Familism as a Context for Entrepreneurship in Northern Italy

• Authors: Simone Ghezzi
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

It would appear that the two simple dichotomies concerning the topics discussed in this article have been rejected in the last thirty years. The first is the assumption that preindustrial households were units of production, while industrial (urbanized and nuclear) households are mainly units of consumption. The second is the idea that the family enterprise, wrongly assumed to be an anachronistic form of the organization of production, should have played a marginal role in modern capitalism. The first dichotomy is briefly discussed by considering Parsonian and Weberian approaches that supported this view and its critique; the second is analyzed by looking at the shifting notion of industrial capitalism, from mass production to a less standardized and more flexible way of producing commodities in small firms. It will be argued that familism can still be regarded as a useful concept if deprived of its ideological connotation that can be traced back to Banfield’s questionable definition dating from the 1950s. Familism is the “missing link” between entrepreneurship and family enterprise. A case study in support of this view is presented by drawing on fieldwork research carried out in the Italian region of Lombardy.

Keywords

EN

familism; family business; entrepreneurship; embeddedness; capitalism

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 58-70

Dates

published

2015-01-01

online

2014-12-30

Contributors

author

Simone Ghezzi

• Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8 Milano, Italy

References

• Astrachan J., & Shanker, M.C. (2003). Family businesses’ contribution to the U.S. economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16, 211-219.
• Banfield, E.C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
• Baumol, W.J. (1993). Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and bounds. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 197-210.[Crossref]
• Becker, G. (1981). A treatise on the family. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Ch’eng-K’Un, C. (1944). Familism the foundation of Chinese social organization. Social Forces, 23(1), 50-59.
• Colli, A. (2003). The history of family business 1850-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Colli, A. (2006). Capitalismo famigliare. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Collier, J., Rosaldo, M., & Yanagisako, S. (1997). Is there a family? New anthropological views. In R.N. Lancaster & M. Di Leonardo (Ed.), The Gender and Sexuality Reader. London: Routledge.
• Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.
• Ghezzi, S. (2007). Etnografia storica dell’imprenditorialit in Brianza. Antropologia di un’economia regionale. Milano: Franco Angeli.
• Ghezzi, S. (2012). Small-scale entrepreneurship in modern Italy: An ethnographic analysis of social embeddedness in the access to capital and credit. In D. Erasga (Ed.), Sociological landscapes, theories, realities and trends (pp.237-256). InTech - Open Access Publisher.
• Greenhalgh, S. (1994). De-orientalizing the Chinese family firm. American Ethnologist, 21(4), 746-775.[Crossref]
• Hartmann, H. I. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs 6(3), 366-94.[Crossref]
• IFERA (International Family Enterprise Research Academy) (2003). Family Business Dominate. Family Business Review, 17, 235-240.[WoS]
• Kalb, D. (1997). Expanding class: Power and everyday politics in industrial communities, The Netherlands, 1850-1950. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Kulp, D.H. (1925). Country life in South China: The sociology of familism. Taipei: Ch’eng-wen Pub. Co.
• McKinnon, S., & Cannell, F. (Eds.). (2013). Vital relations. Modernity and the persistent life of kinship. Santa Fe: Sar Press.
• Netting, R., Wilk, R., & Arnould, E. (Eds.). (1984). Households: Comparative and historical studies of the domestic group. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship. The cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Parsons, T. (1954) [1949]. The kinship system of the contemporary United States. In T. Parsons, Essays on Sociological Theory. New York: The Free Press.
• Parsons, T. (1955). The American family: Its relations to personality and to the social structure. In T.
• Parsons & R. F. Bales. Family, socialization and interaction process (pp.3-33). Glencoe, IL.: Free Press.
• Pizzorno, A. ([1966] 1971). Amoral familism and historical marginality. In M. Dogan & R. Rose (Eds.), European Politics: A Reader (pp. 95-112). Boston: Little Brown.
• Sacks, K. (1975). Engels revisited: Women, the organization of production, and private property. In R. R. Rayna (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women ( pp. 211-34). New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Solheim, J., & Jensen, R.S. (2012). Modes of familism: Gender, family capitalism and family culture. In F. Engelstad & M. Teigen (Eds.), Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives (Comparative Social Research, Volume 29), pp.47-84. Howard House, Wagon Lane, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.[Crossref]
• Stewart, A. (1992). A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (2), 71-91.
• Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at work. Patriarchal and capitalist relations in employment. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Weber, M. (1958) [1904-5]. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Weber, M. (1968) [1919]. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Yanagisako, S.J. (2002). Producing culture and capital. Family firms in Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/humaff-2015-0005