Anthropological kinship theory is explored for potential contributions to a theory of family business. This article considers the costs and benefits of a role for kinship in business. Both derive from the discrepancy between the normative orders of kinship and markets; respectively, long–term generalized reciprocity and short–term balanced reciprocity. Because the former reflects the morality of society as a whole, kinship integrates social fields more readily than more specialized orders like markets.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderJ. & AlexanderP. (2000).From kinship to contract? Production chains in the Javanese woodworking industries. Human Organization, 59, 106–116.
2.
BarthF. (1959).Political leadership among Swat Pathans. London: The Athlone Press.
3.
BarthF. (1967).Economic spheres in Darfur. In R. Firth (ed.), Themes in economic anthropology, 149–174. London: Tavistock.
4.
BelshawC.S. (1965).The cultural milieu of the entrepreneur. In H.G. Aitken (ed.), Explorations in enterprise, 139–162. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5.
BenedictB. (1968).Family firms and economic development. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 24(1), 1–19.
6.
BennettJ.W. & DespresL.A. (1998).Kinship and instrumental activities. In J. W. Bennett (ed.), Classic anthropology: Critical essays: 1944—1996, 199–217 (originally 1960; Epilogue 1996). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
7.
BlimM.L. (1990).Made in Italy: Small–scale industrialization and its consequences. New York: Praeger.
8.
BlochM. (1971).The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms. Man (N.S.), 6, 79–87.
9.
BlochM. (1973).The long term and the short term: The economic and political significance of the morality of kinship. In J. Goody (ed.), The character of kinship, 75–87. London: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BruunO. (1993).Business and bureaucracy in a Chinese city: An ethnography of private business households in contemporary China. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California–Berkeley.
11.
CampbellD.T. (1969).Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish–scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences, 328–348. Chicago: Aldine.
12.
CarstensJ. (2000).Introduction: Cultures of relatedness. In J. Carsten (ed.), Cultures of relatedness, 1–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ChiuC.C.H. (1998). Wives’ voices: Unequal reward distribution in small family businesses. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 26, 33–44.
14.
CohenA. (1969).Custom and politics in urban Africa: A study of Hausa immigrants in Yoruba towns. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
DavisJ.A., PittsE.L. & CormierK. (2000).Challenges facing family companies in the Gulf region. Family Business Review, 13, 217–237.
16.
De LimaA.P. (2000).Is blood thicker than economic interest in familial enterprises? In P. P. Schweitzer (ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness, 151–176. London: Routledge.
17.
DhaliwalS. (1998).Silent contributors: Asian female entrepreneurs and women in business. Women's Studies International Forum, 21, 463–474.
18.
DyerW.G. (1992).The entrepreneurial experience. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
19.
FortesM. (1969).Kinship and the axiom of amity. In M. Fortes (ed.), Kinship and the social order, 219–249. Chicago: Aldine.
20.
FoxR. (1983).Kinship and marriage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FreedmanM. (1958).Lineage organization in southeastern China. London: Athlone Press.
22.
FreemanD. (1973).Kinship, attachment, and the primary bond. In J. Goody (ed.), The character of kinship, 109–119. London: Cambridge University Press.
23.
García–ÁlvarezE. & López–SintasJ. (2001).A taxonomy of founders based on values: The root of family business heterogeneity. Family Business Review, 14, 209–230.
24.
GatfieldT. & YouseffM. (2001).A critical examination of and reflection on the Chinese family business unit and the Chinese business clan. Family Business Review, 14, 153–158.
25.
GatesH. (1993).Cultural support for birth limitation among urban capital–owning women. In D. Davis & S. Harrell (eds.), Chinese families in the post–Mao era, 251–274. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
GeertzC. (1967).Social change and economic modernization in two Indonesian towns: A case in point. In G. Dalton (ed.), Tribal and peasant economies: Readings in economic anthropology, 366–394. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
27.
GersickK.E., DavisJ.A., HamptonM.M. & LandsbergI. (1997).Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
28.
GoodA. (1996).Kinship. In A. Barnard & J. Spencer (eds.), Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology, 311–318. London: Routledge.
29.
GoodyJ. (1996).The east in the west. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GoodyJ. (1997).Succession. In T. Barfield (ed.), The dictionary of anthropology, 454–456. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
31.
GranovetterM. (1985).Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
32.
GreenhalghS. (1989). Land reform and family entrepreneurship in East Asia. Population and Development Review, 15 (Issue Supplement: Rural Development and Population: Institutions and Policy), 77–118.
33.
GreenhalghS. (1994).De–orientalizing the Chinese family firm. American Ethnologist, 21(4), 746–775.
34.
GulliverP.H. (1971).Neighbours and networks: The idiom of kinship in social action among the Ndendeuli of Tanzania. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
HallA., MelinL. & NordqvistM. (2001).Entrepreneurship as radical change in the family business: Exploring the role of cultural patterns. Family Business Review, 14, 193–208.
36.
HarrellS. (1993).Geography, demography, and family composition in three Southwestern villages. In D. Davis & S. Harrell (eds.), Chinese families in the post–Mao era, 77–102. Berkeley: University of California Press.
HartK. (1975).Swindler or public benefactor? The entrepreneur in his community. In J. Goody (ed.), Changing social structure in Ghana, 1–35. London: International African Institute.
39.
HolyL. (1996).Anthropological perspectives on kinship. London: Pluto.
40.
HousemanM. & WhiteD.R. (1998).Network mediation of exchange structures: Ambilateral sidedness and property flows in Pul Eliya (Sri Lanka). In T. Schweizer & D.R. White (eds.), Kinship, networks, and exchange, 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
HoworthC. & AliZ.A. (2001).Family business succession in Portugal: An examination of case studies in the furniture industry. Family Business Review, 14, 231–244.
42.
JohnsonC.L. (2000).Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 623–639.
43.
KapfererB. (1969).Norms and the manipulation of relationships in a work context. In J.C. Mitchell (ed.), Social networks in urban situations, 181–244. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
44.
KapfererB. (1972).Strategy and transaction in an African factory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
45.
KeesingR.M. (1975).Kin groups and social structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
46.
KleinS.B. (2000).Family businesses in Germany: Significance and structure. Family Business Review, 13, 157–181.
47.
LearnedK.E. (1995). The creation of firm resources: A native ethnography. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Texas.
48.
LeeJ.S.K. & TanF. (2001).Growth of Chinese family enterprises in Singapore. Family Business Review, 14, 49–74.
49.
LeytonE. (1970).Composite descent groups in Canada. In C. C. Harris (ed.), Readings in kinship in urban society, 179–186. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
50.
LomnitzL.A. & Pérez–LizaurM. (1987). A Mexican elite family, 1820–1980: Kinship, class, and culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
LongN. (1979).Multiple enterprise in the central highlands of Peru. In S. M. Greenfield, A. Strickon, & R. T. Aubey (eds.), Entrepreneurs in cultural context, 123–158. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
52.
LuY.–H. (2001).The “boss's wife” and Taiwanese small family business. In M. C. Brinton (ed.), Women's working lives in East Asia, 263–297. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
53.
ManikuttyS. (2000).Family business groups in India: A resource–based view of the emerging trends. Family Business Review, 13, 279–292.
54.
MarcusG.E. & HallP.D. (1992).Lives in trust: The fortunes of dynastic families in late twentieth–century America. Boulder, CO: Westview.
55.
MattessichP. & HillR. (1976).Family enterprises and societal development: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 7(2), 147–158.
56.
Mengzi. 4th c. B.C. (1970).Mencius (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
57.
MooresK. & MulaJ. (2000).The salience of market, bureaucratic, and clan controls in the management of family firm transitions: Some tentative Australian evidence. Family Business Review, 13, 91–106.
58.
NafzigerE.W. (1969).The effect of the Nigerian extended family on entrepreneurship. Economic development and cultural change, 18, 25–33.
59.
OxfeldE. (1993).Blood, sweat, and mahjong: Family and enterprise in an overseas Chinese community. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
60.
PeletzM.G. (1995).Kinship studies in late twentieth century anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 343–372.
61.
Pérez–LizaurM. (1997).The Mexican family enterprise faces the open market. Organization, 4, 535–551.
62.
PerriconeP.J., EarleJ.R. & TaplinI.M. (2001).Patterns of succession and continuity in family–owned businesses: Study of an ethnic community. Family Business Review, 14, 105–121.
63.
PineF. (1996).Family. In A. Barnard & J. Spencer (eds.), Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology, 223–228. London: Routledge.
64.
PistruiD., HuangW., OksoyD., JingZ. & WelschH.P. (2001).Entrepreneurship in China: Characteristics, attributes, and family forces shaping the emerging private sector. Family Business Review, 14, 141–152.
65.
PistruiD., WelschH.P., WintermantelO., LiaoJ. & PohlH.J. (2000).Entrepreneurial orientation and family forces in the new Germany: Similarities and differences between East and West German entrepreneurs. Family Business Review, 13, 251–263.
66.
PolanyiK. (1957).The great transformation: The political and economic origins of pur time. Boston: Beacon.
67.
RamM. & HollidayR. (1993).Relative merits: Family culture and kinship in small firms. Sociology, 27(4): 629–648.
68.
RosenblattP.C., De MikL., AndersonR.M. & JohnsonP.A. (1985).The family in business. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
69.
RumeltR.P. (1987).Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In D.J. Teece (ed.), The competitive challenge, 137–158. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
70.
SahlinsM. (1972).Stone age economics. Chicago: Aldine.
71.
SchefflerH.W. (2001).Filiation and affliliation. Boulder, CO: Westview.
72.
SchneiderJ. & SchneiderP. (1976).Culture and political economy in Western Sicily. New York: Academic.
73.
SchweitzerP.P. (2000a).Concluding remarks. In P.P. Schweitzer (ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness, 207–217. London: Routledge.
74.
SchweitzerP.P. (2000b).Introduction. In P.P. Schweitzer (ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness, 1–32. London: Routledge.
75.
SharmaP. & RaoA.S. (2000).Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A comparative study. Family Business Review, 13, 313–330.
76.
SongM. (1999).Helping out: Children's labor in ethnic businesses. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
77.
SteierL. (2001).Next–generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital. Family Business Review, 14, 259–276.
78.
StewartA. (1989).Team entrepreneurship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
79.
StewartA. (1990).The Bigman metaphor for entrepreneurship: A “library tale” with morals on alternatives for further research. Organization Science, 1, 143–159.
80.
StewartA. (1991).A prospectus on the anthropology of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(2), 71–91.
81.
StewartA. (1998).The ethnographer's method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
82.
StoneL. (1997).Kinship and gender: An introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview.
83.
StoneL. (2001).Introduction: Theoretical implications of new directions in anthropological kinship. In L. Stone (ed.), New directions in anthropological kinship, 1–20. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
84.
StrathernA.J. (1971).The rope of Moka: Big–men and ceremonial exchange in Mount Hagen, New Guinea. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
StrathernM. (1985).Kinship and economy: Constitutive orders of a provisional kind. American Ethnologist, 12, 191–209.
86.
TanW.–L. & FockS.T. (2001).Coping with growth transitions: The case of Chinese family businesses in Singapore. Family Business Review, 14, 123–139.
87.
TerrellJ. (1997).Family. In T. Barfield (ed.), The dictionary of anthropology, 179–181. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
88.
TurnerV.W. (1957).Schism and continuity in an African society. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
89.
Van VelsenJ. (1964).The politics of kinship: A study of social manipulation among the Lakeside Tonga. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
90.
VeliyathR. & RamaswanyK. (2000).Social embeddedness, overt and covert power, and their effects on CEO pay: An empirical examination among family businesses in India. Family Business Review, 13, 293–311.
91.
WardJ.L. (2000).Reflections on Indian family groups. Family Business Review, 13, 271–278.
92.
WatsonR.S. (1985).Inequality among brothers: Class and kinship in South China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
93.
WhiteD.R. & JorionP. (1992).Representing and computing kinship: A new approach. Current Anthropology, 33(4): 454–463.
94.
WhyteM.K. (1996).The Chinese family and economic development: Obstacle or engine?Economic Development and Cultural Change, 44, 1–30.
95.
WongS.–L. (1988).Emigrant entrepreneurs: Shanghai industrialists in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
