Cited by 383Management and Organizational StudiesEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesEconomic Theory and Institutions

Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector

Sine, Wesley D., Haveman, Heather A., Tolbert, Pamela S.·2005·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

Building on sociological research on institutions and organizations and psychological research on risk and decision making, we propose that the development of institutions that reduce the risks of entering new sectors has a stronger effect on the founding rates of firms using novel technologies than on firms using established technologies. In an analysis of the independent-power sector of the electricity industry from 1980 to 1992, we found that the development of regulative and cognitive institutions legitimated the entire sector and provided incentives for all sector entrants; thus, foundings of all kinds of firms multiplied rapidly but had a stronger impact on those using risky novel technologies. In contrast, the central normative institutions that developed in this sector, state-level trade associations, provided greater support for particular forms (those using established technologies) and thus increased foundings of those favored forms more than foundings of less favored forms (those using novel technologies). Our study demonstrates how institutional forces can alter the mix of organizations entering a new industry and thus contribute to diversity, as well as similarity, among organizations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.200

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A number of empirical studies have used media coverage as a proxy for cognitive legitimacy, supporting the empirical approach.

    “A number of empirical studies have used media coverage as a proxy for cognitive legitimacy, which supports our empirical approach (Deephouse, 1996;Bansal and Clelland, 2004;Sine, Haveman, and Tolbert, 2005;Sine, David, and Mitsuhashi, 2007).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Sine, Haveman, and Tolbert, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sine, W. D., Haveman, H. A., & Tolbert, P. S.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Published
2005-06
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
200-232
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
OpenAlex
W2156795952
Cited by
383
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 16
FWCI
18.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • eCommons (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9906960)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
Keywords
entrepreneurship, new industry entry, new technologies, regulative institutions, cognitive institutions, normative institutions, trade associations, institutional diversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review