< Back

Evolutionary / Change and Transformation

Central to the development of entrepreneurship as a concept was the promise that it could help social scientists explain change and transformation in markets, economies and in capitalism itself. Scholars have looked to the figure of the entrepreneur to help explain how markets evolve, how economies develop, and how capitalism itself transforms over time. This association with change remains one of entrepreneurship’s most enduring promises. However, it is also underdeveloped in much of contemporary research.

One influential strand has turned to evolutionary theory, which views entrepreneurship as part of broader processes of variation, selection, and retention in competitive markets. This perspective situates entrepreneurial activity within ongoing cycles of adaptation and survival, providing a structured way to integrate historical dynamics into entrepreneurship theory.

Yet, other approaches have sought to go beyond gradualist models of evolution to explain moments of transformation, radical shifts in market structures, industry logics, or economic systems. These approaches often foreground the role of power, institutional disruption, and sensemaking in understanding how entrepreneurs participate in and sometimes catalyze large-scale change. Rather than adapting to existing environments, entrepreneurs in these contexts are seen as actively reshaping them.

Historical research is particularly well positioned to illuminate both evolutionary patterns and transformative episodes. By tracing long-term developments and attending to ruptures, contingency, and agency, historians provide crucial insights into how entrepreneurial change unfolds across different temporal and institutional scales.

Key References

Aldrich, H. & Ruef, M. 2006. Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage.A seminal text in organizational evolution theory. Aldrich and Ruef frame entrepreneurship as a product of population-level dynamics emphasizing adaptation over time within shifting environments.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & David J. Ketchen, J. 2009. Entrepreneuring as Emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 477-491.Proposes a transformative view of entrepreneurship as a form of social emancipation. Highlights how entrepreneurs challenge constraints and reshape institutions, introducing power and purpose into models of change.
Hargadon, A. & Douglas, Y. 2001. When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 46: 476-501.A historical case study of Edison’s electric light invention, illustrating how entrepreneurs balance novelty and legitimacy. Offers deep insight into how transformational change unfolds within institutional constraints.
Forbes, D., & Kirsch, D. 2011. The Study of Emerging Industries: Recognizing and Responding to Some Central Problems. Journal of Business Venturing, 26: 589-602.Highlights methodological and theoretical challenges in studying the formative stages of industries. The authors advocate for longitudinal and historical approaches to capture complex entrepreneurial dynamics.
Wadhwani, R. D., Dorado, S., Haugh, H., Hamann, R. Forthcoming. Big Pictures Approaches to Social Innovation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.Discusses big picture and historically contextualized approaches to social innovation.
Bodrožić, Z., & Adler, P. S. 2018. The Evolution of Management Models: A Neo- Schumpeterian Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1): 85-129.Develops a theory of management model evolution rooted in Schumpeterian innovation. Connects entrepreneurial agency to long-run institutional change in organizational practices and ideologies.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. 2010. Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning and Value in a New Market Category—Modern Indian Art. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1281-1304.Examines how entrepreneurs create new markets by shaping cultural meanings and value. Demonstrates how entrepreneurship drives transformation through narrative, legitimacy, and category creation.
Lubinski, C., Wadhwani, R. D., Gartner, W. B., & Rottner, R. 2024. Humanistic Approaches to Change: Entrepreneurship and Transformation. Business History, 66(2): 347-363.Articulates a humanistic view of entrepreneurship as a socially embedded force of change. Emphasizes historical agency, ethical complexity, and the construction of alternative futures.
Ruef, M. 2020. The Household as a Source of Labor for Entrepreneurs: Evidence from New York City during industrialization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14: 20– 42.Uses historical data to show how household structures shaped entrepreneurial labor choices. Highlights how macro-social transformations, like urbanization and migration, affect entrepreneurial formation.
Beckman, Christine M., and M. Diane Burton. 2008. Founding the Future: Path Dependence in the Evolution of Top Management Teams from Founding to IPO. Organization Science 19: 3-24.Shows how early founding conditions influence later organizational trajectories. Provides a compelling account of how path dependence operates at the micro level in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes.
Braguinsky, S., & Hounshell, D. A. 2016. History and Nanoeconomics in Strategy and Industry Evolution Research: Lessons from the Meiji‐Era Japanese Cotton Spinning Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1): 45-65.A deeply historical study of Japan’s Meiji-era cotton industry. Demonstrates how micro-level decisions interact with macro-level institutional change to shape industry evolution.
King, M. D., & Haveman, H. A. 2008. Antislavery in America: The Press, the Pulpit, and the Rise of Antislavery Societies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 492-528.Analyzes social entrepreneurship and institutional change in the antislavery movement. A powerful historical example of collective action driving radical social transformation.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1947. The Creative Response in Economic History. Journal of Economic History 7: 149-159.A classic essay where Schumpeter distinguishes between adaptive responses and creative ones that disrupt equilibrium. Essential reading for understanding entrepreneurship as a driver of transformative change.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1976 [1943]. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (5 ed.). London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Schumpeter’s foundational work introducing the concept of creative destruction, where entrepreneurship is the mechanism of capitalist transformation. An enduring theoretical anchor for linking entrepreneurship and systemic change.
Demil, B. 2020. Reintroducing Public Actors in Entrepreneurial Dynamics: A Co- Evolutionary Approach to Categorization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14(1): 43-65.Argues for the inclusion of public institutions in theories of entrepreneurial change. Presents a co-evolutionary model in which public actors help shape and stabilize emerging markets.
Toms, S., Wilson, N., Wright, M. 2020. Innovation, Intermediation, and the Nature of Entrepreneurship: A Historical Perspective. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 14(1): 105-121.Uses a historical lens to examine how intermediaries (e.g., financiers, advisors) shape entrepreneurial innovation and diffusion. Reframes entrepreneurship as a distributed, temporally complex process.

Summary

Entrepreneurship is often invoked to explain change, but historical approaches reveal how such change unfolds unevenly across time and space. This section moves beyond evolutionary metaphors to examine entrepreneurship as both adaptive andtransformative. It offers tools for understanding long-run development, institutional rupture, and the historical construction of new markets and identities.