The Coevolution of Institutional Entrepreneurship: A Tale of Two Theories

By Desirée F. Pacheco, Jeffrey G. York, Thomas J. Dean, S. Sarasvathy. 2010

327 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c28dde84a359ba0965edc2f587479582807b973b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Capital is not enough: opportunity entrepreneurship and formal institutions (2018, unknown): “A number of recent theoretical papers have used this conceptual framework as a starting point to analyze the institutional context of entrepreneurial action (Bylund and McCaffrey 2017; Estrin et al. 2013; Misangyi et al. 2008; Pacheco et al. 2010).”
Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A Market–Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth (2011, unknown): “In addition, the benefits of institutional change are likely to be dispersed whereas the costs of IE are likely to be concentrated (Pacheco et al., 2010).”
Opportunities and institutions: A co-creation story of the king crab industry (2015, unknown): “The concept of communal governance, where individuals or groups design communal norms and enforcement mechanisms to govern a common pool of resources (Ostrom, 2000), has been discussed outside of the entrepreneurship literature (Pacheco et al., 2010).”
Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Informal Economy: China's Shan-Zhai Mobile Phones (2014, unknown): “Institutional entrepreneurship focuses attention on the micro-activities through which interested actors influence their macro-institutional contexts (Battilana et al., 2009; DiMaggio, 1991; Hardy and Maguire, 2008; Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence, 2004; Pacheco et al., 2010).”
Should We Require Every New Venture to Be a Hybrid Organization (2016, background): “As entrepreneurship theory has long suggested (Schumpeter, 1934), and institutional entrepreneurship has recently emphasized (Pacheco et al., 2010), entrepreneurs can (and do) alter the rules of the game, occasionally on behalf of others (McMullen, 2011) but more often in their own favour (Smith,…”
Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces (2020, background): “Broadly speaking, Pacheco et al. (2010) identify two lines of enquiry in the study of institutional entrepreneurship.”
Toward An Integration of the Behavioral and Cognitive Influences on the Entrepreneurship Process (2016, unknown): “At the same time, institutional entrepreneurs engage in some behaviors not included in the model, such as the prolonged efforts to protect and solidify innovative institutional solutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Pacheco et al., 2010).”
Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Growth: What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Know? (2016, unknown): “For example, DiMaggio (1988) and Baumol (1990) argued that entrepreneurial effort may be directed to influencing institutions and policies, and the recent literature on “institutional entrepreneurship” (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007; Pacheco et al., 2010) amounts to the same basic idea.”
Entrepreneurship in Regulated Markets: Framing Contests and Collective Action to Introduce Pay TV in the U.S. (2014, unknown): “The use of framing, especially stories, has been found effective in challenging dominant logics and legitimating new organizational forms (Hargadon and Douglas, 2001; Kaplan and Tripsas, 2008; Lawrence and Phillips, 2004; Pacheco et al., 2010; Rao, 1998; Zilber, 2002, 2007).”
All you need is trust? A critical review of the trust and entrepreneurship literature (2012, background): “Recent work on institutional entrepreneurship (Pacheco et al., 2010) and institutional change agents (Welter and Smallbone, 2011) might offer some useful perspectives for the general trust literature in this regard.”
Institutional incentives in circular economy transition: The case of material use in the Dutch textile industry (2017, unknown): “In our view, the vacuum of rules and related constraints are the drivers that provoke strategic actors (e.g. firms, policy-makers, consumers) to design new rules and thus to behave as institutional entrepreneurs (Pacheco et al., 2010).”
The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: is policy formulation to blame? (2014, background): “Power is a driver of institutional change, in which powerful institutional entrepreneurs can shape the institutional environment depending on their particular interests (Pacheco et al. 2010).”