Running in The Family Parental Role Models in Entrepreneurship Hoffmann Small Business Economics 2014

Running in the family: parental role models
in entrepreneurship
Anders Hoffmann

Martin Junge

Nikolaj Malchow-Mller
Accepted: 23 April 2014
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract It is well established that children of self-
employed parents are more likely to become self-
employed themselves, but the reasons are still hotly
debated. Using Danish register data, we investigate the
importance and workings of parental role models for
the probability of becoming self-employed. We nd
that the effect of a self-employed father (mother) is
much higher for males (females). These results are
statistically and economically very signicant, and
they survive when we control for parental wealth and
work experience from the parents rms and when we
exclude cases where the offspring takes over the
family business. This points to a strong role for
parental role models in explaining why self-employ-
ment runs in the family.
Keywords Entrepreneurship Self-
employment Role models Parents Social-
learning theory
JEL classications J24 J62 L26
1 Introduction
Several studies have shown that children of self-
employed (entrepreneurial) parents are more likely to
become self-employed themselves; see, e.g. Lentz and
Laband (1983, 1990), Hout (1984), Hout and Rosen
(2000), Dunn and Holtz-Eakin (2000), Fairlie and
Robb (2007) and Laspita et al. (2012).
Several explanations have been suggested for this
nding: First, a human-capital explanation: that the
children may gain relevant experience with entrepre-
neurship/self-employment by working in their par-
ents rms and thereby get a comparative advantage in
entrepreneurial activities, which will induce them to
start their own business later on; see, e.g. Lentz and
Laband (1990), Dunn and Holtz-Eakin (2000) and
Hout and Rosen (2000). Second, a preference expla-
nation: that children inherit preferences (or abili-
ties) for being an entrepreneur. This could happen
genetically (Nicolaou and Shane 2009, 2010), but also
socially if parents serve as role models for their
children; see, e.g. Scherer et al. (1989), Matthews and
Moser (1996) and Hout and Rosen (2000). Third, a
A. Hoffmann
Danish Business Authority, Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: andhof@erst.dk
M. Junge
DEA, Copenhagen, Denmark
e-mail: mj@dea.nu
M. Junge N. Malchow-Mller
Centre for Economic and Business Research, Copenhagen
Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
N. Malchow-Mller (&)
Department of Business and Economics, University of
Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M,
Denmark
e-mail: nmm@sam.sdu.dk
1 3
Small Bus Econ
DOI 10.1007/s11187-014-9586-0
nancial explanation: that family funds may substitute
for access to formal credit markets in the sense that
successful entrepreneurs may transfer nancial wealth
or the family rm to their offspring, thereby relaxing
any capital market constraints that may otherwise limit
their entrepreneurial activities; see, e.g. Dunn and
Holtz-Eakin (2000).
The empirical evidence regarding the importance
and exact workings of these different channels is still
very limited and mixed. One reason is that it is hard to
nd (observational) evidence that discriminates
between the three explanations. However, the policy
implications to be derived from the three explanations
are potentially very different. If policy makers want to
increase entrepreneurship, the rst explanation would
highlight the need for more formal training of potential
entrepreneurs. The second explanation would instead
point towards the importance of promoting role
models and introducing awareness courses and cam-
paigns. Finally, the third explanation would suggest
loan guarantees or other interventions in the capital
market with a special focus on entrepreneurs. For these
reasons, it is crucial to get a better understanding of
how entrepreneurship propensities are transmitted
from parents to children.
In this paper, we focus on the preference explana-
tion and, more specically, on the importance of
parental role models. By role models, we mean a
transfer or imputation of preferences (and abilities) for
a given occupation or lifestyle through observation
and social interaction. Social-learning theory argues
that parental role models are important for childrens
choices. This has been documented empirically in the
case of educational choices; see, e.g. Dryler (1998).
However, when it comes to entrepreneurial choices,
the empirical evidence of the importance and nature of
parental role models is still limited. In this paper, we
go beyond existing studies in isolating the quantitative
importance of parental role models and investigating
the channels through which preferences for entrepre-
neurship are transmitted from parents to children.
Based on social-learning theory, we rst derive a
number of testable hypotheses (predictions) about how
parental role models will affect the entrepreneurial
choices of the children and howthis will be reected in
observable outcomes. Social-learning theory predicts
that preferences are acquired both through observation
and interaction and that the inuence of role models is
strongest within gender lines. Some of these
implications are also shared by the competing
explanations mentioned above, but in the empirical
analysis, we take several steps to eliminate the
inuence working through these other channels.
Second, we test these hypotheses through the use of
very rich Danish register data that provide detailed
information about the labour market history of each
Danish resident and also allow us to match the
individuals with their parents and therefore to use
the history of the parents to explain the behaviour of
the children.
To preview our results, we nd strong empirical
support for the hypothesis that entrepreneurial parents
serve as role models for their children. Most interest-
ingly, we nd that while having self-employed parents
in general increases the probability of becoming self-
employed, the relative effect of a self-employed father
is roughly twice as high for males as for females, while
the relative effect of a self-employed mother is
similarly about twice as high for females as for males.
These ndings also hold when we control for parental
wealth and work experience from the parents rms
and when we disregard cases where the offspring takes
over the family business. It even holds to some extent
when we exclude individuals that start in the same
industry as the parents. These ndings constitute strong
evidence in favour of the preference explanation and
point to a substantial parental role-model effect where
preferences are transmitted along gender lines and
extend beyond the family rm and industry.
Our ndings may explain at least part of the often-
documented gender difference in the propensity to
become an entrepreneur; see, e.g. Fairlie and Meyer
(1996) and Georgellis and Wall (2005). Focus in this
literature has been on the role of differences in risk
aversion, family considerations, etc., between men
and women. Our paper suggests anothermore his-
toricalreason for this difference, namely that fewer
women than men become entrepreneurs simply
because fewer mothers than fathers were entrepre-
neurs historically. This conclusion doestaken to the
extremesuggest the need for a time-limited boost to
female entrepreneurship if one wishes to level out the
current differences between the genders.
For comparison, we also consider the importance of
role models for the propensity to become a school-
teacheran occupation where self-employment is not
an option. We nd that role models are also relevant
here, but seem to be quantitatively less important.
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In
Sect. 2, the theoretical framework and the hypotheses
to be tested are spelled out in more detail. Section 3
presents the data and the empirical framework, while
Sect. 4 contains the results. Finally, Sect. 5 concludes.
2 Theory and existing literature
At least three different channels for the intergenera-
tional transmission of self-employment propensities
have been suggested in the literature. First, children of
self-employed parents may be more likely to become
self-employed themselves, simply because some of
them inherit the family business or inherit wealth to
acquire a business. We refer to this as the nancial
channel. Second, the children of self-employed par-
ents may build entrepreneurial human capital by
working in the parents rms, providing them with a
comparative advantage in self-employment activities
that result in a higher entry probability later on. We
refer to this as the human-capital channel. Third,
children may inherit preferences (or abilities) for
self-employmenteither genetically or socially,
because parents serve as role models. We refer to this
as the preference channel, although preferences in
this context may also include abilities (rather than
preferences) for entrepreneurial activities.
1
In this
paper, we focus on the preference channel. More
precisely, we investigate the importance and workings
of parental role models.
While there is considerable empirical evidence that
the propensity to become self-employed is much
higher among the children of self-employed than
among other children (Lentz and Laband 1983, 1990;
Hout 1984; Hout and Rosen 2000; Dunn and Holtz-
Eakin 2000; Fairlie and Robb 2007; Laspita et al.
2012), there is much less and much more mixed
evidence on the quantitative and relative importance
of the different transmission mechanisms and the
exact way in which they work.
It is well known that many rms are family owned
and passed on fromone generation to the next; see, e.g.
Bennedsen et al. (2007). This points rather strongly to
an effect through the nancial channel. Using the
National Longitudinal Surveys, Dunn and Holtz-
Eakin (2000) also found evidence of a small positive
effect of the parents assets more generally (the
nancial channel) and a stronger effect of the parents
self-employment experience on the probability of
transition into self-employment for men. They inter-
preted the latter as a human-capital effect since the
intergenerational effect was found to be strongest in
the case of successful self-employed parents (using
three different measures of entrepreneurial success).
However, as argued by Fairlie and Robb (2007), a
stronger effect of successful self-employed parents
may also be consistent with a preference effect, as a
successful parent may function as a stronger role
model. Fairlie and Robb (2007) instead argue for the
importance of preferences in the intergenerational
transmission of entrepreneurship propensities, as they
nd that relatively few of the entrepreneurs with self-
employed parents have worked in their parents
businesses. This is also supported by ndings in
Blanchower (2009). Hence, these studies indirectly
point to an effect through the preference channel but
do not estimate its quantitative importance or how
preferences are transmitted from one generation to the
next. More recently, Nicolaou and Shane (2010) and
Lindquist et al. (2013) nd some support for genetic
factors affecting the tendency to become self-
employed using a sample of twins, while Andersson
and Hammarstedt (2011) and Lindquist et al. (2013)
nd evidence in favour of parental role models using
Swedish data.
In the social sciences, there is a long tradition for
viewing the individual choice as highly inuenced
by the process of socialization; see Maccoby (1992).
In this process, the parental role model can be
viewed as a primary determinant. Social-learning
theory argues that the socialization of children takes
place through observational learning. The behaviour
of the parents is observed and imitated by the
children and is later adopted as a part of the
childrens own behavioural repertoire (Parsons et al.
1982). Therefore, the preferences and hence the
choices of children are inuenced by their parents.
This leads us to formulate the following basic
hypothesis:
1
As will be discussed later, the dividing line between the
human-capital channel and the preference channel may be
somewhat blurred. In this paper, we follow what seems to be the
practice in the existing literature and dene the human-capital
channel as the specic skills that are acquired by working in the
parents rms, while the transfer of human-capital and/or
preferences through social interaction is assigned to the
preference channel and considered as a role-model effect.
Parental role models in entrepreneurship
1 3
The observation hypothesis: Because children
closely observe the outcomes of their parents
choices, these outcomes will affect the childrens
choices. As a consequence, if children observe
their parents as self-employed, there is a higher
chance that they will choose to become self-
employed themselves.
While observation of the parents behaviour is of
central importance according to social-learning the-
ory, this inuence of the parents behaviour is not
constant. It can vary with the extent to which children
interact or identify with their parents. Hence, it is
argued that children imitate same-sex models more
than opposite-sex models, because they recognize that
they share a larger set of common attributes with the
parent of the same sex (Hetherington 1965). Further-
more, children often spend more time in activities
similar to those of the role model of the same sex
(Slaby and Frey 1975), and children might also learn
faster from parents of the same sex (Bonke and
Esping-Andersen 2009). This leads us to formulate the
following two renements of the observation
hypothesis:
The interaction hypothesis: The more the parents
interact with their children, the more the children
observe of (and learn from) the parents behaviour.
Thus, there is a stronger role-model effect of
observing parents as self-employed when the child
is living and/or working with his or her parents.
The same-sex hypothesis: Boys identify with and
spend more time with their fathers, and girls
identify with and spend more time with their
mothers. Therefore, the father will be the most
important role model for boys, while the mother
will be most important for girls.
An empirical implication of the observation hypoth-
esis is that the parents experience from self-employ-
ment should positively affect the probability that the
child eventually becomes self-employed him- or
herself, and we should expect this probability to
increase with the amount of experience the parents
have from self-employment. Furthermore, the inter-
action hypothesis implies that the importance of the
parents self-employment experience should be
greater if it was obtained while the child was still
living at home or if the child has worked with the
parents while they were self-employed. Finally, an
empirical implication of the same-sex hypothesis is
that the experience of the father should have a larger
effect on sons, while the experience of the mother
should have a larger effect on daughters.
We test these empirical implications in the
following sections. However, some of these impli-
cations are not specic to the preference channel,
but can also be expected under the two other
transmission channels. First, the nancial channel
may also be consistent with an observed positive
effect of the parents self-employment experience
(the observation hypothesis)and in particular a
successful experience. Hence, a positive effect of
parental self-employment experience cannot imme-
diately be ascribed to the preference channel. In
order to eliminate the potential effects working
through the nancial channel, we can control for
the wealth of the parents. Furthermore, we can
disregard individuals who take over the family
business. In the empirical analysis below, we do
both.
Second, the human-capital channel obviously also
predicts a positive effect of having worked for the
parents while they were self-employed. Furthermore,
this is in turn likely to be correlated with the parents
experience from self-employment. Hence, it may be
difcult to disentangle the effects running through the
human-capital and preference channels. However, if
an effect of parental experience remains after control-
ling for work experience in the family rm, this is a
strong indication of an effect working through the
preference channel. This is the approach that we
follow below.
Third, if parents make gender-specic investments
in their childrens human capital, in the sense that boys
tend to work in their fathers rms, while girls work in
their mothers rms, this may give rise to observed
gender-specic effects as predicted by the same-sex
hypothesis above but driven by the human-capital
channel; see also Lindquist et al. (2013). We try to
eliminate this effect by controlling for the amount of
experience the children have from working with each
parent.
Finally, as we do not expect genetic factors to run
within gender lines, nding support for the same-sex
hypothesis would be a strong indication that the
preference channel (also) works through role models,
and it would furthermore point to a very specic way
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
in which the preferences are passed on to the offspring.
2
In the existing literature, there are different bits of
evidence that point to a positive effect of parental role
models. Van Auken et al. (2006) study 318 American
and Mexican undergraduate students preferences for
self-employment. Using a questionnaire to ask directly
about the importance of role models, they nd that the
father is the most important role model in general and
that role models who own a business have a greater
inuence on the respondents career intentions than
role models who do not own a business. Scherer et al.
(1989) and Matthews and Moser (1996) also use a
questionnaire approach and nd that university stu-
dents with self-employed parents have stronger pref-
erences for becoming self-employed. While these
studies point to an effect of parental role models on
entrepreneurship intentions, they do not nd the
effects (qualitatively or quantitatively) on actual
outcomes nor do they show how the preferences are
transmitted.
In a recent study of 292 Dutch entrepreneurs,
Bosma et al. (2012) nd support for the importance of
role models more generally (not just parental role
models); 54 % of the entrepreneurs had role models
before or shortly after rm start-up, and these were
viewed by one-third to be important for the start-up
decision.
Srensen (2007) nds that self-employment rates
among children whose parents were only self-
employed during the childs adolescence are almost
as high as those where the parents were self-employed
both in adolescence and adulthood. He takes this as
evidence of the importance of role models, rather than
children taking advantage of parents nancial and
social capital. Chlosta et al. (2012) study 461 alumni
from German universities and nd that both a self-
employed father and a self-employed mother affect the
propensity to become self-employed. They interpret
this as a parental role-model effect, but they do not
control for inuences through the other potential
transmission mechanisms.
The only existing papers to distinguish between
different effects on sons and daughters of self-
employed parents are Tervo and Haapanen (2009),
Andersson and Hammarstedt (2011) and Lindquist
et al. (2013). Tervo and Haapanen (2009) analyse
gender differences in self-employment in Finnish
regions. In doing this, they estimate separate equations
for men and women and hence indirectly nd evidence
for the same-sex hypothesis, as the coefcient of a
dummy for self-employment experience of the father
(mother) is largest for men (women). But as for
Chlosta et al. (2012), they do not control for the
inuence through the other channels. Dunn and Holtz-
Eakin (2000) also report (but do not show) results for
women that point in the same direction.
Andersson and Hammarstedt (2011) study the
intergenerational transmission of self-employment
abilities among Swedish immigrants. As in Tervo
and Haapanen (2009), separate regressions for men
and women are conducted, and they also nd similar
results, but again, they do not control for the potential
effects working through the other channels.
Finally, Lindquist et al.s (2013) study is the most
closely related study to ours. Using data on both the
biological and adoptive parents of adopted children,
they are able to showthat most of the intergenerational
transmission mechanism is due to post-birth factors.
They explore the reasons for this and nd a stronger
same-sex transmission mechanism, which they inter-
pret as evidence of a role-model effect. They go
further than the other studies in controlling for the
effects working through the other channels by, e.g.
including a measure for parental income and a proxy
for their wealth (the nancial channel). They also try
to test for the importance of the human-capital channel
by analyzing whether a larger number of siblings (and
thus less parental time for each child) reduce the
intergenerational transmission effect.
2
Whether preferences for entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial
human capital are transmitted from parents to children via
observing and interacting with the parents can be difcult to
discern. However, in the current literature, the human-capital
channel refers to the specic skills that are acquired by working/
participating in the activities of the parents rm, whereas the
values, ideas, tricks, etc., communicated through daily interac-
tion belong to the preference channel and is interpreted as a role-
model effect. If we instead choose to dene human capital more
broadly as all accumulated experience since birth, the human-
capital channel should also include social-learning effects.
Under this interpretation of the human-capital channel, the
hypotheses above cannot discriminate between the human-
capital and the preference channel, but the hypotheses then point
to a neglected aspect of the standard human-capital model,
namely gender-specic effects in the intergenerational transfer
of human capital. Furthermore, if children work for their parents
without being formally employed by these, we will not be able to
distinguish the effects of this from the effects working through
the preference channel.
1 3
In sum, the existing literature points to a potential
effect of role models, but the quantitative and relative
importance of this transmission channel and the way in
which preferences are passed on to the next generation
are not yet fully explored. In this paper, we focus
explicitly on parental role models, and compared to
previous studies, we go further in testing the impor-
tance of this particular mechanism for the intergener-
ational transmission of entrepreneurship propensities
by separating it from the inuence of the other
potential mechanisms. Specically, we have more
detailed measures of the amount of parental experi-
ence, the timing of this experience, work experience
from the parents rms, gender-specic effects, and
industry and rm-specic experience. In this way, we
can get a more nuanced picture of the importance and
workings of parental role models for the choice of
becoming an entrepreneur.
3 Data and empirical framework
The data we use come from the integrated database for
labour market research (IDA) in Statistics Denmark.
The IDA contains annual data since 1980 on all
individuals with Danish residence. It provides detailed
information on individual background variables such
as education and family characteristics as well as a
detailed record of current and previous labour market
performance.
Each year, a persons labour market status (wage
employed, self-employed, non-employed or unem-
ployed) is based on his or her primary occupation in
the last week of November. In particular, individuals
are recorded as self-employed if they own a non-
incorporated business and (a) have at least one
employee; or (b) have a wage-work income below a
certain threshold. From this annual information, we
can construct both our dependent variable (an indica-
tor for entry into self-employment) and variables
measuring the amount of experience from self-
employment (years in self-employment since 1980).
It is particularly useful from our point of view
that individuals are linked to their parents. This
allows us to obtain information about the parents
labour market history and in particular the amount
of experience that the parents have from self-
employment. Furthermore, we can distinguish
between whether that experience was obtained while
the individual was still living at home or after the
individual had left his or her parents.
As 1980 is the rst year with register data on
individuals, we limit our sample to include only
individuals who were 15 years old or younger in 1980.
This choice excludes individuals with (extensive)
work experience already in 1980. As a consequence,
our sample consists of relatively young individuals. In
2009, the oldest individual in the sample was 44 years
old.
Fromthe data, we extract a panel covering the years
19952009. We require that the individual and his/her
parents should be present in the data throughout the
period 19802009. This implies that we discard
individuals who themselves or their parents left the
country (or died) during this period. This results in
592,846 children observed in all years. When we
restrict our attention to individuals in employment, the
resulting number of children in the sample varies from
343,571 in 1995 to 507,218 in 2007. While estimations
are only performed on data from 1995 to 2009, we use
the information back to 1980 to construct the measures
of self-employment experience of the parents.
We estimate probit models for the transition from
wage employment into self-employment. The depen-
dent variable, Transition to self-employment, is a
dummy variable for a transition from wage employ-
ment into self-employment between year t-1 and t,
where we condition on the individual being wage
employed in year t-1. The focus on transition
probabilities rather than the status as self-employed
in year t is motivated by our desire to analyse the
importance of role models for the propensity to
become an entrepreneur. We believe that the transition
probabilities provide the cleanest measure of this, and
at the same time, it exploits the panel dimension in our
data.
In the literature, alternative dependent variables
have been used, e.g. a dummy for the self-employment
status in year t, as in, e.g. Tervo and Haapanen (2009)
and Andersson and Hammarstedt (2011), or a dummy
capturing whether the person was ever an entrepre-
neur, as in, e.g. Lindquist et al. (2013). In the former
case, the dependent variable becomes a mix of the
propensity to become an entrepreneur and the success
as an entrepreneur, while the latter approach does not
fully exploit the panel dimension of our data and does
not distinguish between persons who tried self-
employment only once and those who tried it
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
repeatedly. However, to check the robustness of our
results, we include estimations where we use these
alternative dependent variables.
To test the observation hypothesis from the previ-
ous section, we include as explanatory variables
different measures of parental experience from self-
employment; separately for the mother and the father.
The simplest measures are just two dummies, Father
self-employed and Mother self-employed, capturing
whether the father and the mother, respectively, were
self-employed between 1980 and year t. However, we
also use four dummies for each parent to measure the
intensity of the self-employment experience, where
the intensity is measured as the percentage of the
annual observations between 1980 and year t in which
the parent in question was self-employed.
To test the interaction hypothesis, we construct
dummy variables capturing whether the parents were
self-employed while the individual was still living at
home. These dummies are named Father self-
employed while child living at home and Mother
self-employed while child living at home. We also
construct variables measuring the number of years the
child has worked for the mother (Years employed with
mother) and father (Years employed with father),
respectively. However, while positive effects of these
variables are expected according to the interaction
hypothesis, they will (as explained above) also directly
reect effects working through the human-capital
channel. Hence, we include them primarily to control
for these latter effects.
Finally, to test the same-sex hypothesis, we include
interaction terms between the above variables and the
gender of the individual, captured by a dummy
variable, Male, which takes the value 1 for men and
the value 0 for women. For the variables measuring the
number of years that the offspring has worked with
each parent, these interaction terms will capture same-
sex interaction effects, but they will also control for
parental same-sex investments working through the
human-capital channel.
3
Throughout, we control for a number of other
individual characteristics that may be expected to
affect the self-employment choice, including the
wealth of the parents. Summary statistics of these
and the variables mentioned above are presented in
Table 1.
From the rst part of the Table, we observe that
close to 1.0 % of the observations involve transitions
to self-employment, i.e. on average, 1 out of 100
persons become self-employed each year. From the
second part of the Table, it follows that 29 and 10 %of
the children have fathers and mothers, respectively,
with self-employment experience. The next rows
present the self-employment intensities of the parents.
The majority (80 %) of the self-employed mothers
(i.e. those with a strictly positive intensity) have
intensities below 50 % meaning that they have been
self-employed less than half of the years since 1980.
Among the self-employed fathers, close to 50 % have
been self-employed more than half of the time
indicating that males have higher self-employment
intensities than females. Most of the children with
self-employed parents were still living at home when
their parents were self-employed, and the average
work experience from the fathers rm is considerably
higher than the average work experience from the
mothers rm.
In the nal part of the Table, the characteristics of
the children are shown. The average age in the sample
is 29.9 years, and the children have on average
12.7 years of schooling and 8.7 years of labour market
experience.
4
Furthermore, 64 % have a partner, 41 %
have children themselves and 33 % are living in the
Copenhagen area. The measure of the parents total
wealth is from 1996, the last year where it is observed
in the data.
Before we turn to the multivariate analyses and the
more formal tests of the hypotheses, let us consider
some simple correlations between the main variables
3
Lindquist et al. (2013) try to test for the importance of parental
same-sex investments by including the number of sisters
(brothers) interacted with the self-employment status of the
mother (father). Their idea is that if the same-sex correlations
were driven by parental same-sex investments, then a larger
number of sisters should have a negative effect, as the
investment has to be divided between all sisters. However, a
negative effect would also be consistent with social-learning
Footnote 3 continued
theory, as we would then expect less interaction between the
mother and the child and therefore a smaller role-model effect.
Hence, controlling for the number of years that the offspring has
worked with each parent seems a more direct way to control for
parental same-sex investments.
4
In the estimations below, we rely on a more exible
specication of schooling, using both Years of schooling and
dummies for nine different categories of education programmes
based on length and type.
1 3
of interest to get a rst impression of whether the data
support the various hypotheses.
Table 2 shows the annual transition rates to self-
employment conditional on the self-employment
experience of the parents. The transition rates are
presented separately for males and females. As the
transition rates are small, the odds ratios are basically
equal to the relative transition rates, i.e. the transition
rate for those with a self-employed father (or mother)
relative to the transition rate for those without a self-
employed father (or mother). Not surprisingly, tran-
sition rates are generally higher for males than for
females, and having a parent with self-employment
experience raises the probability of becoming self-
employed (all odds ratios signicantly exceed one).
More interestingly, having a self-employed mother
doubles the probability of becoming self-employed for
females, while it raises the probability for males by
less than 60 %. Similarly, having a father with
experience from self-employment also roughly dou-
bles the transition probability for males, while it adds
less than 60 % to the probability for females. This is a
strong indication that gender-specic effects are
present in the data.
Table 3 considers only those observations where at
least one of the parents has been self-employed. The
left part of Table 3 focuses on observations where the
father has been self-employed for at least one year in
the period considered, while the right part of the Table
presents similar gures for observations where the
mother has been self-employed for at least one year.
We can see that a higher intensity of the self-
employment experience of the father signicantly
raises the probability that the male offspring
becomes self-employed, while there does not seem
to be an effect of a higher intensity on the female
offspring. If we disregard the relatively few obser-
vations where the mother has been self-employed
during the entire period (the last column in the
Table), it also appears that a higher intensity of the
maternal self-employment experience raises the
transition rate for the offspring, but now relatively
more for females. As in Table 2, this points to a
gender-specic effect of the parents experience
from self-employment.
Using the same observations as in Table 3, Table 4
divides the observations according to whether (some
of) the self-employment experience of the parents was
obtained while the child was living at home. Despite
the fact that the effect of the father and the effect of the
mother look very similar for males (and also for
females), the differences in odds ratios are again
important and signicant. For males, it increases the
transition probability by 80 % to have had a father
who was self-employed while he (the son) was still
Table 1 Summary statistics
Mean SD Min Max
Dependent variable
Transition to self-
employment
0.008 0.090 0 1
Parental characteristics
Father self-employed 0.290 0.454 0 1
Mother self-employed 0.101 0.301 0 1
Fathers self-employment intensity:
0 % 0.711 0.454 0 1
150 % 0.159 0.366 0 1
5199 % 0.086 0.281 0 1
100 % 0.044 0.205 0 1
Mothers self-employment intensity
0 % 0.899 0.301 0 1
150 % 0.080 0.272 0 1
5199 % 0.017 0.129 0 1
100 % 0.004 0.060 0 1
Father self-employed
while child living at
home
0.249 0.432 0 1
Mother self-employed
while child living at
home
0.075 0.264 0 1
Years employed with
father
0.261 1.219 0 28
Years employed with
mother
0.038 0.441 0 28
Individual characteristics
Male 0.536 0.499 0 1
Age 29.863 6.073 15 44
Partner 0.642 0.479 0 1
Children 0.409 0.492 0 1
Years of schooling 12.660 2.400 9 18
Years of labour market
experience (as
employee)
8.730 5.606 0 29
Parents wealth (1996),
DKK millions
0.416 2.733 -328.31 909.60
Copenhagen area 0.334 0.472 0 1
See text for denitions of variables. Number of observations:
6,263,246
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
living with his parents. The similar effect is less than
50 % for females. This picture is reversed when we
look at the effects of a mother who was self-employed
while the child was living at home. Here, it raises the
subsequent transition probability by around 90 % for
females, while the effect for males is less than 50 %.
Finally, Table 5 splits the data according to
whether the individual has previously been employed
in the parents rms. This is in general seen to be
associated with a markedly higher subsequent transi-
tion rate for both males and females, and again, there is
a relatively strong indication of gender-specic
effects.
Table 4 Transition rates by gender and parental self-employment experience while child was living at home
Father self-employed while child living at home Mother self-employed while child living at home
Yes No Odds ratio Yes No Odds ratio
Male 0.0172
(0.00014)
0.0095
(0.00019)
1.83
(0.02)
0.0161
(0.00025)
0.0110
(0.00006)
1.47
(0.03)
Female 0.0056
(0.00009)
0.0039
(0.00004)
1.45
(0.03)
0.0076
(0.00019)
0.0040
(0.00004)
1.88
(0.05)
See text for denitions of variables and Table 2 for calculation of odds ratios. The left (right) part of the table only includes
observations where the father (mother) has been self-employed for at least 1 year since 1980. Standard errors in parentheses
Table 5 Transition rates by gender and work experience from
the parents rms
Employed with father Employed with mother
Yes No Yes No
Male 0.0224
(0.00027)
0.0103
(0.00006)
0.0223
(0.00074)
0.0112
(0.00006)
Female 0.0068
(0.00018)
0.0041
(0.00004)
0.0111
(0.00049)
0.0042
(0.00004)
See text for denitions of variables. The left (right) part of the
table only includes observations where the father (mother) has
been self-employed for at least 1 year since 1980. Standard
errors in parentheses
Table 2 Transition rates by gender and self-employment experience of the parents
Father self-employed Mother self-employed
Yes No Odds ratio Yes No Odds ratio
Male 0.0172
(0.00013)
0.009
(0.00006)
1.92
(0.02)
0.0168
(0.00022)
0.0108
(0.00006)
1.57
(0.03)
Female 0.0058
(0.00008)
0.0037
(0.00004)
1.57
(0.03)
0.0079
(0.00016)
0.0039
(0.00004)
2.04
(0.05)
See text for denitions of variables. Odds ratios are calculated as follows: OR
Male,Father
= (P
Male,FatherSE
/(1-P
Male,FatherSE
))/
(P
Male,FatherNSE
/(1-P
Male,FatherNSE
)), where P
Male,FatherSE
and P
Male,FatherNSE
are the transition probabilities for a male with a self-
employed father and a non-self-employed father, respectively. Standard errors in parentheses
Table 3 Transition rates by gender and the intensity of parental self-employment experience
Fathers self-employment intensity Mothers self-employment intensity
150 % 5199 % 100 % 150 % 5199 % 100 %
Male 0.0148
(0.00017)
0.0192
(0.00026)
0.0220
(0.00038)
0.0167
(0.00025)
0.0176
(0.00055)
0.0150
(0.00109)
Female 0.0058
(0.00011)
0.0059
(0.00015)
0.0053
(0.00020)
0.0076
(0.00018)
0.0096
(0.00044)
0.0076
(0.00086)
See text for denitions of variables. The left (right) part of the table only includes observations where the father (mother) has been
self-employed for at least 1 year since 1980. Standard errors in parentheses
1 3
Table 6 Transition probability and parental experience, main specication (probit estimation)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Male 0.402**
(0.004)
0.403**
(0.004)
0.403**
(0.004)
0.398**
(0.004)
0.384**
(0.006)
0.384**
(0.006)
0.384**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
Mother self-employed 0.142**
(0.005)
0.203**
(0.009)
Father self-employed 0.187**
(0.004)
0.128**
(0.007)
150 % 0.141**
(0.006)
0.151**
(0.010)
0.144**
(0.010)
0.184**
(0.010)
0.189**
(0.017)
0.179**
(0.017)
5199 % 0.195**
(0.012)
0.208**
(0.015)
0.178**
(0.016)
0.291**
(0.019)
0.298**
(0.025)
0.248**
(0.027)
100 % 0.171**
(0.026)
0.185**
(0.028)
0.154**
(0.029)
0.246**
(0.044)
0.253**
(0.048)
0.199**
(0.050)
Fathers self-employment intensity
150 % 0.140**
(0.005)
0.162**
(0.008)
0.155**
(0.008)
0.112**
(0.009)
0.136**
(0.014)
0.130**
(0.015)
5199 % 0.227**
(0.006)
0.256**
(0.010)
0.205**
(0.010)
0.151**
(0.011)
0.182**
(0.019)
0.147**
(0.019)
100 % 0.271**
(0.007)
0.301**
(0.012)
0.226**
(0.012)
0.150**
(0.016)
0.182**
(0.022)
0.137**
(0.023)
Mother self-employed while child living at home -0.014
(0.011)
-0.013
(0.011)
-0.007
(0.019)
-0.007
(0.019)
Father self-employed while child living at home -0.030**
(0.009)
-0.034**
(0.009)
-0.032*
(0.016)
-0.035*
(0.016)
Years employed with mother 0.022**
(0.003)
0.030**
(0.004)
Years employed with father 0.029**
(0.001)
0.027**
(0.003)
Interactions
Male 9 Mother self-employed -0.087**
(0.011)
Male 9 Father self-employed 0.083**
(0.008)
Male 9 Mothers self-employment intensity
150 % -0.062**
(0.013)
-0.055**
(0.020)
-0.050*
(0.020)
5199 % -0.142**
(0.024)
-0.134**
(0.032)
-0.102**
(0.033)
100 % -0.108*
(0.054)
-0.099
(0.059)
-0.064
(0.061)
Male 9 Fathers self-employment intensity
150 % 0.040**
(0.011)
0.037*
(0.017)
0.035*
(0.017)
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
4 Results
Section 4.1 contains our main results, while Sect. 4.2
adds a number of robustness checks. In Sect. 4.3, we
compare the importance of role models in self-
employment with the importance of role models for
the propensity to become a teacher.
4.1 Main results
Table 6 contains a number of probit estimations in
order to formally test the hypotheses laid out in Sects.
2. In all estimations, we use a dummy for the transition
from wage employment into self-employment as the
dependent variable. In addition to the variables of
interest for the hypotheses in question, all models
include the control variables from Table 1 as well as
year dummies, eight industry dummies and four
dummies for ethnicity. To save space, the coefcient
estimates for these control variables are omitted from
Table 6, but they are generally as expected.
The rst two columns of Table 6 test the observa-
tion hypothesis, i.e. that parental experience from self-
employment positively inuences the self-employ-
ment choices of the children. Consistent with the
existing literature, we nd strong support for this
hypothesis. In column 1, we have included the two
dummies for the parents self-employment experi-
ence. Both dummies are found to have a signicant
positive effect on the transition probability. As in
Table 2, the effect of a self-employed father is found
to be strongest.
In column 2, each dummy is replaced by three
dummies reecting the intensity of the self-employ-
ment experience of the parents (no experience is the
reference category). The dummies are dened as in
Table 3 above. As can be seen, the positive effect of
the fathers self-employment experience increases
with the intensity of the experience. This is also the
case for the self-employment intensity of the mother
except when it is increased to 100 %, where the effect
is slightly lower (although not signicantly) than with
an intensity between 51 and 99 %. However, we
should remember that rather few individuals have a
mother who has been self-employed during the entire
period considered, cf. Table 1.
In sum, columns 1 and 2 provide strong support for
the observation hypothesis. As we control for parental
wealth throughout, the results are unlikely to reect an
effect running through the nancial channel, but they
Table 6 continued
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
5199 % 0.107**
(0.013)
0.103**
(0.022)
0.084**
(0.023)
100 % 0.166**
(0.018)
0.162**
(0.026)
0.126**
(0.027)
Male 9 Mother self-employed while child living at home -0.009
(0.024)
-0.007
(0.024)
Male 9 Father self-employed while child living at home 0.004
(0.019)
0.003
(0.019)
Male 9 Years employed with mother -0.015**
(0.006)
Male 9 Years employed with father 0.000
(0.003)
Observations 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246
Log likelihood -270,392 -270,201 -270,193 -270,045 -270,313 -270,090 -270,083 -269,951
The dependent variable is a dummy for the transition into self-employment between year t-1 and t. Control variables included but
not reported are: age, age squared, years of schooling, eight dummies for education programmes dened by length and type, years of
labour market experience, a dummy for having a partner, a dummy for having children, a dummy for living in the Copenhagen area,
parents total wealth in 1996, seven year dummies, eight industry dummies and four dummies for ethnicity. **, * indicate signicance
at the 1 % level and 5 % level, respectively. Standard errors clustered at the individual level in parentheses
1 3
could reect both a human-capital effect and/or a
preference effect as argued in Sects. 2 and 3 above. We
return to this issue below.
Columns 3 and 4 test the interaction hypothesis.
Column 3 includes dummies for whether the parents
were self-employed while the individual was still
living at home. Somewhat surprisingly, this is found to
have a small negative effect, although this effect is
only signicant in the case where the father was self-
employed. Note, however, that the coefcients of the
intensity dummies increase by a similar amount.
Hence, rather than reecting a negative interaction
effect, the negative coefcients may at least partly
reect an age effect as it is more likely for the younger
individuals in the sample to be observed living with
their parents while the parents are self-employed. In
any case, it does not seem to increase the transition
probability that the parents were self-employed while
the individual was living at home, at least not as long
as we account for the intensity of the parents self-
employment experience.
5
In column 4, we also include dummies for whether
the individual was previously employed in the rm of
one of the parents. This turns out to have a signif-
icantly positive effect on the transition probability.
Hence, we nd at least some support for the interaction
hypothesis. However, for this variable, it is difcult to
determine whether this is due to the human-capital
channel and/or the preference channel. Working for
the parents may have an impact on both human capital
and preferences. However, as controlling for experi-
ence from the parents rms does only slightly reduce
the coefcient estimates of the intensity variables, this
conrms that the strong support for the observation
hypothesis found in columns 13 reects at least partly
an inuence through the preference channel.
Columns 58 focus on the same-sex hypothesis.
Column 5 includes the same controls as in column 1,
but adds an interaction term between the gender (a
dummy for being male) and the dummies for parental
self-employment experience. Consistent with the
descriptive statistics in the previous section, it turns
out that the self-employment experience of the father
is more important for males, while the self-employ-
ment experience of the mother is more important for
females. This is strong evidence in favour of the same-
sex hypothesis.
To illustrate the quantitative importance of these
ndings, Fig. 1 plots the estimated partial effects (i.e.
the changes in transition probability) of having a
self-employed father for males and females, respec-
tively. For males, the partial effects are computed
as U xb b
father selfemployed
b
malefather selfemployed

Uxb, and for females, they are computed as
U xb b
father selfemployed

Uxb, where U is the
c.d.f. of the standard normal distribution, x is the
vector of remaining explanatory variables (i.e. those
not involving Father self-employed) and b is the
associated vector of estimated coefcients. Thus, the
partial effects depend on the values of the other
controls, x. In Fig. 1, we exploit that the partial effects
are functions of xb and therefore plot them against the
estimated initial transition probability, U(xb), i.e.
the transition probability in the absence of a self-
employed father. This is possible since U(xb) is
strictly increasing in xb. The upper curve is for males
and the lower for females.
As can be seen, the partial effects are increasing
with U(xb). That is, the effect of self-employed father
will be larger for individuals with a higher initial
transition probability. The important part, however, is
the difference between the two curves, which visual-
izes the difference in the partial effects between males
and females. The magnitude of this difference also
depends on the transition probability. Figure 1 shows
that the estimated effect of having a self-employed
father on the transition probability is considerably
higher for malesespecially at larger levels of the
initial transition probability. Hence, for individuals
with an initial transition probability of 0.05, i.e. a
5 % chance of becoming self-employed during the
next period, having a self-employed father raises this
probability by more than 2.5 % points for males and
by less than 1.5 % points for females. If the initial
transition probability is instead 0.1, the effect of
having a self-employed father is now more than 4 %
points for males and less than 2.5 % points for
females.
Figure 2 shows the similar effects of having a self-
employed mother. We can see that with an initial
transition probability around 0.05, this raises the
5
We have also tried to estimate the model in column 3 without
the intensity variables. In this case, the coefcients of Mother
self-employed while child living at home and Father self-
employed while child living at home both become positive (and
signicant).
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
Fig. 1 Partial effect of fathers self-employment
Fig. 2 Partial effect of mothers self-employment
1 3
transition probability with close to 2.5 % points for
females and by approximately half of this for males.
Taken together, the Figures show that there is not only
statistically signicant evidence in favour of the same-
sex hypothesis, the magnitudes of the gender-specic
effects are also sizeable.
An alternative way of illustrating the quantitative
importance of having a self-employed father is to plot
the relative partial effects (i.e. the partial effects from
above divided by the estimated initial transition
probability, Uxb) against the estimated initial
transition probability. This is done in Fig. 3, while the
effects of having a self-employed mother are illus-
trated in Fig. 4.
These gures show that the relative effects are
largest at small initial transition probabilities,
where having a self-employed father can double the
transition probability for males, while increasing it by
50 % for females, and vice versa in the case of a self-
employed mother. At higher levels of the transition
probabilities, the relative effects are smaller but still
sizeable. Hence, at initial transition probabilities
around 0.05, having a self-employed father raises the
transition probability by more than 50 % for men and
by around 30 % for women. Similar but opposite
effects are found in the case of a self-employed
mother.
Columns 68 in Table 6 contain further analyses
of the same-sex hypothesis. In column 6, we use the
same specication as in column 2, but with inter-
action terms between the gender and the three
different dummies for the intensities of the parents
self-employment experience. As in column 5, the
results are strongly supporting the same-sex hypoth-
esis. Being a male signicantly increases the
importance of the fathers self-employment inten-
sityand more at higher intensitieswhile it
decreases the importance of the mothers self-
employment intensity.
In column 7, we also include interaction terms
between the gender and the dummies for the parents
being self-employed while the child was living at
home. Although the signs of the estimated coefcients
again support the same-sex hypothesis, the results are
not statistically signicant.
Finally, in column 8, we again control for
experience from the parents rms and interact
these variables with the gender dummy. In this
Fig. 3 Relative partial effect of fathers self-employment
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
way, we should be able to control for parental
same-sex investments as argued above. In the raw
data, we observe that 1.6 and 6.9 % of the women
have worked for their mother and father, respec-
tively, while 1.2 and 9.0 % of the men have
worked for their mother and father, respectively.
Hence, women (men) are relatively more likely to
have worked for their mother (father)an indica-
tion that parental same-sex investments are indeed
taking place. Furthermore, the average number of
years that a woman has worked for her mother
(father) is 2.9 years (2.9 years), while the average
number of years that a man has worked for his
mother (father) is 2.8 years (3.5 years). Again, this
is an indication that same-sex parental investments
in human capital are made (especially by the
fathers).
As can be seen from column 8, the effects of
having worked for the mother and the father are
rather similar for females, while for males the
effects of having worked for the mother are
weaker. However, controlling for this only has a
small inuence on the other coefcients, leading us
to conclude that although parental same-sex invest-
ments seem to be present they can only explain
a small share of the same-sex correlations.
This supports that the evidence in favour of the
same-sex hypothesis is not driven by human-capital
effects.
6
Taken together, the evidence in Table 6 provides
strong support for two of our three hypotheses: the
observation hypothesis and the same-sex hypothesis,
while the evidence for the interaction hypothesis is
more mixed. We also argued above that the
evidence in favour of the observation and same-
sex hypotheses is likely to reect an effect through
the preference channel as we controlled for both
parental wealth and work experience from the
parents rms, whereas the evidence in favour of
the interaction hypothesis can reect both a human-
capital and a preference effect. Somewhat surpris-
inglyand in contrast to the predictions of social-
learning theorywe did not nd evidence that
preferences for self-employment are more effec-
tively passed on to the children if the children
experience their parents as self-employed while they
are still living at home.
Fig. 4 Relative partial effect of mothers self-employment
6
Furthermore, we have also tried to run the regressions in
Table 6 without those observations where the individual has
worked for his/her parents. The results (not reported) are very
similar.
1 3
4.2 Robustness analyses
In this section, we consider a number of robustness
checks of the ndings from the previous section.
First, Table 7 contains estimates similar to those in
Table 6, but for males and females separately. The
estimation results in columns 14 are for males, while
the results in columns 58 are for females. This
corresponds to estimating the original model from
Table 6 allowing for different gender-specic coef-
cients of all variables, not just the variables that relate to
the self-employment experience of the parents.
The parameter estimates for females in Table 7
(columns 58) should be compared to those in the upper
part of columns 58 in Table 6, while those for males
(columns 14) should be compared to the sum of the
coefcients of the original variables and of the interac-
tion terms in columns 58 of Table 6. As can be seen,
Table 7 Transition probability and parental experience, males versus females (probit estimation)
Males Females
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(0.006)
0.200**
(0.009)
(0.005)
0.128**
(0.007)
150 % 0.122**
(0.007)
0.134**
(0.012)
0.129**
(0.012)
0.183**
(0.011)
0.188**
(0.017)
0.178**
(0.017)
5199 % 0.150**
(0.014)
0.165**
(0.019)
0.147**
(0.020)
0.286**
(0.019)
0.292**
(0.026)
0.247**
(0.027)
100 % 0.134**
(0.032)
0.150**
(0.035)
0.132**
(0.035)
0.241**
(0.045)
0.248**
(0.049)
0.199**
(0.050)
150 % 0.153**
(0.006)
0.176**
(0.010)
0.169**
(0.010)
0.108**
(0.009)
0.123**
(0.015)
0.118**
(0.015)
5199 % 0.256**
(0.007)
0.287**
(0.012)
0.233**
(0.013)
0.148**
(0.011)
0.168**
(0.019)
0.135**
(0.019)
100 % 0.305**
(0.009)
0.336**
(0.014)
0.254**
(0.014)
0.168**
(0.016)
0.189**
(0.022)
0.146**
(0.023)
(0.014)
-0.015
(0.014)
-0.007
(0.019)
-0.006
(0.020)
Father self-employed while child living at home -0.032**
(0.011)
-0.036**
(0.011)
-0.021
(0.016)
-0.023
(0.016)
(0.004)
0.026**
(0.004)
(0.001)
0.025**
(0.003)
Observations 3,358,379 3,358,379 3,358,379 3,358,379 2,904,867 2,904,867 2,904,867 2,904,867
Log likelihood -194,900 -194,720 -194,714 -194,434 -74,405 -74,382 -74,381 -74,316
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
Table 8 Transition probability and parental experience, excluding start-ups in parents rms and industries (probit estimation)
Excl. individuals taking over the parents rm Excl. individuals starting up in the parents
industry
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Male 0.385**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.387**
(0.006)
0.387**
(0.006)
0.386**
(0.006)
0.386**
(0.006)
(0.009)
0.163**
(0.010)
(0.007)
0.096**
(0.007)
150 % 0.180**
(0.011)
0.183**
(0.017)
0.176**
(0.017)
0.158**
(0.011)
0.160**
(0.018)
0.162**
(0.018)
5199 % 0.262**
(0.020)
0.266**
(0.026)
0.234**
(0.027)
0.190**
(0.022)
0.193**
(0.028)
0.200**
(0.029)
100 % 0.239**
(0.045)
0.242**
(0.049)
0.209**
(0.050)
0.135**
(0.050)
0.138*
(0.054)
0.146**
(0.054)
150 % 0.112**
(0.009)
0.135**
(0.015)
0.132**
(0.015)
0.100**
(0.009)
0.126**
(0.015)
0.126**
(0.015)
5199 % 0.137**
(0.011)
0.166**
(0.019)
0.147**
(0.019)
0.097**
(0.012)
0.131**
(0.019)
0.132**
(0.020)
100 % 0.131**
(0.016)
0.161**
(0.023)
0.136**
(0.023)
0.080**
(0.017)
0.116**
(0.023)
0.118**
(0.024)
(0.020)
-0.004
(0.020)
-0.004
(0.020)
-0.003
(0.020)
Father self-employed while child living at home -0.031
(0.016)
-0.032*
(0.016)
-0.036*
(0.016)
-0.036*
(0.016)
(0.005)
-0.006
(0.006)
(0.003)
-0.001
(0.004)
Interactions
(0.012)
-0.051**
(0.012)
(0.009)
0.017*
(0.009)
150 % -0.059**
(0.013)
-0.051*
(0.021)
-0.047*
(0.021)
-0.045**
(0.013)
-0.038
(0.022)
-0.036
(0.022)
5199 % -0.129**
(0.025)
-0.118**
(0.033)
-0.093**
(0.034)
-0.082**
(0.027)
-0.072*
(0.035)
-0.067
(0.036)
100 % -0.100
(0.055)
-0.089
(0.060)
-0.062
(0.061)
-0.019
(0.060)
-0.008
(0.065)
-0.004
(0.066)
1 3
allowing for different coefcients for males and females
of all the variables does not change the ndings fromthe
previous section, neither qualitatively nor quantita-
tively. The estimated coefcients for females in col-
umns 58are all veryclose tothe coefcients reportedin
the upper part of columns 58 in Table 6, while the
coefcients for males in columns 14 correspond
closely to the sum of the relevant coefcient estimates
from Table 6.
One thing that is perhaps more easily seen from
Table 7 than fromTable 6 is that the effects of a higher
intensity of the parents self-employment experience
also seem to matter more within gender lines. If we
look at columns 24, we can see that a higher intensity
of the mothers self-employment experience has a
much smaller effect on the male offspring than a higher
intensity of the fathers experience, and vice versa for
females in columns 68 (if we again ignore the
relatively few cases where the mother has been self-
employed 100 % of the time). This further supports
both the observation and the same-sex hypothesis.
In our sample, 1,003 males take over their fathers
businesses, while 51take over their mothers businesses.
Amongfemales, the correspondingnumbers are 128and
57, respectively. Thus, womenare relatively more likely
to take over their mothers businesses, which could
indicate that some of the gender-specic effects in
Table 6 are driven by such an inheritance pattern.
Therefore, we re-estimate columns 58 fromTable 6
leaving out those approximately 1,200 individuals that
take over the rmof their father or mother. Although we
have already controlled for parental wealth in Table 6,
we take this extra steptoeliminate any additional effects
that may run through the nancial channel. To our
knowledge, this has not been done in other studies
before. The results are presentedinthe rst four columns
of Table 8. As the coefcient estimates in columns 14
are still very similar to those of Table 6, we are
Table 8 continued
Excl. individuals taking over the parents rm Excl. individuals starting up in the parents
industry
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
150 % 0.036**
(0.011)
0.034*
(0.018)
0.033
(0.018)
0.018
(0.011)
0.028
(0.018)
0.031
(0.018)
5199 % 0.092**
(0.013)
0.090**
(0.022)
0.080**
(0.023)
0.011
(0.014)
0.024
(0.023)
0.044
(0.024)
100 % 0.143**
(0.018)
0.141**
(0.026)
0.121**
(0.027)
0.031
(0.020)
0.045
(0.028)
0.073*
(0.029)
Male 9 Mother self-employed while child living at
home
-0.012
(0.024)
-0.010
(0.024)
-0.011
(0.025)
-0.012
(0.025)
(0.019)
0.002
(0.019)
-0.014
(0.020)
-0.012
(0.020)
Male 9 Years employed with mother -0.016*
(0.006)
-0.006
(0.008)
Male 9 Years employed with father -0.000
(0.003)
-0.013**
(0.004)
Observations 6,253,887 6,253,887 6,253,887 6,253,887 6,221,384 6,221,384 6,221,384 6,221,384
Log likelihood -265,359 -265,235 -265,228 -265,121 -248,036 -248,033 -248,018 -247,981
not reported are age, age squared, years of schooling, eight dummies for education programmes dened by length and type, years of
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
Table 9 Alternative dependent variables, self-employment status and self-employed between 1995 and 2009
Self-employed in year t Self-employed between 1995 and 2009
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Male 0.599**
(0.007)
0.596**
(0.007)
0.596**
(0.007)
0.596**
(0.007)
0.625**
(0.008)
0.625**
(0.008)
0.625**
(0.008)
0.626**
(0.008)
(0.012)
0.279**
(0.013)
(0.009)
0.189**
(0.010)
150 % 0.223**
(0.013)
0.215**
(0.021)
0.202**
(0.022)
0.259**
(0.014)
0.251**
(0.022)
0.236**
(0.022)
5199 % 0.413**
(0.024)
0.401**
(0.032)
0.334**
(0.033)
0.384**
(0.030)
0.374**
(0.038)
0.292**
(0.041)
100 % 0.368**
(0.053)
0.355**
(0.059)
0.284**
(0.060)
0.555**
(0.081)
0.542**
(0.086)
0.448**
(0.088)
150 % 0.139**
(0.011)
0.141**
(0.019)
0.133**
(0.019)
0.161**
(0.012)
0.191**
(0.019)
0.183**
(0.019)
5199 % 0.244**
(0.014)
0.247**
(0.024)
0.195**
(0.024)
0.228**
(0.015)
0.269**
(0.025)
0.222**
(0.026)
100 % 0.277**
(0.020)
0.280**
(0.028)
0.215**
(0.029)
0.270**
(0.027)
0.313**
(0.034)
0.243**
(0.035)
Mother self-employed while child living at home 0.013
(0.025)
0.012
(0.025)
0.012
(0.026)
0.014
(0.026)
Father self-employed while child living at home -0.003
(0.021)
-0.007
(0.021)
-0.043*
(0.021)
-0.045*
(0.021)
(0.006)
0.035**
(0.006)
(0.004)
0.027**
(0.003)
Interactions
(0.015)
-0.098**
(0.016)
(0.011)
0.121**
(0.012)
150 % -0.094**
(0.016)
-0.083**
(0.026)
-0.077**
(0.026)
-0.074**
(0.018)
-0.031
(0.028)
-0.023
(0.028)
5199 % -0.201**
(0.029)
-0.186**
(0.039)
-0.146**
(0.041)
-0.144**
(0.038)
-0.083
(0.048)
-0.034
(0.051)
100 % -0.236**
(0.067)
-0.218**
(0.073)
-0.176*
(0.075)
-0.423**
(0.107)
-0.355**
(0.112)
-0.299**
(0.115)
1 3
strengthened in our conclusion that the support for the
observation and the same-sex hypothesis does not stem
from an effect through the nancial channel.
7
Instead,
we feel comfortable concluding that it reects a
preference effect, as controlling for work experience
from the parents rms (column 4) still has a very
limitedeffect onthe coefcient estimates of the intensity
variables. In other words, sons do not only follow in the
footsteps of their self-employed fathers when they
inherit (or work in) the family rm.
Takeovers of the family rm are identied through
the workplace identier in our data set. In some cases,
this identier may change when a rm is inherited
by the next generation. In this case, the approach taken
above may not identify all the cases in which a rm is
handed over to a son or a daughter. To make sure that
we eliminate all such cases, we now throw out all
observations where the individual becomes self-
employed in the same industry as the parents. A
similar approach has been used in Srensen (2007) and
Lindquist et al. (2013). Distinguishing between 111
industries in the economy, this eliminates more than
4,000 additional individuals. The results are presented
in columns 58 of Table 8.
Despite the large number of observations elimi-
nated, we still nd considerable support for both the
observation and the same-sex hypothesis. Some of the
interaction effects are quantitatively smaller and
slightly less signicant, but this is not very surprising
given that we have excluded more than 5,000 (suc-
cessful) individuals compared to Table 6and
probably those where we would expect the parental
inuence to be strongest, namely the cases where the
children choose an occupation within the same
industry as the parents. Still, ve out of the six
coefcients of the interaction terms with the self-
Table 9 continued
Self-employed in year t Self-employed between 1995 and 2009
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
150 % 0.077**
(0.013)
0.061**
(0.022)
0.057*
(0.022)
0.083**
(0.014)
0.075**
(0.023)
0.072**
(0.023)
5199 % 0.265**
(0.016)
0.244**
(0.028)
0.211**
(0.028)
0.168**
(0.018)
0.156**
(0.030)
0.128**
(0.031)
100 % 0.329**
(0.022)
0.307**
(0.033)
0.250**
(0.034)
0.200**
(0.032)
0.187**
(0.041)
0.135**
(0.043)
(0.030)
-0.012
(0.030)
-0.068*
(0.033)
-0.067*
(0.033)
(0.025)
0.017
(0.025)
0.012
(0.025)
0.009
(0.025)
(0.008)
-0.017*
(0.008)
(0.004)
0.001
(0.004)
Observations 7,134,207 7,134,207 7,134,207 7,134,207 486,452 486,452 486,452 486,452
Log likelihood -826,590 -822,620 -822,614 -820,305 -132,210 -132,068 -132,059 -131,891
The dependent variable is a dummy for being self-employed in year t (columns 14) and a dummy for having been self-employed at
least once between 1995 and 2009 (columns 58). In columns 14, a panel for the years 19952009 is used, whereas in columns 58,
a cross section from 2009 is used. Control variables included but not reported are: age, age squared, years of schooling, eight
dummies for education programmes dened by length and type, years of labour market experience, a dummy for having a partner, a
dummy for having children, a dummy for living in the Copenhagen area, parents total wealth in 1996, seven year dummies, eight
industry dummies and four dummies for ethnicity. **, * indicate signicance at the 1 % level and 5 % level, respectively. Standard
errors clustered at the individual level in parentheses
7
Leaving out the observations where the individuals take over
the rmof the father or the mother also has only a small negative
effect on the odds ratios from Table 2. The odds ratios for males
decrease from 1.92 and 1.57 to 1.82 and 1.56, respectively,
while the odds ratios for females decrease from 1.57 and 2.04 to
1.54 and 1.99, respectively.
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
Table 10 Transition probability and parental experience, assortative mating of parents (probit estimation)
Controlling for self-employment of both
parents
Excl. observations with both parents self-
employed
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Male 0.384**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.384**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.384**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.385**
(0.006)
0.386**
(0.006)
(0.013)
0.230**
(0.013)
(0.008)
0.138**
(0.008)
Mother and Father self-
employed
-0.056**
(0.019)
-0.049**
(0.019)
-0.049**
(0.019)
-0.052**
(0.019)
150 % 0.208**
(0.014)
0.212**
(0.019)
0.204**
(0.019)
0.203**
(0.015)
0.214**
(0.023)
0.205**
(0.023)
5199 % 0.315**
(0.021)
0.320**
(0.027)
0.272**
(0.028)
0.329**
(0.026)
0.344**
(0.036)
0.290**
(0.037)
100 % 0.262**
(0.045)
0.269**
(0.049)
0.216**
(0.050)
0.285**
(0.051)
0.302**
(0.058)
0.244**
(0.060)
Fathers self-employment intensity .
150 % 0.122**
(0.010)
0.145**
(0.015)
0.141**
(0.015)
0.123**
(0.010)
0.149**
(0.016)
0.144**
(0.016)
5199 % 0.159**
(0.011)
0.190**
(0.019)
0.155**
(0.019)
0.160**
(0.012)
0.193**
(0.021)
0.158**
(0.021)
100 % 0.156**
(0.016)
0.188**
(0.022)
0.143**
(0.023)
0.148**
(0.017)
0.183**
(0.025)
0.135**
(0.025)
(0.019)
-0.007
(0.019)
-0.017
(0.028)
-0.018
(0.028)
Father self-employed while child living at home -0.032*
(0.016)
-0.035*
(0.016)
-0.035
(0.018)
-0.039*
(0.018)
(0.004)
0.034**
(0.006)
(0.003)
0.030**
(0.003)
Interactions
Male9 Mother self-employed -0.081**
(0.016)
-0.081**
(0.016)
(0.009)
0.082**
(0.009)
Male 9 Mother and Father self-
employed
-0.009
(0.023)
0.007
(0.023)
0.007
(0.023)
0.007
(0.023)
1 3
employment intensities of the mother and the father in
column 8 are signicant at (at least) the 10 %level.
8
In
other words, the importance of parental role
models seems to extend beyond the family rm and
industry.
As argued in Sect. 3, other studies of the intergen-
erational transmission mechanism have used
alternative dependent variables. To test the robustness
of our results towards this, Table 9 repeats the
estimations from columns 58 of Table 6 using two
alternative dependent variables: (1) a dummy for
being self-employed in year t (columns 14); and (2) a
dummy for having been self-employed at least once
between 1995 and 2009. In the latter case, we use a
cross section from 2009.
As can be seen, the results are very similar to those
in columns 58 of Table 6. In fact, when using Self-
employed in year t as the dependent variable, the
estimated coefcients of the interaction terms tend to
be slightly more signicant than in Table 6. Thus, we
Table 10 continued
Controlling for self-employment of both
parents
Excl. observations with both parents self-
employed
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
150 % -0.064**
(0.017)
-0.057*
(0.023)
-0.052*
(0.023)
-0.053**
(0.018)
-0.044
(0.029)
-0.036
(0.029)
51 %99 % -0.144**
(0.026)
-0.136**
(0.033)
-0.105**
(0.035)
-0.178**
(0.034)
-0.166**
(0.045)
-0.116*
(0.046)
100 % -0.109*
(0.055)
-0.100
(0.060)
-0.065
(0.061)
-0.144*
(0.065)
-0.130
(0.074)
-0.077
(0.075)
150 % 0.037**
(0.011)
0.035
(0.018)
0.032
(0.018)
0.031**
(0.012)
0.031
(0.020)
0.028
(0.020)
5199 % 0.105**
(0.013)
0.101**
(0.022)
0.082**
(0.023)
0.109**
(0.014)
0.109**
(0.025)
0.088**
(0.025)
100 % 0.164**
(0.018)
0.160**
(0.026)
0.124**
(0.027)
0.173**
(0.019)
0.173**
(0.029)
0.135**
(0.030)
(0.024)
-0.007
(0.024)
-0.013
(0.034)
-0.013
(0.034)
(0.019)
0.003
(0.019)
-0.000
(0.022)
-0.000
(0.022)
(0.006)
-0.027**
(0.009)
(0.003)
-0.001
(0.003)
Observations 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 6,263,246 5,970,452 5,970,452 5,970,452 5,970,452
Log likelihood -270,293 -270,080 -270,073 -269,715 -248,630 -248,437 -248,428 -248,105
8
Furthermore, if we estimate the model with just Years of
Schooling as a control for education instead of Years of
Schooling and nine dummies for different types of education
programmes, four of these ve interaction terms become
signicant at the 5 % level.
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
still nd considerable support for both the observation
and the same-sex hypothesis, while the evidence in
favour of the interaction hypothesis remains rather
mixed.
In order to compare more directly with the
estimates in Lindquist et al. (2013), we have also
estimated the model in column 5 of Table 9 using a
linear probability model. In this case, we get partial-
effect estimates for males of 0.043 and 0.071 of having
a self-employed mother and father, respectively.
Given that around 15 % of the males have been self-
employed, relative partial effects can be calculated as:
0.043/0.15 & 0.29 and 0.071/0.15 & 0.47. For
females, the corresponding relative partial effects are
approximately 0.51 and 0.30. These effects are very
similar in size to those that can be computed from the
estimates for non-adopted children in Lindquist et al.
(2013) in the lower part of their Table 7, using the fact
that 25 % of the non-adopted sons and 14 % of the
non-adopted daughters have been entrepreneurs
(Table 2a). This results in relative partial effects for
males of approximately 0.43 and 0.52 of having an
entrepreneurial mother and father, respectively, while
the corresponding numbers for females are 0.49 and
0.30.
A nal issue to consider is assortative mating.
The rawdata reveal that for 16.2 %of the observations
with a self-employed father, the mother has also been
self-employed at some point. Similarly, for 46.4 % of
the observations with a self-employed mother, the
father has also been self-employed. This is a strong
indication that assortative mating is taking place in the
data. Could this be driving the gender-specic effects?
Imagine that the effect of a self-employed father is in
general larger (for both boys and girls), but that girls
have a higher threshold to cross before becoming self-
employed. In other words, for girls to become self-
employed, it requires that both parents have been
self-employed. Since fathers are in general more likely
to be self-employed, this could show up as a larger
effect of the mothers on the daughters and hence
explain the observed gender-specic effects even
without gender-specic role models.
9
To test the importance of this for the intergenera-
tional transmission mechanism, Table 10 contains two
sets of re-estimations of columns 58 from Table 6.
First, we have tried to include (1) a dummy taking the
value one if both parents have been self-employed;
and (2) the interaction of this variable with our gender
dummy. The coefcient of the former variable
becomes signicantly negative (but small), while the
coefcient of the interaction term becomes insignif-
icant. This indicates diminishing effects of both
parents being self-employedeffects which are sim-
ilar for boys and girls. Hence, it does not support the
above hypothesis, and the inclusion of these extra
controls only marginally affects the other coefcients.
Second, in columns 58, we drop all the observa-
tions where both parents have been self-employed.
This results in estimates very similar to those in
columns 14 and therefore does not change the overall
conclusion. In sum, although assortative mating
between self-employed persons is observed in the
data, it cannot explain the gender-specic effects and
hence the support for the same-sex hypothesis.
Table 11 Transition probability, schoolteacher (probit
estimation)
(1)
Male 0.13**
(0.007)
Mother teacher 0.20**
(0.010)
Father teacher 0.15**
(0.010)
Interactions
Male 9 Mother teacher -0.11**
(0.014)
Male 9 Father teacher -0.01
(0.015)
Observations 6,212,530
Log likelihood -155,718
The dependent variable is a dummy for the transition into
becoming a school teacher between year t-1 and t. Control
variables included but not reported are: age, age squared, years
of schooling, eight dummies for education programmes dened
by length and type, years of labour market experience, a
dummy for having a partner, a dummy for having children, a
dummy for living in the Copenhagen area, parents total wealth
in 1996, seven year dummies, eight industry dummies and four
dummies for ethnicity. **, * indicate signicance at the 1 %
level and 5 % level, respectively. Standard errors clustered at
the individual level in parentheses
9
We are indebted to one of the referees for suggesting this
potential mechanism.
1 3
4.3 Parental role models among school teachers
Our results above show that the preference channel
and in particular parental role modelsis likely to
play an important role in explaining the intergenera-
tional transmission of self-employment propensities.
But although our results indicate that the (gender-
specic) parental effects extend beyond the rm (and
the industry) of the parents, we still do not know
exactly what sort of preferences/abilities that are
transmitted. Is it a preference/ability for self-employ-
ment per se or is it a preference/ability for a certain
type of work, occupation, education, training, etc.,
which is in turn more likely to result in self-
employment?
Disentangling these different elements of the
preference channel is beyond the scope of the present
study. However, it may be interesting to see whether
we nd similar patterns if we consider an occupation
where self-employment is not really an option.
Table 11 therefore contains the results of an estima-
tion where we analyse the intergenerational transmis-
sion of propensities to become a schoolteacher.
10
The results show that children of parents who are
schoolteachers are also more likely to become school-
teachers themselves. Moreover, we again nd signif-
icant within-gender effects. For daughters, the effect
of the mother being a teacher is stronger than the effect
of the father being a teacher, and for sons, the effect of
the father is strongest. However, as opposed to the case
of self-employment, the effects are in general stronger
for daughters.
If we try to compare the size of the relative partial
effects (not reported) with those that were plotted in
Figs. 3 and 4, we nd that these are somewhat larger in
the case of self-employment. Evaluating them for the
average individual in the sample, they are found to be
approximately twice as high for females and 34 times
as high for males.
In sum, this indicates that role models also play a
role for occupational choices that do not involve self-
employment. As a consequence, part of the role-model
effect found for the self-employed may reect the
transmission of a preference/ability for certain occu-
pations that are more likely to involve self-employ-
ment rather than a preference/ability for self-
employment per se. However, the results also show
that the intergenerational transmission mechanism
seems to be much stronger in the case of self-
employment as the relative partial effects are consid-
erably larger. We take this as evidence that role
models play a larger role for the self-employment
choice than for the choice of becoming a
schoolteacher.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we have investigated the importance of
parental role models for the childrens choices of
becoming an entrepreneur.
Based on social-learning theory, we derived three
testable hypotheses which were subsequently tested on
rich Danish register data. We found strong empirical
support for two of the three hypotheses: the observa-
tion hypothesis and the same-sex hypothesis.
First, having self-employed parents in general
increases the probability of becoming self-employed,
and this effect is increasing in the intensity of the
parents self-employment experience. We argued that
this result was unlikely to be driven by nancial or
human-capital effects, as it was robust to the inclusion
of controls for parental wealth and work experience
from the parents rms and to the exclusion of
individuals taking over the family rm.
Second, and more interestingly, the effect of a self-
employed father is markedly higher for males, while
the effect of a self-employed mother is considerably
higher for females. The gender-specic effects were
not only statistically but also economically important
and hence reveal an important way in which propen-
sities for self-employment are transmitted from one
generation to the next. The relative effect of having a
self-employed father (mother) on the probability of
becoming self-employed was roughly twice as high for
males (females) as for females (males). These results
were also robust to inclusion of controls for work
experience fromthe parents rms and to the exclusion
of individuals taking over the family business and, to
some extent, to the exclusion of individuals starting up
within the same industry as the parents. The effects of
10
Teachers are identied from occupational codes in the data.
From 19921999, we can rely on ISCO (International Standard
Classication of Occupations) codes, and for the period
19801992, we have occupational codes based on the individ-
uals main source of income.
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3
parental role models therefore seem to reach beyond
the family business and industry.
A number of studies in the literature have docu-
mented gender differences in the propensity to become
an entrepreneur; see, e.g. Fairlie and Meyer (1996) and
Verheul et al. (2006). A number of explanations have
been suggested to explain these differences; see
Verheul et al. (2006) for an overview. Our paper
offers a supplementary explanation for the observed
phenomenon, namely that the historical lack of female
entrepreneurs induces fewer women to become entre-
preneurs today. In other words, the lack of female
entrepreneurs in a country like Denmark may partly
reect a lack of female role models. Changing this
pattern requires a concerted political effort building on
attentive ways of providing female entrepreneurial
role models.
The recommendation of such an effort should,
however, also take into account how women fare as
entrepreneurs compared to men. A recent analysis
conducted by the Danish Business Authority (2010)
shows that male and female entrepreneurs differ in a
number of ways. The share of high-growth entrepre-
neurs is, e.g. higher among male entrepreneurs.
Women, on the other hand, have more education but
less labour market experience than men when starting
their own rm. Whether these differences translate
into higher or lower productivity and lifetime earnings
for female entrepreneurs is yet an unexplored issue.
Acknowledgments We thank the editor, Mirjam Van Praag,
and two anonymous referees for many useful comments and
suggestions, and we are grateful to Jan Holst Hansen and Philip
Willerslev-Olsen for excellent research assistance.
References
Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2011). Transmission of
self-employment across immigrant generations: The
importance of ethnic background and gender. Review of
Economics of the Household, 9, 555577. doi:10.1007/
s11150-010-9102-5.
Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Perez-Gonzalez, F., & Wol-
fenzon, D. (2007). Inside the family rm: The role of
families in succession decisions and performance. Quar-
terly Journal of Economics, 122, 647691. doi:10.1162/
qjec.122.2.647.
Blanchower, D. G. (2009). Minority self-employment in the
United States and the impact of afrmative action pro-
grams. Annals of Finance, 5, 361396. doi:10.1007/
s10436-008-0099-1.
Bonke, J., & Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). Family investment in
childrenproductivities, preferences, and parental child
care. European Sociological Review, 27, 4355. doi:10.
1093/esr/jcp054.
Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., van Praag, M., &Verheul,
I. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33, 410424. doi:10.1016/j.joep.
2011.03.004.
Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S. B., & Dormann, C. (2012).
Parental role models and the decision to become self-
employed: The moderating effect of personality. Small
Business Economics, 38, 121138. doi:10.1007/s11187-
010-9270-y.
Danish Business Authority. (2010). Kvindelige Ivrksttere
2010et Statistisk Portrt. Copenhagen: Report prepared
by the Danish Business Authority.
Dryler, H. (1998). Parental role models, gender and educational
choice. British Journal of Sociology, 49, 375398. doi:10.
2307/591389.
Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human
capital, and the transition to self-employment: Evidence
from intergenerational links. Journal of Labor Economics,
18, 282305. doi:10.1086/209959.
Fairlie, R. W., & Meyer, B. D. (1996). Ethnic and racial self-
employment differences and possible explanations. Jour-
nal of Human Resources, 31, 757793. doi:10.2307/
146146.
Fairlie, R.W. & Robb, A. (2007). Families, human capital, and
small business: Evidence from the characteristics of busi-
ness owners survey. Industrial and Labor Relations Sur-
vey, 60, 225245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249072.
Georgellis, Y., & Wall, H. J. (2005). Gender differences in self-
employment. International Review of Applied Economics,
3, 321342. doi:10.1080/02692170500119854.
Hetherington, E. M. (1965). A developmental study of the
effects of the sex of the dominant parent on sex role pref-
erence, identication and imitation in children. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 188194. doi:10.
1037/h0022374.
Hout, M. (1984). Status, autonomy and training in occupational
mobility. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 13791409.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2779187.
Hout, M., & Rosen, H. (2000). Self-employment, family back-
ground and race. Journal of Human Resources, 35,
670692. doi:10.2307/146367.
Laspita, S., Breugst, N., Heblich, S., & Patzelt, H. (2012).
Intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurial inten-
tions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 414435. doi:10.
1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.006.
Lentz, B. S., & Laband, D. N. (1983). Like father, like son:
Toward an economic theory of occupational following.
Southern Economic Journal, 50, 474493. doi:10.2307/
1058220.
Lentz, B. S., & Laband, D. N. (1990). Entrepreneurial success
and occupational inheritance among proprietors. Canadian
Journal of Economics, 23, 563579. doi:10.2307/135648.
Lindquist, M. J., Sol, J. & Van Praag, M. (2013). Why do
entrepreneurial parents have entrepreneurial children?.
Journal of Labor Economics, Working Paper
(forthcoming).
1 3
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of
children: An historical overview. Developmental Psy-
chology, 28, 10061017. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.
1006.
Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal inves-
tigation of the impact of family background and gender on
interest in small-rm ownership. Journal of Small Business
Management, 34, 2943.
Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2009). Can genetic factors inuence
the likelihood of engaging in entrepreneurial activity?
Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 122. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusvent.2007.11.003.
Nicolaou, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Entrepreneurship and occu-
pational choice: Genetic and environmental inuences.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76, 314.
doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.02.009.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Sociali-
zation of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental
inuences. Child Development, 53, 310321. doi:10.2307/
1128973.
Scherer, R., Adams, J., Carley, S., & Wiebe, F. (1989). Role
model performance effects on development of
entrepreneurial career preferences. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 13, 5371.
Slaby, R. G., & Frey, K. S. (1975). Development of gender
constancy and selective attention to same-sex models.
Child Development, 46, 849856. doi:10.2307/1128389.
Srensen, J. B. (2007). Closure and exposure: Mechanisms in
the intergenerational transmission of self-employment.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 25, 83124.
doi:10.1016/S0733-558X(06)25003-1.
Tervo, H., & Haapanen, M. (2009). The nature of self-
employment: How does gender matter? International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9,
349371. doi:10.1504/IJESB.2010.031926.
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F. L., & Silva, J. (2006). Role
model inuences on entrepreneurial intentions: A com-
parison between USA and Mexico. International and
Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 2, 325336.
doi:10.1007/s11365-006-0004-1.
Verheul, I., Van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2006). Explaining
female and male entrepreneurship at the country level.
Entreprenurship and Regional Development, 18, 151183.
doi:10.1080/08985620500532053.
A. Hoffmann et al.
1 3

Running in The Family Parental Role Models in Entrepreneurship Hoffmann Small Business Economics 2014

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Running in The Family Parental Role Models in Entrepreneurship Hoffmann Small Business Economics 2014

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Running in the family: parental role models

Você também pode gostar