
































Microsoft Word - 16 Summer 111 final.docx


Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts  Volume 5, Issue 2 
http://artivate.org           pp. 7-22 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Copyright © 2016, the authors   
 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE CULTURAL AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: 
INSIGHTS FROM AN EMERGENT FIELD 
Andrea Hausmann and Anne Heinze  
European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Germany 
 

Abstract 
 This article reports the results of a systematic review of the current state of research on 
arts, cultural, and creative entrepreneurship. By means of a systematic database search, 50 
scientific articles from peer-reviewed journals were identified and analyzed with regard to the 
interpretation of the terms and the primary objects and focal areas of current research. In 
conclusion, it can be stated that to date there is no consensual understanding of the terms. While 
some authors differentiate between entrepreneurs and other players in the cultural and creative 
industries, the majority of researchers makes no such distinction. Moreover, the specific objects 
of current research mainly fall into the two categories “groups of persons” and “sub-segments of 
the cultural and creative industries.” And, finally, while there exists some considerable research 
on entrepreneurship in the music industry by now, less attention was paid to other sub-sectors of 
the cultural and creative industries. 
 

Introduction 
 Entrepreneurship research has become an established discipline over the past decades to 
such an extent that independent – albeit still relatively young – fields of research have emerged 
that examine entrepreneurship in special sectors. This includes, for instance, entrepreneurship in 
the cultural and creative industries (e.g. Hagoort, 2007; Klamer, 2011; Lounsbury & Glynn, 
2001). The growing relevance of entrepreneurship in the arts and culture sector is closely related 
to the emergence of the creative industries starting in the 1990s in Great Britain (British Council, 
2010). Those industries comprise i.e. the art, architecture, press and book market, performing 
arts, the music and film sector, and the software and games industry (e.g. Caves, 2000; Phillips, 
2011).  
 The term “entrepreneurship,” generally speaking, describes the discovery of new “means-
ends relationships” (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 220) and includes the exploitation of an 
opportunity (Bygrave, 2010; Drucker, 1993) as well as the creation of a new organization to 
implement a novel idea (Gartner, 1990). In general entrepreneurship research, innovations and 
novel ideas are regarded as characteristic elements of the entrepreneurship process (Lumpkin & 
Dess, 1996, p. 142). General literature on entrepreneurship also largely agrees that an 
entrepreneur acts differently from a manager (Carton et al., 1998; Kelley & Marram, 2010; 
Schumpeter, 1934). An entrepreneur establishes an organization to realize an entrepreneurial 
opportunity (Carton et al., 1998, p. 3) and is at the same time responsible for the continued 
existence of this organization. By contrast, a manager is usually responsible for planning, 
organization, and management of a third-party enterprise (Kelley & Marram, 2010, p. 373).  
 While in general entrepreneurship theory most researchers agree on these core 
characteristics of entrepreneurship by now, research on the terminology and understanding of 
entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries is still in its beginnings. Accordingly, the 
purpose of the present study is to shed more light on the current status quo of research on 
entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries or, more specifically, to answer the 
following research questions: To what extent are the terms “arts”, “cultural,” and “creative 
entrepreneurship” distinguished from one another and which subject areas are primarily 
discussed? Therefore, and by means of a systematic database search, we will identify refereed 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

8 

scientific publications on arts, cultural, and creative entrepreneurship and analyze them with 
special regard to the interpretation of the respective term, the primary objects and focal areas of 
research in the following. The paper will be rounded off by a discussion of our findings, the main 
limitations of the study, and implications for future research.  
	
  

Methodology and Data 
 To answer the aforementioned research question, a database search by means of the 
Journal Articles Database (JADE) and the EBSCOhost® online reference system was conducted 
in March 2016. As a first step, the relevant databases were searched for the occurrence of the 
keywords “arts entrepreneurship,” “arts entrepreneurs,” “creative entrepreneurship,” “creative 
entrepreneurs,” “cultural entrepreneurship,” “cultural entrepreneurs,” and “culturepreneurs.” In a 
second step, and in order to filter our search results three selection criteria were subsequently 
applied. First, our search results were limited to those articles using the keywords within title, 
abstract, and/or keywords. This was based on the idea that for a literature review that aims to 
clarify the terms “arts,” “cultural,” and  “creative” entrepreneurship the articles examined should 
also include and discuss the respective terms. Second, to ensure the academic quality of the 
papers, only full-length papers from peer-reviewed journals were taken into consideration. 
Research notes, literature review studies, book reviews, and editor prefaces were excluded. 
Third, we also excluded papers when their overall quality was not strong enough. Once 
identified, each paper was carefully reviewed by both authors in order to determine its inclusion. 
Data collection was conducted thrice, and all sets of selected papers were compared to ensure 
reliability. At the end of the data collection process, a sample of 50 papers was generated for 
analysis. Thereof, the keyword search of “cultural entrepreneurs/ship” and “culturepreneurs” 
yielded a total of 28 hits, while “arts entrepreneurs/ship” yielded 13, and “creative 
entrepreneurs/ship” 9 hits.  
 As shown in Table 1, 22 of the 50 articles have a theoretical-conceptual focus (e.g. 
Dobransky & Fine, 2006; Ellmeier, 2003; Halim et al., 2006; Klamer, 2011), while 28 papers are 
empirical. The empirical articles comprise 19 qualitative studies – thereof 11 articles use case 
studies (e.g. Acheson et al., 1996; Cinnéide, 2005; Johnson, 2007; Metze, 2009; Kolsteeg, 2013) 
and another 8 articles use interviews (e.g. Dempster, 2008; Scott, 2012; Smit, 2011; Wilson & 
Stokes, 2006). There are 5 quantitative studies. Some authors choose a mixed-methods approach 
(Krzyżanowska & Tkaczyk, 2013; Rae, 2005; Welsh et al., 2014; Wilson & Stokes, 2004).  
 In the context of the following analysis, we discuss the terminology as well as the objects 
and focal areas of the research conducted to date.  



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

9 

 
Table 1. Frequency of research methods (n=50). 
 

Findings 
Terminology of Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries  
 Cultural entrepreneurship is a relatively young research field within entrepreneurship 
research. As shown in Table 2, the number of articles published in peer reviewed journals has 
risen significantly since 2001. It is in this regard that terms such as “arts,” “creative,” and/or 
“cultural” entrepreneurship have become more widely used and researched.  
 Table 2 also shows that in 2011 an absolute maximum of manuscripts published in peer 
reviewed and mostly entrepreneurship related journals such as International Journal of 
Entrepreneurship and Innovation and Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 
was reached. From then on, the total number of articles has slightly decreased, even though 
Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts was launched in 2012 and since then has 
published a large number of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of arts entrepreneurship in 
particular. 
 Table 3 shows that the authors primarily use the terms “cultural entrepreneurs/ship” / 
“culturepreneur” (23 of 50 articles). The terms “arts entrepreneurship” / “entrepreneurship in the 
arts” are used in twelve articles, while one uses both of the terms. In 6 articles the term “creative 
entrepreneurs/ship” is used. In 8 of the articles analyzed, the terms “cultural entrepreneurship” 
and “creative entrepreneurship” are both used. In one of the articles examined the terms are even 
used interchangeably and the author notes: “The current discourse about the creative economy 
draws on different notions of cultural and creative entrepreneurs. These definitions differ as to 
whether they include only nonprofit activities, such as the arts, or also commercial activities, 
including architecture, design, and media. However, they all concentrate on economic activities 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 
N
o.
	
  o
f	
  A
rt
ic
le
s	
  

Research	
  Method	
  



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

10 

dedicated to producing goods and services with mainly aesthetic and symbolic value” (Smit, 
2011, p. 46). Following this approach, “cultural entrepreneurship” and “creative 
entrepreneurship” are thus related to economic or entrepreneurial activities of the cultural and 
creative industries as a whole.  
 

 
Table 2. Frequency of articles by year (n=50). 
 

 
Table 3. Frequency of terms (n=50). 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

N
o.
	
  o
f	
  A
rt
ic
le
s	
  

Publication	
  Year	
  

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

N
o.
	
  o
f	
  A
rt
ic
le
s	
  

Terms	
  



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

11 

 Irrespective of the precise term used, the concept of general entrepreneurship theory is 
the common basis of all definitions. Often, as the results of our analysis show, the general term 
“entrepreneurship” is initially explained by the authors (e.g. Beckman, 2007; Essig, 2015; 
Hausmann, 2010; Klamer, 2011; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Preece, 2011; Scott, 2012; Wilson 
& Stokes, 2006). Where this is not the case, the authors usually also remain vague on the 
definition of “arts entrepreneurship”, “creative entrepreneurship” or “cultural entrepreneurship” 
(Cinnéide, 2005; Dempster, 2008; Drda-Kühn & Wiegand, 2010; Halim et al., 2011; Nijboer, 
2006; Stanley & Dampier, 2007); all in all, 25 of 50 articles failed to provide an explicit 
explanation. The definitions provided in the remaining 25 articles differ quite considerably. 
Some authors understand cultural entrepreneurs as freelance artists and creative industry 
workers, who are forced to act as entrepreneurs, i.e. because of changing labor market conditions 
in the cultural sector (Ellmeier, 2003; Konrad, 2010). Interestingly, in the 1990s “cultural 
entrepreneurship” was predominantly discussed in the context of project management and was 
strongly associated with the realization of specific individual events (Acheson et al., 1996). From 
the year 2000 on, the term is more frequently used in the sense of founding a new company 
(rather than realizing one single project). Phrases like “to exploit as an enterprise” (Rae, 2005), 
“to result in economically sustainable cultural enterprises” (Kavousy et al., 2010), “to create a 
(micro) business” (Hausmann, 2010), “starting a not-for-profit organization” (Preece, 2011) and 
“through a mediating structure or organization” (Essig, 2015) clearly indicate that some authors 
refer to the creation of an enterprise/organization, which is a core characteristic of 
“entrepreneurship” in general as noted earlier. 
 Additionally, our analysis showed that most of the authors identify entrepreneurship in 
the cultural and creative sector also by means of the other characteristics of general 
entrepreneurship theory. For example, the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of an 
entrepreneurial opportunity is often mentioned (Hausmann, 2010; Johnson, 2007; Lounsbury & 
Glynn, 2001; Rae, 2005; Scott, 2012). Authors also refer to the aspect of “innovation,” which is 
another acknowledged characteristic of entrepreneurship. Our analysis revealed, for example, 
expressions such as “novel combinations” (Swedberg, 2006), “innovative applications” 
(Kavousy et al., 2010), “innovations or improvement of existing offerings” (Konrad, 2010; 
translated by the authors), “innovative ways of doing” (Scott, 2012) or “novel ideas” (Mokyr, 
2013).  
 In summary, there is no consensual understanding of entrepreneurship in the cultural and 
creative sector. With the exception of four articles (Wilson & Stokes, 2004 and 2006; Rae, 2005; 
Enhuber, 2014), which refer to other authors, the definitions provided differ quite widely from 
each other (see Table 4).  
 What can also be derived from our analysis is that in many cases no precise distinction is 
made between cultural/creative/arts entrepreneurs and other players in the cultural and creative 
sector. Three of the 25 articles explaining the term include “managers” in the definition 
(Acheson et al,. 1996; Wilson & Stokes, 2004; Chang & Wyszomirski, 2015). In another article, 
managers are explicitly excluded from the definition (Klamer, 2011). Terms describing other 
players such as “freelancer” and “self-employed workers” (Ellmeier, 2003; Konrad, 2010) or 
“owner-managers” are sometimes used as synonyms for the entrepreneur (Johnson, 2007; 
Konrad, 2010; Smit, 2011; Wilson & Stokes, 2006). By contrast, Rae makes the following clear 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

12 

for the creative sector: "Creative Entrepreneurs are diverse, from self-employed artists to owners 
of global businesses" (2005, p. 186). 
 
Cultural Entrepreneurs/ship 
Author/s and 
Publication Year Definition 

Acheson et al. (1996) "Cultural entrepreneurship involves a conception, an initial launch, and a transition to an established event." 
(p. 321) 

Enhuber (2014) 
"[..] cultural entrepreneurship can be understood to refer to `cultural change agents and resourceful visionaries 
who organize cultural, financial, social and human capital, to generate revenue from a cultural activity´ 
(Tremblay,  2013)." (p. 4) 

Ellmeier (2003) "Cultural entrepreneurialism means all-round artistic and commercial/business qualifications, long working 
hours and fierce competition from bigger companies." (p. 11) 

Hausmann (2010) 
"[…] cultural entrepreneurs are identified as artists undertaking business activities within one of the four 
traditional sectors of the arts [..]. [They] discover and evaluate opportunities in the arts and leisure markets 
and create a (micro) business to pursue them." (p. 19). 

Johnson (2007) 
"[…] `cultural entrepreneurship`which here refers both to the creativtiy and initiative of the founder and  to 
the constraint and opportunity represented by the specific cultural schemas that structure the historical context 
in which the founder is embedded." (p. 99) 

Kavousy et al. (2010) 
"Cultural entrepreneurs are resourceful visionaries, generating revenues from culturally embedded knowledge 
systems and activities; their innovative applications of traditions to markets result in economically sustainable 
cultural enterprises." (p. 228) 

Klamer (2011) 

"When I view cultural entrepreneurs [...], I see people who are geared toward the realization of cultural 
values. […] The economics has to be an instrument for them in order to realize cultural values [...]. [...] 
cultural entrepreneurship has to involve more than marketing skills and sensitivityto the artistic process; it 
also involves the persuasive power to induce a candidate for art into the appropriate conversation and to 
realize it as a common good." (p. 154) 

Konrad (2010) "Cultural entrepreneurs are individuals who create new organizations, products or activities within the cultural 
sector […]" (p. 336, translated by the authors) 

Lange (2008) "Culturepreneur describes an urban protagonist who possesses the ability to mediate between and interpret the 
areas of culture and of service provision." (p. 116) 

Lounsbury/Glynn (2001) "We define cultural entrepreneurship  as the process of storytelling that mediates between extant stocks of 
entrepreneurial resources and subsequent capital acquisition and wealth creation." (p. 545) 

Metze (2009) 
"The ‘cultural entrepreneurship’ discourse provides an alternative interpretation [and] aligns 
‘entrepreneurship’ with a counter-cultural or subordinate discourse of ‘maintenance of cultural value’ that 
artists, residents and small business in the creative sector often express." (p. 2) 

Mokyr (2013) 

“Cultural entrepreneurs, then, are defined as individuals that add to the menus from which others choose. […] 
usually they build upon existing but diffuse  notions, and formulate them in a sharp set of propositions or 
beliefs, which serve as a cultural Schelling focal point to their contemporaries. In that sense they create 
something new.” (p. 3) 

Scott (2012) 
"Therefore, the term cultural entrepreneur``can be understood as a subjectivity combining three elements. 
First, these individuals create new cultural products, such as songs [...]. Second, they are oriented towards 
accessing opportunities [...]. Third, [...] they have to find innovative ways of doing [...]." (p. 243) 

Swedberg (2006) "Cultural entrepreneurship, as I see it, may therefore be defined as the carrying out of a novel combination 
that results in something new and appreciated in the cultural sphere." (p. 260) 

Wilson/Stokes (2004) 

"[...] we follow Ellmeier´s definition of `cultural entrepreneurialism` - encompassing all-round artistic and 
commercial/business qualifications, long working-hours and fierce competition from bigger companies. [...] 
the particular ability of the cultural entrepreneur to coordinate artistic and managerial resources [...], can be 
seen as a defining characteristic of the use of the term `entrepreneur`." (p. 221) 

Wilson/Stokes (2006) 

"[...] we follow Ellmeier´s definition of `cultural entrepreneurialism` - encompassing all-round artistic and 
commercial/business qualifications, long working-hours and fierce competition from bigger companies. [...] 
This focuses attention squarely on the particular ability of the cultural entrepreneur to coordinate and leverage 
artistic and managerial resources." (p. 369) 

Yang (2005) 

"Cultural entrepreneurs tapped into the new cultural market by offering CR [Cultural Revolution, added by 
the authors] related cultural products. […] Cultural entrepreneurs understand the market and know how to 
negotiate political control. (p. 16, 22) 
 

Creative Entrepreneurs/ship 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

13 

Rae (2005) 
"[…] creative entrepreneurship, which can be defined as the creation or identification of an opportunity to 
provide a cultural product, service or experience, and of bringing together the ressources to exploit this as an 
enterprise (Leadbeater and Oakley, 1999)." (p. 186) 

Cultural Entrepreneurs/ship and Creative Entrepreneurs/ship 
Kolsteeg (2013) "Cultural entrepreneurs by definition work in a social, political, economic and artistic discourse." (p. 5) 

Smit (2011) 
"The current discourse about the creative economy draws on different notions of cultural and creative 
entrepreneurs. These definitions differ [...]. However, they all concentrate on economic activities dedicated to 
producing goods and services with mainly aesthetic and symbolic value." (p. 170) 

Arts Entrepreneurs/ship 
Beckman (2007) „[…] to approach professional employment in the arts in a creative manner that will generate value for 

individuals and groups inside or outside traditional arts employment domains.” (p. 89) 

Chang und Wyszomirski 
(2015) 

"[...] a possible general definition: `arts entrepreneurship´ is a management process through which cultural 
workers seek to support their creativity and autonomy, advance their capacity for adaptability, and create 
artistic as well as economic and social value." (p. 11) 

Essig (2015) 

"Thus, in the arts and culture context [...] it may also be understood to include the creation of new expressions 
of symbolic meaning by individuals. [...] we can understand entrepreneurship, in the arts and culture sector 
and elsewhere, as a process for converting means to desirable ends through a mediating structure or 
organization that may be called a ´firm´ [...]" (p. 227) 

Phillips (2011) "[…] arts entrepreneurship refers to the process whereby tangible cultural capital is created." (p. 20) 

Preece  (2011) "[…] performing arts entrepreneurship will refer to the process of starting a not-for-profit organization with 
the intent of generating artistic performances (creation and/or presentation)." (p. 105) 

Table 4. Definitions used by authors of sampled articles (n=25) 
 
Research Subjects  
 Having discussed the terminology of entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative 
industries, we will now discuss the subjects of arts, cultural and creative entrepreneurship 
research. Our analysis revealed that the specific subjects mainly fall into the two categories 
“groups of persons” and “sub-segments of the cultural and creative industries.” Within the first 
category, some authors focus on a certain group of entrepreneurs: specifically, they address 
“muslim cultural entrepreneurs” (Fattah & Butterfield, 2006), “women cultural entrepreneurs” 
(Stanley & Dampier, 2007), “music entrepreneurs” (Hausmann, 2010), “creative entrepreneurs” 
(Halim et al., 2011), “cultural entrepreneurs” (Klamer, 2011; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), and 
“young entrepreneurs” (Krzyżanowska & Tkaczyk, 2013; Lange, 2008). These relatively 
vaguely defined groups of persons are characterized in greater details only in very few articles. 
Lange (2008) explicitly examines young design entrepreneurs, while Smit (2011) takes a look at 
“architects”, “graphic designers,” “filmmakers,” “photographers,” and “visual artists,” and Scott 
(2012) examines “music producers”. Three of the articles examine managers from different 
cultural fields (Konrad, 2010 and 2013; Küttim et al., 2011). In two of these articles (Konrad, 
2010 and 2013), the founders of the respective enterprises are also taken into account; the studies 
by Wilson and Stokes (2004 & 2006) additionally refer to what is described as “owner-
managers.” 
 Other authors specialize in sub-segments of the cultural and creative industries, although 
the research subjects are mostly not defined in more concrete terms: Dempster (2008) and Preece 
(2011) take a look at the performing arts, Colbert (2003) addresses the art market and the 
performing arts, Faulkner et al. (2008) analyze a special segment of the broadcasting sector, 
namely the TV production segment, and Zhao et al. (2013) refer to the movie sector. Sperlich 
(2011) analyzes several segments of the cultural and creative sector, i.e. film, photography, and 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

14 

architecture in particular, whereas Essig (2015) refers to the US arts and culture sector in 
general. 
 Interestingly, more specific research subjects can mainly be found in articles that are 
based on a case study-oriented research approach. Cinnéide (2005) examines the Riverdance 
stage show. Acheson et al. (1996) and Preece (2014) take a similar approach with their analysis 
of the Canadian Banff Television Festival and the Grand River Jazz Society. Johnson (2007) 
examines the foundation of the Paris Opera under Louis XIV. Cyrs’s (2014) and Enhuber’s 
(2014) case studies focus on single entrepreneurs, the founder of Réalisations Inc. Montréal and 
Damien Hirst, the famous London artist. 
 Other authors choose a certain region as the subject of their studies. The analysis by 
O’Connor and Gu (2010), for example, covers the city of Manchester, while the study by Drda-
Kühn and Wiegand (2010) refers to Altenkirchen, a small German town in the Westerwald 
region. The study by Kolsteeg (2013) refers to the Netherlands and the city of Utrecht in 
particular. All of these articles mainly address the research area “creative cities” that we discuss 
in the following section. 
 
Research Areas 
 With regard to the research areas, the results of our literature review revealed a wide 
variety of fields that are frequently examined exclusively by only one article (n=18). However, 
among all articles analysed, four main topics were identified: (1) different management areas in 
the meaning of “cultural intrapreneurship” (Acheson et al., 1996; Colbert, 2003; Dempster, 
2008; Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001; Nijboer, 2006; Rae, 2005; Scott, 2012; Wilson & Stokes, 2004 
& 2006; Zhao et al., 2013), (2) influencing or success factors for cultural entrepreneurship (Cyr, 
2014; Faulkner et al,. 2008; Halim et al,. 2011; Hausmann, 2010; Kavousy et al., 2010; Klamer, 
2011; Konrad, 2010 & 2013; Krzyżanowska & Tkaczyk, 2013), (3) “entrepreneurship education” 
(Beckman, 2007; Beckman & Essig, 2012; Essig, 2012; Küttim et al., 2010; Phillips, 2011; 
Welsh et al., 2014; White, 2013),  as well as (4) the concept of the “creative cities” (Drda-Kühn 
& Wiegand, 2010; Enhuber, 2014; Kolsteeg, 2013; O’Connor & Gu, 2010; Phillips, 2011; Smit, 
2011). The following insights have been gained from literature:  
1. Most of the articles examined fall in the main research area of “cultural intrapreneurship” 

(n=10). The term “intrapreneurship” describes the implementation of innovative ideas in 
existing organizations. The studies focusing on cultural intrapreneurship thus address 
individual management areas, such as project management (Acheson et al., 1996), risk 
management (Dempster, 2008), library management (Nijboer, 2006), marketing management 
(Colbert, 2003; Rae, 2005; Zhao et al., 2013), and resource management (Lounsbury & 
Glynn, 2001; Scott, 2012), and in this context primarily the raising of financial capital 
(Wilson & Stokes, 2004 & 2006). 

2. Concerning the influencing and success factors for cultural entrepreneurship (n=9), Halim et 
al. (2011) primarily examine the personality of the entrepreneur, while Konrad (2010) focuses 
on entrepreneurial competence and entrepreneurs’ social networking activities (2013). Klamer 
(2011) and Kavousy et al. (2011) address both internal and external influencing factors, 
whereas Hausmanns’ (2010) study is confined to external influencing factors of start-up 
management in the cultural sector. Krzyżanowska and Tkaczyk (2013) also take a look at 
start-up management, with a focus on the competitive orientation of cultural and creative 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

15 

start-ups. The study by Faulkner et al. (2008) examines the exit strategies of smaller 
enterprises in the TV sector, which is another aspect of start-up management. Cyr (2014) 
analyzes the creation process of small and medium-sized creative enterprises as a whole.  

3. The third research area identified, “entrepreneurship education”, is addressed by 7 of the 50 
articles. Strikingly, 6 of them use the term “arts entrepreneurship” (Beckman, 2007; Beckman 
& Essig, 2012; Essig, 2012; Phillipps, 2011; Welsh et al., 2014; White, 2013). Beckman 
(2007) and Beckman & Essig (2012) examine arts universities’ and higher education 
institutions’ educational offerings related to entrepreneurship in general, while Welsh et al. 
(2014) refer to arts entrepreneurship in North Carolina higher education in particular. Essig 
(2012) looks at practices for arts entrepreneurship teaching, and Phillipps (2011) addresses the 
education of artists. The study of White (2013) is more specifically related to the key barriers 
in arts entrepreneurship education. Küttim et al. (2010) take a look at creative 
entrepreneurship trainings. Interestingly, the term “cultural entrepreneurship education” is not 
used in any of these studies and generally seems not to be used. 

4. The concept of the “creative cities” is considered by 6 of the articles examined. The 
development of the concept is rooted in the context of an increasing discussion of the creative 
economy in the 1990s. Since then, it has been an important issue of cultural politics in 
Europe, and even worldwide it has become an important topic that, inter alia, was forwarded 
by Florida´s “Rise of the Creative Class” (2004). All in all, this research stream is primarily 
focused on the impact of the cultural and creative industries on urban and regional 
development. The articles analyzed here discuss, for example, the conditions for subsidization 
of the cultural and creative industries in small rural towns (Drda-Kühn & Wiegand, 2010), but 
also in large cities such as Manchester (O´Connor & Gu, 2010). Smit (2011) and Enhuber 
(2014) address selected neighborhoods of larger cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam and 
London. Kolsteeg (2013) refers to the local and national political context of Utrecht and the 
Netherlands. With the exception of Phillips (2011), who provides an overview of selected 
creative cities in the USA, Europe and Asia, the research area “creative cities” by now mainly 
focuses on European cities and regions. 

 
Discussion and Limitations 

 The purpose of this article was to identify to what extent the terms “arts,” “cultural,” and 
“creative” “entrepreneurship” are distinguished from one another and which subject areas are 
primarily discussed. To answer this research question, we analyzed 50 scientific articles from 
peer reviewed journals identified by means of a systematic database research. In the context of 
our analysis, the discussion of the terminology as well as the objects and focal areas of research 
were examined. 
 As our analysis has shown, many different interpretations, research objects and focal 
areas can be found in current arts, cultural, and creative entrepreneurship research. With regard 
to the discussion of the terms, it can be stated that to date, “cultural entrepreneurship” is the most 
commonly used term in research literature. Furthermore, and across all terms, a general theory 
defining the respective term is often missing. Characteristics of entrepreneurship discussed in 
classic literature, such as entrepreneurial opportunity, innovation, and novel combinations, as 
well as the creation of an organization, are partly included in an overall definition of arts, 
creative, and cultural entrepreneurship. In many cases, no distinction is made between 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

16 

entrepreneurs, managers, self-employed workers, freelancer, and owner-managers, as general 
entrepreneurship theory usually does. This means that entrepreneurship in a more classic sense of 
the term is hardly in evidence in the cultural and creative industries. In contrast, during the 
analysis some of the papers examined could be identified as seminal articles. These articles 
strongly forward the understanding and discussion of the terms and the research area of 
entrepreneurship within the cultural and creative industries in general (Chang & Wyszomirski, 
2015; Essig, 2015; Klamer, 2011; Konrad, 2010; Scott, 2012; Swedberg, 2006). 
 Additionally, we came to the conclusion that the scopes of the three terms examined for 
the analysis vary significantly from one another. Thus, “arts entrepreneurship” is interpreted 
differently from “cultural” and “creative entrepreneurship”. With the exception of Essig (2015) 
and Preece (2014), who examine both the arts and culture sectors the research objects of articles 
using the term “arts entrepreneurship” are explicitly related to the artistic field (e.g. Beckman, 
2007; Colbert, 2003; Enhuber, 2014; Phillipps, 2011; Preece, 2011). Colbert (2003) refers to 
particular arts organizations, i.e. symphony orchestras, theaters or museums. Beckman (2007) 
addresses artists and musicians; Phillips (2011) refers to artists in general while Enhuber’s study 
(2014) is related to the artist Damien Hirst in particular. Preece (2011) addresses the performing 
arts. In conclusion, those articles using the term “arts entrepreneurs/ship” position it within the 
cultural and creative sector. Thus, “arts entrepreneurship” is defined more narrowly and refers 
explicitly to the artistic field of the cultural industries. By contrast, “cultural entrepreneurship” 
and “creative entrepreneurship” are usually defined more broadly and also relate to the other sub-
segments of the cultural industries and the creative industries as a whole. 
 With regard to the research subjects and research areas, no consequential findings are 
available, as the authors rarely refer to each other in their studies. In respect to the research 
subjects in general, we conclude that these are often closely linked to the chosen research method 
or area. Furthermore, articles based on a case study-oriented research approach provide more 
specific research subjects. Additionally, our analysis revealed that the research subjects often fall 
into the “music” category. Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in the music industry are 
examined generally by Colbert (2003), Hausmann (2010), Preece (2011), Scott (2012), Wilson 
and Stokes (2004 and 2006) and in the specific by Cinnéide (2005), Johnson (2007) and Preece 
(2014) on the basis of a case study. Unlike the music sector, other cultural segments have so far 
been examined only in individual cases; these include, for instance, the performing arts, the 
broadcasting sector, the design industry and the movie industry.  
 In the context of the research areas four main research topics were identified. Studies on 
entrepreneurship education primarily focus on the artistic area, with less attention paid to the 
cultural and creative sector as a whole. This underlines the results concerning the differences in 
the terminology of “arts” and “creative” and “cultural” entrepreneurship. Moreover, individual 
aspects of cultural management are often discussed under the heading “cultural 
entrepreneurship”; in most cases, no clear distinction is made between these two research areas.  
 Closing our analysis and discussion we would like to point out that within a short period 
of time much has been done, written, and researched on entrepreneurship in the cultural and 
creative industries. However, there is still some research to do. Based on our findings some 
implications for future research follow.   
 With regard to the limitations of the present study, it should be noted that the results 
presented here were generated on the basis of a systematic research and evaluation process 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

17 

addressing particularly our research questions. In this context, some interesting articles for the 
research field in general, such as DiMaggio (1982), were excluded from the analysis as they 
were not using one of the terms examined. Additionally, it cannot be ruled out that, in spite of a 
careful search, individual articles in academic journals were overlooked – which is the case with 
every literature review (e.g. Kitchenham et al., 2009). However, it is safe to assume that the 
number of such publications is negligible, which means that the results of the present study 
would not change materially.  
 

Implications for Future Research 
 The following implications for future research can be derived from the above. First, our 
analysis has shown that from 2012 on the number of published articles on entrepreneurship in the 
cultural and creative industries has slightly decreased. To examine whether this applies to 
publications in peer reviewed journals in particular or to research in general could be the task of 
future efforts. However, a number of articles on arts, creative, and cultural entrepreneurship have 
been published in books (e.g. Aageson, 2008; Cinnéide & Henry, 2007; Lindqvist, 2011; Towse 
& Blaug, 2011; Van Amerom & Nagtegaal, 2010). Second, the present paper shows that 
entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries is more broadly understood than in 
general entrepreneurship research, as cultural management is often included. Future research 
should try to establish a more precise distinction between cultural entrepreneurs and other 
players in the cultural and creative industries, and as a result, intrapreneurship and 
entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries should be examined separately from each 
other in the future. For the term “cultural entrepreneurship,” we propose the following definition 
be employed in future research: cultural or creative entrepreneurship, as we see it, can be defined 
as a number of individual activities undertaken to discover, evaluate, and exploit a commercial 
business opportunity within the cultural and creative industries. In this sense, the cultural 
entrepreneur acts in an innovative way of doing and launches a new start-up company in order to 
implement his/her issue. 
 With regard to the discussion of the term, our analysis also revealed that the term “arts 
entrepreneurship” is more closely related to the artistic fields of the cultural industries, whereas 
“cultural” and “creative entrepreneurship” address all segments of the cultural and creative 
industries. As a consequence, independent research fields could be established – as it is already 
the case, for example, in “arts entrepreneurship education.” In respect to the research areas we 
recommend to expand research in all areas, for example, conceptual models could be developed 
and implemented as it is partly done in studies concerning the influencing or success factors for 
cultural entrepreneurship. Additionally, the analysis of “creative cities” outside Europe, i.e. in 
the thriving cities of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, could shed light on trends and future 
possibilities in different countries. With regard to the research subjects, research could also be 
expanded in all areas. For instance, findings already available for the music sector could provide 
an impetus for other cultural sectors. For this purpose, the specifics of other sectors, such as the 
performing arts or the broadcasting and film sector, which have been only little researched so far, 
should be examined. Findings from these fields could contribute to a better understanding of the 
needs and challenges of entrepreneurs within the individual sectors of the cultural and creative 
industries. On the basis of this knowledge, adequate support programs could be established. In 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

18 

general, those programs will help to coordinate national policies, and a thriving creative 
economy.  
 Finally, in terms of methodology, the authors of the present paper believe it would make 
sense to more strongly focus on studies pursuing a mixed methods approach in order to develop a 
more complete understanding of the research field. As a first step, explorative insights could be 
gained from best practices. In order to obtain representative results more quantitative methods 
should be applied. We believe multi-methodological studies would contribute to a better 
understanding and establishment of entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries in 
general. 
 

References 
Aageson, T. (2008). Cultural entrepreneurs: producing cultural value and wealth. In H. K.  
 Anheier & Y. R. Isar (Eds.), The Cultural Economy (pp. 92-107). Los Angeles: SAGE. 
Acheson, K., Maule, C., & Filleul, E. (1996). Cultural entrepreneurship and the Banff television 

festival. Journal of Cultural Economics, 20(4), 321-339. 
Amerom, P. van & Nagtegaal, C. (2010). Guiding students to act and reflect as cultural  

entrepreneurs: a new impulse for the art and economy study career planning program. 
 In G. Hagoort & R. Kooyman (Eds.), Creative Industries. Colourful Fabric in Multiple 
Dimensions: Yearbook 2009/ Research Group (pp.154-162). Eburon, Delft: Faculty of 
Art and Economics, Utrecht School of the Arts (HKU). 

Anheier, H. K. & Isar, Y. R. (2008). The Cultural Economy. Los Angeles: SAGE. 
Beckman, G. & Essig, L. (2012). Arts entrepreneurship: A conversation. Artivate: A Journal  

of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 1(1), 1-8. 
Beckman, G. (2007). ’Adventuring’ arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An 

examination of present efforts, obstacles, and best practices. Journal of Arts 
Management, Law, and Society, 37(2), 87-112. 

British Council (2010). Mapping the creative industries: a toolkit. Creative and Cultural  
 Economy Series, 2. London, UK. 
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (Federal Ministry of Economics and 

Technology) (2012). Monitoring zu ausgewählten wirtschaftlichen Eckdaten der Kultur- 
und Kreativwirtschaft 2011. Langfassung. Berlin, Germany. 

Bygrave, W. (2010). The entrepreneurial process. In W. Bygrave & A. Zacharakis (Eds.), The 
portable MBA in entrepreneurship (pp. 1-26). 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. 

Bygrave, W. & Zacharakis, A. (2010). The portable MBA in entrepreneurship. 4th edn. 
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. 

Carton, R., Hofer, C., & Meeks, M. (1998). The entrepreneur and entrepreneurship: Operational 
definitions of their role in society. Paper presented at the Annual International Council 
for Small Business Conference, Singapur. Retrieved from 
http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1998/32.pdf. 

Cinnéide, B. (2005). Creative entrepreneurship in the arts: Transforming ´old´ into ´new´ - Irish 
dance and music test cases such as river dance and Lord of the Dance. The International 
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(3), 151-158. 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

19 

Chang, W. J. & Wyszomirski, M. (2015). What is arts entrepreneurship? Tracking the 
development of its definition in scholarly journals. Artivate: A Journal of 
Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4(2), 11-31. 

Cinnéide, B. & Henry, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship features of creative industries: the Irish  
music and dance sector. In C. Henry & A. de Bruin, A. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship in the 
Creative Industries. An International Perspective (pp. 72-86). Cheltenham, Northampton:  
Edward Elgar. 

Colbert, F. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership in the arts. International Journal of Arts  
 Management, 6, 30-39.  
Cyr, C. (2014). Roger Parent and Réalisations Inc. Montréal: a flair for creativity. 

International Journal of Arts Management, 16, 60-70. 
Dempster, A. (2008). An operational risk framework for the performing arts and creative 

Industries. Creative Industries Journal, 1(2), 151-170. 
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: The creation of an 

organizational base for high culture in America. Media, Culture and Society, (4), 33-50. 
Dobransky, K. & Fine, G.A. (2006). The native in the garden: Floral politics and cultural 

entrepreneurs. Sociological Forum, 21(4), 559-585. 
Drdra-Kühn, K. & Wiegand, D. (2010). From culture to cultural economic power: Rural regional 

development in small German communities. Creative Industries Journal, 3(1), 89-96. 
Drucker, P. (1993; c1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. 1st edn. 

New York, NY: HarperBusiness. 
Edwards, J. (2008). Hybrid Organizations: Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. 

Raleigh: Lulu.com. 
Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, 

culture and employment. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 3-16. 
Enhuber, M. (2014). How is Damien Hirst a cultural entrepreneur? Artivate: A Journal of 

Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 3(2), 3-20. 
Essig, L. (2015). Means and ends: A theory framework for understanding entrepreneurship in the 

US arts and culture Sector. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 45 (1), 227-
246. 

Essig, L. (2012). Frameworks for educating the artist of the future: Habits of mind for arts 
entrepreneurship. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 1(2), 65-77. 

Faltin, G., Ripsas, S., & Zimmer, J. (1998). Entrepreneurship: Wie aus Ideen Unternehmen 
werden. München, Germany: C.H. Beck. 

Fattah, M. & Butterfield, J. (2006). Muslim cultural entrepreneurs and the democracy debate. 
Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 15(1), 49-76. 

Faulkner, S., Leaver, A., Vis, F., & Williams, K. (2008). Art for arts´s sake or selling up?. 
European Journal of Communication, 23(3), 295-317. 

Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. And how it's transforming work, leisure, 
community and everyday life. New York, USA: Basic Books. 

Fueglistaller, U., Müller, C., & Volery, T. (2012). Entrepreneurship. Modelle – Umsetzung – 
Perspektiven: Mit Fallbeispielen aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, 3rd edn. 
Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

20 

Gartner, W. B., Roberts, J., & Rabideau, M. (2015). Perspectives on arts entrepreneurship: Part 
2. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4(2), 3-9. 

Gartner, W. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?. Journal of 
Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28. 

Hagoort, G. (2007). Cultural entrepreneurship: On the freedom to create art and the freedom of 
enterprise, Summary Version. Utrecht: Utrecht School of the Arts, Research Group Art 
and Economics. 

Hagoort, G. & Kooyman, R. (2010). Creative Industries. Colourful Fabric in Multiple  

Dimensions: Yearbook 2009/ Research Group. Eburon, Delft: Faculty of Art and 
Economics, Utrecht School of the Arts (HKU). 

Halim, M., Muda, S., & Amin, W. (2011). The measurement of entrepreneurial personality and 
business performance in Terengganu creative industry. International Journal of Business 
and Management, 6(6), 183-192. 

Hausmann, A. (2010). German artists between bohemian idealism and entrepreneurial dynamics: 
Reflections on cultural entrepreneurship and the need for start-up management. 
International Journal of Arts Management, 12(2), 17-29. 

Henry, C. & Bruin, A. de (2007). Entrepreneurship in the creative industries. An  
 international perspective. Cheltenham, Northampton:  Edward Elgar. 
Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding 

of the Paris Opera. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 97-127. 
Kavousy, E., Shahosseini, A., Kiasi, S., & Ardahaey, F. (2010). Cultural entrepreneurship 

strategies in Iran. Serbian Journal of Management, 5(2), 227-241. 
Kelley, D. & Marram, E. (2010). Beyond start-up: Developing and sustaining the growing 

organization. In W. Bygrave and A. Zacharakis (Eds.), The portable MBA in 
entrepreneurship (pp. 355-384). 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. 

Klamer, A. (2011). Cultural entrepreneurship. The Review of Austrian Economics, 24(2), 141-
156.  

Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J. & Linkman, S. (2009).  
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a systematic literature review. 
Information and Software Technology, 51, 7-15. 

Kolsteeg, J. (2013). Situated cultural entrepreneurship. Artivate: A Journal of Entre- 
preneurship in the Arts, 2, 3-13. 

Konrad, E. (2010). Kulturunternehmertum. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 57(3), 333-348. 
Konrad, E. (2013). Cultural entrepreneurship: The impact of social networking on success. 

Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(3), 307-319. 
Krzyżanowska, M. & Tkaczyk, J. (2013). Identifying competitors: Challenges for start-up firms. 

International Journal of Management Cases, 15(4), 234-246. 
Küttim, M., Arvola, K., & Venesaar, U. (2011). Development of creative entrepreneurship: 

Opinion of managers from Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Sweden. Business: Theory and 
Practice, 12(4), 369-378. 

Lange, B. (2008). Accessing markets in creative industries: Professionalization and social-spatial 
strategies of culturepreneurs in Berlin. Creative Industries Journal, 1(2), 115-135. 

Lindqvist, K. (2011). Artist entrepreneurs. In I. Zander & M. Scherdin (Eds.), Art  



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

21 

 Entrepreneurship (pp. 10-22). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar. 
Lounsbury, M. & Glynn, M. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the 

acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 545-564. 
Lumpkin, G. and Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and 

linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. 
Metze, T. (2009). Discursive power in deliberations: A case of redevelopment for the creative 

economy in the Netherlands. Policy and Society, 28(3), 241-251. 
Mokyr, J. (2013). Cultural entrepreneurs and the origins of modern economic growth. 

Scandinavian Economic History Review, 61(1), 1-33. 
Nijboer, J. (2006). Cultural entrepreneurship in libraries. New Library World, 107(9/10), 

434−443. 
O’Connor, J. & Gu, X. (2010). Developing a creative cluster in a postindustrial city: CIDS and 

Manchester. The Information Society, 26(2), 124-136. 
Phillips, R. (2011). Arts entrepreneurship and economic development: Can every city be 

‘Austintatious’?. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 6(4), 239-313. 
Preece, S. B. (2014). Social bricolage in arts entrepreneurship: Building a jazz society from 

scratch. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 3(1), 23-34. 
Preece, S. (2011). Performing arts entrepreneurship: Toward a research agenda. Journal of Arts 

Management, Law, and Society, 41(2), 103-120. 
Rae, D. (2005). Cultural diffusion: A formative process in creative entrepreneurship?. 

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(3), 185-192. 
Schumpeter, J. (1998). Freude am Gestalten. In G. Faltin, S. Ripsas, & J. Zimmer (Eds.), 

Entrepreneurship: Wie aus Ideen Unternehmen werden (pp. 21-28). München, Germany: 
C.H. Beck. 

Scott, M. (2012). Cultural entrepreneurs, cultural entrepreneurship: Music producers mobilising 
and converting Bourdieu´s alternative capitals. Poetics, 40(3), 237-255. 

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. 
The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. 

Smit, A. (2011). The influence of district visual quality on location decisions of creative 
entrepreneurs. Journal of American Planning Association, 77(2), 167-184.  

Sperlich, R. (2011). The mixed blessing of autonomy in digital cultural production: A study on 
filmmaking, press photography and architecture in Austria. European Journal of 
Communication, 26(2), 133-146. 

Stanley, L. & Dampier, H. (2007). Cultural entrepreneurs, proto-nationalism and women's 
testimony writings: From the South African war to 1940. Journal of Southern African 
Studies, 33(3), 237-255. 

Swedberg, R. (2006). The cultural entrepreneur and the creative industries: Beginning in Vienna. 
Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(4), 243-261. 

Taylor, E. A., Bonin-Rodriguez, P., & Essig, L. (2015). Perspectives on arts entrepreneur- 
ship: Part 1. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 4(1), 3-7. 

Towse, R. & Blaug, M. (2011). Cultural entrepreneurship. In R. Towse, R. (Ed.), A 
 Handbook of Cultural Economics (pp. 153-157). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 



Hausmann and Heinze      Entrepreneurship in the Cultural and Creative Industries 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Artivate 5 (2)   
 
 
 

22 

Towse, R. (2011). A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 
Ulfstjerne, M. (2011). The wasteland of creative production: A case study of contemporary 

Chinese art. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 29(1), 17-38. 
Welsh, D. H. B., Onishi, T., DeHoog, R. H., & Syed, S. (2014). Responding to the needs and 

challenges of arts entrepreneurs: An exploratory study of arts entrepreneurship in North 
Carolina higher education. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 3(2), 21-
37. 

White, J. C. (2013). Barriers to recognizing arts entrepreneurship education as essential to 
professional arts training. Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts, 2(3), 28-
39. 

Wilson, N. & Stokes, D. (2004). Laments and serenades: Relationship marketing and 
legitimation strategies for the cultural entrepreneur. Qualitative Market Research: An 
International Journal, 7(3), 218-227. 

Wilson, N. & Stokes, D. (2006). Managing creativity and innovation: The challenge for cultural 
entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 366-378. 

Yang, G. (2005). Days of old are not puffs of smoke: Three hypotheses on collective memories 
of the cultural revolution. The China Review, 5(2), 13-41. 

Zander, I. & M. Scherdin (2011). Art Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, Northampton:  Edward  
 Elgar. 
Zhao, E., Ishihara, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2013). Overcoming the illegitimacy discount: Cultural 

entrepreneurship in the US feature film industry. Organization Studies, 34(12), 1747-
1776. 


