We love the stories of entrepreneurs who advanced from poverty to success and riches. How much do these stories reflect reality, and not wishful thinking? What are these stories missing? Recent research by Leandro S. Pongeluppe published in Administrative Science Quarterly examines a more modest – and so more realistic – story of social advance through entrepreneurship, and it offers a piece of realism and some important lessons.
The story of entrepreneurship being the path to success is quite realistic because poverty is often a result of labor market discrimination, so there is no way out except through entrepreneurship. Labor market discrimination is a powerful exclusion because employers discriminate against those who are visibly different: often minorities or women. In this research, such discrimination was against people living in the Brazil slums (“favelas”), who are easy to distinguish by their language dialect and address.Entrepreneurship
by the disenfranchised is not easy, though, and the whole foundation for the
research was a set of programs teaching favela residents skills for forming and
operating businesses. The skills were useful, because those who received the
training were able to start businesses more often than their peers.
Importantly, this happened even though those who received the training were no
more likely to get a job after the training than those who did not—despite the fact
that training someone for running a business also makes them more capable as an
employee of a business. Labor market discrimination is a powerful exclusion.
So, with
more entrepreneurship and higher income, after training we have a nice story of
success, right? That’s where the traditional success story is incomplete. We
are forgetting that discrimination against groups happens because they are not supposed
to be successful, so when they succeed against the odds that’s wrong too in the
eyes of others. They carry the stigma of their disenfranchised background in
the favelas, and this stigma is imposed more strongly by others the more
successful they are. More income means more prejudice and more stigma from
those who are fortunate enough to be born to a middle-class life.
What to do?
Obviously, training the disenfranchised for entrepreneurship is still right,
and equally obvious it is hard, or impossible, to control the irrational
responses of others. Even the old stories of entrepreneurs who advance from
poverty are not enough. But we know the reason, of course. In the novels and
the movies, those entrepreneurs looked just like the audiences. The stigma will
not fade until we tell more stories of favela dwellers and minorities who
succeed through entrepreneurship, and we learn to celebrate them too.