to resocialize students and faculty, will help to curb these behaviors.

197 Stephen Lippmann is an assistant professor of sociology at Miami University. Ronald E. Bulanda is an assistant professor of sociology at Miami University. Theodore C. Wagenaar is a professor of sociology at Miami University. Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications Abstract. While not representative of all students, those who demonstrate a sense of entitlement demand a great deal of instructors’ time and energy. Our article places student entitlement in its social context, with specific attention to the prevalence of the consumer mentality, grade inflation, and the self-esteem of the student generation. We then outline several strategies for dealing with entitlement behavior. We suggest that greater clarity in standards and assessment, combined with specific requirements guiding teacher-student interactions and general efforts to resocialize students and faculty, will help to curb these behaviors.

One of the major risks associated with flexible employment in the new economy is that of sudden and involuntary unemployment. The risk of involuntary unemployment, or displacement, has become widespread in the new economy, threatening workers across firms, occupations and industries. While most workers now face the risk of displacement, some appear better able to negotiate and navigate the flexible labor market that characterizes the 'new' economy. Using pooled cross-sectional data covering over 20 years, I examine how workers' abilities to recover from displacement have changed over the past two decades. Specifically, I examine how older workers typically thought to experience greater risk of displacement and disadvantage in the flexible labor market - fare in the new economy. My results indicate that birth cohort is a better predictor than chronological age of post-displacement employment outcomes, including the duration of unemployment and the likelihood of switching occupations upon re-employment. Those workers who entered the labor market in the years before employment flexibility became widespread suffer the most from displacement. These findings are interpreted from an institutional perspective, which focuses attention on the dramatic changes that have occurred in employment institutions and the employment relationship in the past two decades, and the ways that individuals understand and respond to them. As the social contract between employers and employees has largely been dismantled, those workers who may carry vestiges of the cognitive and cultural frameworks underlying that contract face greater risk of employment and career disruption in the new economy.

Nations with high levels of economic inequality tend to have high rates of entrepreneurial activity. In this paper, we develop propositions about this relationship, based upon current research. Although we provide some descriptive analyses to support our propositions, our paper is not an empirical test but rather a theoretical exploration of new ideas related to this topic. We first define entrepreneurship at the individual and societal level and distinguish between entrepreneurship undertaken out of necessity and entrepreneurship that takes advantage of market opportunities. We then explore the roles that various causes of economic inequality play in increasing entrepreneurial activity, including economic development, state policies, foreign investment, sector shifts, labor market and employment characteristics, and class structures. The relationship between inequality and entrepreneurship poses a potentially disturbing message for countries with strong egalitarian norms and political and social policies that also wish to increase entrepreneurial activity. We conclude by noting the conditions under which entrepreneurship can be a source of upward social and economic mobility for individuals.

The nature of the relationship between private corporate actors and the state has been of interest to sociologists for some time. In this analysis of the radio broadcasting industry between 1920 and 1934, I examine the process through which commercial broadcasters influenced the National Radio Conferences and the Federal Radio Act, the first regulatory legislation to govern the broadcasting industry. In doing so, I propose a theory of ideological capture, which outlines a set of conditions under which private influence on the state is likely to be realized. Private interests are likely to succeed at ideological capture when they (1) are highly mobilized and (2) frame their intentions, purposes, and visions of themselves and their role in an industry in a manner similar to the prevailing ideologies of important state actors.

Max Weber argued that the process of rationalization transformed social life forever. By loosening the hold of tradition, rationalization led to new practices that were chosen due to their efficiency. He proposed that the superiority of the bureaucratic form would cause it to dominate all forms of human organization. And indeed, social order in the Western world changed drastically with the rise of two great forces of modernity: capitalism and bureaucracy. Notably, however, Weber did not include “entrepreneurship” as one of those great forces.