1988
DOI: 10.1068/a201365
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Alternative Theories of Small-Firm Growth: A Critical Review

Abstract: This paper contains a review of alternative theories which have been developed in order to explain growth and change in the small manufacturing firm. Models of small-firm growth derived within the industrial economics literature are evaluated together with stage models of growth and stochastic models. Social and psychological perspectives on growth are reviewed and the spatial dimension is also considered. We argue that most previous theories of small-firm growth place too little emphasis upon the difficulties… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
110
0
3

Year Published

1990
1990
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
110
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The life cycle approach to small firm growth has been extensively reviewed and critiqued (Hanks 1990;Hanks and Chandler 1992;Hanks et al 1993;Drazin 1989, 1990;Perry 1982;Quinn and Cameron 1983;Macpherson et al 2004;Phelps et al 2007). Criticisms have typically included: that stage models assume all small firms pass inexorably through each stage; that they fail to capture nascent entrepreneurial activity; and that they pay insufficient attention to the external environment (O'Farrell and Hitchens 1988). For small firms in particular, where growth may occur in reactive, rather than proactive surges (Fombrun and Wally 1989), the orderly sequential view of growth is seen as too deterministic (Miller and Friesen 1984).…”
Section: 'Time Is Important For the Development Of Social Capital Simentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The life cycle approach to small firm growth has been extensively reviewed and critiqued (Hanks 1990;Hanks and Chandler 1992;Hanks et al 1993;Drazin 1989, 1990;Perry 1982;Quinn and Cameron 1983;Macpherson et al 2004;Phelps et al 2007). Criticisms have typically included: that stage models assume all small firms pass inexorably through each stage; that they fail to capture nascent entrepreneurial activity; and that they pay insufficient attention to the external environment (O'Farrell and Hitchens 1988). For small firms in particular, where growth may occur in reactive, rather than proactive surges (Fombrun and Wally 1989), the orderly sequential view of growth is seen as too deterministic (Miller and Friesen 1984).…”
Section: 'Time Is Important For the Development Of Social Capital Simentioning
confidence: 99%
“…we rely on a conceptual model that allows us to deviate from the strict axioms of mathematic modeling and include the examination of factors outside classical growth models. Moreover, as the examination of small firm related factors is usually excluded from growth models (O'Farrell and Hitchens, 1988), we rely on sociological and psychological approaches to specific individual factors.…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather than desiring to grow, some entrepreneurs may be just happy to keep their enterprises small (O'Farell 1988;Hitchens, 1988 shocks. There are also learning-by-doing benefits since exporting firms adopt international best practices.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%