Contextualizing Entrepreneurship
Context is not just where entrepreneurship happens; it is constitutive of what entrepreneurship means. This section highlights historical approaches that challenge static or universal definitions of context by showing how legal, social, and cultural conditions shape and are shaped by entrepreneurial activity. By grounding context in historical specificity, these works expand the analytical reach of entrepreneurship research.
Introduction
The importance of context in entrepreneurship research has received growing attention in recent years, yet approaches to contextualization have varied significantly. One influential stream, grounded in institutional theory and following the work of Baumol (1990), views context as a system of constraints and incentives that shape entrepreneurial behavior. In this view, political, legal and cultural institutions channel entrepreneurial energies toward productive, unproductive or destructive ends.
A second perspective, drawing from social movement theory and embeddedness approaches, emphasizes how entrepreneurial processes are situation within networks, communities, and broader social structures. Here, context is understood in relational terms, asking how entrepreneurs are embedded in social groups and movements that provide resources, legitimacy, and meaning.
A third approach, drawing on social constructivist view of contexts, sees context not merely as a backdrop to action but as something that is actively interpreted and even created by entrepreneurs themselves. From this perspective, entrepreneurs are not only shaped by context but also participate in shaping it through discourse, practice, and narrative.
Historical research, particularly work that takes a comparative or international perspective, has long emphasized the role of context in shaping the very definition of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial processes. But how exactly does historical work lead us to reconsider and rethink the conceptualization of context? How can context be operationalized and studied using a historical lens?
Key References
Welter, F. 2011. Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1): 165-184.
A foundational article that outlines a multi-dimensional framework for understanding context in entrepreneurship. Welter distinguishes between business, social, spatial, and institutional contexts and calls for richer theorization of how they interact.
​
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. 2014. Entrepreneurial Innovation: The Importance of Context. Research Policy, 43: 1097-1108.
This paper emphasizes how context affects the relationship between entrepreneurship and innovation. It argues that different innovation systems produce varied entrepreneurial dynamics and outcomes, highlighting the need for contextual sensitivity in policy and theory.
​
Hiatt, S., Sine, W., Tolbert, P. 2009. From Pabst to Pepsi: The Deinstitutionalization of Social Practices and the Creation of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly 54: (4): 635-667.
A compelling case study showing how changes in institutional norms, specifically, Prohibition-era social movements, opened new spaces for entrepreneurship. Demonstrates how contexts are destabilized and redefined, enabling opportunity creation.
​
Baker, T., & Welter, F. 2018. Contextual Entrepreneurship: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Foundations and Trends®in Entrepreneurship, 14(4): 357-426.
Offers a comprehensive review of the contextual turn in entrepreneurship research. Baker and Welter synthesize insights from sociology, anthropology, and economics to propose a relational and dynamic view of context.
​
Welter, F., & Gartner, W. B. (Eds.). 2016. A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
This edited volume curates diverse perspectives on how context shapes entrepreneurial processes. With contributions from leading scholars, it serves as a roadmap for future research on context across levels of analysis and geographic settings.
​
Lubinski, C. 2018. From ‘History as Told’ to ‘History as Experienced’: Contextualizing the Uses of the Past. Organization Studies, 39(12): 1785-1809.
Offers a historical constructivist approach to context by examining how organizations mobilize the past to legitimize present actions. Introduces the idea of “experienced” history as a lived, contextual force in entrepreneurial decision-making.
​
Kilby, P. (Ed.). 1971. Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. New York: Free Press.
A classic edited volume that explores how entrepreneurial roles differ across countries and stages of development. Kilby’s work laid early foundations for contextual and comparative approaches to entrepreneurship.
​
Giacomin, V. 2018. The Transformation of the Global Palm Oil Cluster: Dynamics of Cluster Competition between Africa and Southeast Asia (c.1900–1970). Journal of Global History, 13(3), 374-398.
A comparative historical analysis of industrial clusters, showing how global, colonial, and institutional contexts shaped entrepreneurial trajectories. A model for studying context through long-run comparative history.
​
Wurth, B., MacKenzie, N. G., & Howick, S. 2024. Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees? A Systems Approach to the Entrepreneurial University. Small Business Economics, 63(2), 1-24.
Applies a systems thinking framework to analyze the complex dynamics of the entrepreneurial university. Highlights how institutional goals, structures, and feedback loops interact, offering a holistic perspective on entrepreneurship in higher education contexts.
​
Hollow, M., 2020. Historicizing Entrepreneurial Networks, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(1): 66–88.
This piece argues for embedding the study of entrepreneurial networks within historical contexts. Hollow illustrates how network structures and meanings evolve across time and institutional settings.
​
Sheth, S. 2019. Unconventional Histories of Capitalism. Business History Review, 93(3), 589-597.
A reflective essay that challenges dominant narratives in business history by advocating for greater attention to overlooked actors, regions, and contexts. Supports a pluralistic, historically grounded view of entrepreneurial capitalism.